Skip to content

Hate comments

April 23, 2010

Hate comments

I do realize that I cannot please everyone with what I write. So occasionally some people think that the best way to deal with what they do not like is to make hateful comment. The worst thing about hateful comments is that they are transparently obvious to anyone who reads them. The best thing about them is that when they are often incredibly funny when you read them.


I do seem to gather an inordinate amount of hate comments. Some are just too vulgar to publish; others contain threats and others are from stalkers. However I have collated some comments that have given me the greatest amusement over the years. These are the comments I turn to whenever I need a good laugh. Just reading them makes me feel more balance than the people who wrote them.


These are genuine comments made by people really don’t like my viewpoint. Yet rather than stipulate what is wrong with what I wrote they go off on tangents using any warped logic they can claw at. Finally all their inner hates, prejudices and bigotries come out like effluent from a broken pipe. I will add to this list as time moves on.

Nb: I have only deleted names from the quote but have left the text and spelling unchanged


Classic Quotes

I love all of these.


Here is a Paranoid Conspiracy Theory that is right up there with Jesuit Ninja Assassins:

The Third Reich had the support of the Catholic Church, so your argument falls flat I’m afraid.”


Moral relativists hate absolute morals a lot:

So you claim there are absolute morals.”


This paranoia of yours can be treated:

“I just thought I would respond on yet another post that I inspired”


So all morality is based on aversion therapy?:

“You say certain values are non-negotiable. True, these would be the values that we, the human race have developed over the past millenia through a process of trial and error. Rape, murder, crimes against the person and against property have existed for centuries and it is the moral turpitude involved in these crimes- namely that there is a victim, and the perpetrator deliberately set out to harm the victim- that determines our aversion to them. Does that make them absolute values? No, because they have not always existed.”


I feel like I am talking to a Member of the Wig Party:

“No Damo what I am saying is that there are values that human beings now view as being “non-negotiable”. But these values were not always in place- they came about over the course of our social evolution. ”


A long bow can stretch a very long way:

Aren’t we talking about morals here? How can we discuss that without venturing into politics and ideas and dare I say it, religion? Besides which, you always bring up the Nazis.”


How to make me laugh out loud (Casting Dispersions” Hehehe):

“You’re doing it again. Casting dispersions on my sanity and logic does not help your argument. You are attempting to belittle my arguments by relegating them to the level of believing two and two equals five? You really can’t do better than that? Seriously?”



How to bore me shitless:

“Need i remind you here that the Bible is littered with passages that condone the rape of women? From this surely we can deduce that the ancient Israelites had no qualms about the rape of non-Israelite women? And it wasn’t that long ago that theologians were debating the human status of women, as in, are they?”


The Grand Inquisitor is now in session:

“I suspected that you were a misogynist beforehand.
Now I know.”


A simple question about the ethics of giving an icepick lobotomy to child, but the answer I got…Wow:

“When do I think it is it okay to poke a pick into the eye of a child?


But at some point in our history, other humans thought it was okay. And that’s why it happened. What we consider unethical and immoral, they had no problem with. ”

Moral relativism strikes a blow for freedumb freedom:
“And that is why your statement “beyond the reach of morality” is problematic. Because our morals change. What one generation deems moral, the next may not. Your statement insinuates that morals have a definite line. They do not.”

Some people call this attitude ruthless:
‘Morals’ aside, we need to look at the cold, hard facts.”


And in just three days you too can be a philosopher:

“Maybe its you who needs the three day course in philosophy?”


Should I really reply to this? The Charm Offensive:

“Damo to xxx: Hello Kettle, my aren’t you looking black today? ”


How to win my over with compliments:

I’m truly and utterly floored by your arrogance.”


How dare I never mention names and get all personally insulting and stuff:

“But is it irrelevant? Mind my manners but it is pretty closely related to hybrid genetic engineering no? And since it came hot on the heels of my post on hybrid stem cell research…well…but of course you never mention names (well almost never) so i have no choice but to let that point go. tracks well covered my friend.” 


Why scientists should have no moral qualms (vox Popoli):

“Damo, as impressed as i am with your bold and underlined question i don’t really think it is all that relevant to the point i have been trying to make. i.e. the fact that people had different morals in the past. So as xxxx so eloquently put it “a scientist would only be operating within the moral confines of the time, not necessarily “above” those morals.

“That was my point also, though it did seem to get muddied somewhat along the way.”

Moral Relativism even confuses itself then tries to evolve:
Is it excusable? No. Not by our standards. But then neither is it excusable for a parent to offer up their child for such an experiment. However, if that was the common moral standard of the day, what did they have to compare themselves to? Don’t mistake my statements as justification for such treatments for it is not.

“It is simply an acknowledgment that the human race is constantly evolving and progressing.”
Hello, someone has been playing with their medication again:

“By the way it is painfully obvious you are now simply attacking me in a vain attempt to conceal the fact that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.”

I am still scratching my head about this comment:
I look forward to your next amusingly cryptic yet utterly transparent “revenge” post.” 


How not to present evidence:

I’m going to assume this post is a joke and not bother hitting you with the facts that you think us “hateful atheists” are lacking.
But rest assured, they do exist.”


I think we can thank Christoher Hitchens for this irrational bile of Mother Teresa phobia:

And please don’t start on Calcutta. But if you must go there please explain to me how Mother Theresa could use all the money she was given, not to improve conditions in her poor houses but simply expand them so she could glorify in the poverty and misery of the dying. Please explain to me why, when she got sick she used some of that money to fly to the US and get treated by some of the best doctors in the world. Please explain to me how she could say that other people’s suffering made her feel close to God. Please explain to me how she could possibly have said ” the greatest threat to world peace is abortion”.”


This person really does not like Mother Teresa:

“If you can’t explain, I can. She was a fraud. Like so many before her, she was a fraud”


And this is why this same person thinks they are better than Mother Teresa:

I may not have run decrepit houses for the poor, but nor do I claim to be a “saint”, nor have I been falsely venerated by millions. Nor have I accepted millions of dollars from murderous dictators.”



Passive aggressiveness for beginners (note the spelling):

“Thanks, but you can keep your pity or save it for someone who is as stupid as you think I am. Ad Hominum attacks Damo? How very ho hum of you.”

The Value of a Human Life:

“Now, if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go post a picture of a fetus, call it “non-negotiable” and then come back and accuse others of being Dogmatic.” 


Sarcasm : The lowest form of wit:

“Hasn’t your glass house shattered by now?”


Special pleading for beginners:

“When that whole xxxx post exploded you were more than a little nasty, condescending and personal in your comments to me. I seem to remember you calling me a hatemonger and accusing me of “forcing my pro-choice dogma down other people’s throats”. Yet you had no qualms with xxxx and everyone other pro-lifer on that blog forcing their anti-abortion dogma down my throat and anyone else’s who happened across that blog. The more I tried to engage in “reasonable discourse” with you the nastier and more aloof you became.”


After making days of vicious comments at others this person wants sympathy:
“I was still very new to xxxx when all that viscousness went down and was utterly unprepared for it all.”

Now I need to seek permission from this person before I write anything:

“It upset me but I got over it and never planned to address it again, until you posted this article and I just couldn’t believe that anyone as obviously dogmatic as yourself could have the nerve to cast judgement on others.”

Why some people think their insults are justified:
“I left a comment, you responded, it went back and forth a little, big deal, that’s what happens on blogs. I don’t “hate your guts’, I am a little bemused however at how you can attack others so mercilessly but balk when someone does the same to you.”


Well if it is not about you then what is the big problem:

“Do I think this post was about me? No. Did it remind me of the way you treated me? Yes.”


I call this the ‘only good Christian is a dead Christian’ statement:

“Suffice to say that since Christianity frequently strays from its own parameters in its never ending quest to control the lives of people who do not even follow its tenets (ever tried to buy alcohol in Melbourne on Good Friday?), then I don’t see why it should be afforded the allowances it demands.”


I wonder if she has shares in an abortion clinic.

“what I meant was that Christianity, like all religions demands respect and that its followers remain free from persecution. Which would be fine if it didn’t go out of its way to enforce its beliefs onto non-followers, ie the refusal to grant marriage rights to same sex couples and, of course, the issue of abortion.”


I did not even write the post this person was so upset about but for some reason I am guilty of not condemning it:

“The post said that it was only intended to teach the Bible to Christians but then also had passages such as “it is not my intention to provoke any one to anger but merely to teach right from wrong”.”


If every argument fails try a little sanctimony:

“You post articles warning against the dangers of attacking the writer as opposed to the argument but that is precisely what you are doing.”


I wonder why sarcasm is considered the lowest form of wit?

“Oh, oh, if you really want to put me in my place tell me I am going to get AIDS and die a slow painful death. That’s a sure fire argument winner, right there.”

Still trying to win me over with charm I see:
“Oh, boy, how the mighty fall.”


Now here is a piece of logic to hang on your wall:

“The more obscene and vile comments that are posted on there by these kind and loving Christians, the more other people will see Christianity for what it truly is.”

Time to get the straight jacket:

“So far as I can see the actions and intentions of Christianity are out in the open. It wants to deplete women of their rights. It wants to continue the deprivation of rights to gay couples. It wants to rot the minds of children with the garbage of creationism dressed up as “intelligent” design.”


How humourless people view the Jedi Movement

This seemed to be a metaphor about all religion:

“Yep, that’s what I will think to myself next time a Jedi bombs an abortion clinic or pickets the funeral of a soldier or drives an aeroplane into a high rise building or protests at a same sex marriage or attempts to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body, whether that woman is Jedi or not.”

Now this just hurts:
“Your attempt is satire is failing.”


How not to act like a biblical scholar:

“in a way I am taking it out of context.”

“Out of the context of the ancient past where it belongs.”

“Oh how I wish I could put it in its rightful context.”


Actually the quotes were supplied by a radical atheist website:
 “Those quotes were from the Catholic Bible. It is the the most reprinted version of the Bible so I thought I would go with that”


A doctor of theology no doubt:

 “that whole “quoting out of context” argument is becoming quite tiresome. But please do tell me, what does “a woman must have a sign of authority on her head” mean when it is quoted “in context”?”


I wonder how they surveyed all the others tribes to find out:

In ancient times the women of Israel were treated far worse than any other tribe at the time.”

…And therefore…:

I cannot respect the Bible.”



I think you were not hiding well enough:

“Oh no the anti-misandrists have found me.”


I call this the ‘glorious utopian future’ statement:

“Note to the Catholic Church: The Dark Ages are over. But really, don’t feel too bad about it. I mean, hey, you’ve had a pretty good run having spent the better part of two thousand years controlling the hearts and minds of the public, what with your twin fail safe methods of guilt and fear. But your day in the sun is over. Time to make way for science and reason”


A brilliant scientist no doubt:

“I’m not surprised the Church opposes it, the more science reveals the reality of our biology and the world around us, the more obsolete religion becomes.”


More to come in the future:


Editorial comment:

Casting Dispersions.” hehehe.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: