Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
43 online now:
AZPaul3, Captcass, jar, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,595 Year: 16,631/19,786 Month: 756/2,598 Week: 2/251 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Random Discussion:
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7066
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 16 of 31 (851289)
04-22-2019 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stile
04-22-2019 8:26 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Stile writes:

Faith's beliefs, alone, should be respected.

I know that this is the traditional approach but it's really dumb. Faith's beliefs are stupid, superstitious, ignorant and wrong. If she keeps them to herself fine, if she starts pontificating about them they need to be ridiculed not respected.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 8:26 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2019 9:39 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 9:47 AM Tangle has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6550
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 17 of 31 (851296)
04-22-2019 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tangle
04-22-2019 9:15 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
I know that this is the traditional approach but it's really dumb. Faith's beliefs are stupid, superstitious, ignorant and wrong. If she keeps them to herself fine, if she starts pontificating about them they need to be ridiculed not respected.

I strongly agree. I have a friend that thinks all beliefs have equal validity, which is the same as saying all beliefs deserve respect. This is wrong and part of what has caused our society to be in crisis as it is now. Because media has for years treated all sides of a subject as having equal validity, we now have climate deniers in charge of the US government. Because of bothsiderism we now have children dying of easily preventable diseases.
Should the beliefs of pedophiles and white supremacists be respected? Faith believes that homosexuality and atheism are crimes against her god. Does she just believe people she thinks are immoral should go to jail or does their blasphemy deserve the death penalty. Her beliefs deserve no respect. They should be ridiculed and attacked any time she or anyone like her espouses them. Logical conclusion of her beliefs are the torture and death of me, my family and my friends. Fuck her beliefs. I will step on them, fight them and ridicule them any time I can. This is not just a battle for our rights. The battle against religious extremism is a battle for our lives.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2019 9:15 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 10:02 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3838
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 18 of 31 (851297)
04-22-2019 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tangle
04-22-2019 9:15 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Tangle writes:

If she keeps them to herself fine, if she starts pontificating about them they need to be ridiculed not respected.

I don't have a problem with pontification.
And I respect, and defend everyone's ability to pontificate about anything. I think it's important.

Now, if she acts on her beliefs.
Or if she pontificates about acting on her beliefs (inciting others to act.)
...and those actions are negative...
...Then we move onto ridicule and disrespect. Or even judgement and punishment if necessary.

I know that this is the traditional approach...

I wish it were.
And I think I see where you're coming from - it's certainly an ideal that's been tossed around very publicly for a lot of history.
But, in practice, I don't think I've ever heard of any civilization - historical or otherwise - actually incorporating it and using it.

Maybe we should try it?

Faith's beliefs are stupid, superstitious, ignorant and wrong.

And, just to be super-pedantic, I have no issue with such a statement. I defend your ability to pontificate on Faith's beliefs as much as I defend hers.
And I think my previous wording was either incorrect or perhaps just not-very-clear.

Notice the difference - here you are disrespecting the ideas that Faith is discussing.
But the line I picked out from Phat's post was accusing Faith of "falling for" her beliefs - that is, it was disrespecting Faith herself for holding beliefs.

One is a negative idea towards ideas.
The other is a negative idea towards an intelligent being for acting like an intelligent being.

That's the difference I should have focused on more clearly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2019 9:15 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2019 10:32 AM Stile has responded
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2019 10:46 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3838
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 19 of 31 (851298)
04-22-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Theodoric
04-22-2019 9:39 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Theodoric writes:

I have a friend that thinks all beliefs have equal validity, which is the same as saying all beliefs deserve respect.

I agree with your sentiment that this idea is wrong.

This is wrong and part of what has caused our society to be in crisis as it is now.

I think it's a very, insignificantly small part of what has caused our society to be in crisis as it is now.
The larger part is not disrespecting/judging/punishing the negative actions grown from such beliefs.

If we did that, we would not be in this mess.

Because media has for years treated all sides of a subject as having equal validity...

I don't see that. Neither in respected media or extreme media.

...we now have climate deniers in charge of the US government.

Again - you're jumping the gun.
We don't have climate deniers in charge of the US government because the media treated all sides of a subject as having equal validity, we have climate deniers in charge of the US government because we didn't judge/condemn/punish the negative actions of those who believed such ideas.

Again - stop the negative actions and you prevent your crisis.
No need to stop the discussion of ideas.

Should the beliefs of pedophiles and white supremacists be respected?

Discussions on the ideas? Absolutely. How else can you teach it's wrong if you don't respectfully discuss the ideas?
The actions? Absolutely not.

Why can't we do that?

Faith believes that homosexuality and atheism are crimes against her god. Does she just believe people she thinks are immoral should go to jail or does their blasphemy deserve the death penalty. Her beliefs deserve no respect.

Then don't respect them. But you should, still, respect her (as long as she simply holds/discusses such believes.)

They should be ridiculed and attacked any time she or anyone like her espouses them.

Espouses? What's wrong with you?
People need to be able to "espouse" whatever they want, whenever they need to. How else can you teach someone that something is wrong without espousing it?

Of course, I certainly agree that they should be "ridiculed and attacked any time she or anyone" acts or espouses-about-acting on them.

This is not just a battle for our rights. The battle against religious extremism is a battle for our lives.

And so the cycle continues... to go around and around again and again.
Have you never read a history book?
Do you think the things you're saying have never been said or put into practice before?
And things are good, for a bit.
Until people realize the ridiculousness of preventing speech.
Then the speech is lifted again.
Then the problems start again.
Then we get to where-we-are-now-again.

Stop the cycle.
Try something new.
Don't jump back to the beginning again.

Instead of jumping back to the beginning - why not fix the actual problem?

Draw the line where it needs to be - preventing actions.
Enforce such a line.
We will have good times again.
But, it will be a lot harder for people to persuade others to lift regulations put in place that prevent negative actions rather than those put in place to prevent negative speech.

We could give it a try.
Or we could spin the wheel another time, if you prefer. See you again in another 40 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2019 9:39 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2019 10:57 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3838
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 20 of 31 (851301)
04-22-2019 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Thugpreacha
04-22-2019 8:36 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Phat writes:

Once one has solid evidence or facts, there is no belief, correct?

Pretty much.
But I think it should be clarified that the defining characteristic of "belief" is not on the existence of evidence or facts - it's on how the "belief" is held.

That is, if you hold a 'belief' tentatively, and are willing to change it according to the evidence or facts - then it is not a belief. It is a "tentative position."

However, if you hold a 'belief' as something resistant to change. Something you refuse to change regardless of what happens... then it is a belief - regardless of how much evidence or how many facts may also support it/you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-22-2019 8:36 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7066
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 21 of 31 (851303)
04-22-2019 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stile
04-22-2019 9:47 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Stile writes:

And I respect...

...and defend .... everyone's ability to pontificate about anything. I think it's important.

Two different concepts.

Sure defend the right to say stupid things. But as far as I'm concerned there no right - or need - to respect either the words or the person saying them.

Notice the difference - here you are disrespecting the ideas that Faith is discussing.
But the line I picked out from Phat's post was accusing Faith of "falling for" her beliefs - that is, it was disrespecting Faith herself for holding beliefs.

I disagree, the words spoken are not independent of the speaker.
It's not possible to respect the speaker of words you find offensive, dangerous stupid or all three. You might respect his right to say them - whilst holding your nose - but you can't dissociate them from the speaker.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 9:47 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 10:47 AM Tangle has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 22 of 31 (851304)
04-22-2019 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stile
04-22-2019 9:47 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Reminds me of a brief correspondence I had with Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), one of the Floundering Fathers of "creation science" (an actual PhD, BTW, in biochemistry, so a rare bird in the creationism universe).

This was in 1984/5, a few years after the 1981 Arkansas creationism trial (McLean v. Arkansas, Jan 1982). Gish had been on a radio show where he cited a philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, as denouncing Judge Overton's decision for being wrong. I wrote to Gish asking about that statement and he sent me a xeroxed copy of Laudan's article, Science at the Barr—Causes for Concern.

It turned out that Gish had misrepresented that article (Surprise! Surprise!), though apparently by not understanding what it actually said (possibly as an unfortunate side-effect of the practice of quote-mining). Laudan was criticizing Overton's non-scientist ad-hoc definition of what science is while at the same time agreeing with Overton's assessment that "creation science" is not science, even to the point of disagreeing with Overton's statement that "creation science" is not falsifiable.

Laudan's point that made your post remind me of it was Overton's statement that "creation science" is not falsifiable and hence is not scientific. While it is true that religious beliefs are not falsifiable, that is not true of "creation science" when it makes testable assertions about the real world:

quote:
In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests. Unfortunately, the logic of the Opinion's analysis precludes saying any of the above. By arguing that the tenets of Creationism are neither testable nor falsifiable, Judge Overton (like those scientists who similarly charge Creationism with being untestable) deprives science of its strongest argument against Creationism. Indeed, if any doctrine in the history of science has ever been falsified, it is the set of claims associated with "creation-science." Asserting that Creationism makes no empirical claims plays directly, if inadvertently, into the hands of the creationists by immunizing their ideology from empirical confrontation. The correct way to combat Creationism is to confute the empirical claims it does make, not to pretend that it makes no such claims at all.

Furthermore, Laudan demolished a common creationist false argument against evolution that if we don't know how evolution happens (ie, if we don't know the mechanism of evolution) then it cannot have happened:

quote:
Quite how Judge Overton knows that a worldwide flood "cannot" be explained by the laws of science is left opaque; and even if we did not know how to reduce a universal flood to the familiar laws of physics, this requirement is an altogether inappropriate standard for ascertaining whether a claim is scientific. For centuries scientists have recognized a difference between establishing the existence of a phenomenon and explaining that phenomenon in a law-like way. Our ultimate goal, no doubt, is to do both. But to suggest, as the McLean Opinion does repeatedly, that an existence claim (e.g., there was a worldwide flood) is unscientific until we have found the laws on which the alleged phenomenon depends is simply outrageous. Galileo and Newton took themselves to have established the existence of gravitational phenomena, long before anyone was able to give a causal or explanatory account of gravitation. Darwin took himself to have established the existence of natural selection almost a half-century before geneticists were able to lay out the laws of heredity on which natural selection depended. If we took the McLean Opinion criterion seriously, we should have to say that Newton and Darwin were unscientific; and, to take an example from our own time, it would follow that plate tectonics is unscientific because we have not yet identified the laws of physics and chemistry which account for the dynamics of crustal motion.

When I pointed that passage out to Gish, he denied vehemently that it exonerated evolution in any manner, basically arguing that creationism is a special case. Ironically, the xeroxed copy of the article that he himself had sent me included the hand-written notes in the margins. Next to that passage someone had written "mechanism of evolution". Whether that was by Gish's own hand or another's, I do not know.

As this applies to Faith, her religious beliefs are not falsifiable and deserving of all due respect. However, the real-world consequences of her beliefs are open to examination, discussion, criticism, and even censure. And her blatantly false assertions about the real world are even more so open to examination, discussion, criticism, and censure. And her own flagrant failure to adhere to the standards of her own religious beliefs are equally open to examination, discussion, criticism, and censure -- yes, Christians make much of their own fallibility and tendency to "stumble" (opening the door to the theological trap of cheap grace which enables any believer to commit any sin, regardless of how heinous, and get away with it scot-free by asking their god for forgiveness), but what Faith does is just plain ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 9:47 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 10:58 AM dwise1 has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3838
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 23 of 31 (851305)
04-22-2019 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tangle
04-22-2019 10:32 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Tangle writes:

Sure defend the right to say stupid things. But as far as I'm concerned there no right - or need - to respect either the words or the person saying them.

Agreed.

I get the feeling we're talking about the same thing, but using slightly different nuances in our adjectives.

It's not possible to respect the speaker of words you find offensive, dangerous stupid or all three. You might respect his right to say them - whilst holding your nose - but you can't dissociate them from the speaker.

Again, I get the feeling I agree with what your saying, but just not every nit-picky last part of it.
But, I don't feel inclined enough to chase down the nit-picks I don't agree with, so I'm just going to agree with you


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2019 10:32 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 04-22-2019 11:54 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6550
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 24 of 31 (851307)
04-22-2019 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Stile
04-22-2019 10:02 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
The larger part is not disrespecting/judging/punishing the negative actions grown from such beliefs.

And I think the only way to stop the actions is to combat the beliefs.
I don't see that. Neither in respected media or extreme media.

Good for you, but seems to be willful ignorance to me.
http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/...climate-change-debate
We don't have climate deniers in charge of the US government because the media treated all sides of a subject as having equal validity, we have climate deniers in charge of the US government because we didn't judge/condemn/punish the negative actions of those who believed such ideas.

Because the American people were not presented with the data in an objective manner. The evidence was manipulated by media presentation.
Discussions on the ideas? Absolutely. How else can you teach it's wrong if you don't respectfully discuss the ideas?
The actions? Absolutely not.

You are building a strawman. Please debate what I actual wrote not what you want to attack.
I said nothing about discussing the idea. I asked if the beliefs of pedophiles and white supremacists were deserving of respect. Do you think they are?
Then don't respect them. But you should, still, respect her (as long as she simply holds/discusses such believes.)

Disagree. I do not think a person that feels I am not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as they are is deserving of my respect. I have a brother that thinks I should not have the right to vote because I am not a christian. I have no respect for him. I am a firm believer that respect is earned and not freely given and I am a firm believer that words have meaning and power. Words are actions.
Espouses? What's wrong with you?
People need to be able to "espouse" whatever they want, whenever they need to.

What is wrong with you? Do not attack me. If you disagree, disagree without making it personal. You need to step down from your high moral horse. People can espouse whatever they want. Words are actions. When they espouse hate they need to be called out and ridiculed. I in no way stated people should not be able to espouse there beliefs. Just that there are consequences.
Have you never read a history book?

My training is in History, So yes. Are you voicing the meaningless pithy line of those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it? The line actually means nothing.
Until people realize the ridiculousness of preventing speech.

Again with the strawman. People are entitled to say whatever they want. That you make the claim that I think otherwise just shows a lack of understanding or a conscious effort to misrepresent what I actual argued.
Speech is action. Faith should feel free to say what she wants but she and her beliefs are not deserving of respect.

Or we could spin the wheel another time, if you prefer.

Strawman again? I thought you were better than that.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 10:02 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 11:20 AM Theodoric has responded
 Message 27 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2019 11:26 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3838
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 25 of 31 (851309)
04-22-2019 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by dwise1
04-22-2019 10:46 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
dwise1 writes:

As this applies to Faith, her religious beliefs are not falsifiable and deserving of all due respect.

I think the problem I created is with my understanding of "respect."

You see, I do think that Faith's religious beliefs are deserving of all due respect.

I just limit what I see as "all due respect."
That is - allowing Faith to discuss and talk about her beliefs.

What is not included (not an exhaustive list):
-no need to "respect" (in the sense of "accept") claims of fact that she believes in, but one should "respect"-fully go about disagreeing (in the sense that Faith is a person.) No need to use insults and all that sort of thing. Of course, we will all have different lines to draw on how many insults Faith is allowed to have before it's "okay" to insult her back. I expect and enjoy such differences.
-no need to respect any speech about acting negatively toward anyone based on those beliefs (again, this line will be drawn different for each member of Faith's audience - differences should be expected and taken into account.)
-no need to respect any actions about acting negatively toward anyone based on those beliefs (in fact, such things should be directly opposed.)

...but what Faith does is just plain ridiculous.

This cannot be denied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2019 10:46 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2019 11:39 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3838
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 26 of 31 (851313)
04-22-2019 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
04-22-2019 10:57 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Theodoric writes:

Because the American people were not presented with the data in an objective manner. The evidence was manipulated by media presentation.

So why can't the answer be to, actually, "present the data in an objective manner?"

Why must the answer be to silence those who do not present the data in an objective manner?

It's taken some time, but Science was able to break free from the Dark Ages and begin a respected quest for objective truth.
Science did not need to silence their redactors - they just proved them wrong.
Why can the media not do the same?

Granted, Science couldn't silence their redactors - Science was the minority, they would have been slaughtered (and were, in areas.)
And now, it can be argued, that the power to "silence the redactors" does exist.
I just don't see an advantage to using such power. And, in fact, I think there's a disadvantage - one that will be regretted in the future.

I have a brother that thinks I should not have the right to vote because I am not a christian. I have no respect for him. I am a firm believer that respect is earned and not freely given and I am a firm believer that words have meaning and power. Words are actions.

I think we're getting lost on our differing definitions of the word "respect."

I understand you don't respect your brother in the sense that you don't agree with him and feel free to "make him feel bad" with your verbal rebuttals about his choices.

But I would assume that you do, indeed, still "respect your brother" in the sense that you do not think you should kill him. Or, say, break his arm.

With such differences floating around the word of "respect..." perhaps we should stop using the word and elucidate ourselves more directly?

What is wrong with you? Do not attack me. If you disagree, disagree without making it personal.

Ah, I see... so you think that even if I disagree with you... I should still "respect" you and not make it personal?
I absolutely agree with you.

Perhaps we should define this further...

People can espouse whatever they want. Words are actions. When they espouse hate they need to be called out and ridiculed.

I see.

Could we word this, perhaps, as "People can say what they want... but if they act negatively (or speak about actions - inciting violence) then it should be opposed?
Sounds a lot like what I'm talking about.

Are you voicing the meaningless pithy line of those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it? The line actually means nothing.

It can mean nothing in certain contexts.
And be very applicable in others.

Like most simple saying. Don't judge a book by it's cover - except, of course, for when it walks and talks like a duck.

I'm saying that the direction of "opposing beliefs" leads in the direction of silencing opponents, which leads us into a history circle I would prefer not to repeat.
I'm saying that the direction of "opposing negative actions" while "defending/respecting beliefs" leads us into a new area where i would prefer to go.

People are entitled to say whatever they want. That you make the claim that I think otherwise just shows a lack of understanding or a conscious effort to misrepresent what I actual argued.

Good. People need to understand that such entitlement can be followed through on (if done thoughtfully in it's own manner) and received in public with no ill repercussions - but not necessarily agreement.

As for any misunderstandings. I assure you my fervor is more placed on a passion for the subject than it is a personal vendetta.

Speech is action.

Some yes, some no.

I'm saying we should work on identifying a way to tell the difference.

When it is - (and it's negative action) - then go ahead - judge/condemn/punish accordingly. I'll help.
When it's not - then take it for what it is - just speech. Allow it to occur, defend it's existence, and verbally disagree as much as you'd like - but remain non-condemning at this level.

Strawman again? I thought you were better than that.

Depends on the moment.

Sometimes a strawman can be a desired tool.
Especially when you're trying to make beer.

Edited by Stile, : Correcting wee grammatical issues. No meanings altered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2019 10:57 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2019 11:38 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 27 of 31 (851314)
04-22-2019 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
04-22-2019 10:57 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Just trying to inject a humorous thought.

Are you voicing the meaningless pithy line of those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it? The line actually means nothing.

The line that I remember is a tag line in an email:

quote:
Those who do not learn the lessons of science fiction are condemned to live them.

Stew on that one for a while, laddie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2019 10:57 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6550
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 31 (851316)
04-22-2019 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stile
04-22-2019 11:20 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
It seems to me that throughout this rigmarole you have a vastly different definition of respect than what I would call normal usage.
But I would assume that you do, indeed, still "respect your brother" in the sense that you do not think you should kill him. Or, say, break his arm.

Seems completely outside of normal usage.
I do not want to imprison, hurt or mark Faith. I think her beliefs and a lot of the things she says are vile. The deserve to be quickly and repeatedly condemned.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 11:20 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 29 of 31 (851317)
04-22-2019 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stile
04-22-2019 10:58 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
I think the problem I created is with my understanding of "respect."

You see, I do think that Faith's religious beliefs are deserving of all due respect.

I just limit what I see as "all due respect."
That is - allowing Faith to discuss and talk about her beliefs.

What is not included (not an exhaustive list):
-no need to "respect" (in the sense of "accept") claims of fact that she believes in, but one should "respect"-fully go about disagreeing (in the sense that Faith is a person.) No need to use insults and all that sort of thing. Of course, we will all have different lines to draw on how many insults Faith is allowed to have before it's "okay" to insult her back. I expect and enjoy such differences.
-no need to respect any speech about acting negatively toward anyone based on those beliefs (again, this line will be drawn different for each member of Faith's audience - differences should be expected and taken into account.)
-no need to respect any actions about acting negatively toward anyone based on those beliefs (in fact, such things should be directly opposed.)

Yes. well, "with all due respect" is something of a loaded statement, isn't it? If a statement cannot have any respect due to it, then "all due respect" ends up meaning showing that shite deserves absolutely no respect whatsoever. So that's all the respect that such shite deserves.

Personally held religious beliefs must be respected. The consequences of those beliefs must be examined and properly critiqued.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 10:58 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2019 11:50 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7066
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 30 of 31 (851319)
04-22-2019 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by dwise1
04-22-2019 11:39 AM


Re: The Rant That Faith Will Not Like
Faith writes:

Personally held religious beliefs must be respected.

But what does that mean?

I think it means respect the person's right to hold whatever dumb belief they want; not respect the belief itself.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2019 11:39 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019