Surprisingly, no. I might talk about someone’s ACTIONS that are stupid, but I would just as soon tell them to their face. I wouldn’t gossip about someone who got drunk at the company party and caused a scene or other similar things.
I don’t need to raise my self-esteem by belittling others, especially when they are not there to defend themselves. Did I used to do that? yes, many times. Fortunately, I grew up and realized there is no point to that.
What actions? holding a rosary? Boy that sure is a stupid lady!! Holding a rosary, what an idiot!
All I can do with that is shrug. I don’t think outliers have much to offer the rest of us.
I also would say that talking about actions is talking about the person.
I’m curious of what your definition of “outlier” is.
And now that I’m thinking about it, I guess I don’t really talk about actions either. Not if the person is not there. I actually cannot think of something an individual did that I talked about if they weren’t there.
If you were not so caught up in manufacturing outrage, you would realize that the person in question claimed to believe that a rosary could eventually be transmuted, 16th-century alchemy style, into gold through enough prayer - a belief that is ridiculous on the face of it.
This does not, of course, mean that the person in question is an idiot - but the belief that a rosary could somehow be transmuted absolutely is. It is possible to opine that a certain belief held by a person is idiotic without considering that person as a whole to be intellectually bankrupt; a subtlety that is apparently lost on some posters in this thread.
And that would be denigrating a person based on their beliefs. If you wanted to have a conversation about the belief in transmutation as exhibited by some current religions, then that would be a cool conversation to have. Calling out a lady and making fun of her “behind her back” smacks of being just an asshole.
Never talk about a politician? Never talk about anything you hear on the news? Never talk about a driver who cut you off?
I guess you can talk about plants, huh?
And an outlier is someone who is not the norm. If you really just never discuss people, then you are an outlier. The rest of us tend to talk about people all the time, good, bad, and indifferent.
Again, you seem not to understand. There is a stark difference between the following sentences:
“The belief in transmutation (which person X subscribes to) is ridiculous and stupid.”
“Person X is stupid for believing in transmutation.”
Anecdotally, I have a maternal grandmother in her late 80s from a part of Central Europe where antisemitism is unfortunately still rampant and unapologetic. She is a bona fide Holocaust denier, as is her husband, and while I consider her denial of the Holocaust and general ill will towards the Jewish population vile and repugnant, I also understand that it is largely a function of her upbringing in a xenophobic and intensely Catholic rural community and that she is not on the whole vile and repugnant as a person.
So it is with belief in transmutation and heaven-sent rainbows. The belief itself is borders on idiocy, but a believer is not necessarily an idiot by association.
Yes, I know the difference between the two. The original OP seems to me to be of the 2nd variety.
Sorry, but I believe a Holocaust denier IS vile and repugnant as a person. But if I knew your grandmother, I wouldn’t talk about her vile and repugnant personage with other people.
I don’t include public figures in my opinion. But if I had a chance, I would in fact tell them right to their face what I think of them.
I talk about the news, but that doesn’t lend itself to personal attacks on people based on their beliefs
I do talk about drivers who cut me off, but nobody to whom I would talk to, and also myself, know who the driver is. If I did, and that driver was someone I talked to, I would tell him/her right to them. Not gossip about their bad driving when they are not around.
Geez, man, misrepresent much?
It’s more like, “They’re gullible for believing in magical rosaries and communicating with rainbows.” I wouldn’t mock them for it, knowing that I can be gullible about other things. We’re all human, and to mock them for it is mocking them for being human. But if we can’t state the fact that they’re gullible for believing it, what can we say about it?
Who decides what the “norm” is? You? What is the “norm” to you?
And I didn’t say I didn’t talk about people. If that’s how it came across, then I apologize. I don’t say bad things about people “behind their back” I can talk about positive things all day long. You never heard “If you’ve nothing nice to say…”?? really?
My point being: If you had a coworker that believed that, would you mock her with your other coworkers in the break-room when she wasn’t around? Would you laugh at her “behind her back” for being so gullible?
Would you do that for other beliefs? If there was a Christian in your office, would you mock them for their beliefs with other atheists in your office?
Let’s you and him fight.
Well, taking quotes out of context must be a fun hobby for you.
Never mind.
urge to mock manson1972 rising…rising…
I welcome mocking, as long I am there to hear the mocking.
Just substitute “Making fun of her for being gullible” for “mocking”. I’m sure you knew what I meant anyway.
As noted, just human nature. We also talk trash about Trump.
That’s different; you aren’t really making declarations about the physical world, as in the case of someone who believes that metals actually change from tin to gold, on the basis of faith. That a rainbow might appear is not debated by even the harshest materialist/rationalist. Rainbows appear all the time.
There is nothing wrong with you taking it as a sign of divine love, any more than I would be wrong for taking it as just a coincidence. We can politely ignore each other’s beliefs. In the Thomas Jefferson quote, this neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.
I have no grief at all with the kind of faith that gives comfort. Even the skeptic among skeptics, Martin Gardner, held to faith for comfort.
Someone who believes that metals transmute on the grounds of faith is being dangerously foolish. At very least, they’re meat-and-potatoes for the next scam artist that comes along. (“This rosary is guaranteed to triple its value, solely on the basis of God’s miraculous power. And it’s only $39.99 plus shipping!”)
what about people who believe in Transubstantiation? Are they similarly foolish? Would you make fun of them “behind their back”?
One wonders why you choose to ask a question you full well know the answer to - to a rationalist/secularist/etc, transubstantiation is no less inane of a concept than transmutation. They are both magical thinking. Transubstantiation as a belief is not somehow subject to reduced scrutiny because it is the doctrine of the Holy See.
I must also insist that “make fun of them behind their back” is nonsense. It seems that you refuse to divorce yourself from the inane notion that one cannot criticize an idea without simultaneously passing judgment on those that subscribe to it, and until you do so this discussion cannot realistically go anywhere.