Gryph wrote:
I think this thread don't belong here, and also I think it get locked too.

Do you think the same applies to all threads that show the sentiments referenced by my original post? 

I think it's a very important thing to consider, even if this thread does get locked and forgotten!  Why is there such an extreme level of animosity towards differences of opinion?  Why have so many threads been locked, so many names been called, so many threats been leveled?

still-photography wrote:

Do you think the same applies to all threads that show the sentiments referenced by my original post?

This is SF2.  We discuss bacon, boobs, and buttsechs here.

still-photography wrote:
Do you think the same applies to all threads that show the sentiments referenced by my original post?

Gryph wrote:
This is SF2.  We discuss bacon, boobs, and buttsechs here.

Look at the "mansplaining" thread.  Should that be locked as well, or is it okay because it starts out by trashing the politikally correct group?

Robb Mann wrote:


It's Possum time.

Please explain.  I went through all of this, http://opossum.craton.net/faqs.htm and found no satisfactory basis for the inclusion of our sole North American marsupial in this discussion.

Unless you refer to these lines, Opossums are rather lazy and will always seek out readily available food whenever possible. It is not generally industrious enough to catch fish or try to attack an animal that might fight back. The disappearance of fish or chickens is more likely due to a racoon, fox, or badger. If you see an opossum eating your fish, most likely it came across the remains that another creature left behind on the bank.

Robb Mann wrote:
Possums are the current mascot of SF2. They are welcome in all SF2 threads.

So, this is apropos?

still-photography wrote:

So, this is apropos?

yes.

still-photography wrote:

So, this is apropos?

It's absolutely perfect.

still-photography wrote:

Look at the "mansplaining" thread.  Should that be locked as well, or is it okay because it starts out by trashing the politikally correct group?

SF2 is for jokes, silliness and mostly senseless cutting up. Sometimes something posted here gets accidentally serious

That's why the interwebernetz has funny gifs. To get everyone back on track.

Koryn wrote:
....
That's why the interwebernetz has funny gifs. To get everyone back on track.

Hiya !

still-photography wrote:
When I was young there was a movement that was all about peace, love and understanding.

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I want to know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding

Motordrive Photography wrote:


And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I want to know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding

That possum is probably singing that song right meow!

still-photography wrote:
When I was young there was a movement that was all about peace, love and understanding.  Their opposing bad guys were so identified because they were said to be intolerant, hateful and mean.  Prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) was about the worst attribute that could be ascribed to someone.

Now, the descendants of that school of thought (liberals and/or progressives) seem to delight in intolerance, hate and meanness towards any who don't instantly and automatically agree with them.  Someone who they identify as conservative must be either rich/privileged or ignorant/misinformed.  No longer is there respect of the right to a conflicting opinion.

What do you think?  Have the ideological successors of the flower children lost their way?  Are their right-leaning foes really so vile and evil that such vitriol is deserved and appropriate?  Is there a future where disagreement doesn't have to descend into politicization, polarization and rancor?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts, opinions and observations!


During a march on the Pentagon, a protester sticks a carnation into the barrel of a National Guardsman's rifle. October, 1967

Waste of time to discus anything of merit and truthful to this crowd as they think just as your post states.

Zack Zoll wrote:
If you dislike us all so much, you can leave at any time. I believe you've been invited before.

The problem with hippies(and libertarians, and communists, and most idealistic political groups) is that they don't generally have a consistent plan for what to do. They have a lot of plans for what they're NOT going to do, but no fully fleshed-out plans for what they will do. And no way to enforce them, without compromising their morals.

We can talk about peaceful resolutions, but getting everyone together to talk isn't a solution - it's just the start. You still need to negotiate. What can you give up? What can't you give up? What about sanctions? How do you deal with people that won't fit your ideal? All of the groups I mentioned are (to me) never going to be major successes, because they don't have a good way to deal with people that don't follow their ideals without betraying them themselves.

Sometimes, brute force is the answer. It was brute force that brought black children into white schools - not asking nicely.

Hippies can't be a dominant party - the things that are required of them are against their very nature. But they can coexist with a dominant party. Which is sort of their thing.

The Clintons were both major hippies in their youth, as was Kerry. Not the strung out, Quicksilver Messenger Service hippies we think of today, but certainly enough for the label.

So these are  the remarks that still Photography got for his post.

I think this thread don't belong here, and also I think it get locked too.

Farts should smell like bacon instead of rotten eggs.

This is SF2.  We discuss bacon, boobs, and buttsechs here.

It's Possum time.

Possums are the current mascot of SF2. They are welcome in all SF2 threads.

Possums are the bestest critter.
Sometimes they hide out in the shitter.

When they have young'uns it's quite the litter.
The moms work hard, don't need no sitter.

Possums waddle when they walk.
They screech and hiss when they talk.

We all wanna be a possum gal
So will you be my possum pal?

SF2 is for jokes, silliness and mostly senseless cutting up. Sometimes something posted here gets accidentally serious

That's why the interwebernetz has funny gifs. To get everyone back on track.

Hiya !

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I want to know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding

That possum is probably singing that song right meow!

And so it appears to me it was a wast of his time .

still-photography wrote:
When I was young there was a movement that was all about peace, love and understanding.  Their opposing bad guys were so identified because they were said to be intolerant, hateful and mean.  Prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) was about the worst attribute that could be ascribed to someone.

Now, the descendants of that school of thought (liberals and/or progressives) seem to delight in intolerance, hate and meanness towards any who don't instantly and automatically agree with them.  Someone who they identify as conservative must be either rich/privileged or ignorant/misinformed.  No longer is there respect of the right to a conflicting opinion.

What do you think?

I don't know! I think that is an interpretation that is often used by very conservative people and it's fun asking for tolerance of intolerant thoughts.

I have a few of those extreme right wing Republicans as friends (because I can deal with all kinds of people), one is one of my very best friends (who got banned from MM years ago, because of his very outspoken and insulting ways about liberal people).

I read the occasional blogs and opinions of people of the extreme right, especially when I am doing a "background check" on someone who has certain opinions and looking at their posting history on FB, or Disqus etc. and those people who are asking for tolerance for their own regressive ideas have nothing but insults for the successors of the flower children.

I am sure you have heard the terms "libtards", "liberal scum", "liberal dirtbags", "morons"... yeah... your "tolerance seeking conservatives" have nothing good to say about those people.

However, you also have to understand that there are measurable, biological differences in brain structure between those extreme conservatives and liberal/progressive minds. There are certain centers in the brain developed differently and it is tough for each faction to understand the other because of just this kind of differently developed areas or the brain.

The fear center is more developed in the conservative brain. Which is responsible for protection, family values, creating rules to live by and being very skeptical of change.

The center for perception and cognition is more developed in the liberal minds. Which is responsible for the "big picture" thinking, perception of environment, society  and new ideas. Which is also the reason that the majority of highly creative people are what is called "liberals".

A psychiatrist, who I was having sessions with a few years back explained to me that conservatives need the box to be safe. The artists, by nature, are the ones who try to find ways to get outside that box and that's another reason their don't necessarily understand each other.

udor wrote:

I don't know! I think that is an interpretation that is often used by very conservative people and it's fun asking for tolerance of intolerant thoughts.

I have a few of those extreme right wing Republicans as friends (because I can deal with all kinds of people), one is one of my very best friends (who got banned from MM years ago, because of his very outspoken and insulting ways about liberal people).

I read the occasional blogs and opinions of people of the extreme right, especially when I am doing a "background check" on someone who has certain opinions and looking at their posting history on FB, or Disqus etc. and those people who are asking for tolerance for their own regressive ideas have nothing but insults for the successors of the flower children.

I am sure you have heard the terms "libtards", "liberal scum", "liberal dirtbags", "morons"... yeah... your "tolerance seeking conservatives" have nothing good to say about those people.

However, you also have to understand that there are measurable, biological differences in brain structure between those extreme conservatives and liberal/progressive minds. There are certain centers in the brain developed differently and it is tough for each faction to understand the other because of just this kind of differently developed areas or the brain.

The fear center is more developed in the conservative brain. Which is responsible for protection, family values, creating rules to live by and being very skeptical of change.

The center for perception and cognition is more developed in the liberal minds. Which is responsible for the "big picture" thinking, perception of environment, society  and new ideas. Which is also the reason that the majority of highly creative people are what is called "liberals".

A psychiatrist, who I was having sessions with a few years back explained to me that conservatives need the box to be safe. The artists, by nature, are the ones who try to find ways to get outside that box and that's another reason their don't necessarily understand each other.

So as to speak like a neurosurgeon and tell us all your opinion of the brain in individuals,  And a patient of a psychiatrist discussing, in boxes and out of boxes .  Well I now understand where you're coming from and I won't be visiting anytime soon.
Really

D a v i d s o n wrote:

So as to speak like a neurosurgeon and tell us all your opinion of the brain in individuals,  And a patient of a psychiatrist discussing, in boxes and out of boxes .  Well I now understand where you're coming from and I won't be visiting anytime soon.
Really

Apparently, you do not have a clue where I am coming from!

Also, I went to the psychiatrist on my own, because I had some questions about my own thinking patterns and some evaluation. That's when I was explained that there wasn't anything wrong with me and that I was just thinking the way how highly creative people perceive and interpret their environment. Simple!

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Oh good I'm happy you got help on your own, and you're really just highly creative. I understand.

Liberals have more tolerance to uncertainty (bigger anterior cingulate cortex), and conservatives have more sensitivity to fear (bigger right amygdala).
"Source: Gary Leisman, et al., 'Intentionality and 'Free-Will' from a Neurodevelopmental Perspective,' www.frontiersin.org, June 27, 2012



"In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI [magnetic resonance imaging]. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala...

...[O]ur findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty. The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing. Individuals with a larger amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amagdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief systems... our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex [ACC] may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views."

Ryota Kanai, PhD, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth, and Geraint Rees, PhD, "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults," Current Biology, Apr. 7, 2011"

Another informative article by Scientific American that deals specifically with highly creative people's way of thinking and perception is this:

The Unleashed Mind: Why Creative People Are Eccentric

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Like I said I now understand. And I learned a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty must be good and conflicts yes, allowing them to accept more liberal views yes agree ." So do you think this a good thing or bad thing ?

I think that we need both sides, with an understanding how and why the other side ticks.

The combination and cooperation of both is in my opinion the most advantageous for the prosperity and liberty as well as safety of a nation!

still-photography wrote:
When I was young there was a movement that was all about peace, love and understanding.  Their opposing bad guys were so identified because they were said to be intolerant, hateful and mean.  Prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) was about the worst attribute that could be ascribed to someone.

Now, the descendants of that school of thought (liberals and/or progressives) seem to delight in intolerance, hate and meanness towards any who don't instantly and automatically agree with them.  Someone who they identify as conservative must be either rich/privileged or ignorant/misinformed.  No longer is there respect of the right to a conflicting opinion.

What do you think?  Have the ideological successors of the flower children lost their way?  Are their right-leaning foes really so vile and evil that such vitriol is deserved and appropriate?  Is there a future where disagreement doesn't have to descend into politicization, polarization and rancor?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts, opinions and observations!




During a march on the Pentagon, a protester sticks a carnation into the barrel of a National Guardsman's rifle. October, 1967

I knew the guy with the flower.
He then became a leader of the 'Cockettes'....called himself 'Hibiscus'....R.I.P.

udor wrote:

I think that we need both sides, with an understanding how and why the other side ticks.

The combination and cooperation of both is in my opinion the most advantageous for the prosperity and liberty as well as safety of a nation!

Agreed.

udor wrote:
I think that we need both sides, with an understanding how and why the other side ticks.

The combination and cooperation of both is in my opinion the most advantageous for the prosperity and liberty as well as safety of a nation!

You would think, if it's based on how our brains are constructed, then political affiliation would be genetic - like left handedness. My dad's left handed, and so am I. Make sense.

However, both my parents are conservative, not quite right wing, but pretty damned close. I'm about as far left as you can go. I was never a rebellious kid, and I didn't just arbitrarily "choose" to have socialist leanings. I just was - even as a little kid. I remember being about 7 or 8 years old and my dad watching conservative news shows and I thought about how the logic did not make sense to me. I disagreed fundamentally with basically everything I was exposed to politically, early in my life. I never talked about it with my family, because I didn't want my views to upset them, but I'd lie awake at night in bed thinking about it.

Like Santa Clause. I never once believed in Santa, even though my parents told me that myth over and over. It didn't make sense and I couldn't logically work out how anything like that would be true, so I just pretended to believe it to make my parents happy. If I'd been a rebellious kid, I'd never been so willing to pretend I believed in something that was clearly bull hockey.

After I grew up and moved out, my parents sort of "figured out" I'd always been pretty politically left. I was very opposed to the Iraq War, and since I wasn't living at home anymore, I felt more free to be honest about it. Plus, my dad remembers Vietnam and while he wouldn't say anything bad about GW, I didn't feel like he really agreed with it either. Just stood up for it, because that was who he voted for.

My dad and I bicker over politics good-naturedly these days. I think it's important to have all kinds of people in the world, and a variety of views and opinions. My mother still takes it as a personal affront that I'm not conservative. It never was. I respect my family and never wanted to hurt them, but I also never felt like I should have to apologize for owning my own brain.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
I still believe in Santa Claus.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Koryn wrote:

You would think, if it's based on how our brains are constructed, then political affiliation would be genetic - like left handedness. My dad's left handed, and so am I. Make sense.

However, both my parents are conservative, not quite right wing, but pretty damned close. I'm about as far left as you can go. I was never a rebellious kid, and I didn't just arbitrarily "choose" to have socialist leanings. I just was - even as a little kid. I remember being about 7 or 8 years old and my dad watching conservative news shows and I thought about how the logic did not make sense to me. I disagreed fundamentally with basically everything I was exposed to politically, early in my life. I never talked about it with my family, because I didn't want my views to upset them, but I'd lie awake at night in bed thinking about it.

Like Santa Clause. I never once believed in Santa, even though my parents told me that myth over and over. It didn't make sense and I couldn't logically work out how anything like that would be true, so I just pretended to believe it to make my parents happy. If I'd been a rebellious kid, I'd never been so willing to pretend I believed in something that was clearly bull hockey.

After I grew up and moved out, my parents sort of "figured out" I'd always been pretty politically left. I was very opposed to the Iraq War, and since I wasn't living at home anymore, I felt more free to be honest about it. Plus, my dad remembers Vietnam and while he wouldn't say anything bad about GW, I didn't feel like he really agreed with it either. Just stood up for it, because that was who he voted for.

My dad and I bicker over politics good-naturedly these days. I think it's important to have all kinds of people in the world, and a variety of views and opinions. My mother still takes it as a personal affront that I'm not conservative. It never was. I respect my family and never wanted to hurt them, but I also never felt like I should have to apologize for owning my own brain.

That's a very similar upbringing I had except it was religion not politics I disagreed with my family over. I would pray at dinner and pray at night saying the same bullshit over and over again at the same time questioning why and what I was doing. I started asking my mom questions about the bible she couldn't answer. Then I started reading about space and science in general and all of a sudden the wheels started turning.

I realized in my early 20's I had never believed in god and it was the biggest sigh of relief I'd ever had. Just the other day I told my mother and my two nieces that I'm an atheist and my mom looked confused but my older niece started asking me all kinds of questions which was really neat! I also just this year (because 'Murica is so ridiculously PC about everything ESPECIALLY politics) finally admitted I'm a socialist. As I get older I'm like; YEAHHHH I CAN BE MYSELF NOW! haha

To the OP, Zack answered your question quite well. To add, I'd say that now in the digital age/internet we cannot close our eyes to the shit of the world anymore including our own country. It's difficult not to be jaded and cynical this day and age with all the horrors you can witness and read about with a click of a mouse. So, while good people like that still exist (and we as humans are good natured) we're fucking ruthless and always will be as a species.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I think it's human nature to hate those that disagree with you.
We like to associate with our own kind with many aspects of our lives.
So you have liberals hating conservatives and vice versa.

It's funny, Koryn, that most think that if you opposed the Iraq war per se, that you are a liberal.
I opposed the war, but I'm not a liberal in that respect.  I believed from the moment they were talking about it that it would be another Vietnam to the US.  And I'm not a pacifist either.  I just don't believe in useless wars and meddling in other countries affairs.  And I've always hated politics.

Here's the thing, I don't dislike conservative people or republicans (I LOVE Colin Powell for instance) I have very little patience for rhetoric and people that believe it and do not think. Especially those who will literally close their eyes and cover their ears when trying to have a discussion that is opposite of their beliefs. Those people use every argument and deflection you can think of rather than discussing an issue. They build boxes for themselves because it is easier to live in rhetoric land. It's those people I cannot stand. I will not tolerate bigotry, racism, or hate either. It's one thing to have people in your life you disagree with but when those things enter the picture I don't want them anywhere near me.

I had a republican friend who used to stress me out so much on Facebook I would be scared to post something I believed in and should be universal like women's rights because he would argue with rhetoric, straw-man, I mean, literally everything he could than the actual issue which seems to be a god damn no brainer to me. I realized I didn't need that in my life and I've been happier since I've removed those people from it.

Model Sarah wrote:

Here's the thing, I don't dislike conservative people or republicans (I LOVE Colin Powell for instance) I have very little patience for rhetoric and people that believe it and do not think. Especially those who will literally close their eyes and cover their ears when trying to have a discussion that is opposite of their beliefs. Those people use every argument and deflection you can think of rather than discussing an issue. They build boxes for themselves because it is easier to live in rhetoric land. It's those people I cannot stand. I will not tolerate bigotry, racism, or hate either. It's one thing to have people in your life you disagree with but when those things enter the picture I don't want them anywhere near me.

I had a republican friend who used to stress me out so much on Facebook I would be scared to post something I believed in and should be universal like women's rights. I realized I didn't need that in my life and I've been happier since I've removed those people from it.

I agree that toxic people need to be out of our lives.  I remember some atheist posting on FB and he would continually bash those that believe in God.  I had to leave that group since it was just annoying.  Thing is that I'm pretty much atheist too but I don't go bashing others about their beliefs and I don't need to read hate rhetoric.

I liked Colin Powell too. Very smart guy and dedicated.  I thought he was too nice a person to be president though.  And that sucks.

BlueMoonPics wrote:

I agree that toxic people need to be out of our lives.  I remember some atheist posting on FB and he would continually bash those that believe in God.  I had to leave that group since it was just annoying.  Thing is that I'm pretty much atheist too but I don't go bashing others about their beliefs and I don't need to read hate rhetoric.

I liked Colin Powell too. Very smart guy and dedicated.  I thought he was too nice a person to be president though.  And that sucks.

Those atheists are very very rare and they really upset me because there's no damn point in arguing someone and their religion unless it is hurting another person. Do I think I'm right there is no god? Yes but do I care? Absolutely not. When someone says stupid things like "we're only 6,000 years old" or "evolution is a theory" I'll feel pity for them and maybe throw out some facts but what's the point in that? I'm not going to change their mind. It's also not my job to do that.

Colin Powell is WAAAAAAAY too smart to run for president. I agree with you. He might be the only republican I'd ever vote for. I like him that much.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I agree that toxic people need to be out of our lives.  I remember some atheist posting on FB and he would continually bash those that believe in God.  I had to leave that group since it was just annoying.  Thing is that I'm pretty much atheist too but I don't go bashing others about their beliefs and I don't need to read hate rhetoric.

I liked Colin Powell too. Very smart guy and dedicated.  I thought he was too nice a person to be president though.  And that sucks.

Model Sarah wrote:
Those atheists are very very rare and they really upset me because there's no damn point in arguing someone and their religion unless it is hurting another person. Do I think I'm right there is no god? Yes but do I care? Absolutely not. When someone says stupid things like "we're only 6,000 years old" or "evolution is a theory" I'll feel pity for them and maybe throw out some facts but what's the point in that? I'm not going to change their mind. It's also not my job to do that.

Colin Powell is WAAAAAAAY too smart to run for president. I agree with you. He might be the only republican I'd ever vote for. I like him that much.

I find it strange - religion - and how we argue for/against it. I'd probably be considered a "pantheist," but I call myself an "agnostic," because most people understand what that means and don't really ask questions. It's not that I don't believe in a god-like force (I do), just that I don't think there's anything humanistic about it, and other than a few really large ideas in Hinduism, none of the major world religions really carry much believability for me.

The thing is, I'd never try to argue with someone about why they should "doubt" the existence of their god. I don't care what other people believe, and having seen that organized religions do in fact help many people to lead better, happier lives, I WANT others to believe in whatever it is that brings them peace of mind. I'd also never tell someone else that my "god" is right, and their's is wrong. That just seems so fucked up to me.

BUT, it seems like religious folks would argue with me all day if I let them, about why I'm wrong and they're right. I don't think anyone's wrong or right, and I'd really prefer if we all just respected each other.

I mean, maybe it's because I don't exactly believe in normal-god, that I can be okay with others feeling whatever they feel. I don't know - but far more devout people are into trying to convert others, than non-believers. In my experience, non-believers are actually pretty respectful toward the devout.

Koryn wrote:

It makes absolutely no sense.

Aw do even maybe like christmas.

Koryn wrote:
I find it strange - religion - and how we argue for/against it. I'd probably be considered a "pantheist," but I call myself an "agnostic," because most people understand what that means and don't really ask questions. It's not that I don't believe in a god-like force (I do), just that I don't think there's anything humanistic about it, and other than a few really large ideas in Hinduism, none of the major world religions really carry much believability for me.

The thing is, I'd never try to argue with someone about why they should "doubt" the existence of their god. I don't care what other people believe, and having seen that organized religions do in fact help many people to lead better, happier lives, I WANT others to believe in whatever it is that brings them peace of mind. I'd also never tell someone else that my "god" is right, and their's is wrong. That just seems so fucked up to me.

BUT, it seems like religious folks would argue with me all day if I let them, about why I'm wrong and they're right. I don't think anyone's wrong or right, and I'd really prefer if we all just respected each other.

I mean, maybe it's because I don't exactly believe in normal-god, that I can be okay with others feeling whatever they feel. I don't know - but far more devout people are into trying to convert others, than non-believers. In my experience, non-believers are actually pretty respectful toward the devout.

They are...we...I guess...because we don't care. It's not because it is a lost cause it is because we do not want to argue against nothing. But people do that all the time. I think; why?
We should be Facebook friends Koryn.

THIS IS WY SF2 is amazing. Look how a republican and socialist atheist got along. But shhh I mean SQUIRREL!

Koryn wrote:

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I agree that toxic people need to be out of our lives.  I remember some atheist posting on FB and he would continually bash those that believe in God.  I had to leave that group since it was just annoying.  Thing is that I'm pretty much atheist too but I don't go bashing others about their beliefs and I don't need to read hate rhetoric.

I liked Colin Powell too. Very smart guy and dedicated.  I thought he was too nice a person to be president though.  And that sucks.

I find it strange - religion - and how we argue for/against it. I'd probably be considered a "pantheist," but I call myself an "agnostic," because most people understand what that means and don't really ask questions. It's not that I don't believe in a god-like force (I do), just that I don't think there's anything humanistic about it, and other than a few really large ideas in Hinduism, none of the major world religions really carry much believability for me.

The thing is, I'd never try to argue with someone about why they should "doubt" the existence of their god. I don't care what other people believe, and having seen that organized religions do in fact help many people to lead better, happier lives, I WANT others to believe in whatever it is that brings them peace of mind. I'd also never tell someone else that my "god" is right, and their's is wrong. That just seems so fucked up to me.

BUT, it seems like religious folks would argue with me all day if I let them, about why I'm wrong and they're right. I don't think anyone's wrong or right, and I'd really prefer if we all just respected each other.

I mean, maybe it's because I don't exactly believe in normal-god, that I can be okay with others feeling whatever they feel. I don't know - but far more devout people are into trying to convert others, than non-believers. In my experience, non-believers are actually pretty respectful toward the devout.

I would agree with everything but your last couple sentences. It's correlation, and not causality.

Non-belivers only seem less interested in converting because they are younger and poorer. Your average American Christian is older than your average American Atheist, which generally means more money and more free time. There is a huge amount of Christians that tithe to their church, while I'd be shocked if Richard Dawkins gets whatever you call the Atheist equivalent from 1% of his supporters.

That means that as an organization, Christianity can afford to stick their fingers in other people's business far more than Atheism. There are also more Christians, and that helps shore up those numbers. I assume you would see the same thing in every other country that has a single predominant religion.

But if you just look at individuals, I think you'll find that religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with how likely that person is to be an obnoxious asshole.

This is just personal bias, but I find that if anything people that are just barely religious (or just barely Athesit) are the most likely to be respectful of others' opinions. If you believe too strongly in anything, it's human nature to take any disagreement as a challenge.

I think I may have just brought this rant back on topic