The Tyranny of Distance

[MarcusA]

Apart from fascists, no-one around hereabouts is a militant anything.

[Asmodean]

Here, on the other hand, we have everything from militant Islamists to militant Communists. Not long ago, we even had a revolutionary party. Imagine that in the current century Western Europe. Tanks (Crappy, old, Soviet ones, naturally) on the pamphlets and all the trimmings. They've since changed the name and got some plastic surgery done, metaphorically speaking, but it's still the same rot.

A lot of people out there would really, really like to use force on those who oppose them. Me? I oppose the lot.

[No one]

Most, are just militant shitbags.

[MarcusA]

Militant atheists usually just lounge around on the couch and think radically.

[Asmodean]

Heh... It's a good enough meme, but Atheism turned political to the degree of becoming militant can quickly get as ugly as the rest of them.

[MarcusA]

Heh... It's a good enough meme, but Atheism turned political to the degree of becoming militant can quickly get as ugly as the rest of them.

I have never heard of atheists rioting in the streets.

[Asmodean]

Not in the name of Atheism, perhaps, but some do. You can be an atheist and some sort of revolutionary at the same time. You can also turn Atheism into Anti-Theism, which... Certain "wannabe-godlike" governments come to mind.

Atheism in itself is benign. It's just a lack of some specific positive beliefs. Trouble is, it seems not to be enough for quite a lot of people. They want more meat on their labels, turning them into ideological flags rather than linguistic descriptors.

[MarcusA]

I'm a moderate is all I know.

[Asmodean]

Moderation can be a fine thing. Personally, I prefer to look at is as me having a position on certain issues, which you may or may not call a corresponding name. For me, it "just is." (Quotation marks because I do can justify my views - they "just are" in the sense of lacking affiliation to broader movements)

[MarcusA]

Moderation can be a fine thing. Personally, I prefer to look at is as me having a position on certain issues, which you may or may not call a corresponding name. For me, it "just is." (Quotation marks because I do can justify my views - they "just are" in the sense of lacking affiliation to broader movements)

Man simply is. - Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre used the above statement as a starting point and left labels on the ground.

[Asmodean]

I think that is a fine approach.

[No one]

Man simply is, stupid.

[Asmodean]

I do not see any-one arguing against that point here, so... Who is stupid why, precisely?

[No one]

The entire lot of them.

Religion.
Blind hatred.
War.
Rap.

[Asmodean]

Nono, my question is who you were calling stupid here:

Man simply is, stupid.

Your post immediately succeeds my own, so I assume it is me. In which case, I'd like to know more. In what way, for starters?