THE SHALLOW GENE POOL
Some of us never evolved
PalTalk Denizen Guide and Room R eview
Since I have mentioned the voice over IP service known as PalTalk, there have been a few of my listeners who have tried to use the service and have had very mixed results depending on what rooms they tried and who they have encountered. Also, since I recommended the service to begin with, many have sent me comments about what they found, asked if I have experienced the same issues and what rooms I would recommend to try. So with that in mind, I have created this page and the enclosed reviews to describe exactly what I have experienced on this service. Now, rather than just make room reviews, which I do plan on including, I have decided to create a PalTalk denizen guide.
These denizen categories will include users by name. I know some may see such inclusions as an insult to the users named, but my intent is to give you a way of seeing each particular denizen described in action. To do so, the most efficient way I can think of is to cite an example of the behavior described so you can find and watch these people in action. After you become familiar with the types of PalTalk denizens I will be describing, I have no doubt that you will be able to find ample examples on your own.
If you see a type of denizen not covered here, email me the details and
an example for me to look up.
As always, questions and comments are welcomed. One thing to keep in mind is that I tend to visit only a few specific areas or set of rooms in PalTalk.
I also need to add a rather disturbing trend that I and others have noticed regarding PalTalk, the quality of the rooms and the quality of the people who run the rooms and participate in them. If you are a listener to A Moment in Reason and find the arguments and topics made worthy of discussion or see the worth in rational discussion without the normally associated ideological baggage, then you would constitute exactly the type of debater that many of my associates and friends on PalTalk would find to be the most desirable person to talk to.
Unfortunately, such people on PalTalk are becoming ever increasingly rare. With the seemingly ever-growing gaggle of biased and closed-minded ideologues, there are several such rational people who simply have turned their back on PalTalk to find a better medium. A few run blogs talking about rational thought reason and yes even religion. But the loss of such people makes PalTalk an ever decreasingly desirable medium to use.
There are a few who refuse to give up. They and a few others seek to build rooms for like-minded rational discussion or just plain shooting the breeze with people you consider on-line friends. I sincerely hope they succeed but what you will find in the PalTalk Denizen guide will illustrate just why what they seek to do is currently such an uphill battle.
And as with anything I produce or mention be it on a forum, debate or podcast, please do not blindly believe what I have posted here. I have my own biases when it comes to viewing any subject and even though I try to be as fair minded as possible it is not humanly possible to operate without such biases. There are other reviews of PalTalk, these rooms and these members you can find online to see what others have found.
If the information on this page peaks your
interest as a PalTalk user or just in general, please verify what I have
said by visiting these rooms yourself.
My view of these rooms and people may not be yours.
Indeed, you may find these rooms enjoyable and what you are
looking for. Also keep in mind
will always be detractors of any given room.
Also keep in mind that there will always be detractors of any given room.
You can access PalTalk by installing the program form
PalTalk or by using
You can access PalTalk by installing the program form PalTalk or by using PalTalk Express
PalTalk Room Reviews
PalTalk Room Reviews
Room: Religion and Philosophy Civil Debate Room
Currently, this is the only room on PalTalk that I can recommend to
anyone. The owner of the
room, Civil_Debate, is known for running a remarkably civil and rational
debate room. His old room
Civil Debate Room
but recently he joined up with another room owner with a similar
reputation and created this new room.
Simply put, any room Civil_Debate opens is run with the same set of highly desirable rules that creates an environment for debate that other admins simply cannot or will not create or maintain.
Room: Islam is not for me 1
This is a room run by Christians against Islam and Muslims. This room is just as bad as similar rooms owned and admined by Muslims, proving just how most modern day Christians are no better than the Muslims they rally against. The generic themes for rooms like this are Christianity good, Islam bad. A lesser message is that everything other than Christianity is also bad.
Room: o0Islam Answers Back0o / Answering Christianity
This would be the opposite number to rooms like Islam Is not for me 1 but worse to some aspect. While in this room you get all manner of insults and arguments against the Christian religion and to a lesser degree Judaism, rooms like this illustrate how Christians can do one thing Muslims cannot; debate atheists.
Muslims by the commandments of their religion, see Christians and Jews as people of the book. This, and operating under the principles of dhimmi, Muslims seek to convert such people of the book to Islam. People not of the book, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, Wicca, Sikhs and atheists like me have only one choice under dhimmi; convert to Islam or die. Think back to why I call the religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam in their fundamental forms the violent Arab religions they are.
But more to the point, atheists do one thing to such Muslims fundamentalists generally that members of the other religions do not; we frighten them. Not all mind you, but a great majority. It is not atypical to see an atheist enter one of these rooms, speak his or her mind and do so civilly and be dotted prior to being lectured, insulted and then banned.
One such admin of note is salafyusef, not of this particular room, but of the particularly cited habit. One other comforting fact is that salafyusef claims to live in Louisville in the United States but speaks often about what appears to be thinly veiled threats of violence to non-Muslims or defending such acts of violence against non-Muslims.
Again, sad how yet another group of god’s chosen people act out of fear toward people not like them or who by existing pose a threat to them and their religion.
On a positive note, there are quite a few things I have learned from this room and its Muslims members, many of which are located in Muslim dominated or controlled countries.
I have learned that just as many Christians firmly believe that the world wide flood myth is indeed fact, the majority of Muslims I have encountered in this room firmly believe that Allah split the moon in two in a demonstration of his power. It matters not that no other or non-Muslim civilization witnessed or recorded the event.
I have also learned that everything I am familiar with and use from day to day is due to the efforts of Muslims. It was the Muslims who created the foundation for everything in our modern world.Anyone who erroneously cites the Greeks as creating anything are overlooking the fact that the Greek were simply incapable of creating anything since they were nothing more than pot smocking homosexuals who like to rape boys.
Room: Constitutional Conservatives United
There are people who erroneously believe that liberal is the same as Democrat and conservative is the same as Republican. The owner of this room and a great majority of the people in this room suffer from such an outlook. If I were to sum up the room then I would suggest that the title be changed to Christian Conservatives united.
I was asked to review this room by someone who knews of my upcoming PalTalk Denizen guide. I've been visited the room on and off for at least six months. At first, the name made it seem like a potentially great place. I mean, after all, Constitutional Conservative would describe libertarians. Right up my alley. Unfortunately it became apparent that most of the views regarding the Constitution were limited at best or as viewed through a Christian filter of one way or another. Even the canards that the the United Stated was founded as a Christian nation or is a Christian Nation made appearances from time to time.
Oddly, I ran into one instance in which an admin was overtly PC. This admin had no problem with a user discussion the New Black Panthers and quoting their derogatory names for various races but when a person quoted one representative using the dreaded N word, he was banned for being racist. Yes, while quoting a racist, a person was banned as being racists.
The final defining moments for this room would be illustrated by the actions of the owner and creator of the CCU room; Logicalinsantiy. This again at first got my hopes up due to a person I knew years ago with a similar forum name, but alas, this was a totally different person.
Logicalinsanity is extremely patriotic. I've heard the term jingoistic applied to him but I don't think he is quite that extreme. His avatar does have a picture of a bald eagle's head with an America flag illuminated over half the face. Very Colbert like. While not jingoistic in my opinion it is a sad cliché of trying to show one's patriotism through simple symbology rather than actions.
He is honest and open about his faith. A quote from profile: "I love my heavenly father, my country and the great state of Texas. god bless America and god please bless our troops. The USA will survive. We always do."
Keep in mind I do not, like so many of my peers, see this as an automatic negative. It is how one conducts themselves based upon such faith that is a proper measure in my mind. Evidently, his faith allows him to be a member of the righteous. I say that due to several comment from members and admins about atheists being very easy to defeat in any given debate since atheists stand for nothing and have nothing to back them up. Sound familiar?
Besides the odd PC bans, I've seen in this room a type of justification I have seen nowhere else. In other rooms when a topic is brought up that the admins or room owner believes are incorrect, they could take it to task and defeat it with fact or just boot the person out of the room if they didn't want to deal with the topic. I have seen where admins in this room boot people while calling their statement "rhetoric", but Logicalinsantiy likes to take a different tactic.
If you post a topic he or other admins do not wish to debate, or cannot debate by some commenters' claims, you might get booted with the excuse of "your topic was boring." Now that's a new one. What is even more unique is the follow-up PM from a member of the room to inform you, condescendingly, of just why you were booted. Yes, one of the righteous indeed.
Now, LogicalInsainity and this room have no shortage of critics for a wide range of reasons. As reactionary and odd as I see the room, there exists conservatives who see this room, its owners and members as not true conservatives due to embracing leftist ideas. Which ideas these are escape me outside of birther nonsense surrounding President Obama.
It has been commented on from Logicalinstanity's detractors a lack of honesty when it comes to certain items like his stated age of 18. Normally it is considered simple forum educate to honestly fill out your profile, but we are talking about the internet here. I don't think it is a such a big deal but others have commented on how he took great pains in filling out the rest of his profile but this he leaves listed with an incorrect age. Make of that what you will.
Another challenge to the claims of Logicalinsantiy and his room would be his member count indicating popularity. It is not necessary to become a member of a room to enter that room for discussion, but many were encouraged to join as a member as was I. What has been claimed about this count is a trick I have seen at forum websites who like to brag about their member numbers.
It works like this. A person will join an internet forum, find it is not a place they want to spend their time on or in and never return however, their account is never deleted. This is akin to what is claimed abut the CCU room. Simple put, their number count is inflated and doesn't represent active members but members collected over a year or more. Many of these members have simply left and never visit the room anymore for various reasons.
Other complaints include banning members, in some cases long standing ones, over ego driven drama the owners of the CCU room claim simple doesn't exists, admin abuse of members and visitors and members and visitors complaining about admins hogging the room and mic and going over the same topic ad nausem only to be treated poorly if and when they complain. Again, make of that what you will. There will always be detractors of any given room but from what I have been told and have seen, there does appear to be a pattern of behavior and abuse by the owners and admins. The phrase "liking the sound of their own voice" is a descriptor I believe is applicable to quite a few of the admins.
One complaint I do think is worth noting is just who comprise some of the admins. This room is supposed to be all about Constitutional Conservatives dealing with what the owner claims to support like a return to constitutional rule, the tea parties and the like. Even overlooking their "this is a Christian nation" claims and their limited view of the Constitution, would it not be reasonable to believe that this is room deals with a topic unique to the United States?
Why is it then that there are so many complaints from members and visitors that there exists not only admins from foreign nations but ones who regularly silence, boot and ban people from this room who are in the Untied States?
Now if the claims that this room is more about the personalities of the owners and the admins and the drama that ensues, it would make much more sense.
Room: Christian vs Atheist Debate P
If you are an atheist like me and wish to debate theists, then it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that, at the time of this review, there are few rooms where you can consistently get a level and rational debate. With the exception of one room, make that none. Civil_Debate’s room is the only one I know of currently.
This is both a room review and a guide of sorts. The guide is that once you find a room that offers a topic that you like to debate, you may want to check where it was created. This refers to what area it was created in.
Prime examples would be two rooms. The first is the Atheist vs Christian Debate room created in the atheism category of the Religion & Spirituality section of PalTalk. The second would be the Christian vs Atheist Debate P rooms created in the Christianity category of Religion and Spirituality section of PalTalk.
The first was created by and run by atheists while the second rooms were created by and run by theists. Can you predict the general feel and outcome of these rooms? Yes, the outcome you think would happen unfortunately happens. With very few exceptions, theist created and run rooms located in the Christian section will always, in the end, side with theists and let them abuse the room rules while holding their opposition strictly to the room rules. The same can be said for Atheist created and run rooms hosted in the atheist section.
Now this is where I have to state several qualifications as if the ones I have already stated were not enough. This does not mean all rooms as I am sure there are several out there that are just fine that I have yet to encounter nor does it mean at all times. In fact, This room first appeared to have been a great room to recommend only to have it ruined by not only a few bad and abusive admins but a room owner and super admin unwilling or unable to do anything to control their room, at least when it comes to their Christian admins and quality control of their room. There is also a rather huge amount of hypocrisy on the part of at least one super admin as I will illustrate. The room owners abuse of people in the room is also disconcerting.
This room is also why the PalTalk Denizen Guide and Room Review was not posted at the end of the summer of 2010 as planned. The people I mention in this review will undoubtedly have quit a few unpleasant things to say about me, I am sure. One thing they could say that would be true is that I am making this review from more than a bit of personal bias and they would be right. But as I hope you will discover, I have my reasons as to why. For the sake of brevity, I will only highlight the major issues.
A few people knew of my plan to create the PalTalk
review and asked me ahead of time for any rooms that I would recommend.
At the time, the only one that was consistently great was Civil_Debate’s.
I found this room and tried it out. After a few visits over the
summer, I found the room to be good and told the super-admin BluezBaby
of the upcoming review and my intention to list her room as one to
visit. She thought that was an excellent idea and was all excited
over it. As anyone who listens to my podcasts knows, I have a real
life to attend to and things tend to get delayed. Luckily for me,
this happened or I would have harmed my reputation by sending people to
an abusive room. Unfortunately, a few listeners were sent
Unfortunately, a few listeners were sent there.
After telling a few people to try this room and that I recommended it, I started receiving feedback about what they found. Again, I have to stress that my listeners run the gambit of beliefs and political opinions. It was a real concern when a theistic listener was one of those telling me what they found here. After promising to revisit the room and doing so under my regular ID and another one, I was able to confirm what they stated they found, and then some.
I approached BluezBaby about these problems. BluezBaby had stated more than once that her desire was to have this room be like Civil_Debate’s room. With the behavior I saw, her room was no better than any other Christian room that allows for the abuse of anyone not Christian or not the right Christian. Worse was the fact that she mentioned how one particular admin I cited that was abusive had in the past been told not to be abusive and so extreme. I’m sorry, but if you strive to create a room like Civil_Debate’s then once an admin steps over the line and abuses someone, he or she should no longer have admin privileges.
Yes, BluezBaby can run her room as she sees fit, but I am only judging her by her stated guidelines and goals for the room and it was due to those guidelines and stated goals that she would get a recommendation from me to begin with. This she also knew.
It finally got to the point where I was told that perhaps I just need to stop coming to the room. This combined with her admitting to losing control of the room and altering the speech time kept me away for some time. Normally, debate rooms give tree to four minutes of talking time in order to facilitate a good debate. Rooms that have lost control tend to limit such time to just one minute. In this type of time limited room, this means there is no debate. While you only have one minute to talk you are getting hammered from the Christians admins with demands to reply to their comments text. Ignoring them will lead to threatened and predictable outcomes.
An example of the lack of control department would be when this room has four admins online and they allow a Christian to go on a ten second rant of personal insults against the atheists and “false Christians” he was debating against. Now ten seconds may not sound like a very long time, but take a look at a clock and count out ten seconds. How much could you say in that time?
This particular Christian was able to call these people such charming names as child molesters and was not dotted or bounced from the room, but simply left. The excuse from BluezBaby was that the admins, including herself by the way, were probably not listening at the time. So the room was simply allowed to go wild. Another excuse was that these admins are unpaid volunteers and they makes mistakes. Again, using her own stated desired goals and stated standards, this is unacceptable.
The hypocrisy I spoke of earlier was her change of mind about the room review once I told her that due to the abuse of people I sent to the room, abuse I saw while logged in as me and another ID and the actions of the room’s owner, I was no going to be able to give the room a positive review. Now the idea of such a room review was absolutely ridiculous. After all, it is “just a chat room.”
And that leads me to the biggest and fundamental difference between BluezBaby and myself. I would dare even say a fundamental difference between herself and her room admin role model Civil_Debate. When I recommend something like a chat room, it is my reputation on the line. I know that this is only an online persona, but it is one I have gone to great efforts to build and the reputation of it is the reputation I would have for my real name if I could use it publically and freely without the fear of repercussions against my family. Perhaps such a thing simply doesn’t matter to BluezBaby or perhaps since the people being abused are not Christians or “true Christians” it doesn’t matter, but to me it does.
Case in point of standards would be the people allowed to be admins in this room. If you wanted to create a room for civil debate between Christians and atheists, would you give a user who owns a room that is anti- Christians such power? I wouldn’t. Now, would you give that power to a person who owns a room that is anti-athiest. Again I wouldn’t but BLuezBaby or Canuckzap did just that. The admin Praiser_2009 created and owns a room called “Atheism is laughable and dishonest.” Great choice for an admin for a room designed for civil debate.
For those I sent to this room and were abused, I sincerely apologize. I should have taken more time to properly vet the room.
Now onto the biggest surprise of this room; the room owner Canuckzap. I had been told that there are admins in this room that stalk people from the room they disagree with. While this rumor appears to be coming from more than one person, I believed it is just a rumor. I did however run into some behavior that was just as odd.
Once Canuckzap discovered that I had a podcast, he kept making a rather odd comment and it wasn’t only on one occasion. On four separate occasions over several months, Canuckzap kept posting repetitive comments like “You better never have me on your podcast to debate because I would make you look like a fool/ignorant/easily defeat you, so it is the last thing you would want to do.” This attempt at using some form of childish reverser psychology is all the more bizarre after you consider that I had already told him that I don’t do debates on my podcast and that if I ever did, he would be the last person I would consider. This sadly only served to inflate his ego. Also sadly, Canuckzap totally misconstrued what I meant by that comment.
The reason Canuckzap didn't grasp as to why I would never find it worthy to debate him is due to his track record of dismissing facts of reality that he finds inconvenient to his view of the world and/or his faith and the actions and claims of other Christians. The fact that most Christians still seek to deny homosexuals equal rights or that atheists are a hated group by most Christians in the United States are claims Canuckzap labeled as being “out of touch with reality” or fabrications on my part. Some members of his professed faith, Episcopalian, may have accepted homosexuals and no longer see atheists as threats or evil, but it is no secret that the Episcopal faith is split over the issue of homosexuality and ordaining gay clergy.
But also not addressed is the fact that his faith is targeted by a majority of Christians as a false faith. One example is Bryant Wright of “Right From The Heart” ministries who speaks out against such a progressive Christian faith as simply wrong. Canuckzap’s ignorance of this or idea that the majority of Christians support equal rights for homosexuals in the United States, are not untrusting of atheists or do not see them as evil is simply not based upon reality. Defense of Marriage acts at both the state and federal level support this reality in regards to homosexual rights.
And denying a very well known series of surveis conducted in the United States that Christians used at the time, and still do, to show just how atheists are rejected by society and trusted less than Muslims or calling the survey a fabrication on my part is an act of such a closed mind that I cannot fathom any level of debate such a person would be honestly capable of.
Canuckzap’s obsession with trying to debate me would be further illustrated by his desire and demands that I debate him on a theistic forum of his choosing. The reason I was given from BluezBaby was that he wanted to insure that the text of our debate would be preserved. Considering I know of no forum that doesn’t preserve threads for a considerable amount of time, this really made no sense. Him picking a theist forum of course did.
I told him to find a neutral forum like the Physorg forum or similar forum and let me know by email. For several days when I logged in to check for messages from other PalTalk members, I had PM after PM left for me by Canuckzap demanding one thing or another or making one personal comment after another. I finally had to do one thing I never have had to do before. I had to refuse any further PM’s from Canuckzap. I guess in some respect and to some degree, the stalking claim was accurate after all.
If Canuckzap has never heard of a particular news site, no matter how popular or heavily visited by one group or another, it is invalid as a source. This includes sites that host commentary from such Christian Conservative icons as Michelle Malkin, Ken Ham and Matt Barber of Liberty Council.
And calling these people icons is a term that evidently only ignorant and uneducated people would use in regards to such Christians since “they do not represent a majority” of any one group. Even the disgraced Christian icon Kent Hovind is not an icon, probably due to the fact that he is so disgraced. Odd how that works with Christians. The fact that so many still follow his teachings today, and similar teachings of others, and will probably follow him again when he is released from prison means nothing.
And even though you might be talking specifically about the United States, if you do not include what has or might be happening in Canada, you are again ignorant and uneducated. It doesn’t matter if it is irrelevant to the discussion or not.
Another odd yet predictable comment from Canuckzap is his proclivity to call people uninformed, uneducated, ignorant or similar derogatory claims. Even if the facts back up your claims, you are still uninformed, uneducated and ignorant in Canuckzap’s opinion.
And on top of all of this, I was informed by Canuckzap that what I was teaching my children was dangerous and posed a danger to them. Yes. Yet another Christian resorting to making comments about my children when debating me about topics that had nothing to do with my children at all.
And oddly enough, none of his comments about my children were called into question by the other active room admin at the time. That admin was Praiser_2009. The same Praiser_2009 who owns the room called “Atheism is laughable and dishonest.”
Again, I will take a moment to point out how BluezBaby described this room as something approaching Civil_Debate’s room in regards to civility and conduct. In all honesty, I don’t know of any room where making comments about a person’s children in such a manner would be considered legitimate or reasonable comments or a room where such comments are allowed by other room admins.
Again, for those I sent to this room and were abused, I sincerely apologize. For those who wish to see how not to run a debate room in a civil manner, visit this room. It may not happen all the time, but it happens with enough fequency and at the hands of people who simply should not be room admins.
PalTalk Denizen Guide
PalTalk Denizen Guide
The Pet Admin
A room administrator, or admin, performs the job you think he or she would; they run and manage the room. In PalTalk, admins can stop a person from typing and/or talking by placing a red dot on their listing in the room. They can also kick out people, ban them for a day or permanently.
The listed pet admins are not the only ones I encountered, but they serve the denizen guide well due to the fact that they occupy multiple denizen categories.
The Righteous are god’s chosen people put here to lead us all too true path. Which god you might ask? Now there’s the perfect question. As mentioned before, many examples cited here occupy other categories and for good reason.
We’ll start off with the very familiar western example of such a person.
I say familiar simply because anyone who lives in the United States has encountered this type of Christian before. Think of Pat Robertson. Actually I have a better example. Think of VenomFangX, seeker_ackbar’s religious leader of choice. God, his version or flavor of the Christian god, is the only way. Anyone not following this path is damned. This leads to a pattern of behavior I hope will become apparent in the actions and behavior of the Righteous.
Speaking of the devil, we have VenomFangX. Now, I obviously have my disagreements with VenomFangX and his followers, pet admins and the like. I’ve debated with more than a few with predictable outcomes in that they were in positions to ban people. But shockingly I actually have something nice to say about VenomFangX.
I ran into VenomFangX and his pet admin seeker_ackbar several months ago at the time of this review. VenomFangX was in typical form with typical claims and rhetoric.
I did managed to get a private chat with him shortly afterwards and realized something a bit disturbing. Shawn is actually a nice guy. As long as he is not basking the in praise of his followers or in his VenomFangX persona, he actually quite reasonable to talk to. He even ended our conversation on what I would consider a witty come-back to something I said. If only he could dump his more obnoxious venomfangx persona and his similarly humored followers.
Speaking of VenomFangX’s followers, here is a scary fact.
VenomFangX not only has Pet Admins as mentioned before, but many
of the pet admins preached for him.
He even has quite a few followers all over PalTalk like in the
Christian Conservatives united room.
They are usually incapably of debating but can and only read off
his scripted arguments and speeches.
Anyone questioning the United Stated support of Israel or the actions of Israel from a rational point of view is typically labeled as an anti-Zionist and a Jew-hater on par with Hitler. The “you are ignorant” and/or “uneducated” comments are generally thrown in for free. In my encounter with spanky_6, he tended to make personal comments and insults and then flee the room. He then switched to making these comments via the PM feature of PalTalk.
Spanky_6 threatened that I would not be able to speak on paltalk for the
next six months. He first
threatened to do so through a hack on my pc, then claimed that he could
do so since he was "connected" to PalTalk
Thanks to information provided by others, I discovered that Spanky_6’s name can be found attached to blogs that are pro-zionist. These blogs used the derogatory name of goyum for anyone who is not Jewish. More so, one of these blogs uses the abbreviation that Christians find an insult; xtain. I use it all the time, but I’m an atheist. Then there are the comments about how the Christians are harming the world due to their religion. Odd how Jews like Spanky_6 show no respect for the Christian religion but demand it for their own. More disturbing is just how freely threats fly from such people.
Prince Shia Dove
Prince Shia Dove tends to insult those he disagrees with. By tend, I mean without hesitation and with great endeavor. Typically, the insults I saw over time mostly consisted of calling people's wives names or questioning their virtue. Disturbingly juvenile rather than what one would expect from a man claiming to be 50.
Spockular is yet another of the Righteous but is like seek_ackbar. Anyone not of the Christian Faith is misguided at best, definitely damned or even worse. This outlook appears to justify his abuse of anyone not Christian who disagrees with his positions.
Now we come to a prime example of why I call Christianity, Judaism and Islam the violent Arab religions. Christian Prince is a rather infamous character on Paltalk. He is an Arab Christian and shows just how violent, disrespectful and inherently destructive the violent Arab religions are when taken to there fundamental nature and commandments. This is what the face of what those from secular nations would label as extremist Christianity.
Christian Prince revels in insulting anyone who does not fall in line with his claims or way of thinking. I have seen where people who posted reasonable questions in a rational manner silenced in the room, yelled at in a profane filled rant and banned. Yes, Christian Prince admins rooms he debates in and you can guess why. His room is called Christ is Lord Islam is false debate TV. The content, support and comments are sadly typical.
Christian Prince also does not like it when Arab cultural sayings are mentioned that might paint him in a bad light. One particular saying is Turkish in origin I was led to believe, but is considered an Arab one today. It goes like this: Women for children, boys for pleasure, melons for ecstasy. That’s right. An Arab saying the means they like to have sex with boys over having sex with women but having sex with melons is the best.
It is any wonder why I and so many others question the religions that originate from this part of the world?
Have you spotted the trend from these religious representatives I call the Righteous yet? So sad that those who think that they have a god on their side or are god’s chosen people still need to resort to threats to others in order to defend their claims or make them feel superior to others.
I’ve mentioned in my podcasts about the Atheist known as BrotherAtheist. In a two way political room prior to the election of Obama, questions about McCain were allowed to be asked. When the election reached the point were we had cadnidate McCain and Canidate Obamam I visited the 2 Way Political room over several nights.
Now one would think that rationally examining what each candidate claimed they would do once in office versus their voting record and public comments prior to running for the Office of the President would be a valid exercise, unless of course you were blinded by an ideology or were an ideologue.
Questions about McCain's claims versus his voting record were welcomed. Similar questions about Obama's claims versus his voting record, specifically his voting record about taxes on the middle class, were not only not welcomed, but resulted in BrotherAtheist calling it "Republican Propaganda" and red dotting or silencing people in the room making such comments.
I can only guess how he runs other rooms, but I would guess it would be in like manner and just as poorly. According to a few people I trust who like to engage in a more open and rational debate forum, his rooms are not held in high regard.
Once you become anti anything, you run the risk of divorcing yourself from reason and rational thought. Take for example anti-drug advocates who see marijuana as a destructive and dangerous drug but regularly consume alcohol, nicotine and caffeine hypocritically. Enter the antitheist. The antitheists I speak of are the type of people who are against theism in any way, shape or form to an extreme level. Think of them as the atheist version of Pat Robertson.
On PalTalk, they typical create rooms with labels such as "Teaching god belief to children is child abuse." Now not that such a topic is not worthy of discussion but I prefer to be a bit less of an ideologue and not summarily condemn a whole group of people.
I know of antitheist who argue against theism for very rational reasons and who earnestly would like to see it disappear. They also earnestly believe that mankind would be better off without theism. Of the antitheist I know and whose thoughts and musing I regularly enjoy reading, they are not of the extremist flavor due to their valuing one thing I value; freedom of choice. The antitheists I am speaking of value no such a thing unless the choice one makes falls into line with theirs.
For regular users of PalTalk who engage in debates about faith, theism and the like or readers of the PalTalk Denizen Guide, the name BrotherAthiest will be a familiar one. I can think of no better example of the closed-minded, reactionary and irrational atheist extremist that not only is the stereotype for any atheist but a prime example of what the antitheist is.
His irrational anti stance is not limited to theism only. I have mentioned before that BrotherAthiest is blindly polarized to one political ideology and dogma. Prior to the election of president Obama, BrotherAtheist was an admin for a two-way political discussion room. Questions about what candidate McCain stated he would do as president was balanced against what his voting record and actions had shown he had done. Engaging in the same questioning about then candidate Obama’s claims of what he would do in light of what he had supported politically was called Republican propaganda and the person silenced.
Likewise, concerns over claims that Obama was seen by some as a messiah and that he might actually enjoy such devotion were seen as similar Republican propaganda and those expressing such concerns silenced.
When it comes to theism, BrotherAthesit is just as hypocritical as other people who engage in any extreme anti ideology.
There is another aspect to this particular antitheist that is illustrated by his actions. I normally loath personal insults and try to make sure that what I post will not be seen as such, but in this regard I can only classify BrotherAtheist’s actions as that of an intellectually dishonest person and a coward. Here’s the predictable actions of BrotherAtheist and why I would dare label him in such a manner. BrotherAthiest only haunts room where he is an admin for reason that if they are not already apparent, should be soon.
He will log in rooms where he will find people of opposition but login only as a user. He will then start an argument. Note I did not state debate. When the argument doesn’t go the way he wishes or he starts to loose he will leave the room only to log back on as an admin and immediately silence the person or persons he was arguing with or could not debate.
The excuses he will use to justify such actions run the gambit, but
there are a few predictable ones.
Other than calling people names like Republican propagandists or
invoking Godwin's law, one of my favorites is the room topic excuse.
He has entered rooms with a long and developing conversation about
related topics and and ended conversations he didn’t want to hear or
A dogma devotee is a person so dedicated to his or her particular dogma
that they simply are immune to rational debate and evidence to the
IIMoses740II, who I will refer to as M740 is someone I have seen debated outside of the room where he was a wingman and his actions and debate style are formulaic and typical of a Dogma Devotee. He will make an argument usually based upon something someone said that he disagrees with. Once his challenge is proven erroneous, he will move onto a tangent even if that tangent was something that was never brought up in the conversation.
If you were to find M740 say a few days later, you will find him making exactly the same disproven arguments all over again. Worse yet, his standards appear to be very fluid. He will quickly cry “personal attack” in any debate, even when one was not made, but has no problem calling anyone with any sort of leftist view as suffering from "the mental disease known as liberalism."
To round out his other unique character points as a Dogma Devotee, M740 is a birther, a person who believes that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore not eligible to be the President of the United States. He also has referred to hate crime legislation named after Mathew Sheppard as the pedophile protection act.
In previous debates, M740 felt it necessary to whisper and PM lewd and sexually suggestive comments in the room. One man who claims to be against homosexuals making lewd sexual comment to another man? But I supposed in their support of their particular dogma, anything is allowed.
TruthSeeker777 is a rather unique dogma devotee. He is arguably the combination of the ignorance and hubris of youth and a selectively myopic philosophical outlook towards pretty much any topic. I've seen him in several rooms and his arguments are formulaic if not mercurial in respect to the topic. When I say ignorance, I do not mean in his regards to his knowledge of philosophy. He is quite knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy but his application of such knowledge is in the manner of a contrarian.
The last time I saw him in action was in arguing in a G rated room why he should be forced to adhere to not using profanity simply due to the arbitrary rules of the room.
Outside of such behavior when he eventually wears out his welcome , he will declare that a specific opponent, or more generically anyone in the room, cannot disprove his unsubstantiated esoteric philosophical claims and leave if he has not already been bounced.
Canuckzap falls into this category for his repetitious and unwavering view of and arguments about modern Christianity and his formulaic dismissals, insults and tactics. One of his repetitious arguments consists of denying that the topic of bible inerrancy is a large problem or largely supported in the Christian community in the United States outside of the "limited" Bible Belt. If you claim it is then it is considered an ignorant or inaccurate claim on you part.
You will most likely get a few "please focus" and "waiting for any serious commentary from you" comments thrown into any rebuttals from Canuckzap in general as well as belittling comments like "keep trying son" or "lad".
Any sources you cite will also be dismissed, questioned or belittled or assumptions will be made about the source of your claims with an associated insult about lack of any scholarly credentials, being a legitimate scholarly source, or simply cutting to the chase and calling them "quack" sources. If Canuckzap has never heard of your source, then it simply isn't one of value or consideration.
Other Dogma Devotee arguments would include how non-Christians are no longer persecuted, don't have their rights denied, are not distrusted by the majority of the population of the United States and trusted less than Muslims, how Christian conservative icons simply aren't and how if you believe to the contrary you must be living like it is the 1950s.
This is not representative of a specific category per say, but it is and was a very funny occurrence on PalTalk that I just had to share. Listeners to my older podcast called The Shallow Gene Pool should recognize the name RedShift. On my podcast, it was an award given out to people for moving away from truth, facts, common sense and rational thought.
The PalTalk user Redshift is a supporter of modern day myths. Among them is the belief that the entire interstate system of the East Coast of the United States was laid out along the foot paths and trails once used by American Indians.
And what qualifies him for such knowledge one might dare to ask? He's a trucker.
Is it wrong for me to find this amusing?
And what qualifies him for such knowledge one might dare to ask? He's a trucker. Is it wrong for me to find this amusing?