I love this! Really. the more I think about it, the more amused I become. You’ve “developed the ability to see past tone” and “into actual argument,” huh? Wowsers. An ability that has apparently eluded everyone else in this thread, right? If only we could all be as perceptive as you! The ability to see past a straight-forward argument to one that does not exist, and in fact was never made, is indeed a rare talent. Whether it is a fortuitious one is, of course, a judgment call.
I say I would not negotiate with you for the price of a small coffee. In my world, one negotiates with people one likes, respects, trusts, or some combination thereof. Beyond that, I also state the obvious, as FERROUS has already done and indeed as I already did in my last post: I am not the spokesperson for all of Christianity and cannot stop others from doing anything, anymore than you are the spokesman for all of atheism and have any ability to command anyone’s actions, other than your own.
pointing out the inherent foolishness of worshipping fictional characters should be considered helpful, not insulting.
the psychotic may feel insulted by the doctor who tells him he is indeed psychotic, but the doctor-- while accepting that his pronouncement is hurtful–should continue nonetheless to impress on the patient that he is delusional.
And if I, as a vegetarian, would point out to you (or to anyone else) as you are eating a hamburger that you are eating dead animal flesh, that an animal had to be MURDERED in order for you to have dinner, why I’d just be doing you a favor. Just spreading the truth, is all. “In truth resides relief”. Nothing obnoxious about any vegetarian doing that, I suppose. They are just trying to be helpful.
So, you don’t mind if I do that to you, every time you plan on taking a bite, do you? I mustn’t ever let you forget for a moment what I think about your personal diet choice.
Can’t respond for Goo Fee, but you would certainly do me a favor by telling me the truth about what I’m about to eat, if you had good reasons to think that I’m unaware of it. For it instance if the burger joint actually sell human meat burger or if I insist that hamburgers actually grow on trees…
Do you really think that religious folk are unaware that the God(s) they believe in are considered “fictional” by some other people? Where do you think the word “faith” comes in?
So, I’ll ask again: If an atheist is merely “doing a favor” by telling (reminding) a religious person that the God they have faith is nonexistant, surely it’s equally favorable for a vegetarian to “remind” all the meat eaters out there that they are, indeed, eating dead animals.
Just trying to be helpful. I’m sure you won’t mind if I remind you as often as I can about the animal flesh you are eating, and how it is killed. Just doing you a big favor.
Not the same thing. I’m perfectly aware that meat is dead animal flesh. Believers, by definition aren’t aware that their god is fictionnal. A correct comparison would be a meat eater stating that meat is actually a vegetable.
Anyway, I won’t expand on this topic, since I don’t intend to support the “I’m doing you a favor” line. I just wanted to point out that your analogy was flawed…
:rolleyes: They are very well aware that their God is considered fictional by other people, but believers have their own personal reason (perhaps a personal experience of a profound nature) to “believe” anyway. They don’t need to be “reminded” and “enlightened” of the fact that other people consider this God to be fictional.
Ah, you say that now. But if a veggie gets into a “crusade” to “help” you be “enlightened”, watch out. The “reminding” may not be so palatable—fresh grilled animal flesh notwithstanding…
Hey, I’m not trying to stop anyone from saying anything. That’s Jodi’s job. Rail at me for being a meat-eater all you want. Have a good time. If you’re convincing enough, you might actually change my ways.
If I don’t let you speak your mind, then I’ll never learn anything.
Strategy and tactics of the world’s most popular game
Worst case scenario: C’mon guy, an absolute banning of the term “Sky Pixie” and its direct substitutes in GD wouldn’t amount to squat. Heck, I hadn’t even seen the term used before this thread and I might guess that neither have you.
Furthermore, Jodi is arguing for a pause before you use that term. And that. Is. All.
Actually, there are examples from the realm of political debate. IIRC, Ex Tank has bristled at the use of the term “gun nut”, even when not directed at a particular poster. I typically abide by his wishes, not (as it happens) out of respect for Mr. Tank (though I hold him in the highest regard) but because insulting rhetoric distracts more than it illuminates. Usually. It’s part of “getting along”.
Evading the use of derision in general and MSP in particular is really quite easy.
MSP is a somewhat peculiar term, in that it insults without actually referring to any person or group. I can’t think of another example of this, outside the present context.
On derision
I think I get it now though. Fundamentalists have hectored you and your friends, claiming that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, yada yada. Now there are many responses to this sort of attack (and it is an attack) but I am sympathetic to your reluctance not to unilaterally disarm yourself of the derision maneuver.
I would respectfully submit however that you might choose a more pointed weapon, one that skewers the Biblical literalists while sparing your religious allies. (As far as the SDMB is considered.) It’s not like fundamentalists are small hard-to-hit targets.
I mostly agree. I therefore use derision only after I have the target’s attention. It should also be used only after one has pretty much given up on reason, conversion or mutual understanding. Hey, it happens.[1]
I hope that I use derision sparingly. I may use it a little too often.
IMHO, Doctor Goo Fee made a decent point. One could use MSP in a gentle, prodding, nonderisive manner.
:smack: Actually, Cecil uses derision all the time; in fact it’s almost obligatory in the first paragraph. But that’s, um, different. ::Flowbark, looking for the exit::
[1] Separately, there is the rhetorical “cold slap in the face”, intended to wake up your friendly adversaries.
(may I make the point that I find the use of ‘babe’ to describe/name someone with whom one is not intimate offensive? thank you)
I am an omnivore. And, if you would care to examine your teeth, you will find that your front teeth resemble those of carnivores, and your rear teeth resemble those of herbivores.
maybe you could consider this information to ne a revelation of a higher truth?
and, yes, I actually prefer that the animals I eat be dead at the time…
Context is everything, m’lady. If we’re talking about the propriety of an omnivorous diet, you’re more than welcome to toss in as many anti-meat cliches as you feel like. If, on the other hand, it’s a thread about cooking techniques or restaurant reviews, you’d be exceedingly rude to weigh in with the meat is murder stuff, just as some turn into jerks every time vegetarianism is mentioned.
The same contextual rules apply to Magical Sky Pixie and Invisible Pink Unicorn. If we’re debating religion, the origins of the universe, etc., such phrases serve certain purposes greater than making fun of believers–they neatly capture the perspective of nonbelievers in a way that non-loaded phrases do not, and they do so in a generic way that avoids the unpleasantness that is likely to result from singling out the DOYC. Nevertheless, MSP and IPU can be inappropriately snide and condescending, and should be avoided in contexts where the existence of the divine is not an inherent part of the topic. But if you wander into threads like “Damn dirty atheists!” or “Jesus, how can Christians believe this stuff?” don’t get all hoity toity when people aggressively question other people’s beliefs.
Flowbark, the worst case scenario is that respect towards religious institutions by everyone, not just believers, comes to be expected throughout the boards.
However much people protest that the whole debate is about that one term, even the OP ventures to suggest that disrespecting religious beliefs is tantamount to a personal attack:
I believe that this would undermine the equality that everyone on this board enjoys, in order to grant one set of beliefs a level of respect that no other belief enjoys. The worst case involves this becoming a board on which people with a certain perspective on religious beliefs aren’t free to state them.
Nobody gets my respect by demanding it.
Jodi’s impressive OP was quite liberal in the implication that disrespecting religion makes one A Bad Person. She wasn’t suggesting a pause; she was saying that if we use disparaging terms for her deity, we’re either ignorant of the offense we’re causing, or we’re being deliberately hurtful. Nowhere did she mention the other possible uses for such remarks, as you detailed later in your post.
The line between derision and disrespect has yet to be drawn clearly; each side of a debate tends to see that one differently. My belief as to what constitutes respectful behavior towards a deity is quite different than most religious people’s, and rightly so. When we let one side decide what’s offensive, we leave ourselves open to the slow erosion of our arguments, until even questioning the beliefs of others becomes taboo. There’s a worst case scenario for you.
I’m going to be really surprised, as I’ve stated before, if I ever use the kind of derisive terms or arguments that I’ve used in this thread in any other context. Here, they seemed necessary; I’m arguing to preserve my ability to argue in an extreme fashion, therefore using that approach to the argument seems appropriate. I have many other approaches for many different contexts. However, I consider the ability to be derisive in the context of a debate to be useful in certain situations, and I believe that giving up that right, submitting to the idea that disrespecting a deity is somehow inherently offensive, would be a grave mistake. So, I’m arguing that point.
I believe that my question to cjhoworth in regards to religious beliefs is valid as long as religion serves as the basis of any political position, party, or platform. Why should religion get immunity from ridicule, if politics do not? Anone want to tackle that question, now that cjhoworth has made his exit?
This has got to be the most disingenous bit of clap-trap I’ve ever witnessed. One of the Universal Truths ™ of this message board (and in real life) is that “preachy” vegetarians are the bane of man’s existance. There is NO WAY I will believe that you would not be heartily offended if a vegetarian started on a “campaign” to “enlighten” you. (For your own good, of course. Because they are doing you a favor.) No way, no how does anyone like this.
But of course, I understand that it is somehow “different” when we are talking about religion. Then, of course, it’s all about “enlightening”. Doesn’t matter what a huge pain in the ass you are in the process.
You absolutely won’t get it. Did I ask you about your teeth, or why you eat meat, or what your dietary habits were? Did I give you even one iota of a hint that I gave a damn at all?
A vegetarian trying to “enlighten” people who eat meat is about as welcome as an atheist who is trying to “enlighten” a person of faith.
Welcome, schmelcome. The question is whether such attempts at “enlightenment” are appropriate in the context in which they are delivered. happyheathen, however, is an utter jackass whose idiotic attempts at enlightenment are nearly always inappropriate.
*The worst case involves this becoming a board on which people with a certain perspective on religious beliefs aren’t free to state them. *
Ya. And that is not. Going to. Happen.
I would argue that it is always possible to express one’s ideas with tact.
Why should religion get immunity from ridicule, if politics do not?
Because people often take their religious beliefs more seriously than their political beliefs.
a) More deeply, because religion thought reflects greater intrinsic uncertainty. Fights don’t occur about whether the sun will rise tomorrow. It’s the ambiguous which leads to heated arguments.
b) [Substantive point, added for balance]: Atheists often appeal to some version of Occam’s razor, explicitly or implicitly. In my casual reading of the philosophical literature, I have yet to find a sharp definition of simplicity.* The point: ambiguity cuts both ways, to some extent. (Yes, I know an answer to this point. I partly agree, FWIW.)
c) Humans, and lab rats for that matter, appear to be more stressed by uncertainty than certain success or even certain doom. Part of our psyche will respond favorably to an explanation which relieves the anxiety of intrinsic ambiguity.
Politics don’t have that pure immunity, as I have shown. But I must grant that they receive relative protection.
The ultimate argument for at least some measure of mutual respect regarding religious belief is that ultimately we must all live with one another, setting aside states of war and other unpleasantness.
Because ridicule ultimately doesn’t have a place in intellectual debate anyway. (Though admittedly it can play a role in fighting ignorance.)
Really. the more I think about it, the more amused I become. You’ve “developed the ability to see past tone” and “into actual argument,” huh? Wowsers. An ability that has apparently eluded everyone else in this thread, right? If only we could all be as perceptive as you! The ability to see past a straight-forward argument to one that does not exist, and in fact was never made, is indeed a rare talent. Whether it is a fortuitious one is, of course, a judgment call.