The point of the offensiveness is to demonstrate how touchy you people are, not to offend for its own sake. If you could let it go, and think “I know who she’s referring to, I choose to show That Name much more respect than a non-believer does, I will turn the other cheek as someone once instructed me,” that would probably squelch Kalhoun’s point more effectively than all your silly carrying-on, and make a better Christian out of you to boot.
No, according to the author of the insult it’s her protest against being oppressed by religionists, and the intent is indeed to offend for its own sake, but thanks for playing.
You just going to let that uncapitalized “someone” pass like that? B-b-b-but I’ve offended your Christian sensibilities to the very quick!!! Blasphemy must be avenged!!!
How about Jeebus?
Golly you mean it’s 100% cross your heart true? Well no shit. Of course it’s complicated. But based on what I’ve seen of non-religious societies, and based on what I’ve seen of religious societies, I have to come to the conclusion that non-religious is better. Yes yes, I know, there were bad non-religious societies, communist russia I’m looking at you. But, and here’s the key, we don’t have to be like them. We could be like one of the good ones. You know, not suppressing other belief systems in favor of power.
It’s the 100% provable thing you’re hung up on. I know lots of people who think we’d be better off without religion. I don’t know anyone who thinks that that’s 100% provable.
Yeah, but is there really a good way of measuring how societies function under or under the absence of religion? To me, non-religious societies might seem more liberal (eg Amsterdam). But then we have to take into account what kind of charities might not exist without religion (for just one example). It seems to me that more charities are religiously-based than not. Are you really arguing that we can make a definitive statement about societies that are religiously-based and ones that aren’t. Because as much as I’d like to, I’m not sure we can quantify the variables enough to do so.
As much as I can point to all the shit that goes on in the name of religion, I can point to other shit that goes on in the absence of such. And as much as my own personal preferences would like to see America simply do away with the proselytizing, and as much as I think society might profit from such, I’m not sure it’s really as cut and dried as all that.
And Guin, Jeebus is awesome.
Did you read my reply to Fuji? If all you do is casually blaspheme, I take it as read that you do so not out of a desire to offend, but simply because reverence is not as important to you as it is to me. It’s only when you come out and say “Yeah, I did it to upset you. Whatchagonnadoaboudit, tough guy?” that I may consider discussing it further.
Still, if you find it easier to argue against something I didn’t say rather than something I did, who am I to deny you?
I do it in part because I find reverence silly, and primitive, and I’d like you to understand how deeply it disappoints me that people persist in clinging to it.
Oh, yeah: “tough guy.”
Do we have something you’d care to discuss?
I’m not bothered by it. I’m just amused by the verbal (for lack of a better word) gymnastics you’re doing here.
How about manners? I personally have no need whatever to adhere to Hindu food laws, whatever they may be, yet when I was organising a little barbecue for the folks at the office I had a quiet word with Srivatsan about whether I should take care to use separate implements for what he was going to eat. (I didn’t need to, as it happened.) Of course I could have said “Fuck, yeah, such prohibitions are silly and primitive, so fuck him, he’s in our country now and he can take it how it’s handed out or go hungry, I don’t care which”, but, y’know, that would just be crass, wouldn’t it?
But that’s different, obviously, because you’re in possession of the truth and therefore entitled to be deeply disappointed about what people persist in clinging to, and it is so important that they understand your angst that you must be as big a dick as is necessary to ensure they get the message. No?
I’m hung up on the contradiction, if I’m hung up on anything at all - I almost never get hung up on 100%. The willingness to accept this truth, and the unwillingness to accept that for some people, a personal belief in God has as much evidence as this does. Neither is knowable.
I’m sure Kalhoun knows that her chosen protest will alienate some believers and there won’t be any discussion. If she feels the protest is worth those results it’s certainly her right to choose that.
In a way it might weed out the believers too squeamish to have their beliefs aggressively challenged. Some people will feel a lack of respect about certain beliefs means a lack of respect for them personally. I’d rather be honest about what I thought and felt and risk offending some people, and I’d rather deal with people who were that honest. OTOH I’m less tolerant of phony superiority for any reason.
I stopped calling myself a Christian because my beliefs were far from standard Christian beliefs , but also because I felt too much of Christianity is far removed from what Jesus actually taught. Christians can be dam offensive in practicing their chosen faith. Are they intentionally being dicks?
I’ve been discussing beliefs on the SDMB for some time and I think people being utter dicks one way or the other us fairly rare. If a evangelical stops by to testify and pretend it’s an honest discussion they tend to get some sarcasm and ridicule. That might be considered acting like dicks but when you voluntarily post on a public message board , especially in GD, then you should come prepared or bail.
I consider a discussion to be two or more people actually listening to the others opinions and concepts and giving them fair consideration. Given Kalhouns explanation of her protest I don’t find it offensive or dickish. Just a personal choice. We may not agree but she discusses things reasonably and civilly.
For my own education, could you name some of these societies that do very well without religion.
There is a bit of a difference from politeness in dining and a discussion where you can expect to talk to people who strongly disagree with you.
I can’t imagine what societal calamity you could possibly ascribe to the absence of religion, other than, say, people not going to church.
Constipated, Mr Holmes? But it’s not the discussion with the expectation of strong disagreement that irks me - it’s the admitted and deliberate rudeness accompanied by an expectation of not being found rude.
The no-capitalization thing is kind of amusing to me. I get the impulse to be irreverent, given the subject of the debate, of course. But, really…not capitalizing the names of religions? JC and the Boys? This stuff is…well, it’s lame.
Kalhoun makes some really good arguments (I don’t quite get the whole “get rid of religion and the bad stuff will go away, but the good stuff will keep on going” thing, really, but I can see the “what do we need religion for, anyway?” POV.) But I think that debate is one thing, and subversive performance art is something else. Mix the two up, and it takes away from the debate. (And, for that matter, from the art.) If I was going to be annoyed by it, it wouldn’t be because I thought RELIGION wasn’t being taken seriously, it would be because I thought the DEBATE wasn’t being taken seriously.
I don’t get how you equate “intentionally annoying” with “deliberate rudeness”. The concepts are not interchangeable.
And being irked tends to constipate you? How unusual.