Except the Star Wars fans haven't been burning furries at the stake for hundreds of years.
Yeah, leave the burning of furries to the 40k universe.
I can’t recall anyone being burned at the stake over religious reasons recently. Maybe you can point me to an an instance where it happened again since the early 1700’s?
It's more metaphorical than literal. But I wouldn't expect religious types to understand that.
I’m as atheist as it gets. I’m just not into hating on others because they believe differently or have different opinions or think others should live by my rules and codes.
Hey, don't impose on other people's god given right to take things literally!!!
If one intends to make a point, a strawman is probably not the best start.
God has nothing to do with it.
I intended to make a joke, which I hoped would be evident from the triple exclamation marks. You calling it an attempt at a strawman and rejecting the joke on that basis is probably the closest to a strawman of the two.
It may not happen in the western world in the modern era, but blasphemy is still punishable by death in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Brunei, and Mauritania. Apostasy is further punishable by death in Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar, Somalia, UAE, and Yemen.
That’s entirely irrelevant. We’re talking about being burned at the stake.
Are you really incapable of understanding that the comment was broadly about people killed in the name of religion, and "burning at the stake" was synechdoche for a larger phenomenon? Or are you just playing dumb to be a troll?
The person responded to me with a specific comment that I responded to specially by staying within the wheelhouse of the topic.
Are you really incapable of understanding that some peope don’t want to deviate from the subject at hand before changing to another?
No, you just completely failed to understand the comment and therefore the subject at hand.
If you don't understand that a specific example or phrase is frequently used as a stand-in for a broader subject, and you can't figure out what the subject is and therefore the meaning of the comment, then you are illiterate.
Or I have ASD. Did you think of that maybe? I responded in kind to the subject I was provided.
A white knight was not necessary here, yet- here you are. Maybe walk away and stop trying to edit the discussions of others?
And in the event you stil think I’m a troll, I’ll go ahead and block you so as to dismiss that idea. Sound good to you?
Sati (suttee), for example? Assuming "at the stake" means immolation for (culturo-)religious reasons rather than literally being tied to a pole and set alight.
Except the Star Wars fans haven't been burning furries at the stake for hundreds of years.
Yeah, leave the burning of furries to the 40k universe.
I can’t recall anyone being burned at the stake over religious reasons recently. Maybe you can point me to an an instance where it happened again since the early 1700’s?
It's more metaphorical than literal. But I wouldn't expect religious types to understand that.
I’m as atheist as it gets. I’m just not into hating on others because they believe differently or have different opinions or think others should live by my rules and codes.
Hey, don't impose on other people's god given right to take things literally!!!
If one intends to make a point, a strawman is probably not the best start.
God has nothing to do with it.
I intended to make a joke, which I hoped would be evident from the triple exclamation marks. You calling it an attempt at a strawman and rejecting the joke on that basis is probably the closest to a strawman of the two.
It may not happen in the western world in the modern era, but blasphemy is still punishable by death in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Brunei, and Mauritania. Apostasy is further punishable by death in Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar, Somalia, UAE, and Yemen.
That’s entirely irrelevant. We’re talking about being burned at the stake.
Are you really incapable of understanding that the comment was broadly about people killed in the name of religion, and "burning at the stake" was synechdoche for a larger phenomenon? Or are you just playing dumb to be a troll?
The person responded to me with a specific comment that I responded to specially by staying within the wheelhouse of the topic.
Are you really incapable of understanding that some peope don’t want to deviate from the subject at hand before changing to another?
No, you just completely failed to understand the comment and therefore the subject at hand.
If you don't understand that a specific example or phrase is frequently used as a stand-in for a broader subject, and you can't figure out what the subject is and therefore the meaning of the comment, then you are illiterate.
Or I have ASD. Did you think of that maybe? I responded in kind to the subject I was provided.
A white knight was not necessary here, yet- here you are. Maybe walk away and stop trying to edit the discussions of others?
And in the event you stil think I’m a troll, I’ll go ahead and block you so as to dismiss that idea. Sound good to you?
Sati (suttee), for example? Assuming "at the stake" means immolation for (culturo-)religious reasons rather than literally being tied to a pole and set alight.