Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Civility in Discourse: Mudslinging, Rhetoric, and the High Road

1101112131416»

Posts

  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.

    See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.

    Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.

    Despite my real wish for a more civil discourse, it does seem like Absalon is successfully corrupting the discussion. I hope you don't take this as condescending, Absalon, but are you still in high school? Mostly, when I encounter people who claim to feel physical pain when they're around someone noisy, they're very young, very wealthy, or both.

    I should note that it's probably better to admit youth in this case, as there's really no other way to defend an attitude like this and still count yourself a member of society.

    Not condescending at all. I have been aurally sensitive and easily bothered by people who act differently from me my entire life. People who are bad at whispering or people with weird, uncontrollable laughter make me sweat.

    Anyway, I prefer if the other people around the campfire are concerned about the tribe's survival rather than appeasing some deity the existence of which is eternally hypothetical. I can respect religious freedom but I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    @lonelyahava Huh? Now my statements and my character are subject to labels without any specification as to which sentences were so deplorable.

    Absalon on
    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
    Absalon wrote:
    I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.
    Oh Jesus fucking Christ, do you not see how goddamn stupid this is?

    Spoiler:
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Absalon wrote:
    I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.
    Oh Jesus fucking Christ, do you not see how goddamn stupid this is?
    People become religious because people they love were religious when they grew up - all the positive sensations average people associate with home, family and childhood become intertwined with churchgoing, prayer and holidays, as well as family gatherings, feasts and fun. But even this conditioning can be pushed away without harm. It's like learning difficult things - it's frustrating and painful, but possible.

    Absalon on
    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Absalon wrote:
    I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.
    Oh Jesus fucking Christ, do you not see how goddamn stupid this is?
    People become religious because people they love were religious when they grew up - all the positive sensations average people associate with home, family and childhood become intertwined with churchgoing, prayer and holidays, as well as family gatherings, feasts and fun. But even this conditioning can be pushed away without harm. It's like learning difficult things - it's frustrating and painful, but possible.

    Out of many, many problems with your theory here, the most obvious is probably that it assumes every religious person grew up that way. Which is simply not true.

    Out of curiosity, and I truly mean no offense by this, you seem to have a persistent visualization of yourself as a superior, model human being. Is that an accurate description of your mindset? If so, most psychologists would find that troubling.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    I enjoy talking about myself too much, and so I won't respond to any questions about my psychology and self-awareness.

    Claiming humans should act on what is observable in the empirically available world rather than worry about a realm that is by definition always hypothetical does not make me a self-proclaiming ubermensch.

    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Absalon wrote:
    I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.
    Oh Jesus fucking Christ, do you not see how goddamn stupid this is?
    People become religious because people they love were religious when they grew up - all the positive sensations average people associate with home, family and childhood become intertwined with churchgoing, prayer and holidays, as well as family gatherings, feasts and fun. But even this conditioning can be pushed away without harm. It's like learning difficult things - it's frustrating and painful, but possible.

    Yeah, no one converts as an adult...

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Absalon wrote: »
    Claiming humans should act on what is observable in the empirically available world rather than worry about a realm that is by definition always hypothetical does not make me a self-proclaiming ubermensch.

    This sort of does, though.
    Absalon wrote: »
    I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    People who arrive at different conclusions than you have about the world and how we should grapple with the unknown are not lesser people. Your way is not necessarily the best way for everyone, and believing it to be is not a quality trait. It means they're different from you, not weaker or dumber or worthy of less respect and decency.

    Also, considering your earlier comments describing the physical difficulty you have relating to and spending time around people unlike yourself, I'd venture to say you aren't really doing just fine.

    spool32 on
    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    I enjoy talking about myself too much, and so I won't respond to any questions about my psychology and self-awareness.

    Claiming humans should act on what is observable in the empirically available world rather than worry about a realm that is by definition always hypothetical does not make me a self-proclaiming ubermensch.

    Fair enough, though in my defense I should point out that it wasn't your views on religion that prompted my observation. Lots of folks around here believe exactly what you say in that second paragraph, yet I wouldn't suggest the same thing about them.

    I hope I haven't offended you, in any case.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Absalon wrote:
    I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.
    Oh Jesus fucking Christ, do you not see how goddamn stupid this is?
    People become religious because people they love were religious when they grew up - all the positive sensations average people associate with home, family and childhood become intertwined with churchgoing, prayer and holidays, as well as family gatherings, feasts and fun. But even this conditioning can be pushed away without harm. It's like learning difficult things - it's frustrating and painful, but possible.
    Why would they want to be pushed away from their family and friends, if they remain religious? What is the incentive here?

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    I can do just fine without social security, medicare, civil rights, women's sufferage, or welfare. I guess we should get rid of them all because anyone else can do fine too.

  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    I can do just fine without social security, medicare, civil rights, women's sufferage, or welfare. I guess we should get rid of them all because anyone else can do fine too.

    Except those things have impact on your economic and legal situation in life, while religion is a firmly interior, psychological matter.

    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    The dichotomy between internal, psychological matters and external, practical ones is not nearly so clear-cut as you're suggesting.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The dichotomy between internal, psychological matters and external, practical ones is not nearly so clear-cut as you're suggesting.

    Also, people get strength and support from their religious communities. Things like treatment for addiction and sustenance from soup kitchens are also really important, and people support their religious insitutions so that these things can be provided because they believe in their religion.

  • OlorinOlorin Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.

    See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.

    Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.

    Despite my real wish for a more civil discourse, it does seem like Absalon is successfully corrupting the discussion. I hope you don't take this as condescending, Absalon, but are you still in high school? Mostly, when I encounter people who claim to feel physical pain when they're around someone noisy, they're very young, very wealthy, or both.

    I should note that it's probably better to admit youth in this case, as there's really no other way to defend an attitude like this and still count yourself a member of society.

    Not condescending at all. I have been aurally sensitive and easily bothered by people who act differently from me my entire life. People who are bad at whispering or people with weird, uncontrollable laughter make me sweat.

    Anyway, I prefer if the other people around the campfire are concerned about the tribe's survival rather than appeasing some deity the existence of which is eternally hypothetical. I can respect religious freedom but I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    @lonelyahava Huh? Now my statements and my character are subject to labels without any specification as to which sentences were so deplorable.

    Wait, wait, wait. So you go on in here about how you would never ever engage in discussion with someone whose views you find deplorable and would rather mock and ridicule them. But when someone else finds your mindset deplorable you seem to expect them to engage you about it.

    *brain explodes*

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.

    See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.

    Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.

    Despite my real wish for a more civil discourse, it does seem like Absalon is successfully corrupting the discussion. I hope you don't take this as condescending, Absalon, but are you still in high school? Mostly, when I encounter people who claim to feel physical pain when they're around someone noisy, they're very young, very wealthy, or both.

    I should note that it's probably better to admit youth in this case, as there's really no other way to defend an attitude like this and still count yourself a member of society.

    Not condescending at all. I have been aurally sensitive and easily bothered by people who act differently from me my entire life. People who are bad at whispering or people with weird, uncontrollable laughter make me sweat.

    Anyway, I prefer if the other people around the campfire are concerned about the tribe's survival rather than appeasing some deity the existence of which is eternally hypothetical. I can respect religious freedom but I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    @lonelyahava Huh? Now my statements and my character are subject to labels without any specification as to which sentences were so deplorable.

    Wait, wait, wait. So you go on in here about how you would never ever engage in discussion with someone whose views you find deplorable and would rather mock and ridicule them. But when someone else finds your mindset deplorable you seem to expect them to engage you about it.

    *brain explodes*

    IOKIYA, man. :P

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Religion can be useful to people, I know it brought my grandma great peace as she was nearing the end. It's a part of the human mind, here, I'll let the man explain it:



    Now he isn't saying that atheism=religion, that's a bullshit argument. But what he is talking about is the part of the brain that makes humanity look for truth. Religion is bad when it keeps that small minority from accepting the truth about science and leads to their detriment or when religious people try to take control of the secular courts that are needed for a true democracy.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Absalon wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    I can do just fine without social security, medicare, civil rights, women's sufferage, or welfare. I guess we should get rid of them all because anyone else can do fine too.

    Except those things have impact on your economic and legal situation in life, while religion is a firmly interior, psychological matter.
    If religion is used to form community attachments, the connections formed between people in these religious communities enable them to economically support to each other to varying degrees.

    Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'firmly interior' when it comes to psychological matters. Do you not believe these matters have manifestation in the physical world? The way you've framed this seems to suggest the mind and thought as a separate realm outside of material concerns.

    Lucid on
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Olorin wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.

    See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.

    Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.

    Despite my real wish for a more civil discourse, it does seem like Absalon is successfully corrupting the discussion. I hope you don't take this as condescending, Absalon, but are you still in high school? Mostly, when I encounter people who claim to feel physical pain when they're around someone noisy, they're very young, very wealthy, or both.

    I should note that it's probably better to admit youth in this case, as there's really no other way to defend an attitude like this and still count yourself a member of society.

    Not condescending at all. I have been aurally sensitive and easily bothered by people who act differently from me my entire life. People who are bad at whispering or people with weird, uncontrollable laughter make me sweat.

    Anyway, I prefer if the other people around the campfire are concerned about the tribe's survival rather than appeasing some deity the existence of which is eternally hypothetical. I can respect religious freedom but I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    @lonelyahava Huh? Now my statements and my character are subject to labels without any specification as to which sentences were so deplorable.

    Wait, wait, wait. So you go on in here about how you would never ever engage in discussion with someone whose views you find deplorable and would rather mock and ridicule them. But when someone else finds your mindset deplorable you seem to expect them to engage you about it.

    *brain explodes*

    I wanted some precision as to why I was suddenly under suspicion of whatever tendency lonelyahava was applying to me. I can't really respond to contention otherwise.

    I maintain that dismissing anti-secular politicians and their supporters by default is more sensible than dismissing me for stating religious beliefs are different from regular beliefs and also problematic when applied to real-world issues. See religious drugstore owners bawling about contraception. Basing ethics and morals on a realm closed to empiricism is inherently problematic, and makes impossible the sort of rational discourse that is asked of me.
    Lucid wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    I can do just fine without social security, medicare, civil rights, women's sufferage, or welfare. I guess we should get rid of them all because anyone else can do fine too.

    Except those things have impact on your economic and legal situation in life, while religion is a firmly interior, psychological matter.
    If religion is used to form community attachments, the connections formed between people in these religious communities enable them to economically support to each other to varying degrees.

    Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'firmly interior' when it comes to psychological matters. Do you not believe these matters have manifestation in the physical world? The way you've framed this seems to suggest the mind and thought as a separate realm outside of material concerns.

    The religious community's support is often conditional. Past Irish attitudes to women trying to separate from abusive husbands springs to mind. The secular, state-wide community's support is less imposing.


    Absalon on
    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    You previously stated religion had no economic impact. Now you're implying it imposes conditional support.

    Also, could you elaborate on the other questions I've asked regarding your reasoning?

  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Lucid wrote:
    You previously stated religion had no economic impact. Now you're implying it imposes conditional support.

    Also, could you elaborate on the other questions I've asked regarding your reasoning?

    What, kungfuman's supposed analogy?

    OK, I considered religion to not be critical, since one can do without it. Then, he affirmed that his not needing women's suffrage, for example, meant that other's could do without. But he wants suffrage for himself, on grounds of being human. And he might also do without civil rights, what with him being white.

    People can do just fine, personally and psychologically, without religion. That is what I was talking about. If support from family and community hinges on their religious affiliation, then I am sorry their family and community is so shitty. Of course, that is one of the reasons I am very fond of government, since it allows people to escape conditional, tribal safety nets.

    It's kind of silly of skfm to skip the whole part about these rights being extended because they are considered basic human freedoms by now. What I was talking about was need - human's obviously don't need religious beliefs. Religious freedom is a right, but I don't take the personal importance of it for granted and I don't think it is uncivil to consider religious thinking and reasoning to be different, and impossible to subject to the same scrutiny non-religious thinking and reasoning can be subjected to.
    People can do just fine, personally and psychologically, without religion.

    The entirety of your argument depends on this one statement, and it is simply not true for some people at some times.

    Never said it was true for everyone, all the time. But it is not an unavoidable aspect of human life, and I personally think it is mostly passed down as tradition from parent to child, and becomes psychologically important that way. Religions don't obtain adherents from any "merit" as attractive systems of morality, ethics, metaphysics, culture and interpersonal exploration/conscience.

    Absalon on
    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    People can do just fine, personally and psychologically, without religion.

    The entirety of your argument depends on this one statement, and it is simply not true for some people at some times.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Absalon wrote: »
    Lucid wrote:
    You previously stated religion had no economic impact. Now you're implying it imposes conditional support.

    Also, could you elaborate on the other questions I've asked regarding your reasoning?

    What, kungfuman's supposed analogy?

    No, this;
    Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'firmly interior' when it comes to psychological matters. Do you not believe these matters have manifestation in the physical world? The way you've framed this seems to suggest the mind and thought as a separate realm outside of material concerns.

    Absalon wrote:
    People can do just fine, personally and psychologically, without religion. That is what I was talking about. If support from family and community hinges on their religious affiliation, then I am sorry their family and community is so shitty. Of course, that is one of the reasons I am very fond of government, since it allows people to escape conditional, tribal safety nets.
    I'm fairly certain the people involved in their community don't see it as 'shitty'. People apparently can do just fine with religion in terms of community, so I'm not sure what your argument even is here.

    Lucid on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    What I was talking about was need - human's obviously don't need religious beliefs. Religious freedom is a right, but I don't take the personal importance of it for granted and I don't think it is uncivil to consider religious thinking and reasoning to be different, and impossible to subject to the same scrutiny non-religious thinking and reasoning can be subjected to.

    I'm going to have to dispute that, most if not all rational beliefs are just as fundamentally unfounded.

  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Lucid wrote:
    No, this;Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'firmly interior' when it comes to psychological matters. Do you not believe these matters have manifestation in the physical world? The way you've framed this seems to suggest the mind and thought as a separate realm outside of material concerns.

    Firmly interior and personal in the sense that while religion can certainly be important if you need to stay with one affiliation to retain real-world social and economical support from a community, then there are implications, but if a person can do fine mentally and psychologically without religion, like me, then people can do just fine without it. If you are on some sort of dole that is conditional on your practicing a faith, then yes, there are material concerns.
    I'm fairly certain the people involved in their community don't see it as 'shitty'.

    As long as there is no conflict between their personal desires and pursuit of happiness and their religious community's demands, of course not. They might not think things are so tickety-boo if there is.
    jothki wrote:
    I'm going to have to dispute that, most if not all rational beliefs are just as fundamentally unfounded.

    But at least they can be shown to be unfounded by the process of civil discourse. Religions are like ideologies that always have an escape plan out of that sort of scrutiny. This is why I mistrust libertarianism and it's constant recourse to metaphysics or visions of utopias/dystopias that might as well be metaphysical.

    Absalon on
    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Absalon;

    Do you have a point or an argument to discuss here? It seems you aren't professing anything beyond your dislike of religion. Which is fine, but so?

    Lucid on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    jothki wrote:
    I'm going to have to dispute that, most if not all rational beliefs are just as fundamentally unfounded.

    But at least they can be shown to be unfounded by the process of civil discourse. Religions are like ideologies that always have an escape plan out of that sort of scrutiny. This is why I mistrust libertarianism and it's constant recourse to metaphysics or visions of utopias/dystopias that might as well be metaphysical.

    I dunno, I suspect that I'd have better luck convincing an average person that their understanding of religion is flawed than that their understanding of ontology is flawed. We take a lot on faith, and we often don't even realize it.

  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote:
    Absalon;

    Do you have a point or an argument to discuss here? It seems you aren't professing anything beyond your dislike of religion. Which is fine, but so?

    I don't know how we got here either, but don't try to pin this trajectory on me. I will happily abandon all discussion of religion if that's how people feel, and will return there only if it pertains to the matter of discussing things in a civil manner and when this is possible/preferable.

    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • OlorinOlorin Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.

    See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.

    Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.

    Despite my real wish for a more civil discourse, it does seem like Absalon is successfully corrupting the discussion. I hope you don't take this as condescending, Absalon, but are you still in high school? Mostly, when I encounter people who claim to feel physical pain when they're around someone noisy, they're very young, very wealthy, or both.

    I should note that it's probably better to admit youth in this case, as there's really no other way to defend an attitude like this and still count yourself a member of society.

    Not condescending at all. I have been aurally sensitive and easily bothered by people who act differently from me my entire life. People who are bad at whispering or people with weird, uncontrollable laughter make me sweat.

    Anyway, I prefer if the other people around the campfire are concerned about the tribe's survival rather than appeasing some deity the existence of which is eternally hypothetical. I can respect religious freedom but I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    @lonelyahava Huh? Now my statements and my character are subject to labels without any specification as to which sentences were so deplorable.

    Wait, wait, wait. So you go on in here about how you would never ever engage in discussion with someone whose views you find deplorable and would rather mock and ridicule them. But when someone else finds your mindset deplorable you seem to expect them to engage you about it.

    *brain explodes*

    I wanted some precision as to why I was suddenly under suspicion of whatever tendency lonelyahava was applying to me. I can't really respond to contention otherwise.

    I maintain that dismissing anti-secular politicians and their supporters by default is more sensible than dismissing me
    for stating religious beliefs are different from regular beliefs and also problematic when applied to real-world issues. See religious drugstore owners bawling about contraception. Basing ethics and morals on a realm closed to empiricism is inherently problematic, and makes impossible the sort of rational discourse that is asked of me.
    Lucid wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    Absalon wrote: »
    I think it's a shame religion exists. I can do just fine without, and that means anyone can.

    I can do just fine without social security, medicare, civil rights, women's sufferage, or welfare. I guess we should get rid of them all because anyone else can do fine too.

    Except those things have impact on your economic and legal situation in life, while religion is a firmly interior, psychological matter.
    If religion is used to form community attachments, the connections formed between people in these religious communities enable them to economically support to each other to varying degrees.

    Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'firmly interior' when it comes to psychological matters. Do you not believe these matters have manifestation in the physical world? The way you've framed this seems to suggest the mind and thought as a separate realm outside of material concerns.

    The religious community's support is often conditional. Past Irish attitudes to women trying to separate from abusive husbands springs to mind. The secular, state-wide community's support is less imposing.


    So, apparently my reaction flew right over your head. Again, you espouse the mockery and ridicule of those you disagree with, rather than discussion. Then, when confronted with the evidence that others find your views deplorable, you expect them to discuss it with you rather than to ridicule and mock you. Apparently you do not believe that you should be held to your own standard of conduct. I can only conclude, based on a number of your posts, that it is because you believe you are special and above everyone else. At least, that is how it comes off. And it's annoying.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Absalon wrote: »
    Lucid wrote:
    Absalon;

    Do you have a point or an argument to discuss here? It seems you aren't professing anything beyond your dislike of religion. Which is fine, but so?

    I don't know how we got here either, but don't try to pin this trajectory on me. I will happily abandon all discussion of religion if that's how people feel, and will return there only if it pertains to the matter of discussing things in a civil manner and when this is possible/preferable.
    I'm not sure how you got the impression of me pinning something on you out of what I've previously said.

    Absalon wrote:
    I maintain that dismissing anti-secular politicians and their supporters by default is more sensible than dismissing me
    What else can one do but dismiss what you're saying when you refuse to provide sufficient reasoning regarding your perspective on these matters?

    Lucid on
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark Registered User regular
    To tie this tangent back to the thread and to reiterate what I was getting at earlier (although apparantly I was doing a poor job of it), I think the reaction Absalon is getting is a perfect example of how wantonly attacking a religion can unnecessarily alienate people who identify with that religion and might otherwise agree with you.

    Given that there are many people of faith on these boards (and I doubt any of them are rabidly anti-gay, anti-science or anti-women) it seems more productive to criticize the actual arguments/stances that you find disagreeable rather than mock a rather generic set of ideals that have obviously been internalized/rationalized in many different ways by many different people over the years.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    my main point was not something specific that you said, but the manner in which you have been posting/speaking. Your diction and tone in particular, Absalon.

    You come off in posts as smugly superior, arrogant, and abrasive. And while I do enjoy discussing my religion and my beliefs with people of all sorts (I've willingly sat down with the Witnesses and Mormons who have come knocking all the time), any person who came across to me the way you have, would not get any time from me. You come across as being so very right and superior that obviously the rest of people are simple sheeps that just don't understand how right you are. And when they open their minds, they'll soon see that you're perfect and everybody should look at the world like you do. You're not being rude in terms of words, you're not hurling insults that would be censored on television, but your tone is mocking, abrasive, and cruel.

    Now, I could be reading your posts in the wrong manner, lord knows it's difficult enough to tell tone on the internet, but if you were to say the same sentences that you have over and over again here to me in person, well, I very much doubt I'd continue the conversation with you.

    You are technically being a civil debater in the words that you are choosing, but you are mocking people who think and/or feel differently than you, and that kind of attitude does not make for a very open discussion. On my part at least.


    It wasn't necessarily meant as a personal attack on you, just my clumsy way of trying to say "this is somebody's behavior that I would not engage with in a discussion".

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    my main point was not something specific that you said, but the manner in which you have been posting/speaking. Your diction and tone in particular, Absalon.

    You come off in posts as smugly superior, arrogant, and abrasive. And while I do enjoy discussing my religion and my beliefs with people of all sorts (I've willingly sat down with the Witnesses and Mormons who have come knocking all the time), any person who came across to me the way you have, would not get any time from me. You come across as being so very right and superior that obviously the rest of people are simple sheeps that just don't understand how right you are. And when they open their minds, they'll soon see that you're perfect and everybody should look at the world like you do. You're not being rude in terms of words, you're not hurling insults that would be censored on television, but your tone is mocking, abrasive, and cruel.

    Now, I could be reading your posts in the wrong manner, lord knows it's difficult enough to tell tone on the internet, but if you were to say the same sentences that you have over and over again here to me in person, well, I very much doubt I'd continue the conversation with you.

    You are technically being a civil debater in the words that you are choosing, but you are mocking people who think and/or feel differently than you, and that kind of attitude does not make for a very open discussion. On my part at least.


    It wasn't necessarily meant as a personal attack on you, just my clumsy way of trying to say "this is somebody's behavior that I would not engage with in a discussion".

    This a great example of how what is effective rhetorically is not necessarily what is true logically, and vice versa. I teach my students about formal logic and argumentation all the time, but remind them that the rhetorically strongest strategy is not necessarily the logically strongest argument.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Lucid wrote:
    You previously stated religion had no economic impact. Now you're implying it imposes conditional support.

    Also, could you elaborate on the other questions I've asked regarding your reasoning?

    What, kungfuman's supposed analogy?

    OK, I considered religion to not be critical, since one can do without it. Then, he affirmed that his not needing women's suffrage, for example, meant that other's could do without. But he wants suffrage for himself, on grounds of being human. And he might also do without civil rights, what with him being white.

    People can do just fine, personally and psychologically, without religion. That is what I was talking about. If support from family and community hinges on their religious affiliation, then I am sorry their family and community is so shitty. Of course, that is one of the reasons I am very fond of government, since it allows people to escape conditional, tribal safety nets.

    It's kind of silly of skfm to skip the whole part about these rights being extended because they are considered basic human freedoms by now. What I was talking about was need - human's obviously don't need religious beliefs. Religious freedom is a right, but I don't take the personal importance of it for granted and I don't think it is uncivil to consider religious thinking and reasoning to be different, and impossible to subject to the same scrutiny non-religious thinking and reasoning can be subjected to.
    People can do just fine, personally and psychologically, without religion.

    The entirety of your argument depends on this one statement, and it is simply not true for some people at some times.

    Never said it was true for everyone, all the time. But it is not an unavoidable aspect of human life, and I personally think it is mostly passed down as tradition from parent to child, and becomes psychologically important that way. Religions don't obtain adherents from any "merit" as attractive systems of morality, ethics, metaphysics, culture and interpersonal exploration/conscience.

    All I was saying is that you cannot make broad pronouncements of what people need based on nothing but your own experiences. I am not even religious, but I would never dismiss the value of faith like you have in this thread. Did you consider the possibility that other people may have more metaphysical unease than you, and that religion is something they need because the secular answers that work for you do not work for them? Put another way, just because you do not need religion because of your comparative wealth of certainty does not mean that others who are less certain in their beliefs about the world do not need it just as much as someone who is poor needs food.

Sign In or Register to comment.