Admin webmdave Posted February 19, 2007 Admin Share Posted February 19, 2007 The Deep South in the United States is frequently called the "Bible Belt." Strongly Christian, with churches literally on nearly every street corner, the powerful influence of Christian values on the life of average people is perhaps more concentrated in the southern U.S. than in any other location in the country, and maybe the world. So, what happens when the hosts of the BBC's Top Gear program take a trip to Alabama to make some friends? This video is about seven minutes long. http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/02...istians-by.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
08 hawk Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Uhoh, she gonna go get 'the boys'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smellincoffee Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I don't have access to broadband at the moment, but seeing as I'm from Alabama, I'd love to read a recap of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I might have thrown a rock at them too. They were not helping the Atheist "cause" any. Go to England and write "F--- the Queen" on the side of your car and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Wow. Feel the love. The Man Love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Is it wrong that I'm giggling uncontrollably at the entire thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatepirate Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I might have thrown a rock at them too. They were not helping the Atheist "cause" any. Go to England and write "F--- the Queen" on the side of your car and see what happens. I don't remember them doing this in the name of atheism... I thought it was just for fun, to see which one would get harassed more. What I find funny is they didn't really write anything that...offensive. "Nascar Sucks", "Hillary for President", "Man love rules ok"? I mean, how the hell are those able to incite violence? I consider them no less offensive than "God loves you even if you don't love him" and other religious bullshit bumper stickers. Just because you find something on a car stupid or disagree with it is no reason to behave violently towards the driver. Is that what you think? Someone has something on their car that makes you angry, you'd throw a rock at it like some sort of enraged little kid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I might have thrown a rock at them too. They were not helping the Atheist "cause" any. Go to England and write "F--- the Queen" on the side of your car and see what happens. I don't remember them doing this in the name of atheism... I never said it was. I thought it was just for fun, to see which one would get harassed more...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Alabmastanians=Palastinians? Seems rocks are "short arms of choice"... kFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I might have thrown a rock at them too. They were not helping the Atheist "cause" any. Go to England and write "F--- the Queen" on the side of your car and see what happens. Is that what you think? Someone has something on their car that makes you angry, you'd throw a rock at it like some sort of enraged little kid? Hmmmm. Interesting lack of response from Dave on this. You said what I was thinking, I just wasn't feeling up to dealing with "Davism" at the time I first read and posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Hmmmm. Interesting lack of response from Dave on this. A response would have only caused a flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Hmmmm. Interesting lack of response from Dave on this. A response would have only caused a flame war. Well, good that you can at least admit that and avoid a flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I don't have access to broadband at the moment, but seeing as I'm from Alabama, I'd love to read a recap of this. Holy sheiss I feel sorry for you. Recap: British television team (reality-type) painted offensive slogans on their cars (Hillary 4 prez; Man love rules; Nascar sucks) and drove across Alabama. They had to cut the stunt short when they were attacked by a gang throwing rocks; thier camera crew was also under attack. It was quite frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I honestly did not see that reaction coming at all. I never knew they would really attack....wow....I am in shock. (not really) but its disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I honestly did not see that reaction coming at all. I never knew they would really attack....wow....I am in shock. (not really) but its disturbing. Uh.... you go into the lion enclosure in a zoo and start waving at the lions; what do you think would happen? Of course those people were going to get upset, wouldn't you if some stranger showed up and purposely insulted you? And before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, both sides were wrong - in my opinion. These guys purposely went in with the full intent of insulting strangers for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. They got exactly what they asked for. They acted like jerks and got treated as they deserved. The locals were wrong too; they should have just ignored the fools instead of taking the bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I honestly did not see that reaction coming at all. I never knew they would really attack....wow....I am in shock. (not really) but its disturbing. Uh.... you go into the lion enclosure in a zoo and start waving at the lions; what do you think would happen? Of course those people were going to get upset, wouldn't you if some stranger showed up and purposely insulted you? And before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, both sides were wrong - in my opinion. These guys purposely went in with the full intent of insulting strangers for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. They got exactly what they asked for. They acted like jerks and got treated as they deserved. The locals were wrong too; they should have just ignored the fools instead of taking the bait. From the book of Dave... Anyway there is a difference though to this situation. Even though the dudes were being "jerks" they just had writing on there car. It was not that bad but the other side even if these were "real" opinions on what they thought and they put it on there car. Should they be shot at? Rocks thrown at them just over something they disagree with. Now lets look at thiis on a whole new level, lets say they were going just through Alabama because they had to is it fair to have there rights turned to violence? They should of ignored them but they didn't and that is were the problem lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Exactly, and thank you for making the point Ramen. Yes, Jeremy Clarkson and his mates were consciously pulling a stupid stunt with the explicit intention of stirring up trouble, so it's not surprising they got trouble. However, that in no way excuses the physically violent overreaction on the part of those who went after them. It's one thing to be an asshat. It's quite another to respond with physical violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 From the book of Dave... There's no need for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Exactly, and thank you for making the point Ramen. Yes, Jeremy Clarkson and his mates were consciously pulling a stupid stunt with the explicit intention of stirring up trouble, so it's not surprising they got trouble. However, that in no way excuses the physically violent overreaction on the part of those who went after them. It's one thing to be an asshat. It's quite another to respond with physical violence. Uh.... that was their goal.... to provoke a violent response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trancelation Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dave, I often wonder if you are the type of person whom, upon discovering that a woman that has been raped was wearing revealing clothing at the time, feels that she deserved it because she was wearing revealing clothing. I should hope not, but your responses on this thread indicate otherwise. I don't think the reactions of people in this video had anything to do with the stickers on the car, but rather the cameras. Stupid people tend to be more stupid in front of cameras. Ever seen 'Jesus Camp? Hows about 'Hell House'? If you have, you'll no doubt remember the foolish words and actions of those being filmed. Perhaps they are not always that bad; I'd be willing to bet money that they are not, but because of the presnce of cameras, had to act up just a little bit more to show the world how serious they are about 'dey luv 4 da Lord write dur now'. I think the same thing applies here. Plenty of people have offensive bumper stickers on their cars, and get no harassment for it. But put people of an opposing viewpoint in front of cameras, and BOOM, you've got a recipe for disaster. Plenty of people are intentionally assholes, and get no flack for it until someone sees a camera and gets the idea that they have to act up for it. But two wrongs do not make a right. You know that, I know that, and everyone posting here knows that. You've had nothing but criticism for the people with the stickers on their car, even though there is no law against having a sticker on your car, while you've said nothing against the people who responded with violence. And the last time I checked, violence is a no-no. Do you suppose it's any wonder that people are taking offense to what you say when you consider the above? Or do you simply feel that only some things are worth saying (i.e., the folks from the show deserved what they got), while others are not (i.e., the folks who responded with violence were wrong)? I don't know your thoughts, Dave. I can only glean aspects of your personality from your words. And from what I've read so far, on this thread and others, I should avoid wearing revealing clothing. Even if I am a guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dave, I often wonder if you are the type of person whom, upon discovering that a woman that has been raped was wearing revealing clothing at the time.... Are insults all you people have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trancelation Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dave, I often wonder if you are the type of person whom, upon discovering that a woman that has been raped was wearing revealing clothing at the time.... Are insults all you people have? No insult intended, Dave. But you do deserve one, because you're acting like a fundy here, i.e, cutting and pasting only one part of a post and blissfully ignoring the rest. I was actually attempting to be tactful. Reading your posts, this is the feeling I get from you. I can see now that attempting to communicate with you will only result in aggravation. So as of now, yes, I have every intention to be insultful towards you and your philosophy of Davism. Just be aware that you brought it on yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dave, I often wonder if you are the type of person whom, upon discovering that a woman that has been raped was wearing revealing clothing at the time.... Are insults all you people have? No insult intended, Dave. But you do deserve one, because you're acting like a fundy here, I usually stop reading at the first insult, this time I wanted to give you a chance and read further, and what to my surprise, another insult. Your first WAS meant as an insult, an insulting strawman argument. Then you come up with another insult by claiming that I'm acting like a fundy. I can only assume that anyone that disagrees with you MUST be a fundy. I have insulted no one here, nor have I acted like a fundy. All I've done is give my opinion, that you do not have to agree with, that those guys, ON BOTH SIDES, were acting like jerks. Is that so horrible a thing to say that you have to turn into a rock thrower yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trancelation Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dave, I often wonder if you are the type of person whom, upon discovering that a woman that has been raped was wearing revealing clothing at the time.... Are insults all you people have? No insult intended, Dave. But you do deserve one, because you're acting like a fundy here, I usually stop reading at the first insult, this time I wanted to give you a chance and read further, and what to my surprise, another insult. Your first WAS meant as an insult, an insulting strawman argument. Then you come up with another insult by claiming that I'm acting like a fundy. I can only assume that anyone that disagrees with you MUST be a fundy. I have insulted no one here, nor have I acted like a fundy. All I've done is give my opinion, that you do not have to agree with, that those guys, ON BOTH SIDES, were acting like jerks. Is that so horrible a thing to say that you have to turn into a rock thrower yourself? 1. I never said that everyone that disagrees with me is a fundy. A fundy, in this case, is a person that takes the Bible literally, and behaves thus. You did this: when you cut and pasted only one part of my initial response to you, ignoring the rest, you behaved like a fundy. Do you disagree that fundies do that kind of thing? Or do fundies always read the entirety of non-believers' arguments and respond to each part of it? I didn't think so. But in any case, you're not a fundy because you supposedly disagree with me. You were merely BEHAVING LIKE ONE, and still are, by taking my words out of context. Context is an important tool in the human language. I'm sure you know that. 2. I'm not exactly sure where you said you disagree with me. Nor am I exactly sure where I said that I disagree with you. I agree with you that if you go out of your way to garner negative attention, you should not be surprised when you garner negative attention. 3. But I'm not sure where anyone was surprised that these people (Top Gear) garnered negative attention. Could you point that out for me, Dave? 4. No, Dave, when I said I often wonder if you blame victims, it was not meant as an insult. This is a third way in which you are acting like a fundy, regardless of whether you are a fundy or not: you're beating a dead horse. Your harsh philosophy makes it easy for me to imagine you blaming victims. Blaming victims is not altogether wrong, because sometimes victims DO bring it on themselves. I'm more than willing to bring the tools necessary to beat this horse into pulp if you want to keep pressing the issue. 5. Related to the above, you are not a mind reader. And like a fundy, you are claiming to understand the full motivation and intention of something I said when, in fact, you do not. If you find honesty so insulting, I suggest you find another forum to post on. Folks in these parts have a thing about honesty. And so do I. I honestly can see you blaming rape victims. 6. The previous post is the first time in this entire thread, that I have noticed, that you actually called the "rockthrowers" out on their faulty behavior. This is, by and large, my problem with you in this thread. It seemed to me that you were blaming the victims, but now, lo and behold, you claim that both were at fault. Fine with me. But considering this is the first time that you blamed both sides, it's kinda' difficult for me to have had a notion before now that you were not, in fact, a victim blamer. So sue me. 7. when you act like a victim blamer and a fundy (see above examples), you should not be surprised when you are treated like a victim blamer and a fundy. So there you have it, Dave. No insult was meant in either example you copied and pasted. If you were insulted, I can only shrug my shoulders and tell you to get the fuck over it. That seems to be your method for dealing with life's problems, or at least you advise this behavior to others. I know what I meant when I posted it. I'm sure you did, too, when you posted your seemingly victim-blaming posts. If you're not a victim blamer, great. You still behaved like a fundy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Dave, I often wonder if you are the type of person whom, upon discovering that a woman that has been raped was wearing revealing clothing at the time.... Are insults all you people have? No. It's just all you hear. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts