Magical Sky Pixie, Etc. -- Y'all Know You're Being Deeply Insulting, Right?

The BBQ Pit
281

My standards for religious beliefs is they must include some opinion regarding divine figures, even if that opinion is that such entities do not or may not exist. Political beliefs, to me, are independent of religion. The list I provided was intended to be as comprehensive as possible.

To address your specific list,
[ul][li]Astrology: A form of divination with no standard of ethical guidelines for behaviour or divine figure behind it, thus not a religion.[/li][li]Phrenology: As I understand it, a method of assessing one’s personality, again with no ethical guidelines for behaviour or divine figure behind it, thus not a religion.[/li][li]Satanism: This is a religion with rituals, practices, and a divine figure behind it, thus a religion, thus worthy of at least nominal respect on this board. Also included in “Religions not included in the above.”[/li][li]Scientology with regard to it’s underlying concepts: Worthy of respect in that those who disagree with its underlying concepts should not be called fools, idiots, etc. although pointing out discrepancies in its underlying concepts is fair game (Note that this applies to all religions). In other words, citing L. Ron Hubbard’s “penny a word” quote is fine habitually refering to its divine figures (I don’t know enough about Scientology to be more specific) is out.[/li][/ul]

By the way, you forgot the followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and others.

CJ

282

Neither. What’s important to me is my relationship with God. The Bible is a source of information and inspiration that can help that relationship grow, but, at the end of the day, it’s just a book, and God’s what matters.

You are not qualified to judge who is, or is not, a Christian. Neither is anyone else. My salvational status is between me and God - like everyone else’s. Unless you’re claiming to be the Second Coming of Christ on Earth?

283

Max the Vool, saying that God is “outside the universe” makes as much sense as explaining unicorns as “being on another dimensional plane that can’t be perceived directly.” None of my life’s experiences relates to beings on another dimensional plane. And we know just as much about alternate dimensional planes as we do about what’s outside the universe. Surely it shouldn’t be that hard to believe in unicorns…

I do, however, agree completely with the last two paragraphs of your post. Well said.

MrO, I’m very glad you’ve enjoyed my posts, and while I’m sorry that I haven’t convinced you of my position, I’m pleased that you at least considered it.

I agree that there are situations in which tact and courtesy dictate our actions; when I visit my boyfriend’s family, I’m always careful to learn as much as I can about their customs and traditions, and to adhere to them as closely as I can. It’s an inappropriate venue in which to debate the underpinnings of their faith.

But this debate was never about that; it was about people taking offense at their beliefs being ridiculed in Great Debates. Which is, and should be, an excellent venue for debating the underpinnings of people’s beliefs.

As has been amply demonstrated here, there are no lines, no bourndaries which can be defined between what beliefs are immune to ridicule, and which are fair game. The Christian contingent continues to demonstrate that they don’t care where the line is drawn, as long as their beliefs are not subject to belittlement.

I find the idea of arguing in a forum where all beliefs must be respected equally no matter how ridiculous they may seem to an outside observer singularly unappealing. Likewise, I find it abhorrent to think that only certain beliefs can be derided, and that others would be immune, only because their believers insist on that immunity.

If honest discussion is going to happen in these forums, it needs to be free, with no hard and fast rules about what concepts are sacrosanct. Once we start defining sacred cows, we venture into the territory of partisanship, and that could easily make the forum lose its vitality, the brash intellectual rigorousness that makes it such a unique privilege to participate in.

It’s up to each individual poster to decide what is and what isn’t appropriate to each discussion taking place here. If posters step over the lines drawn by the administration of the board, action is taken, and I have to say I think the rules and the enforcement thereof on this board have work amazingly well. One of the foremost rules in Great Debates is that attacking people is verbatim; attacking arguments is expected. If we disallow certain arguments for certain beliefs, the impartial nature of the forum is violated. Which I believe would be detrimental to the nature of the discussions which take place there.

284

So, why are political beliefs not worthy of the respect that religious beliefs are? Why is it all right for me to be derisive of libertarianism, and not of Christianity?

285

Compare this to:

Bolding is mine in both instances. There is an apparent contradiction here. Please clarify.

I would be surprised if any Wiccans were offended by this statement, since that’s exactly what Kernunos is. :slight_smile:

I do. But then, you already knew that didn’t you? :slight_smile: And yes I do include the following:

Astrology

Phrenology

Satanism

Scientology, with regards to its underlying concepts

Alchemy

Am I stupid for respecting those those beliefs? I don’t believe so, since I just don’t know all the answers yet. I think I have some idea, but I like to keep my options open.

286

The OP makes no specific mention of the GD forum, and Jodi linked in her OP to three examples: two from the Pit, one from MPSIMS, and none from GD.

287

Just a note for those posters, such as clairobscur, who are advocating derision as an effective debate technique. Regardless of which side of a debate I am on, and even when I am neutral, when I see someone using that tactic I pretty much ignore them. Obvious hostility doesn’t convince me that you are right, as much as it shows me that you have a preconceived agenda. Eventually, if I see enough posts in this style, I tend to ignore anything that specific poster says. If you really are right, on any topic, I think a calm and reasoned style is much more likely to convince your audience.

Of course, you may think my opinion here doesn’t mean a thing, since you very rarely see my name in Great Debates. Just keep in mind that there are many of us who may read the forum without posting. Your audience is likely to be a lot wider than the specific person you are addressing.

288

I believe that the question should be whether I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by posting derisive, disparaging comments directed at anyone because of their belief in those things. In any forum. Particularly since that is the issue here, or at least that is what the OP is all about. I am not going to say that I HAVEN’T, although I don’t think I have…we all have bad days. But truthfully, I am fairly sure that even on a bad day I wouldn’t have ever done that…because I BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO DO SO!!! Which I stated earler in the thread. Twice.

Just to be clear; I include here political, faith, ethnic, gender issues, scientific beliefs and any other topic under discussion at any given time.

If a person has shown themself to be a person less than worthy of respect, sometimes I have felt compelled to say so…particularly if the issue that person was being “jerk-like” about was something or someone dear to my heart. If you were (IMHO) BEING a jerk I might call you a jerk, for instance, but while doing so I wouldn’t drag your faith or lack thereof into it. Even if what we were discussing WAS my faith or your atheism. I might think you were a jerk, but if so it wouldn’t be because you are an atheist (for instance)…it would be because I believe you are behaving like a jerk.

And JFYI…I HAVE discussed this issue with people by email…if I felt that a friend was being uncivil to someone else in the way that we are talking about. On ANY topic, not just faith issues, because as I said before, I don’t think it is too much to ask that people show common courtesy no matter WHAT the topic. I would not post something like that…out of courtesy to the person I was talking to about it. I might post to suggest that EVERYONE please calm down and quit using perjorative terms, and in the beginning I I DID do that a few times. BUT I soon learned…in the pit that is a futile thing to do. It appears to me that generally speaking no one wants to RESOLVE anything in the pit, they just want to argue. Or vent. And Punha is correct…I seldom visit the pit, so the chance that I had even seen these threads you speak of is very slim.

If you wish to know if any of the other people you have referred to as hypocrites have done this, you would have to ask them. If any of them are my friends, and I have seen them being derisive of someone’s beliefs, I have already talked to them about it privately and it is none of your business.

I’m certainly not perfect, but I am NOT a lier and I hate hypocrisy just as much as you do. Perhaps more.

Oh and BTW, not that it matters, I am female.

And thanks, iampunha and reprise.

289

MrO:

It’s worth a ton. That’s all I ever asked. Thank you. :slight_smile:

MRVISIBLE –

No, it quite obviously was not. I know you believe your argument has more resonance if that is the issue (or else you wouldn’t continually and willfully misrepresent it), but that was not, in fact, the issue, as any reasonable reading of the OP and every post to date makes clear. Every post to date except all of yours, that is.

290

As impressed as I am at your ability to insist that what you say means only what you interpret it to mean whenever you want to reinterpret it, I have to say that I’m pretty bored of all this, Jodi. Want to call a truce?

I’ll get the Evil Atheist Cabal to stop using the term “Magical Sky Pixie” in any context whatsoever, if you get the Christians to never use religious arguments in opposing homosexual rights. What do you say?

291

I fear that I have come across as overly protective of my own belief system in our debate – in my attempting to illustrate how you could offend my feelings by drawing a parallel to your probable own in regard to your sexuality, you may be seeing an attack where none is intended.

I have no problem with your dismissal of my belief system as superstition in your eyes – or rather, what problem I have with it is one based on my own commitment to Jesus’s precept to evangelize; it’s my obligation to, in one way or another, make every effort I can to cause you to see the faith that I follow as something more than superstition. Any perceived attacks on you as an individual or on your rights to express yourself are piss-poor ways of trying to carry out that obligation, and I regret them.

What I was looking for from you was simply the grasping of the concept that statements I or Jodi would perceive as insulting to our beliefs (not to the deity in which we believe) are sufficiently beyond the pale as personal insults to warrant our requesting you please terminate them, and your courteous acquiescence. I have no problem in your thinking that I believe in a Magical Sky Pixie; the onus is on me to prove to you that what I believe and why is not on a par with such a jejune superstition.

Effectively what I am saying is not that you ought to take the idea that we think there is a God as something so sacrosanct that you cannot debate it, which seems to be the position you are taking, but rather that you ought to have sufficient respect for us as co-debaters with you (pending our saying something bizarre as supposedly factual, à la Wildest Bill or a few other notable past posters) to not use ridicule on statements of our beliefs. The distinction may not be totally clear to you; I am finding it hard to express, though obvious to me, but it is the difference between attack on a poster and attack on his/her ideas, which is a tenet of the Great Debates policy.

It might be incumbent on you, should you care to continue the debate, to read more carefully the sorts of things that Jodi and I have had to say about our belief system. In particular, the only effect of the comments about the Bible in this thread on me have been the refreshing breeze they made as they whished on by me en route to the targets you ought to have aimed them at – because I am far from a Biblical literalist. If I am to take you at your word regarding your own stances, and attempt to understand how they differ from those attributed to you and other gay people by hatemongers, then the least you can do is to reciprocate and show me the same measure of respect.

In those terms, does the line I’m drawing make sense?

292

Polycarp, I understand that completely. It is exactly what I object to in this argument. To me, this is an example of one group of believers attempting to expand the definition of a personal attack to include an attack on religious beliefs held by a person.

Think about it carefully. Think about what the adoption of this bit of etiquette would do to the nature of a forum like Great Debates. It’s a change in the rules, a tilting of the playing field to favor one side, and one side only. Would that then be a worthy venue for your considerable debating skills?

If you’re still not convinced, try this on for size. How would you feel if someone made the same request about, say, political beliefs? No political beliefs that are deeply held by posters can be disparaged, or referred to in disrespectful terms. Would that encourage debate? Or suppress it?

What if there was a group of Democrats (to pick a random political party) which was rigorously enforcing this etiquette throughout the boards? What if they were less stringent with attacks on Republican belief than they might be with attacks on Democratic ideals? Can you see where that might cause a problem? Might unbalance the boards considerably, over time?

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you as a debater and, from what I know of you, as a human being. Which is why I have trouble understanding why you’re arguing for what, to me, seems like a completely unfair exception to the conventions of this board. The whole point of the SDMB is to combat ignorance, by encouraging structured debate of whatever topic comes to hand, with no assumptions left unquestioned, and no sacred cows. You know very well that conventions of etiquette can get in the way of free speech as effectively as legislation can. Why should religious beliefs be exempt from anything, whether it’s scathing critiques, in-depth analysis, or scatological immaturity, that gets thrown at any other set of concepts on these boards? It would certainly make life easier on posters with deeply-held religious beliefs, but would it encourage the sort of honest discussions that take place here now? Would you get a real appraisal of your opponents’ positions, if they were constrained by convention to not voice their real opinions of the basis of your faith?

293

Oh my goodness this thread took off. Jodi asked me a question on page 1 and I’m only just now back to answer it. My apologies if this hasn’t been covered (I’m sure it has!) already, but I wanted to reply while the Boards seemed to be working well and go back and read at my leisure:

ALAITALIA –
quote:

How far should we take our political correctness to ensure we don’t insult anyone?

Jodi: “Do you think this request is an example of “political correctness,” or are you expanding the discussion to “where does it all end”? I ask in all seriousness.”

Yes, the latter is just what I meant. I can understand MSP seems belittling to you, and I don’t have a problem not using it. However, where **do **you draw the line? How am I supposed to know that some phrasing of mine is going to insult someone? I can, however, know if my post is snotty or rude. I think instead of singling out this particular phrase, you should take on the superior, jerkish attitude that sometimes goes with the use of that and other phrases.

Again, my apologies if this has been covered. You may now return to your (probably way off topic at this point) thread.

294

MrVisible what I think you aren’t seeing is that although Jodi made her initial post concerning Christians, I (and many others who have posted in this thread, including Jodi herself) clarified this as being a matter of common courtesy. NOT only a matter of not using derogatory terms toward Christians, but toward ANYONE who doesn’t share your beliefs or views.

There is always more than one way to say things. More than one way to disagree. And I think that if you choose the less insulting ways of disagreeing, people are going to listen TO your views with more respect than if you choose derisive terms to disagree. They STILL might not agree, or even understand your point of view, but at least they will have LISTENED.

295

MRVISIBLE –

After you’ve spent five pages repeatedly and willfully misstating my point? After in the same breath accusing me of “reinterpreting” my position – as if I’m not saying now exactly the same thing I said on Page One, Post One? After you’ve spend five pages defending your right to be offensive, and in the process been extremely offensive, just because you can? After displaying what I consider to be a first-class example of intellectual dishonesty, in the willful misrepresentation of what I said, and what I asked? Now you want a “truce”?

No.

No truce is necessary, anyway. I haven’t gone postal on your ass and I don’t intend to, but neither do I intend to participate in some cyber-version of the civilized handshake, when I find your conduct objectionable in the extreme on a number of levels, and when I frankly wouldn’t shake your hand if you were standing in front of me. You see, when you not only defend but actively exercise your right to be intentionally offensive to others, then you don’t get to act as if you weren’t, in fact, offensive.

I don’t believe in an “Evil Atheist Cabal.” I believe there are believers and unbelievers who deal with all people with fundamental respect and a minimal level of consideration, just because they are fellow human beings. And there are believers and unbelievers who don’t – some out of ignorance, some willfully. I have no ability to make any other person, Christian or not, do anything, or act in any way, they don’t choose to act. I therefore will not allow the words or deeds of Christians who oppose homosexuality to be a justification for your occasional rudeness to me, or to other believers like me, who have never done you any harm or insult.

I will refrain from being overtly and gratuitiously insulting about your beliefs (or lack thereof) because I have a think it’s rude. But do not intepret that respect for your ideas, or for you.

296

Hmmm…I do see your point, Mr. V., quite clearly. Perhaps the problem might be better stated as one of tone. I can recall a few occasions when I perpetrated a horrendous pun based on another user’s posts and his or her sexuality (one that comes to mind is referring to a dispute between Coldfire and, IIRC, Anthracite, as acting out a classic children’s story.:wink: It was intended as lighthearted fun, and taken as such – but in a different context it could have been taken as a major slam on the two participants.

For you to consider my belief in God as an arrant superstition is your privilege, if not precisely on target, since my understanding of how the God in whom I believe interacts with the world He created is one that does not require recourse to the sort of miraculous pharmacopoeia that the typical superstition calls for.

In a discussion, a statement from you that “clear thinking on your (i.e., my or Jodi’s part would require that you purge yourself of childish dependence on the supernatural” would be quite acceptable to either of us; it would be then our task to make clear in what ways our belief either did not “depend on the supernatural” or could be differentiated from “childish dependence.” To say that “all Christians superstitiously believe in a Magical Sky Pixie” is to reduce our beliefs to a level with credulous acceptance of alien abductions or the tooth fairy, and hence an insult, not to the belief structure (which is not sacrosanct from criticism) but to our capacity as fellow debaters. If my thought processes seem to you to be erring, then you have every right to challenge them – but in the same level of respect that you would expect of me.

To revert to the gay issue once again (in hopes of this time making myself clear), if some moron cited Dobson, Falwell, or the clown that runs the AFA as “proof” that you were incapable of moral behavior and intent on destroying American values, I would consider that your own statement refuting the claims made by the hatemongers was sufficient to make clear where you stood. Certainly gobear and Esprix have had occasion to clarify their stances vis-à-vis such jabberwocky in the past.

Likewise, numerous statements have been made attributing beliefs and erroneous concepts to Jodi and I and our co-religionists in this thread. (Kudos to Steve Wright for skewering one such.)

I am not interested in having “sacred cows” here; like you, I consider the whole universe and all therein suitable grist for debate. But I believe that a style that shows respect for someone else’s sacred cows while expressing one’s own opinion that they are fit only for the slaughterhouse is both possible and preferable to a style incorporating ridicule (or, indeed, to one that requires exaggerated respect for another’s cows, to prevent them being gored).

297

Polycarp, do you really think that the nuances of tone in a debate have escaped me completely? I fully understand that the tone of a remark, as well as its context and its phrasing, can change the impact of a statement considerably.

I am completely capable of choosing which tone is appropriate to express my beliefs and feelings on any number of topics. I choose to think that most posters on this board are equally able. Should someone choose an outrageously inappropriate tone, both posters and moderators here will make sure to take appropriate actions.

What I’ve been arguing for in this thread is that I have the right to make decisions about about posting arguments based on my opinions about the topic, and my understanding of context, and my mastery of tone, without being automatically labelled as a jerk if I happen to address a poster’s religious views in a way that is other than respectful.

Jodi’s OP was a marvel of tone; it had tone coming out the wazoo. From the folksy “Y’know, far be it from me to tell people what to post, or where, or how.” to "But it’s not funny to people who believe in God and believe the idea of god deserves a modicum of respect. Heck, some of the more observant Jews posting here won’t even spell God (“G-d”) our of respect. " to "II think that most of the people around here are good-hearted. They are not vicious and not intentionally mean, even about things they don’t believe and even – if we must be brutally honest about it and, hey, why not? – do not respect, so long as they understand that other people do believe and are hurt by overt disrepect to things that are very, very important to them. " That was an excellent way of presenting the message that showing disrespect to a religious belief is vicious and intentionally mean. It’s also an excellent example of the fact that tone cannot make up for a post that’s basically offensive.

Fortunately, I’ve developed the ability to see past tone and into the actual arguments behind them, and Jodi’s OP was, IMHO, stating that if we state our disrespect for religious beliefs, we are either ignorant or mean, and that not respecting religious beliefs is intentionally hurtful. Whatever the tone, that’s not something that I can accede to.

I will continue to argue the points I believe in, in the style which I choose. In most cases, I find that it’s most effective to do so in a fashion which as few people as possible find derisive. But I am unwilling to give up a useful tactic in a battle that means so much to me; there may come a time where derision is called for, and I feel free to use whatever scathing comments I feel are necessary.

When you’re in the middle of a battle, and your enemy tells you not to use the mortar anymore, do you switch to grenades instead? Or do you at least demand that they make a similar concession?

Which brings me back to my truce offer, Jodi… it wasn’t a “let’s shake hands and be friends” kind of Barney thing, it was an attempt at negotiation. We’re never going to agree, but maybe we can come to terms. Seems like a fair trade to me; we give up ridiculing your beliefs, and Christians stop using their beliefs to attack homosexuals. What do you say?

298

Well, call me crazy…but this strikes me as just a wee bit disingenuous. You know full well that Jodi doesn’t speak for all Christians, any more than you speak for all atheists.

And anyway, that’s beside the point. This isn’t a battle in the great war of theist vs. atheist. This is just one individual member of a community (the SDMB) politely asking other individual members to please refrain from engaging in a behavior that she finds personally offensive. It’s really not that complicated.

299

You seem to be undermining yourself here. Because once you allow that saying something “bizarre” opens the door for ridicule, than all bets are off with regards to yourself as well. While you confidently think that your beliefs are rational, in contrast to the bizarre ones of Wildest Bill and a “few other notable past posters”, another person might decide that your beliefs are also bizarre, so why not ridicule you too?

As I understand it, the reason for not ridiculing a person’s deeply held beliefs are rooted in respect for the person, as opposed to the belief itself, as well as in a sort of MAD doctrine - we’ll all get along better if we can treat each other decently. So it really makes no difference if you find the person’s beliefs bizarre or not - disagree as vehemently as you want, but just be decent about it. Your apparent attempt to draw a line with yourself conveniently on the inside does not wash, IMHO.

300

Mr. Visible

I never stated my position on political beliefs because they’re not relevant to this post. As to the terms of the truce, I already use my Christian faith to defend homosexuality and will continue to do so, regardless of my opinion of any one individual.

The bottom line is you apparently feel entitled to ridicule, insult, and deliberately hurt those whose beliefs you disagree with. I believe I’m not entitled to ridicule, insert, or deliberately hurt anyone. Therefore, I’m afraid you and I do not have enough in common to make reasonable conversation possible. As soon as this posts, I’ll be withdrawing my subscription to this thread.

CJ