NationStates Jolt Archive

Already posted an apology :(

Damn those people that respond to comments adressed to others, even if they are the topic starter and have every right ;)

Fair enough. I'd point out that you posted your apology as I post the comment to you. We all get mixed up sometimes. Just recently I went into the wrong bathroom. I blame the constructors of the building though, since on every other part of the building the restrooms are men on the left and then all of the sudden they mirrored it and embarrassed me.

(just to be clear, I am only using this as an example)

say, they didn't want to create any laws or anything, they just wanted to go around town and tell all the gay people that they are bad, and possibly mentally ill.

so basically...fred phelps. This is where law clashes with being a decent person. It is, in a very literal sense, tolerant of homosexuality because he does not seek to end or prohibit homosexuality. It may be other things, but it is, at its core, tolerant. For me to be intollerant of your beliefs I must in some way seek to oppose or limit them.

If you simply wish to scream homosexuality is evil, but don't actually DO anything to oppose homosexuality, you are simply voicing your belief that it is wrong. That is, at a fundamental level, tolerant. It perhaps is highly disrespectful, but it's tolerant of homosexuality, as it does not seek to prohibit homosexuality

depends. Hell is generally thought of as the place people go when they break god's rules. Those who believe that gods rules should be honored, and being gay breaks those rules, would generally try to prohibit such an action.

Everyone breaks the rules. That's kind of the point of Christianity. Remember that little story where Jesus Christ tells everyone who has sinned to drop the stones (he says the opposite but I couldn't get that to flow) and everyone, everyone walks away. What we get from that story is that everyone has sinned and should concern themselves with their own sin. Christ attempted to create a personal relationshp between people and God. He actively told people to stop judging other's sin and to worry about their own.

so basically...fred phelps. This is where law clashes with being a decent person. It is, in a very literal sense, tolerant of homosexuality because he does not seek to end or prohibit homosexuality. It may be other things, but it is, at its core, tolerant. For me to be intollerant of your beliefs I must in some way seek to oppose or limit them.

If you simply wish to scream homosexuality is evil, but don't actually DO anything to oppose homosexuality, you are simply voicing your belief that it is wrong. That is, at a fundamental level, tolerant. It perhaps is highly disrespectful, but it's tolerant of homosexuality, as it does not seek to prohibit homosexuality

that's interesting.

I guess, I can agree with you that some people have been very rude to me, and I was in a bad mood, and in general I don't like to be treated that way, so I think it's not something I voluntarily subject myself to.

so basically...fred phelps. This is where law clashes with being a decent person. It is, in a very literal sense, tolerant of homosexuality because he does not seek to end or prohibit homosexuality. It may be other things, but it is, at its core, tolerant. For me to be intollerant of your beliefs I must in some way seek to oppose or limit them.

If you simply wish to scream homosexuality is evil, but don't actually DO anything to oppose homosexuality, you are simply voicing your belief that it is wrong. That is, at a fundamental level, tolerant. It perhaps is highly disrespectful, but it's tolerant of homosexuality, as it does not seek to prohibit homosexuality

I don't agree. I think it really depends on what it is that is holding you to just speech or even if you really are intending it to stop at speech.

For example, what if that 'tolerant' person would murder all gays if it weren't illegal? What if that 'tolerant' person is hoping to encourage people harrass or even injure gays? I think you oversimplify things.

And I would say that saying "I don't agree with Christianity because of X" is tolerant. Saying "Christians are bunch of fascist nutjobs who wouldn't recognize reason if I shoved it up their bum" is not tolerant.

Limiting yourself to hateful speech isn't really tolerant unless you redefine the word tolerant.

that's interesting.

I guess, I can agree with you that some people have been very rude to me, and I was in a bad mood, and in general I don't like to be treated that way, so I think it's not something I voluntarily subject myself to.

I'm not going to get into your feelings, or the validity thereof, that's for you to determine. It is quite possible for one to be tolerant, and at the same time rude, this is true. I merely point out that to tolerate something only means to allow it to continue unopposed. Someone saying you are wrong may be rude, but if they don't try to STOP you from saying it, it's still tolerant.

Sorry, but if you leave a forum just because people disagree with you, you´re weak.

I'm not going to get into your feelings, or the validity thereof, that's for you to determine. It is quite possible for one to be tolerant, and at the same time rude, this is true. I merely point out that to tolerate something only means to allow it to continue unopposed. Someone saying you are wrong may be rude, but if they don't try to STOP you from saying it, it's still tolerant.

Technically tolerate means to allow to be done with hindrance, prohibition OR CONTRADICTION. And many of the people you cite would actually prohibit or hinder it. In fact, many of their actions are meant specifically to hinder.

so basically...fred phelps. This is where law clashes with being a decent person. It is, in a very literal sense, tolerant of homosexuality because he does not seek to end or prohibit homosexuality. It may be other things, but it is, at its core, tolerant. For me to be intollerant of your beliefs I must in some way seek to oppose or limit them.

If you simply wish to scream homosexuality is evil, but don't actually DO anything to oppose homosexuality, you are simply voicing your belief that it is wrong. That is, at a fundamental level, tolerant. It perhaps is highly disrespectful, but it's tolerant of homosexuality, as it does not seek to prohibit homosexuality

that seems to me to be a very "legal" definition of tolerance.

i disagree.

to be considered minimally tolerant you have to both not want to take legal steps against it AND not scream your dislike of it into the faces of those who dont want to hear it.

its ok to dislike homosexuality, to not understand it, to consider it a sin, to hope to god that your kids dont turn out gay. those are personal beliefs that many people hold.

its not TOLERANT however to disown your gay son, to stand on street corners holding "god hates fags" signs, to tell disgusting gay jokes down at the club or to write a letter to the editor claiming that AIDS is gods punishment for being gay.

to bring it back to religion. its not tolerant to make assumptions about the beliefs, education, motives and sincerity of a religious person and to post rants about how stupid they are for being religious. its tolerant to do what fass and smunkee did long ago--to agree to disagree. its tolerant to attack a specific belief on some rational basis. its tolerant to leave alone those people who are not pushing their religion in your face.

its ok to dislike homosexuality, to not understand it, to consider it a sin, to hope to god that your kids dont turn out gay. those are personal beliefs that many people hold.

its not TOLERANT however to disown your gay son, to stand on street corners holding "god hates fags" signs, to tell disgusting gay jokes down at the club or to write a letter to the editor claiming that AIDS is gods punishment for being gay.

So it's ok to believe something internally, but not voice it externally? Isn't that the very antithesis of free society?

Technically tolerate means to allow to be done with hindrance, prohibition OR CONTRADICTION. And many of the people you cite would actually prohibit or hinder it. In fact, many of their actions are meant specifically to hinder.

well I'm sure fred phelps would LOVE to stop homosexuality, so his example is sorta poor.

It's hard to come up with someone who would say such a thing, but at the same time not actually try to prohibit it.

The best I can come up with, is a lot of what i see here. Many people dislike religion, disagree with it, and would just as soon see it gone, but they wouldn't actually do anything to hinder it in any specific way.

Simply voicing opinion is not hinderance or prohibition.

So it's ok to believe something internally, but not voice it externally? Isn't that the very antithesis of free society?

To voice with the purpose of discourse is different than screaming it in their faces or saying it a manner designed to avoid discourse. "God hates fags" is not expressing an opinion open for debate, it's the start and the end of the conversation and as such is intolerant.

Now, in a free society, we are legally allowed to be intolerant. And Ash is not saying otherwise.

that's interesting.

I guess, I can agree with you that some people have been very rude to me, and I was in a bad mood, and in general I don't like to be treated that way, so I think it's not something I voluntarily subject myself to.

people are rude. some rudenesses are harder to tolerate than others. especially when youre in a bad mood and stressed out some posters just get right under your skin and its a good thing they arent in the room with you because you would just slap their faces.

thats when you know its time to take a little break.

To voice with the purpose of discourse is different than screaming it in their faces or saying it a manner designed to avoid discourse. "God hates fags" is not expressing an opinion open for debate, it's the start and the end of the conversation and as such is intolerant.

intolerant, perhaps, in the sense that it seeks to prevent a response, not for the subject matter of the statement.

I'm not saying it's RIGHT, or proper, or respectful, but that words are simply words, intolerance is based on ones INTENT.

people are rude. some rudenesses are harder to tolerate than others. especially when youre in a bad mood and stressed out some posters just get right under your skin and its a good thing they arent in the room with you because you would just slap their faces.

thats when you know its time to take a little break.

:)

well I'm sure fred phelps would LOVE to stop homosexuality, so his example is sorta poor.

It's hard to come up with someone who would say such a thing, but at the same time not actually try to prohibit it.

The best I can come up with, is a lot of what i see here. Many people dislike religion, disagree with it, and would just as soon see it gone, but they wouldn't actually do anything to hinder it in any specific way.

Simply voicing opinion is not hinderance or prohibition.

Right if you voice your disagreement with the purpose of discussion, that's quite different than voicing it with just the purpose of contradicting it.

I'll give a positive example. I'm intolerant of Sovietstan. I don't necessarily feel that it's necessary to voice that I disagree with him, because almost no one takes the particular views he holds that I'm referencing all that seriously. However, I do feel the need to prevent him from spreading his views, to hinder them and to contradict them. That is not tolerant, and I have no qualms with admitting it.

intolerant, perhaps, in the sense that it seeks to prevent a response, not for the subject matter of the statement.

I'm not saying it's RIGHT, or proper, or respectful, but that words are simply words, intolerance is based on ones INTENT.

Of course, and actions often convey intent and to seperate the two would actually make the law powerless to deal with murder versus manslaughter and for us to act as human beings who weigh intent as well as action.

So it's ok to believe something internally, but not voice it externally? Isn't that the very antithesis of free society?

no no its not.

disallowing the free expression of personal beliefs is the antithesis of a free society.

shutting up about your personal bigotry is the hallmark of a tolerant society.

Of course, and actions often convey intent and to seperate the two would actually make the law powerless to deal with murder versus manslaughter and for us to act as human beings who weigh intent as well as action.

certainly, but then, on that same token, it can not be considered "intolerant" merely to state that I disagree with your choices or opinions, is it?

That is to say, that words, without intent, are simply words. The whole "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" bit? Is the speaker here intollerant because of the part that says "I disapprove" even with the caveat that the object of the disapproval should still be allowed to continue?

No my point was that intolerant secularists stifle debate on these forums. you just further prove that with every post. good job.

It isn't a matter of 'stifling'.

These 'secularists' (as you call them) might or might not acknowledge your little god, so why should your religious 'laws' dictate what they can and cannot do?

As an Atheist, I need a better justification for things than 'someone said', especially when the 'someone' who said it cannot be proved to even exist.

'Secularists' do not 'stifle' the debate - they just don't care what this week's holy-book-du-jour has to say on the subject. Your religion is fine - for you, let it determine your behaviour. Just don't be fooled into thinking it has any impact in the 'real world'.

no no its not.

disallowing the free expression of personal beliefs is the antithesis of a free society.

shutting up about your personal bigotry is the hallmark of a tolerant society.

ahh, but who defines what is bigotry? Which is to say, who defines what is "tolerant" and what is not?

Take a religion that if followed strictly, would strongly prohibit homosexuality. Someone promotes their religion, along with it the belief against homosexuality.

I state that I do not like that belief, because it opposes homosexuality.

Am I intolerant of that religion? Is that religion itself intolerant? Can one who would otherwise be intolerant be considered not intolerant if the object of the intolerance is likewise intolerant?

If i were to protest Fred Phelps would you call this personal bigotry because I oppose his belief that gays are sinners? One could certainly argue that this is, indeed, personal bigotry on my part for being opposed to his views.

Is "certain" kinds of intolerance acceptable and certain kinds not?

*hugs* Smunk. Don't stay away forever.

Some people are so worried that they've made the wrong choices in their lives that they can't deal with people who made other choices. Luckily, I think they're fewer and farther between than they seem (since they tend to be so freakin' loud).

certainly, but then, on that same token, it can not be considered "intolerant" merely to state that I disagree with your choices or opinions, is it?

That is to say, that words, without intent, are simply words. The whole "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" bit? Is the speaker here intollerant because of the part that says "I disapprove" even with the caveat that the object of the disapproval should still be allowed to continue?

Of course it's not intolerant just to disagree, but I said that already, didn't I?

ahh, but who defines what is bigotry? Which is to say, who defines what is "tolerant" and what is not?

Take a religion that if followed strictly, would strongly prohibit homosexuality. Someone promotes their religion, along with it the belief against homosexuality.

I state that I do not like that belief, because it opposes homosexuality.

Am I intolerant of that religion? Is that religion itself intolerant? Can one who would otherwise be intolerant be considered not intolerant if the object of the intolerance is likewise intolerant?

If i were to protest Fred Phelps would you call this personal bigotry because I oppose his belief that gays are sinners? One could certainly argue that this is, indeed, personal bigotry on my part for being opposed to his views.

Is "certain" kinds of intolerance acceptable and certain kinds not?

Using Fred Phelps' as the example, yes, I'd say you were intolerant of Fred Phelps. I am actively intolerant of Fred Phelps and idiots like him. I've never understood what anyone seeks to prove by this "what about tolerance of intolerance argument".

No, a requirement for being a tolerant person is not that we tolerate bigotry. It's an absurd assertion to say otherwise.

I doubt Smunkee is leaving because of one thread. More likely, there are camel's backs and straws at work. And certain posters might have finally gotten too much... an attrition.

I don't always mind losing 'long-standing posters'. I do mind losing those that are reasonable, personable, and more of an asset than a liability. (whether or not I agree with them, is irrelevent).

Though I do find it slightly irritating that I am, apparently, now on people's "shit list" because she suddenly up and decides to leave because the thread I was involved in, while decidedly unprovoking yet heated, was apparently the straw on the camel's back.

ahh, but who defines what is bigotry? Which is to say, who defines what is "tolerant" and what is not?

Take a religion that if followed strictly, would strongly prohibit homosexuality. Someone promotes their religion, along with it the belief against homosexuality.

I state that I do not like that belief, because it opposes homosexuality.

Am I intolerant of that religion? Is that religion itself intolerant? Can one who would otherwise be intolerant be considered not intolerant if the object of the intolerance is likewise intolerant?

If i were to protest Fred Phelps would you call this personal bigotry because I oppose his belief that gays are sinners? One could certainly argue that this is, indeed, personal bigotry on my part for being opposed to his views.

Is "certain" kinds of intolerance acceptable and certain kinds not?

sure.

here is the line

if you are pushing your point of view into the public marketplace of ideas, you are setting yourself up for criticism. its not intolerant to disagree with someone who is making a public statement. (its intolerant to deny the right to a public statement, its intolerant to "flame" those who are making a quiet public statement)

if you are NOT pushing your views on the public stage but are really just living your own life--even if that is as a drag queen (chosen because its so obvious) then anyone protesting against you is intolerant.

so, if fred phelps were only preaching his creepy theology in his own church to his own membership, it would be intolerant to protest him. but if he is at a military funeral with "god hates fags" signs, then he is fair game for anyone who disagrees with him.

Those weak SOBs refuse to show their collective faces here, wisely.

It is very rarely that someone of your stature should leave. You shouldn't because of two idiots (nicely put) that can easily be put on ignore.

And I'm being attacked, as well. Nice.

Though I do find it slightly irritating that I am, apparently, now on people's "shit list" because she suddenly up and decides to leave because the thread I was involved in, while decidedly unprovoking yet heated, was apparently the straw on the camel's back.

I read what you wrote and what she wrote and what UB wrote and chose to respond to you. (And to her privately). I think you made an error that I pointed out in that thread in that you jumped in with UB who was being decidedly agressive and not in the least interested in having a discussion with Smunk. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

I think a lot could be accomplished here if you and Smunk both seperate your discussion from the one that UB was involved in. People who are there to preach rather than discuss are often a disruptor to debate. I think that's what you both experienced there.

I think it's unfortunate that Smunkee went this route, but I can see her frustration. I think the solution, a better solution, would have an attempt to understand one another, but I think you caught right after a barrage by someone else and appeared to jump on the pile.

sure.

here is the line

if you are pushing your point of view into the public marketplace of ideas, you are setting yourself up for criticism. its not intolerant to disagree with someone who is making a public statement. (its intolerant to deny the right to a public statement, its intolerant to "flame" those who are making a quiet public statement)

And praytell what is the difference between criticizing someone for making a public statement and "flaming" those who are making a quiet public statement?

if you are NOT pushing your views on the public stage but are really just living your own life--even if that is as a drag queen (chosen because its so obvious) then anyone protesting against you is intolerant.


So as long as say...the KKK keeps their flag burning on their own property and holds their white power rallies in their own buildings it would be intolerant of me to speak out against them?

All that you've somehow manages to say is, it's ok to be intolerant, as long as the people you are intolerant against hold bad views.

Bad, I suppose, as defined by you.

Technically tolerate means to allow to be done with hindrance, prohibition OR CONTRADICTION. And many of the people you cite would actually prohibit or hinder it. In fact, many of their actions are meant specifically to hinder.

That's the stupidest definition of tolerance that I've ever heard. That is most certainly what some people WANT it to mean, but no...'without hindrance or contradiction'? Please. Any belief you hold is going to hinder or contradict someone else's belief (if you consider contradiction to actually be a form of hindrance) if you in any way voice it.

I'm not preventing you from pushing this definition, I'm not trying to ban it...I'm just not going to give it any respect.

Though I do find it slightly irritating that I am, apparently, now on people's "shit list" because she suddenly up and decides to leave because the thread I was involved in, while decidedly unprovoking yet heated, was apparently the straw on the camel's back.

I can't speak to 'shit lists'. Very few people ever get to the point where I consider them a real liability to debate, and such actions usually have to be chronic and pervasive. If other people are 'pissed' at you for being one of the debators that finally hounded Smunkee out of General... well, you can probably see that you are in a position where it is hard to justify hurt feelings, very much.

Were you the 'real problem'? I can't say - I don't know what Smunk's 'last straw' was - but I suspect you were a facilitator rather than the specific 'attack'. But then - I'd be pissed at the guys that held me while I got a beating, not just the guy hitting me.

Right if you voice your disagreement with the purpose of discussion, that's quite different than voicing it with just the purpose of contradicting it.

I'll give a positive example. I'm intolerant of Sovietstan. I don't necessarily feel that it's necessary to voice that I disagree with him, because almost no one takes the particular views he holds that I'm referencing all that seriously. However, I do feel the need to prevent him from spreading his views, to hinder them and to contradict them. That is not tolerant, and I have no qualms with admitting it.

I would never dream of hindering him from spreading his views.

But I will be there, at every step, to contradict those views.

That's the point of debate, isn't it?

I don't think contradiction can ever be seen as alone, making you intolerant.

shutting up about your personal bigotry is the hallmark of a tolerant society.

I think the 'hallmark' of a tolerant society is actually a lack of social acceptance for bigotry, which leads to people shutting up...because people aren't running around agreeing with them and slapping them on the back for being so clever by using derogatory language etc.

Oh, they can still do it, it's still legal...but it isn't going to get them brownie points.

And praytell what is the difference between criticizing someone for making a public statement and "flaming" those who are making a quiet public statement?

you really cant think of an example?

if i am holding a quite candlelight vigil at the vietnam veterans memorial to protest the war in iraq and a group favoring the war comes along and is noisy, pushy and borderline violent, they are being intolerant. if they have their own quiet candlelight vigil to commemorate those killed by saddam hussein, they are not being intolerant.


So as long as say...the KKK keeps their flag burning on their own property and holds their white power rallies in their own buildings it would be intolerant of me to speak out against them?

if thats all the kkk ever did, yes you would be being intolerant.


All that you've somehow manages to say is, it's ok to be intolerant, as long as the people you are intolerant against hold bad views.

Bad, I suppose, as defined by you.

did you really miss the point? i can say it again but really, it wont be any different from the post you quoted from.

remember we are only talking about intolerance, not right and wrong. not what should be legal or not legal. only about how to tell when you or someone else is being intolerant.

acting against or protesting against people who are doing nothing but living their own lives is intolerant. if they are advocating their ideas in the public marketplace, they are fair game but that can be moved into intolerance by disproportionate response.

I read what you wrote and what she wrote and what UB wrote and chose to respond to you. (And to her privately). I think you made an error that I pointed out in that thread in that you jumped in with UB who was being decidedly agressive and not in the least interested in having a discussion with Smunk. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

I think a lot could be accomplished here if you and Smunk both seperate your discussion from the one that UB was involved in. People who are there to preach rather than discuss are often a disruptor to debate. I think that's what you both experienced there.

I think it's unfortunate that Smunkee went this route, but I can see her frustration. I think the solution, a better solution, would have an attempt to understand one another, but I think you caught right after a barrage by someone else and appeared to jump on the pile.

I'll concede to that. UB was being more aggressive than I was, though I hardly see it to be fair to attack us both just because we were "on the same side", even though our words and intents were clearly different.

When he made a point I agreed with, I quoted him and addressed it. If quoting someone for having a good point makes me in alignment with someone's goals and actions, then I suppose I'm guilty.

I can't speak to 'shit lists'. Very few people ever get to the point where I consider them a real liability to debate, and such actions usually have to be chronic and pervasive. If other people are 'pissed' at you for being one of the debators that finally hounded Smunkee out of General... well, you can probably see that you are in a position where it is hard to justify hurt feelings, very much.

Were you the 'real problem'? I can't say - I don't know what Smunk's 'last straw' was - but I suspect you were a facilitator rather than the specific 'attack'. But then - I'd be pissed at the guys that held me while I got a beating, not just the guy hitting me.

You can speak plenty to 'shit lists' - it was in the thread Smunk linked to.

Even here, people have been attacking me, blaming me, and even one person had the gall to call me weak and make comments on the grounds that I wasn't in this thread responding to any of it.

I wasn't here because for the past few days I was at my mom's house, playing with my younger siblings for most of the weekend.

You can speak on the shit lists if you want, because they're there - word for word, no less.

remember we are only talking about intolerance, not right and wrong. not what should be legal or not legal. only about how to tell when you or someone else is being intolerant.

acting against or protesting against people who are doing nothing but living their own lives is intolerant. if they are advocating their ideas in the public marketplace, they are fair game but that can be moved into intolerance by disproportionate response.
I'm still just not seeing the bright line rule here, despite the above. What exactly is the 'public marketplace'? 'Living your life' is in public for the most part, unless you never leave your home.

Two situations:

1) A transsexual, walking around on the street in full, glorious regalia.
2) A wannabe nazi, walking around the street with swastika's tattooed everywhere.

Both are just 'living their lives'. And yet, both are in public, making a statement. Living your life quite often involves expressing your opinions in some way...not just verbally.

So what's the rule here? Can you oppose either person's beliefs and be tolerant? Or are you automatically intolerant if you voice your opposition in anyway?

That's the stupidest definition of tolerance that I've ever heard. That is most certainly what some people WANT it to mean, but no...'without hindrance or contradiction'? Please. Any belief you hold is going to hinder or contradict someone else's belief (if you consider contradiction to actually be a form of hindrance) if you in any way voice it.

I'm not preventing you from pushing this definition, I'm not trying to ban it...I'm just not going to give it any respect.

Not my definition. It's from the dictionary. I think really the point is found more in the connotation of the word, not the denotation, which I listed.

I think Ash hit on it as the difference between attacking private choices and just being involved in an interactive marketplace of ideas. Even there, we encounter some gray areas like when you indoctrinate your children into views that are questionable (let's say that the holocaust never happened or that we discovered America) even if that indoctrination is only in private fora.

you really cant think of an example?

if i am holding a quite candlelight vigil at the vietnam veterans memorial to protest the war in iraq and a group favoring the war comes along and is noisy, pushy and borderline violent, they are being intolerant. if they have their own quiet candlelight vigil to commemorate those killed by saddam hussein, they are not being intolerant.

So intolerance is not what you say but how you say it? I can be fundamentally, absolutly, completely opposed to every single belief system you have and proclaim this to the public...but it's not intolerant as long as I do it politely?

Forgive me if this makes little sense.


if thats all the kkk ever did, yes you would be being intolerant.

acting against or protesting against people who are doing nothing but living their own lives is intolerant. if they are advocating their ideas in the public marketplace, they are fair game but that can be moved into intolerance by disproportionate response.

Ahh, so the KKK can sit in their burn crosses, and spew forth the most violent rhetoric against all minorities, issue disgusting, ignorant, racist and borderline violent statements, but as long as they do it in their own house I am intolerant if I speak out against them?

So question for you, is it intolerant to call a man a wife beater and tell him to stop beating his wife provided that when he beats the crap out of her he's in their living room with the windows closed?

acting against or protesting against people who are doing nothing but living their own lives is intolerant. if they are advocating their ideas in the public marketplace, they are fair game but that can be moved into intolerance by disproportionate response.

So once again, it's intolerant of me to protest domestic abuse, provided that the domestic abuse occurs where other people can't see it?

THe husband who beats the crap out of his wife is living his own life, provided nobody SEES it?

And this may have already been said at some point but I'd like to put my own spin on it.

There are some people who post on here who will say with s straight face that they're perfectly tolerant and have no problem with individual Christians, even if they dislike the religion as a whole. If that were true, it would be perfectly fine.

But it's not true. There are those who will say rude and malicious things and then pretend to be "only expressing an opinion, it's not a flame." and should you call them out you're shouted down as oversensitive and having no business standing in the kitchen if you can't take the heat yadda yadda yadda. (I'm looking at you, Szanth, bottle, RC, etc)

Now look, I don't care what you think of Christianity. if you think the Bible is useful for nothing but lining birdcages and toilet paper that's fine. If you want to come here and say it, that's fine too. if you want to shout it at every Christian you see posting on here, more power to you... But know that the instant you do, you lose any right to claim the title of "Tolerant."

And no, you can't justify it by going back to all the times some zealot told you that you were going to Hell, or some missionary came to your door. That's petty BS nonsensical CRAP and any adult ought to be able to tell the difference. You come on here with a straight face and call yourselves tolerant out of one side of your mouth and then toss out what could be considered hate speech out of the other and then wail and whine when you get taken to task for it.

As for Smunkeeville, if she's decided she's had enough then that's it. If this were any other forum people would throw out a bunch of smiley emotes and good-byes and that would be it. For those of you who took your parting shot by saying that she shouldn't be in the forums if she can't take a little criticism, why don't you take your virtiolic childish bullshit and ram it where the sun don't shine? You're not fooling anybody.

To call someone's religion a fantasy and a crutch is to insult them. If you haven't figured that out by now then get your ass back to the 5th grade and learn it. That isn't criticism. Criticism is when you politely point out specific issues that you don't agree with and a little detail as to why. People who take offense to your brand of self-validating crap are not weak and they're not oversensitive. They're the ones who understand the concepts of civility, politeness and diplomacy. They're trying to show you. That makes YOU the asshat, not them.

You can speak plenty to 'shit lists' - it was in the thread Smunk linked to.

Even here, people have been attacking me, blaming me, and even one person had the gall to call me weak and make comments on the grounds that I wasn't in this thread responding to any of it.

I wasn't here because for the past few days I was at my mom's house, playing with my younger siblings for most of the weekend.

You can speak on the shit lists if you want, because they're there - word for word, no less.

The reason I say 'I can't speak to shit lists'... that's not really something I do. I don't maintain a 'shit list'. I also didn't get involved in the thread that inspired Smunk's departure, and I haven't been involved in 'shit list' activity in this thread. So - I can't really address that issue.

acting against or protesting against people who are doing nothing but living their own lives is intolerant. if they are advocating their ideas in the public marketplace, they are fair game but that can be moved into intolerance by disproportionate response.

Okay, I'll deal with your edit...

'Fair game' is an interesting term. I still don't understand when someone is 'fair game'.

If I walk around with a shirt saying, "I hate bananas". Am I putting my beliefs out there in the public marketplace? Am I fair game? Or am I just living my life?

I understand the proportionality issue only to a certain extent as well. If indeed you judge me to be putting my beliefs into the public marketplace, and want to oppose my anti-bananaian beliefs, who decides at what point your opposition becomes disproportionate and intolerant?

Can you tell me, 'you know, banana's aren't that bad' and engage me in debate?

Can you run home and put on your 'I love bananas' shirt, and walk alongside me?

Can you get a bunch of your banana loving friends together and walk alongside me?

Assuming that nothing either of us does is illegal...what is 'disproportionate' and thus intolerant?

I think the 'hallmark' of a tolerant society is actually a lack of social acceptance for bigotry, which leads to people shutting up...because people aren't running around agreeing with them and slapping them on the back for being so clever by using derogatory language etc.

Oh, they can still do it, it's still legal...but it isn't going to get them brownie points.

Yeah, I think that's it. I think Ash was trying to say that, but I think you put it a lot better.

I was thinking about this today. I really don't think most bigotries are based on ignorance, and exposure, a lack of social acceptance, and direct and accurate debunking of the views is exactly what it takes to enlighten the individual.

So intolerance is not what you say but how you say it? I can be fundamentally, absolutly, completely opposed to every single belief system you have and proclaim this to the public...but it's not intolerant as long as I do it politely?

Forgive me if this makes little sense.

No argument here.


Ahh, so the KKK can sit in their burn crosses, and spew forth the most violent rhetoric against all minorities, issue disgusting, ignorant, racist and borderline violent statements, but as long as they do it in their own house I am intolerant if I speak out against them?

So question for you, is it intolerant to call a man a wife beater and tell him to stop beating his wife provided that when he beats the crap out of her he's in their living room with the windows closed?



So once again, it's intolerant of me to protest domestic abuse, provided that the domestic abuse occurs where other people can't see it?

THe husband who beats the crap out of his wife is living his own life, provided nobody SEES it?
I think you're confusing "intolerant" with "evil".
Yes you're being intolerant of the wife beater. That's a GOOD thing. You don't want to be tolerant of wife beaters, because then they keep on doing it.

You will honestly be missed. Another couple of the right people go, there'll be little enough reason for me to stay. End of an era, maybe. :(

Shame to see you go. I think you make me a better person.

Don't be afraid to keep in touch. *sniffle*

You can't leave too! Say you won't! =*(

I'll concede to that. UB was being more aggressive than I was, though I hardly see it to be fair to attack us both just because we were "on the same side", even though our words and intents were clearly different.

When he made a point I agreed with, I quoted him and addressed it. If quoting someone for having a good point makes me in alignment with someone's goals and actions, then I suppose I'm guilty.


Well, I think you treated me quite fairly, but having read the thread and generally liking both of you, I did view your participation as a bit on the bandwagon. I'll use GnI as the example, as I often do, since I see him debate more than almost anyone, but he'll actually be in the middle of presenting one side of a case, and then go ahead and point out when someone who is voicing support of him or who he has supported has gone overboard in order to keep his own arguments separate.

I don't think you really would find it strange, were you not involved, that someone lumped two posters together when they are going back and forth with "yeah, and I'd add to that..." and so forth. You're right that UB was doing that more with your arguments than the other way around, but when you see someone you're genuinely trying to have a discussion with getting shouted at using your own posts, you might speak up. It does a world of goo.

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I would like to know exactly what was meant by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12491889&postcount=36) but I am sure it's better left alone.

Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?Smunkeeville, having jocular comments thrown around about posters after they decide to leave general is common practice here - you know that - and it was in no way malicious in your case(what I saw anyway). Some comments about a popular poster like yourself leaving isn't equivalent to interfering in your life or some such.

About the thread you linked, obviously people get frustrated when people refuse to debate in a debate-ey thread. You rarely defend your positions, preffering blunt personal statements. That's fine, it's your style of discussion. But don't be surprised when it frustrates others. It really isn't that personal.

Now look, I don't care what you think of Christianity. if you think the Bible is useful for nothing but lining birdcages and toilet paper that's fine. If you want to come here and say it, that's fine too. if you want to shout it at every Christian you see posting on here, more power to you... But know that the instant you do, you lose any right to claim the title of "Tolerant."
Again, if tolerance means 'you must be polite', then I'm sorry, I can't support such a stinking load of crap definition.

I really, really do not respect religious beliefs. At all. I can attempt to understand them, I can even discuss them, but I simply can not respect something I believe to be a total farce.

I generally am not going to behave like an ass towards someone who holds religious beliefs. However, when someone uses those beliefs (totally not about Smunkee here, I'm generalising) to back up some bigoted view, I will attack that view, full force, with every counter-argument I can come up with.

That's not intolerance. That's debate. I haven't shut them up, I haven't prevented them from expressing their views.

No one needs to accept anything I say without comment simply because I declare it to be a 'belief'. I may choose not to continue a discussion on my beliefs, and perhaps people will go away from that feeling some sort of victory...that's fine. I'm not going to accuse them of being intolerant for that.

And this may have already been said at some point but I'd like to put my own spin on it.

There are some people who post on here who will say with s straight face that they're perfectly tolerant and have no problem with individual Christians, even if they dislike the religion as a whole. If that were true, it would be perfectly fine.

But it's not true. There are those who will say rude and malicious things and then pretend to be "only expressing an opinion, it's not a flame." and should you call them out you're shouted down as oversensitive and having no business standing in the kitchen if you can't take the heat yadda yadda yadda. (I'm looking at you, Szanth, bottle, RC, etc)

Meh, read the last few pages of this thread.

Yes, I have said (and will doubtless continue to say) rude things about superstition. I also say rude things about racism, sexism, homophobia, freshman-lit objectivism, capri pants, and a whole host of other things I find stupid.

However, none of this remotely equates to my being actively intolerant of individuals who happen to be really into any of the above. I have not, nor will I, support harming such individuals, or stripping them of their rights to make what I believe are stupid choices.

If you think any of my comments constitute "flame," feel free to consult your local moderator. In my entire time on NS, I have not received a single formal reprimand for flaming (as far as I know)...but do you really think nobody has accused me? Hmmm.


Now look, I don't care what you think of Christianity. if you think the Bible is useful for nothing but lining birdcages and toilet paper that's fine. If you want to come here and say it, that's fine too. if you want to shout it at every Christian you see posting on here, more power to you... But know that the instant you do, you lose any right to claim the title of "Tolerant."

No, you don't. It is completely possible to tolerate something that you also insult. Ask my kid brother for more info on this. :D


And no, you can't justify it by going back to all the times some zealot told you that you were going to Hell, or some missionary came to your door. That's petty BS nonsensical CRAP and any adult ought to be able to tell the difference. You come on here with a straight face and call yourselves tolerant out of one side of your mouth and then toss out what could be considered hate speech out of the other and then wail and whine when you get taken to task for it.

This is what I was talking about a few pages back. People have so warped and trivialized the word "tolerant" that it's becoming meaningless.

Learn to tell the difference between attacking a person and attacking an idea. Learn to tell the difference between cussing an idea and flaming at an individual. Learn to recognize the difference between heated debate and "hate speech." Because until you do, you are only trivializing the experiences of those who actually ARE the targets of hate speech.


To call someone's religion a fantasy and a crutch is to insult them.

More whining and expecting superstition to be coddled like no other beliefs are.

How about...to call someone's racism a fantasy and a crutch is to insult them? Somehow I don't see anybody arguing for that.

But you want religion to be given special treatment, and afforded protections that other groups don't get.


If you haven't figured that out by now then get your ass back to the 5th grade and learn it. That isn't criticism. Criticism is when you politely point out specific issues that you don't agree with and a little detail as to why. People who take offense to your brand of self-validating crap are not weak and they're not oversensitive. They're the ones who understand the concepts of civility, politeness and diplomacy. They're trying to show you. That makes YOU the asshat, not them.
Okay, how about this, then...

Let's say that somebody actually believes that religion is a fantasy and a crutch. I'd like YOU to provide us with an example of how they could share that opinion in a civil, polite, diplomatic way.

If you can't, then I'd like you to admit that you simply think certain opinions shouldn't be shared around here.

You can't leave too! Say you won't! =*(

I'm already greatly reduced, since everything is just insanely busy. There are a few bright spots that bring me back, time and again - and it looks like we've just lost another.

I've still got a few reasons to haunt NSG, and I've seen most of them in this thread. And, yes - you are one of them.

So intolerance is not what you say but how you say it? I can be fundamentally, absolutly, completely opposed to every single belief system you have and proclaim this to the public...but it's not intolerant as long as I do it politely?

Forgive me if this makes little sense.


its making little sense because you are not responding to what i posted.

if you are fundamentally, absolutely completely opposed to every single belief system i have but SHUT UP ABOUT IT, then yeah, thats the very definition of tolerance.

why did i say "shut up about it"? because if im not proclaiming my beliefs to the world, you have no business commenting on them in public.

if i put out pamphlets about my beliefs and you oppose them and put out your own plamphlets, you are not intolerant. you are just disagreeing with me.

can you really not see the difference?


Ahh, so the KKK can sit in their burn crosses, and spew forth the most violent rhetoric against all minorities, issue disgusting, ignorant, racist and borderline violent statements, but as long as they do it in their own house I am intolerant if I speak out against them?

yup. thats what im saying. if they keep their opinions to themselves, you are intolerant to speak out against them.

are you WRONG? probably not. but thats not what we are talking about.


So question for you, is it intolerant to call a man a wife beater and tell him to stop beating his wife provided that when he beats the crap out of her he's in their living room with the windows closed?

So once again, it's intolerant of me to protest domestic abuse, provided that the domestic abuse occurs where other people can't see it?

THe husband who beats the crap out of his wife is living his own life, provided nobody SEES it?


oops you answered your question for me and then decided that i was a fool for saying it.

crimes are crimes eh? intolerance of criminal behavior is not considered a moral imperative. i think that everyone should be intolerant of wife beating.

You will honestly be missed. Another couple of the right people go, there'll be little enough reason for me to stay. End of an era, maybe. :(

Shame to see you go. I think you make me a better person.

Don't be afraid to keep in touch. *sniffle*

It really is unfortunate that we're losing people like Smunk. What I loved about her was that I don't agree with much of what she has to say and she's pretty willing to discuss it. It feels like we're losing a lot of the opponents or at least the good ones. I rarely see a good solid political debate, so much so that I don't really bother to go to the threads a lot of time. That might be because the current administration has strayed so far into the ridiculous, but it also seems like we really are slowly becoming the liberal bastion we've always been accused of.

Do I think that's because of some bias? Nope. I think it seems like a lot of those who don't agree with some of the more prolific posters around here are simply giving up. It's too bad.

It leaves us resigned to debating petty points like the meaning of tolerance. I miss it. Good, solid debate about things that matter with a strong argument on both sides.

The fundamentalist argument loses a good proponent and a good example in Smunkee and I'm sorry to see it happen.

Again, if tolerance means 'you must be polite', then I'm sorry, I can't support such a stinking load of crap definition.

I really, really do not respect religious beliefs. At all. I can attempt to understand them, I can even discuss them, but I simply can not respect something I believe to be a total farce.

I generally am not going to behave like an ass towards someone who holds religious beliefs. However, when someone uses those beliefs (totally not about Smunkee here, I'm generalising) to back up some bigoted view, I will attack that view, full force, with every counter-argument I can come up with.

That's not intolerance. That's debate. I haven't shut them up, I haven't prevented them from expressing their views.

No one needs to accept anything I say without comment simply because I declare it to be a 'belief'. I may choose not to continue a discussion on my beliefs, and perhaps people will go away from that feeling some sort of victory...that's fine. I'm not going to accuse them of being intolerant for that.

It DOES mean being polite exactly because it is quite possible to cause injury with statements. Ironically, your reply here was reasonable. I'm not addressing arguments where people air their disagreements. I'm talking about vitriol. You know it exists. You see it on here every day, and the people that do it are always perfectly innocent in their own eyes.

Learn to tell the difference between attacking a person and attacking an idea.

Exactly.

Any one of us can have difficulties with this at some point, because of course, our beliefs are central to how we see ourselves as individuals (or members of a community etc). It can be offensive to have those beliefs questioned, or ridiculed, etc.

Nonetheless, there is a line. 'YOU ARE EVIL' is going after you, personally. 'I think your position on this is completely batshit insane' is not.

I've noticed that people who do not have a firm understanding of their beliefs, and a good foundation to base them on, tend to feel more personally under attack when those beliefs are questioned, than those who have examined and critiqued their beliefs in an more in depth manner.

And this may have already been said at some point but I'd like to put my own spin on it.

There are some people who post on here who will say with s straight face that they're perfectly tolerant and have no problem with individual Christians, even if they dislike the religion as a whole. If that were true, it would be perfectly fine.

But it's not true. There are those who will say rude and malicious things and then pretend to be "only expressing an opinion, it's not a flame." and should you call them out you're shouted down as oversensitive and having no business standing in the kitchen if you can't take the heat yadda yadda yadda. (I'm looking at you, Szanth, bottle, RC, etc)

Now look, I don't care what you think of Christianity. if you think the Bible is useful for nothing but lining birdcages and toilet paper that's fine. If you want to come here and say it, that's fine too. if you want to shout it at every Christian you see posting on here, more power to you... But know that the instant you do, you lose any right to claim the title of "Tolerant."

So debating something makes me intolerant of something. Right, gotcha.

And no, you can't justify it by going back to all the times some zealot told you that you were going to Hell, or some missionary came to your door. That's petty BS nonsensical CRAP and any adult ought to be able to tell the difference. You come on here with a straight face and call yourselves tolerant out of one side of your mouth and then toss out what could be considered hate speech out of the other and then wail and whine when you get taken to task for it.

Please quote whatever 'hate speech' you believe me to have said. I think you're another one of those people who've lumped me in with UB on groundless basis.

As for Smunkeeville, if she's decided she's had enough then that's it. If this were any other forum people would throw out a bunch of smiley emotes and good-byes and that would be it. For those of you who took your parting shot by saying that she shouldn't be in the forums if she can't take a little criticism, why don't you take your virtiolic childish bullshit and ram it where the sun don't shine? You're not fooling anybody.

Hate speech! Hate speech!

To call someone's religion a fantasy and a crutch is to insult them. If you haven't figured that out by now then get your ass back to the 5th grade and learn it. That isn't criticism. Criticism is when you politely point out specific issues that you don't agree with and a little detail as to why. People who take offense to your brand of self-validating crap are not weak and they're not oversensitive. They're the ones who understand the concepts of civility, politeness and diplomacy. They're trying to show you. That makes YOU the asshat, not them.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I can call something a mental, spiritual, psychological, or physical crutch, and back that up with my logic - if you can counter that with more logic, then be my guest - I welcome it. I revel in it. I learn from it. This is debate - I breathe this shit in. But if you can only come back and tell me that my logic is wrong because it's an insult, and not tell me how or at the very least, even if it's an insult how it could be logical or correct, then you're not debating, you're being opinionated and accusatory. Arguments like that are not debateable because they're your personal beliefs based on your personal beliefs based on your personal beliefs. So when you try to condemn me for doing something that you consider to be insulting, without giving any reason for it or logical backing, that's pushing your personal beliefs onto me, and I resent that.

Now, if you'd like to give some reasoning, maybe some arguments, some logic perhaps, then we can go from there, but as of now you're being intolerant of my freedom to debate..

Okay, I'll deal with your edit...

'Fair game' is an interesting term. I still don't understand when someone is 'fair game'.

If I walk around with a shirt saying, "I hate bananas". Am I putting my beliefs out there in the public marketplace? Am I fair game? Or am I just living my life?

I understand the proportionality issue only to a certain extent as well. If indeed you judge me to be putting my beliefs into the public marketplace, and want to oppose my anti-bananaian beliefs, who decides at what point your opposition becomes disproportionate and intolerant?

Can you tell me, 'you know, banana's aren't that bad' and engage me in debate?

Can you run home and put on your 'I love bananas' shirt, and walk alongside me?

Can you get a bunch of your banana loving friends together and walk alongside me?

Assuming that nothing either of us does is illegal...what is 'disproportionate' and thus intolerant?

there ya go. if you put on your "i love bananas" t shirt, if you get all your friends to do so too, you are just disagreeing with me

if you start interfering with my life somehow, blocking my way to the produce aisle maybe, you are being intolerant.

It really is unfortunate that we're losing people like Smunk. Holy fuck people, the woman hasn't died, and I honestly do not believe for a second that she is going to leave NS for good.

We all need breaks from time to time. But I would be shocked in the extreme to never see our lovely Smunkee back on NSG.

I'm already greatly reduced, since everything is just insanely busy. There are a few bright spots that bring me back, time and again - and it looks like we've just lost another.

I've still got a few reasons to haunt NSG, and I've seen most of them in this thread. And, yes - you are one of them.

For those who want yet another reason to dislike me, I'm about to make GnI less available. *ducks* I say, blame him for being so damned smart.

That's the stupidest definition of tolerance that I've ever heard. That is most certainly what some people WANT it to mean, but no...'without hindrance or contradiction'? Please. Any belief you hold is going to hinder or contradict someone else's belief (if you consider contradiction to actually be a form of hindrance) if you in any way voice it.

I'm not preventing you from pushing this definition, I'm not trying to ban it...I'm just not going to give it any respect.

Indeed, if a lack of contradiction were truly a part of it, debate would, in and of itself, be intolerant.


So once again, it's intolerant of me to protest domestic abuse, provided that the domestic abuse occurs where other people can't see it?

THe husband who beats the crap out of his wife is living his own life, provided nobody SEES it?

The husband who beats the crap out of his wife is harming another human being. He isn't "living his own life." He is ruining the life of another person.


Let's say that somebody actually believes that religion is a fantasy and a crutch. I'd like YOU to provide us with an example of how they could share that opinion in a civil, polite, diplomatic way.

If you can't, then I'd like you to admit that you simply think certain opinions shouldn't be shared around here.

I'm not Neo B, but I can think of ways to express that opinion that are much less civil and polite than are often used. Much like a religious person must admit that their personal beliefs are just that - personal beliefs - a nonreligious or even anti-religious person must admit the same thing. Someone may make the statement that they see absolutely no reason for religion, that they can only see it as being a fantasy or a crutch, while admitting that it may not be true in all cases. As a general rule, we cannot fully understand the positions of opinions and viewpoints we are fundamentally opposed to - but we can all use a healthy dose of admitting we may be wrong, and that the way we look at the beliefs of others may be completely off-base.

It really is unfortunate that we're losing people like Smunk. What I loved about her was that I don't agree with much of what she has to say and she's pretty willing to discuss it. It feels like we're losing a lot of the opponents or at least the good ones. I rarely see a good solid political debate, so much so that I don't really bother to go to the threads a lot of time. That might be because the current administration has strayed so far into the ridiculous, but it also seems like we really are slowly becoming the liberal bastion we've always been accused of.

Do I think that's because of some bias? Nope. I think it seems like a lot of those who don't agree with some of the more prolific posters around here are simply giving up. It's too bad.

It leaves us resigned to debating petty points like the meaning of tolerance. I miss it. Good, solid debate about things that matter with a strong argument on both sides.

The fundamentalist argument loses a good proponent and a good example in Smunkee and I'm sorry to see it happen.

There are two issues here.

First - yes, losing Smunkee is a tragedy. There are a few people on this forum that I have considered I have been 'mentored' by in some way, and that certainly doesn't imply that I agreed with them - just that they made me wiser, or better, than I was.

As you say, Smunkee was an example of how people can be on the opposite side of a debate, and yet you both come away feeling like you gained something. She's also an example (I have much needed around my RL geography) of what a Fundamentalist Christian can be.

The other issue, I think you answered yourself. The paradigm in this country has actually slid so far (and in such a short time) that the previous left-right debates have become semi-meaningless. Even those who clearly stood on the 'conservative' side of the spectrum have largely been alienated by this new world order - and are having to adjust to being the 'new centre', or even, the 'new liberal'.

I know you think this is swings and roundabouts, and that we're getting ready to launch into a better America again. I'm not so sure. I can see so many historical lessons I'd hoped had been learned, being repeated. And, I can see so many people buying it.

Another reason I shall miss Her Smunkness... she was optimism in a fairly bleak perspective.

oops you answered your question for me and then decided that i was a fool for saying it.

crimes are crimes eh? intolerance of criminal behavior is not considered a moral imperative. i think that everyone should be intolerant of wife beating.

Then if we reduce the term "intolerance" to be devoid of moral value, then so what about it?

If we accept that sometimes it is GOOD to be intolerant, then when does "you are being intolerant" ever function as a response to anything?

there ya go. if you put on your "i love bananas" t shirt, if you get all your friends to do so too, you are just disagreeing with me

if you start interfering with my life somehow, blocking my way to the produce aisle maybe, you are being intolerant.

and how is someone saying "god hates fags" blocking their way from being gay?

I'm already greatly reduced, since everything is just insanely busy. There are a few bright spots that bring me back, time and again - and it looks like we've just lost another.

I've still got a few reasons to haunt NSG, and I've seen most of them in this thread. And, yes - you are one of them.

I understand the insanely busy thing. I've been trying to get research out the door and finish planning a wedding, but I'm always happy to see certain posters in a thread. Smunk was definitely one - and yes, you are another. =)

Here's a random question for y'all.

What, functionally, is the difference between "I am a christian" and "I am a racist"?

To be a racist is to believe certain minorities are inferior. To be a christian is to believe in the divinity of jesus christ.

Every belief we make, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is a value judgement. TO believe something as true is fundamentally the same as believing every other position contrary to that belief to be untrue.

A racist believes that minorities are inferior. He likewise is opposed to those that believe that that minorities are not inferior.

A christian believes jesus christ is divine. He likewise is opposed to those that jesus christ is not divine.

We say opposition ot racism is warranted, because we believe that this position is incorrect. Why then is it no LESS valid for others to oppose christianity because they believe that jesus christ is not divine?

We say that protesting racism is right, protesting religion is wrong and intollerant. Why? Are they not both value judgement? Are those who believe that a tenant of christianity is invalid just as entitled ot their actions as those who believe that a tenant of racism is invalid?

Holy fuck people, the woman hasn't died, and I honestly do not believe for a second that she is going to leave NS for good.

We all need breaks from time to time. But I would be shocked in the extreme to never see our lovely Smunkee back on NSG.

Nees, I thought it was unfortunate we were losing you. You're back, but I can't say that I didn't miss you in the interim.

If you were on my softball team and one of the reasons I loved to play and you said you were laying off because you weren't having fun anymore, even if I assumed you'd be back after a season out, don't you think I'd make similar comments and be justified in making them?

When some of the reasons we come here disappear even for a time, it kind of slows the whole thing down. Snowballs to a degree. She slows down and then maybe GnI has less reason to be here so he slows down, and then maybe me, then I don't know, Szanth, you, etc. NSG is becoming less active or at least less active for the kinds of debate I'm used to seeing.

It seems to me we have lot more preaching types than debate types than we used to, and even some of the debate types getting tired of being unanswered or tired of explaining answers and become preaching types. I find that disappointing. And whenever I see someone leave temporarily or permanently, I find that disappointing.

Do I think Smunk will necessarily leave? Well given current and past evidence, no. However, I'm going to take her leaving at face value until I learn otherwise.

there ya go. if you put on your "i love bananas" t shirt, if you get all your friends to do so too, you are just disagreeing with me

if you start interfering with my life somehow, blocking my way to the produce aisle maybe, you are being intolerant.

Fucking immigrant bananniards coming and stealing my produce aisle...

Holy fuck people, the woman hasn't died, and I honestly do not believe for a second that she is going to leave NS for good.

We all need breaks from time to time. But I would be shocked in the extreme to never see our lovely Smunkee back on NSG.

I also hope she'll timeout and then return.

We have largely lost SoWiBi. Peech has become almost a memory. I've not seen Willamena lately. Muravyets seems to have been gone a long time.

Some of the ones I lament might not even be remembered by most... Ph33r, Personal Responsibilit, Tropical Sands... even Iakeokeo seems to have finally given up the ghost.

I realise most of these people still exist, in all probability... but they are no longer gracing us with their presence. And, this forum is poorer for the loss.

And yes, I even missed Sinuhue when she was gone.

and how is someone saying "god hates fags" blocking their way from being gay?

They're not just saying "God Hates Fags", they're trying to gather more followers. They're voting based on their homophobic agendas.

For those who want yet another reason to dislike me, I'm about to make GnI less available. *ducks* I say, blame him for being so damned smart.

Shhh! You weren't supposed to say anything until we'd picked out rings!

I'm not Neo B, but I can think of ways to express that opinion that are much less civil and polite than are often used. Much like a religious person must admit that their personal beliefs are just that - personal beliefs - a nonreligious or even anti-religious person must admit the same thing. Someone may make the statement that they see absolutely no reason for religion, that they can only see it as being a fantasy or a crutch, while admitting that it may not be true in all cases. As a general rule, we cannot fully understand the positions of opinions and viewpoints we are fundamentally opposed to - but we can all use a healthy dose of admitting we may be wrong, and that the way we look at the beliefs of others may be completely off-base.

Right, but to do so we must be talked to. Debated. Reasoned with. We must be allowed to ask our questions, and allowed to ask for answers.

Otherwise, it's completely pointless for the other end to even be in such a conversation they're not participating in.

It really is unfortunate that we're losing people like Smunk. What I loved about her was that I don't agree with much of what she has to say and she's pretty willing to discuss it.

Seconded!!

Meh, read the last few pages of this thread.

Yes, I have said (and will doubtless continue to say) rude things about superstition. I also say rude things about racism, sexism, homophobia, freshman-lit objectivism, capri pants, and a whole host of other things I find stupid.

However, none of this remotely equates to my being actively intolerant of individuals who happen to be really into any of the above. I have not, nor will I, support harming such individuals, or stripping them of their rights to make what I believe are stupid choices.


I'm so glad you replied because this is such an excellent example.

When you refer to religion as "superstition" you're guilty of exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Is it as nasty as some of the vitriol that gets tossed around on this forum? No. But please tell me you're not so blinded as to be unable to understand why someone would be offended at having their beliefs described as mere superstition.

Is it absolutely necessary for you to state your differences without using a word you KNOW doesn't apply? Religion isn't the same as superstition even if you don't believe in it. Your use of that word is simply inflammatory and I believe you to be intelligent enough to know exactly why.


If you think any of my comments constitute "flame," feel free to consult your local moderator. In my entire time on NS, I have not received a single formal reprimand for flaming (as far as I know)...but do you really think nobody has accused me? Hmmm.

So you're saying that as long as you get away with it it isn't flame and thefefore perfectly acceptable. That's crap.

And yeah I'll say it:

I've seen the mods let things go in come cases and take people to task in others where the language was about the same.


No, you don't. It is completely possible to tolerate something that you also insult. Ask my kid brother for more info on this. :D

That's ridiculous. C'mon Bottle don't be hypocritical. If someone came on here and made an insulting remrk about homosexuals they'd have their spine (figuratively) ripped out and fed to them for being intolerant. Do you think it would make a whit of difference if the insulter insisted that they WERE tolerant?


This is what I was talking about a few pages back. People have so warped and trivialized the word "tolerant" that it's becoming meaningless.

Well on that you and I agree. My post is part of why I believe it to be true.


Learn to tell the difference between attacking a person and attacking an idea. Learn to tell the difference between cussing an idea and flaming at an individual. Learn to recognize the difference between heated debate and "hate speech." Because until you do, you are only trivializing the experiences of those who actually ARE the targets of hate speech.

Sometimes to attack an idea IS to attack the person, depending upon context. Again I refer to the idea of homosexuality. People who are gay are, in part, defined by their sexuality, just like heterosexuals. To insult the idea of their sexuality is to insult them, albet indirectly. Maybe you don't understand precisely because you don't believe in anything.

I mean, don't you get it? People who truly believe in their religion don't juat have a spiritual hobby that helps get them through the day. It is a part of their identiy, part of who they are. It helps to define them as well as integrate into their sense of self. To be careful when criticizing it is a perfectly reasonable expectation. These are by their very nature sensitive issues and if you can't understand then at least make a show of diplomacy.


More whining and expecting superstition to be coddled like no other beliefs are.

How about...to call someone's racism a fantasy and a crutch is to insult them? Somehow I don't see anybody arguing for that.

But you want religion to be given special treatment, and afforded protections that other groups don't get.
You're as predictable as a clock. I addressed this very problem but I think the above paragraph answers this. No need to be repetitive.


Okay, how about this, then...

Let's say that somebody actually believes that religion is a fantasy and a crutch. I'd like YOU to provide us with an example of how they could share that opinion in a civil, polite, diplomatic way.

If you can't, then I'd like you to admit that you simply think certain opinions shouldn't be shared around here.
Well I would hope that my reply has answered this one as well. You just think to yourself "This person deserves the same level of respect I do." and go from there. I think Neeskia did fine with it a couple of posts ago.

I'm still just not seeing the bright line rule here, despite the above. What exactly is the 'public marketplace'? 'Living your life' is in public for the most part, unless you never leave your home.

Two situations:

1) A transsexual, walking around on the street in full, glorious regalia.
2) A wannabe nazi, walking around the street with swastika's tattooed everywhere.

Both are just 'living their lives'. And yet, both are in public, making a statement. Living your life quite often involves expressing your opinions in some way...not just verbally.

So what's the rule here? Can you oppose either person's beliefs and be tolerant? Or are you automatically intolerant if you voice your opposition in anyway?

maybe we need to go back to the original question of "when is someone being an advocate for their position and when are they being intolerant?"

im saying that if tolerance is a social good (and i think it is) then it has to have more than the legal definition of "you can advocate anything you want"

tolerance means me putting up with those who are clearly hateful bigots as well as me expecting THEM to put up with those they are prejudiced against.

so when am *I* being intolerant even when im clearly in the right as far as opposing their views go?

im saying that any time i attack or confront someone who has not "asked" for an opinion of their behavior, lifestyle, moral code, whatever, i am being intolerant of their right to hold odious opinions.

so if a badly dressed tranny is walking down the street with bags of groceries in his hands and i yell at him for wearing a dress, im being intolerant.

same with a nazi wannabe. you sometimes see those guys with racist or nazi tattoos on their exposed skin. its intolerant to go up to one and say that he's a nazi asshole even when he obviously IS.

the "rule" is, is the person actively advocating something or are they going about their business.

I understand the insanely busy thing. I've been trying to get research out the door and finish planning a wedding, but I'm always happy to see certain posters in a thread. Smunk was definitely one - and yes, you are another. =)

'...always happy...' That might actually be it.

Smunk leaving NS, is losing a friend. I hope she 'comes back home', but this town will be less pleasant without her.

My real geography is not a place I would choose. I'm surrounded by all the sorts of things I hate... the racism, sexism, religious intolerance, the smalltown mentality that won't teach girl's sex ed, but calls them whores when they turn up at the hospital pregnant at 15...

If I could choose a place to live, it would be more like the little niche I've found within Greater En-Essia. I'm more attached to this locale than any geography. So - I guess I don't like it when I see the neighbourhood crumbling.

I understand the insanely busy thing. I've been trying to get research out the door and finish planning a wedding, but I'm always happy to see certain posters in a thread. Smunk was definitely one - and yes, you are another. =)

Despite some differences, you are certainly someone I look for. There are lots of people I like to see in a discussion, only a few I seek out. You, GnI, Bottle and Smunk are all people I actively seek out or search for.

Sin, PootWaddle, LG, The Nazz and a few others are all people I love to see in a debate but necessarily look for. Many of the people I look are people who never or rarely agree with me.

It's a shame that many of those same people are becoming increasingly frustrated with NSG.

Here's a random question for y'all.

What, functionally, is the difference between "I am a christian" and "I am a racist"?

To be a racist is to believe certain minorities are inferior. To be a christian is to believe in the divinity of jesus christ.

Every belief we make, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is a value judgement. TO believe something as true is fundamentally the same as believing every other position contrary to that belief to be untrue.

A racist believes that minorities are inferior. He likewise is opposed to those that believe that that minorities are not inferior.

A christian believes jesus christ is divine. He likewise is opposed to those that jesus christ is not divine.

We say opposition ot racism is warranted, because we believe that this position is incorrect. Why then is it no LESS valid for others to oppose christianity because they believe that jesus christ is not divine?

We say that protesting racism is right, protesting religion is wrong and intollerant. Why? Are they not both value judgement? Are those who believe that a tenant of christianity is invalid just as entitled ot their actions as those who believe that a tenant of racism is invalid?
Christianity doesn't imply what you think it implies and so your entire argument falls apart.
We're sorry, try again.
And people don't only oppose racism because it's incorrect. They oppose it because it's bad.
And don't ask me to define that or we're going to go on a tangent that'll never end.

I'm not Neo B, but I can think of ways to express that opinion that are much less civil and polite than are often used.

I certainly agree with that. I don't think anybody who's been here more than 30 seconds could disagree with it, frankly.

But then doesn't it just come down to a matter of personal taste? It's the same idea, it's just that some people want it to be expressed oh-so-softly while other people are more blunt.


Much like a religious person must admit that their personal beliefs are just that - personal beliefs - a nonreligious or even anti-religious person must admit the same thing. Someone may make the statement that they see absolutely no reason for religion, that they can only see it as being a fantasy or a crutch, while admitting that it may not be true in all cases.

What about a person who believes that all superstition is fantasy, and all religion is a crutch? (PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE THIS STANCE) Should such views be viewed as automatically unwelcome?

In my experience, pretty much every single opinion I hold hurts somebody's feelings. No matter how hard I try to placate folks and moderate my tone, SOMEBODY is always gonna be pissed off.

So I speak plainly. If I think an idea is stupid, I often say so. I could use a lot more words and a lot more dithering to get to the same point, but my posts already tend to get wildly wordy as it is.


As a general rule, we cannot fully understand the positions of opinions and viewpoints we are fundamentally opposed to - but we can all use a healthy dose of admitting we may be wrong, and that the way we look at the beliefs of others may be completely off-base.
I don't object to that in the least. I'm an agnostic through and through, after all.

I simply think there are limits. I am perfectly comfortable telling somebody they're a doofus if they wander in and start blathering about how homosexuality is wrong because teh gayz have teh aids and eat babies. I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about that, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

and how is someone saying "god hates fags" blocking their way from being gay?

who said they were?

bad analysis.

the god hates fags guys are equivalent to "i hate bananas"

it is not intolerant for me to put on my "i love bananas" tshirt by protesting these guys' signs.

it WOULD be intolerant of me to try to block their access to the street or to beat them up for carrying their signs.

So debating something makes me intolerant of something. Right, gotcha.

I'm not going to play semantics with you Szanth. You know perfectly damn well what I'm getting at and if your best reply is this drivel then you need to find a better way to spend your time. Everybody else seems to have understood my meaning. What's your problem?


Please quote whatever 'hate speech' you believe me to have said. I think you're another one of those people who've lumped me in with UB on groundless basis.
I don't know if it was that particular thread or a similar one, but I remember one where you and Smunk were going at it and some of your posts were appalling. I even took you to task for it then.


I wholeheartedly disagree. I can call something a mental, spiritual, psychological, or physical crutch, and back that up with my logic - if you can counter that with more logic, then be my guest - I welcome it. I revel in it. I learn from it. This is debate - I breathe this shit in. But if you can only come back and tell me that my logic is wrong because it's an insult, and not tell me how or at the very least, even if it's an insult how it could be logical or correct, then you're not debating, you're being opinionated and accusatory. Arguments like that are not debateable because they're your personal beliefs based on your personal beliefs based on your personal beliefs. So when you try to condemn me for doing something that you consider to be insulting, without giving any reason for it or logical backing, that's pushing your personal beliefs onto me, and I resent that.

Here's where you play innocent, also predictably. You rproblem is that you're trying to set up some kind of strawman where I get portrayed as taking you to task for debating against a Christian when, in fact, I'm taking you to taks because you are utterly clueless as to why people take exception to your methods. Your "logic" doesn't justify unkind words. Your "logic" doesn't make it alright to minimize a person's beliefs and ideals. It is perfectly possible to express your doubts and thoughts in a way that doesn't have to be nasty or unpleasant. You're either unwilling or unable to do so. In either case, the blame is yours.


Now, if you'd like to give some reasoning, maybe some arguments, some logic perhaps, then we can go from there, but as of now you're being intolerant of my freedom to debate.
Non-Sequitur. Nobody has questioned your right to debate, but you'd probably know that if you'd BOTHERED TO READ MY POST.

My best friend in the world is of a different religion than I am. He and I debate religion often when we get together. Revolutionary concept: We each express our disagreement with the other's religion WITHOUT insults, without mean-spiritedness, without vitriol. Not once have we ever gotten angry with each other even during some very spirited debate. (We once got so loud and involved in the discussion that a 3rd person observing thought we actually were mad at each other, but we weren't at all.)

Don't come on here and make your own failure to be diplomatic someone else's fault or problem.

When you refer to religion as "superstition" you're guilty of exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Is it as nasty as some of the vitriol that gets tossed around on this forum? No. But please tell me you're not so blinded as to be unable to understand why someone would be offended at having their beliefs described as mere superstition.


Not meaning to offend in any way... how is it different to superstition?

I have to say, to the non-believer - hoping for the intercession of a dead man seems no (intrinsically) more rational than 'touching wood'... and makes less sense than 'not walking under ladders'...?

I also hope she'll timeout and then return.

We have largely lost SoWiBi. Peech has become almost a memory. I've not seen Willamena lately. Muravyets seems to have been gone a long time.

Some of the ones I lament might not even be remembered by most... Ph33r, Personal Responsibilit, Tropical Sands... even Iakeokeo seems to have finally given up the ghost.

I realise most of these people still exist, in all probability... but they are no longer gracing us with their presence. And, this forum is poorer for the loss.

And yes, I even missed Sinuhue when she was gone.

Willamena is GBrooks. You know that, right? She's in our region. And I still see her around here a bit, but not as much as I used to. She's slowed down much like you have.

And yes, I think this is contagious. I think if this were a year ago and the same stuff was pressing on you, we might still see you a bit more than we have recently.

im saying that if tolerance is a social good (and i think it is)

Then you take back what you said about there being a moral imperative to be intolerant of spousal abuse?

i think that everyone should be intolerant of wife beating.


I note some cognitive dissonance.

Or is it perhaps more accurate to say that you believe tolerance is a social good, unless those things we are tolerating are bad, in which case we should be intolerant of them.

Bad, of course, as defined....by you, it seems.

Willamena is GBrooks. You know that, right? She's in our region. And I still see her around here a bit, but not as much as I used to. She's slowed down much like you have.

And yes, I think this is contagious. I think if this were a year ago and the same stuff was pressing on you, we might still see you a bit more than we have recently.

Ack! Willamena is GBrooks? I've seen the name, but I can't think of anything attached... maybe it was just region stuff. Perhaps you are right about the general decline of debate...

(And, yes - I know not every thread was always good... but whither the 100 page debates that stay on topic and present evidence on both - or all - sides?)

When you refer to religion as "superstition" you're guilty of exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Is it as nasty as some of the vitriol that gets tossed around on this forum? No. But please tell me you're not so blinded as to be unable to understand why someone would be offended at having their beliefs described as mere superstition.

It. IS. Superstition.

If you believe in a supernatural God, you are engaging in superstition. If you follow a religion that includes supernatural elements, you are engaging in superstition.

"Superstition" is not an insult. It's just the word for a certain category of beliefs/ideas/concepts. If you, personally, think that superstition is a really bad thing, so bad that it qualifies as an insult, then perhaps you should think about why you choose to hold superstitious beliefs.


Is it absolutely necessary for you to state your differences without using a word you KNOW doesn't apply?

The fact that you are seriously trying to argue that "superstition" doesn't apply to religion kind of validates why I use it.


Religion isn't the same as superstition even if you don't believe in it. Your use of that word is simply inflammatory and I believe you to be intelligent enough to know exactly why.

Religion is not the same as superstition. It is possible to have superstition without religion, and (depending on how you define it) religion without superstition.

However, if we are talking about The Religions that are most discussed on NS, then superstition is a primary component of religion.


So you're saying that as long as you get away with it it isn't flame and thefefore perfectly acceptable. That's crap.

No, I'm saying that your definition of "flame" does not match up with the actual meaning of that term, as defined by the people who are empowered to judge what is and is not "flame."


And yeah I'll say it:

I've seen the mods let things go in come cases and take people to task in others where the language was about the same.

Then post your complaints. Give specific examples of my flame, and refer to the forum rules to back up your claim.


That's ridiculous. C'mon Bottle don't be hypocritical. If someone came on here and made an insulting remrk about homosexuals they'd have their spine (figuratively) ripped out and fed to them for being intolerant. Do you think it would make a whit of difference if the insulter insisted that they WERE tolerant?

That happens all the time. 9 times out of 10, the individual in question IS intolerant, and says so themselves. They don't just say "gayz r bad," they say "gay people deserve to be legally discriminated against and/or physically harmed."


Sometimes to attack an idea IS to attack the person, depending upon context.

No, it's not.


Again I refer to the idea of homosexuality. People who are gay are, in part, defined by their sexuality, just like heterosexuals. To insult the idea of their sexuality is to insult them, albet indirectly.

Somebody else already addressed this. It is naturally for us to view our closely-held beliefs as self-defining. However, it is important to remember that somebody else can attack even your most closely held values, without actually attacking you as a person. You are the SUM of your ideas, your personality, your values, your quirks, and whathaveyou. You are an individual person, and having one of your ideas attacked will not kill you.


Maybe you don't understand precisely because you don't believe in anything.

Wow. Seriously? You actually are going to lecture people on tolerance and respect, and then you're going to say stuff like this? Really? You actually want to be such a shining example of exactly what I'm talking about?


I mean, don't you get it? People who truly believe in their religion don't juat have a spiritual hobby that helps get them through the day. It is a part of their identiy, part of who they are. It helps to define them as well as integrate into their sense of self. To be careful when criticizing it is a perfectly reasonable expectation. These are by their very nature sensitive issues and if you can't understand then at least make a show of diplomacy.

People who truly believe in racism work much the same way. Should I be sure to be diplomatic and very very gentle as I discuss racism, lest I hurt their feelings?


You're as predictable as a clock. I addressed this very problem but I think the above paragraph answers this. No need to be repetitive.

No, in fact, you didn't address it. Please do so.


Well I would hope that my reply has answered this one as well. You just think to yourself "This person deserves the same level of respect I do." and go from there.

No, you didn't answer my question at all. I gave you a specific example. Please answer.

Seriously, you can view this as a teaching experience. Because, see, I already do what you suggest. I already treat people with the level of respect I hope to receive. Yet you seem to have a big problem with how I conduct myself. So please, enlighten me. Give me an example of how a person can express the belief that (for instance) religion is fantasy and a crutch, in a manner that YOU would find acceptable.

Then you take back what you said about there being a moral imperative to be intolerant of spousal abuse?



I note some cognitive dissonance.

Or is it perhaps more accurate to say that you believe tolerance is a social good, unless those things we are tolerating are bad, in which case we should be intolerant of them.

Bad, of course, as defined....by you, it seems.

and you think this is a good argument?

didnt i ADMIT that im intolerant of violent criminals?

i suppose you find that a huge flaw but i just dont. especially since its bad as defined by society. i dont have a problem with the idea that a social good can have its limits and that one of those limits might be violent crime.

i dont know what problem you have with my argument but i dont find anything you have posted to actually address my point. you seem to have your own problem with the idea of tolerance that you have not yet dealt with.

Not meaning to offend in any way... how is it different to superstition?

I have to say, to the non-believer - hoping for the intercession of a dead man seems no (intrinsically) more rational than 'touching wood'... and makes less sense than 'not walking under ladders'...?

That's a fair question.

Maybe I'm not the best person to give a really good detailed answer to it precisely because I am religious, but maybe I can offer an insight this way:

I don't believe in Islam, yet I would not call it a superstition. The reaon is:

A supersition is a frivolous and shallow "belief" that a black cat is unlucky or that tossing salt over your shoulder brings good luck. It's not spiritual in any way and doesn't comprise a system of belief.

Islam is spiritual. Those who believe in it make it a real and important part of their lives. It's more important to them than life itself. Even though I don't believe in it, I know the difference between it and superstition, and wouldn't blame a Muslim for being offended should someone refer to it that way.

So applying that logic to religion in general, I'd say the difference is one of spirituality and scope. Superstition lacks spirituality and is trivial when compared to a religion. With that in mind, is it so surprising or unreasonable that someone should have an aversion to categorizing them in the same way?

I'm not going to play semantics with you Szanth. You know perfectly damn well what I'm getting at and if your best reply is this drivel then you need to find a better way to spend your time. Everybody else seems to have understood my meaning. What's your problem?


I don't know if it was that particular thread or a similar one, but I remember one where you and Smunk were going at it and some of your posts were appalling. I even took you to task for it then.


<snip>Neo Brettonia, while I understand your point, I also get Szanth's. The problem here is that you believe intolerance to comprise of a lack of politeness, lack of sensitivity, and neglecting to actively try to not offend others. To Szanth, intolerance would be more along the lines of personally flaming someone, or actively preventing them from expressing their views. The fact that personal offense might result from the attack of ideas close to people's heart means that there's overlap between the two points of view. It means we often risk of offense in discussions. That's a risk you undertake when you join a discussion, and expecting people to tiptoe around you is unreasonable. The fact is, that the rules on this forum require a base level of civility (no personal flames). They by no means require that posters avoid personally offending others with their opinions and questions. It's unfortunate when that happens, but it happens alot. I'm taken aback and offended quite often by what I see here. The only difference is that I don't leave in a huff, because I understand that protecting my sensibilities from offense isn't what this forum is about.

and you think this is a good argument?

didnt i ADMIT that im intolerant of violent criminals?

i suppose you find that a huge flaw but i just dont. especially since its bad as defined by society. i dont have a problem with the idea that a social good can have its limits and that one of those limits might be violent crime.

i dont know what problem you have with my argument but i dont find anything you have posted to actually address my point. you seem to have your own problem with the idea of tolerance that you have not yet dealt with.

Oh no no, you didn't just ADMIT to being intolerant.

You said, and I quote: i think that everyone should be intolerant of wife beating.

You don't just ADMIT to intolerance, you ENCOURAGE intolerance. You said "Everybody should be" intolerant in a certain situation.

Yet you say tolerance is a social good.

So, again, you're not merely admitting to your intolerance, you encourage it, in certain situations.

And also label intolerance as a social bad.

So why would you encourage a social evil, being that, you yourself, stated that tolerance is a social good, thus intolerance must be a social evil?

Or, as I said, is it more accurate to say you support intolerance in SOME situations, in situations where it's warranted. Which basically breaks down to you saying "we should all be tolerant, except at times when I think it's better to be intollerant".

You believe intolerance against violent criminals is justified, even when that violence is performed entirely in private. You believe this is justified, and you encourage it.

Others might think inotlerance against christianity is justified, even when that christianity is performed entirely in private. You do NOT believe this is justified, and label it a social evil.

You admit to tolerance being generally a good thing, but also encourage intolerance in certain situations. Which...is fine, you can make a subjective determination as to when this is appropriate. You can say that you feel intolerance is justifiable and encourageable in certain situations.

Other people would radically disagree.

Well my only question thus becomes, who made you the arbiter of when intolerance is justified, or even encouraged?

See, there's exactly the reason I have so little patience for you religionists. Not only do you call it a "homosexual lifestyle", you attempt to compare it to something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever.

Ah, sweet irony. How do you (or any others who tend to do it) think it feels to someone who happens to be religious when, simply for holding religious views, we are compared to racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., etc.?

Should we have "patience for" that kind of nonsense?


Difference being, you don't chose to be gay. You do make a conscious choice to believe in the invisible sky fairy.

Are you sure? Are all conclusions "conscious choices"? If it is a conscious choice, could you just change any and all of your beliefs, even those you hold very deeply, on a whim?

Could Bottle, for instance, up and decide tomorrow that she's actually going to believe that women are inferior to men and that she should quit her job? Could Fass just up and decide tomorrow that he's going to believe that being gay is wrong?

That isn't how belief works. Yes, over a period of time, debate, etc., one can be convinced that an old belief is incorrect. But it isn't something you can just make a choice and change.

Also noone has ever been gayed to death. They have however been burned at the stake. Also no one ever tries to convert you gay, mostly because it's not possible. When was the last time you say a gay pride parade "witness" people?

To be fair, I've known guys who tried very hard to convert others to being gay, just as I've seen people who tried to "convert" people to being straight.


According to many Christians it does not matter how well you live your life, how much you care for the less fortunate and so on and so on - if you do not embrace Jesus you will go to hell - just like a piece of filth. We are supposed to tolerate that as a religious belief.

Could it not be said that, by living a good life and caring for the less fortunate and so on, you are embracing Jesus?

Meanwhile, of course, "some Christians" or even "many Christians" do not equate to "all Christians."

However, when people wish to turn this around and say that no matter how decent you behave, no matter how much you care for the poor and so on and so on - "if you are Christian you are filth", those same Christians get mad.

Why that double standard ?

People who would treat others like shit pretty much always have a double standard. But I don't think anyone truly asking for tolerance would do so.


Right, but to do so we must be talked to. Debated. Reasoned with. We must be allowed to ask our questions, and allowed to ask for answers.

Otherwise, it's completely pointless for the other end to even be in such a conversation they're not participating in.

Indeed, but you must also understand that there may not be an answer you will be satisfied with. Sometimes, people are coming from such totally different directions that there simply isn't enough common ground to give a satisfactory explanation. I've been frustrated with this myself - sometimes in conversations with you. There is a point at which you have to realize that your viewpoint and lief experiences are so fundamentally different from that of another that you probably aren't going to understand them. And, at that point, continuing to ask the question over and over again ends up being like a child who asks, "Why?" incessantly even after you've gotten to the point where the only real answer is, "Because that's the way it is."

But then doesn't it just come down to a matter of personal taste? It's the same idea, it's just that some people want it to be expressed oh-so-softly while other people are more blunt.

It isn't exactly the same idea. There's a difference between, "I don't understand your beliefs and I think they are stupid," and, "Only and idiot would believe something like that."

You do come off as harsh in many cases. Sometimes, it's one of the things I like about you. =) But you've also been careful to point out that you don't think all people who hold beliefs that you call stupid are, in fact, stupid.

What about a person who believes that all superstition is fantasy, and all religion is a crutch? (PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE THIS STANCE) Should such views be viewed as automatically unwelcome?

No. But such a person needs to realize that their views will come off as very insulting if they aren't careful. I think that a great deal of religion - particularly organized religion - is quite often a crutch. But I generally won't put it quite that way, because I know that the polite conversation will end there and any point that I might have made will likely be out the window.

It also boils down to the opinion of the other person, of course. You don't believe that those who hold "stupid" beliefs are necessarily stupid themselves. Some people, on the other hand, do. So if they see you going on about a belief you think is stupid, without the qualifier you occasionally add that you don't believe that all who hold it are stupid, they are going to make that assumption. It's not a good assumption to make, but it is an easy one - and all of our reactions to something are going to be filtered through our own viewpoints (and hopefully a healthy dose of other viewpoints we've seen expressed).

Not meaning to offend in any way...

And here's where I see the reason we're arguing about all this stuff with tolerance. The last thing we want to create is an environment where we have to preface everything with "not meaning to offend in any way".

Here's the problem. There are some here who are "meaning to offend" and because of this, it becomes difficult to distinguish. While the words may be one and the same to you, and to me, I don't think it's asking too much to try and being more understanding if we are really looking for people to debate with.

I'm as guilty as anyone, for example in describing certain views as "anti-choice", knowing that I'm doing so for more than just accuracy, but also to discount the view. And maybe those views deserve it, but there has to be some balance between are need to win the debate and the interest in fostering a discussion.

I'm not going to play semantics with you Szanth. You know perfectly damn well what I'm getting at and if your best reply is this drivel then you need to find a better way to spend your time. Everybody else seems to have understood my meaning. What's your problem?

I haven't seen anyone else (for lack of a better term) "get it" any more than I have. If someone else has said "Oh, that's what you mean - I see, you mean it's like this --" than please, show me the way. I haven't seen anything nearly like that. In fact, I've seen Bottle doing pretty much the opposite.

I don't know if it was that particular thread or a similar one, but I remember one where you and Smunk were going at it and some of your posts were appalling. I even took you to task for it then.

You considered some of my posts to be appalling. Alright. Admittedly, I could quite possibly not care any less if I were in a coma at the moment. I don't really care if people get offended at the way I word things - regardless of how they feel or the way I say something, the idea is there, I'm simply showing it to them. If they can't handle it, then they become offended. Most are, however, more secure in themselves to where the wording of my questions has no apparent affect on them, and certainly wouldn't make them "appalled" to any degree, because they can look at what I'm saying and read the meaning, see the questions, without having a heart-attack.

Here's where you play innocent, also predictably. You rproblem is that you're trying to set up some kind of strawman where I get portrayed as taking you to task for debating against a Christian when, in fact, I'm taking you to taks because you are utterly clueless as to why people take exception to your methods. Your "logic" doesn't justify unkind words. Your "logic" doesn't make it alright to minimize a person's beliefs and ideals. It is perfectly possible to express your doubts and thoughts in a way that doesn't have to be nasty or unpleasant. You're either unwilling or unable to do so. In either case, the blame is yours.

For you to accuse me of 'playing innocent' is for you to accuse me of being guilty of something. I know you're a bit on the sensitive side, and were I to be any more direct than you're being to me, you may have a fit, but please for my sake just come out and directly accuse me of something if you're going to do it anyway.

Who takes exception to my methods? I'm honestly asking. This is the first I've heard of it. I've seen people take exception to UB's methods, and associate me with him simply because I didn't chastise him for acting that way, but not once have I seen anything more.

Logic justifies all. If it's logical to say unkind things in order to get the point across, it's justified. That's the definition of justification. At least, to me - you may put the sensitivities of others above your ideas and your arguments. I'm not entirely certain why you're in NSG, but I'm here to learn - I'm here to get heated and debate in the most fruitful and non-bullshittery way possible, and if someone's feelings gets hurt in the process, I apologize, but I will not concede that doing so was wrong.

Non-Sequitur. Nobody has questioned your right to debate, but you'd probably know that if you'd BOTHERED TO READ MY POST.

By you trying to delegate what I can and cannot say, what methods I can and cannot use, what ideas I can and cannot question, what metaphors I can and cannot present, you are indeed, to the fullest extent, questioning my right to debate.

My best friend in the world is of a different religion than I am. *I'm not a racist, I have three black friends...* He and I debate religion often when we get together. Revolutionary concept: We each express our disagreement with the other's religion WITHOUT insults, without mean-spiritedness, without vitriol. Not once have we ever gotten angry with each other even during some very spirited debate. (We once got so loud and involved in the discussion that a 3rd person observing thought we actually were mad at each other, but we weren't at all.)

Would you be such a third party? I had to keep reminding Smunk in our discussions that I do respect her, I think she's a nice person, I like her as a member of the NSG residential area - but again, you seem to be confusing my questioning her admittedly almost groundless beliefs for attacking her character as a whole. This is wrong. I can question her all day, seeking answers, wanting to know more about her and how she thinks and what her reasoning is, and this just means I'm interested in her and I find her to be a curious possibility to give me more information in my goal to learn as much as possible through debate.

Smunk's a nice person.

Don't come on here and make your own failure to be diplomatic someone else's fault or problem.

Diplomatic? I know that technically, we're nationstates here, but this isn't the RP forum. My name is Tommy, I'm a payroll/billing administrator for a security guard company. I live in Virginia.

I'm not an ambassador. I'm a person, and I have opinions. I will show you these opinions, should you give the opportunity, and if I see an opening I'll ask what you think about them. From there, it may go for pages and pages of me trying to find more about you through questioning your beliefs, and if you can't handle it then you're not my kind of person.

If you're not my kind of person, it's not worth it for me to debate with you..

And here's where I see the reason we're arguing about all this stuff with tolerance. The last thing we want to create is an environment where we have to preface everything with "not meaning to offend in any way".


I remember hearing a comedian once talking about how people in his family had a way of ending anything 'but I mean that in the nicest possible way".

Vinnie, you are scum. You are dirt, you are the most miserable person to ever walk the planet, you're worthless vinnie. You're less than worthless, Your life is pointless and you'd help everybody out by dying right now.

But I mean that in the nicest possible way

What, functionally, is the difference between "I am a christian" and "I am a racist"?

Hmm.. do you value motivation ?

As in: do you believe that someone who empties a machinegun into a room filled with Al Queda terrorists, saving 1000s of people is still a hero if he believed the room was filled with innocent children and was hoping to bathe in their blood afterwards ?

Your answer is important to be able to answer your question. Afterall, a Christian is statistically more likely to perform good deeds than a racist, but that does not mean one needs to approve of their motivation... or even consider a Christians motives superior to that of a racist.

Indeed, but you must also understand that there may not be an answer you will be satisfied with. Sometimes, people are coming from such totally different directions that there simply isn't enough common ground to give a satisfactory explanation. I've been frustrated with this myself - sometimes in conversations with you. There is a point at which you have to realize that your viewpoint and lief experiences are so fundamentally different from that of another that you probably aren't going to understand them. And, at that point, continuing to ask the question over and over again ends up being like a child who asks, "Why?" incessantly even after you've gotten to the point where the only real answer is, "Because that's the way it is."

Quite so - but to get there, we must make sure there is no other possible answer. That's what I do. I ask as many questions as it takes before I can consider there to not be an answer. If there is no answer, I'd like to not have to assume it - I need to hear "Because that's the way it is", otherwise I'll never be sure.

That's a fair question.

Maybe I'm not the best person to give a really good detailed answer to it precisely because I am religious, but maybe I can offer an insight this way:

I don't believe in Islam, yet I would not call it a superstition. The reaon is:

A supersition is a frivolous and shallow "belief" that a black cat is unlucky or that tossing salt over your shoulder brings good luck. It's not spiritual in any way and doesn't comprise a system of belief.

Islam is spiritual. Those who believe in it make it a real and important part of their lives. It's more important to them than life itself. Even though I don't believe in it, I know the difference between it and superstition, and wouldn't blame a Muslim for being offended should someone refer to it that way.

So applying that logic to religion in general, I'd say the difference is one of spirituality and scope. Superstition lacks spirituality and is trivial when compared to a religion. With that in mind, is it so surprising or unreasonable that someone should have an aversion to categorizing them in the same way?

Actually, many of our superstitions [i]do/[i] comprise a 'system of belief'. It is an oral tradition, and it is less than entirely formulaic or dogmatic, but it is both persistent and pervasive. Indeed, much of our 'cultural' superstition is actually directly linked (now) to Christianity - the salt over the shoulder is to blind Satan, the black cat crossing the path is a mark of animal familiar-ism.

You perceive it as lacking a 'system' because there is no codified treatment, but it is a pervasive cultural affectation - we all 'know' that walking under ladders is 'bad luck' - so there is no need for one.

As for being 'shallow'... I assume you mean there is no formality. Personally, I find the answer 'god did it' pre-eminently 'shallow'... so, we need to work out what you mean by it. Or - do you really mean that people have to die for something, for it to be a religion?

The 'scope' I can argue... the 'spirituality' I can argue... especially due to the close links between modern superstitions and cultural religious consciousness.

The 'having to die for it' bit I can't really argue... but I have known an awful lot of people who didn't seem to have that approach to Christianity, either...


To me - superstition is accepting something that might be irrational, as being able to govern your reality. Touching wood, throwing salt... the recitation of mantras (we call them 'prayers')... awaiting the intervention of an unseen force... all of those look like superstition to the impartial observer.

It. IS. Superstition.
If you believe in a supernatural God, you are engaging in superstition. If you follow a religion that includes supernatural elements, you are engaging in superstition.
"Superstition" is not an insult. It's just the word for a certain category of beliefs/ideas/concepts. If you, personally, think that superstition is a really bad thing, so bad that it qualifies as an insult, then perhaps you should think about why you choose to hold superstitious beliefs.
The fact that you are seriously trying to argue that "superstition" doesn't apply to religion kind of validates why I use it.
However, if we are talking about The Religions that are most discussed on NS, then superstition is a primary component of religion.


Grave_n_idle asked what the difference was and I answered a couple posts back. I refer you there so as not to be repetitive.


Religion is not the same as superstition. It is possible to have superstition without religion, and (depending on how you define it) religion without superstition.


wait.... but you just said

It. IS. Superstition.


No, I'm saying that your definition of "flame" does not match up with the actual meaning of that term, as defined by the people who are empowered to judge what is and is not "flame."
Then post your complaints. Give specific examples of my flame, and refer to the forum rules to back up your claim.

To what end? It' sall subjective anyway, which is why it's necessary to have mods in the firstplace as opposed to some kind of software-text parser.


That happens all the time. 9 times out of 10, the individual in question IS intolerant, and says so themselves. They don't just say "gayz r bad," they say "gay people deserve to be legally discriminated against and/or physically harmed."

Meaning what? That you acknowledge that 1 time in 10 a person can insult homosexuals and not be labeled as intolerant? Mind you, I'm not talking about the friendly kidding that one might engage in with a gay friend.


No, it's not.
Somebody else already addressed this. It is naturally for us to view our closely-held beliefs as self-defining. However, it is important to remember that somebody else can attack even your most closely held values, without actually attacking you as a person. You are the SUM of your ideas, your personality, your values, your quirks, and whathaveyou. You are an individual person, and having one of your ideas attacked will not kill you.

Why does it have to be an attack? Since when is friendly debate about attacks? I always understood itto be a point-counterpoint exchange. If your mentality is about attacks, no wonder you come off as being aggressive. Have you ever considered the possibility that you can disagree with someone without launching an attack?


Wow. Seriously? You actually are going to lecture people on tolerance and respect, and then you're going to say stuff like this? Really? You actually want to be such a shining example of exactly what I'm talking about?

I said "Maybe." It's called conjecture. I wasn't making a personal attack on you. Forgive me if it seemed that way. The point is that you must admit that unless you've been in the position of the people I'm talking about, you can't seriously expect anyone to believe in your objectivity on this issue.


People who truly believe in racism work much the same way. Should I be sure to be diplomatic and very very gentle as I discuss racism, lest I hurt their feelings?

Yeah, you should. Why? because it is human nature that they will not open their mind to your point of view if you put them on the defensive that way. Seriously. If you're talking to a racist and you want to try and change their mind to the truth (There's really no other reason to discuss the topic with a racist, wouldn't you agree?) then you want them to be open-minded and friendly. That's how you get them to see your point as reasonable, rather than just another attack, which is exactly how they WILL see it if you get nasty. If you can't handle that reality, then I suggest your debate technique needs work.


No, in fact, you didn't address it. Please do so.
No, you didn't answer my question at all. I gave you a specific example. Please answer.

yeah I did, and if someone would be so kind as to show me how to link to a specific post, I'll do it. I won't repeat myself, though.

Oh no no, you didn't just ADMIT to being intolerant.

You said, and I quote: i think that everyone should be intolerant of wife beating.

You don't just ADMIT to intolerance, you ENCOURAGE intolerance. You said "Everybody should be" intolerant in a certain situation.

Yet you say tolerance is a social good.

So, again, you're not merely admitting to your intolerance, you encourage it, in certain situations.

And also label intolerance as a social bad.

So why would you encourage a social evil, being that, you yourself, stated that tolerance is a social good, thus intolerance must be a social evil?

Or, as I said, is it more accurate to say you support intolerance in SOME situations, in situations where it's warranted. Which basically breaks down to you saying "we should all be tolerant, except at times when I think it's better to be intollerant".

You believe intolerance against violent criminals is justified, even when that violence is performed entirely in private. You believe this is justified, and you encourage it.

Others might think inotlerance against christianity is justified, even when that christianity is performed entirely in private. You do NOT believe this is justified, and label it a social evil.

You admit to tolerance being generally a good thing, but also encourage intolerance in certain situations. Which...is fine, you can make a subjective determination as to when this is appropriate. You can say that you feel intolerance is justifiable and encourageable in certain situations.

Other people would radically disagree.

Well my only question thus becomes, who made you the arbiter of when intolerance is justified, or even encouraged?

lol

you sure have thrown quite a pile of horse shit on me.

the discussion isnt about when is intolerance justified. im sure that every intolerant person considers himself very justified. just as i feel completely justified in being intolerant of violent criminals

the discussion is about WHAT IS INTOLERANCE and what is expressing an opinion. when does expressing an opinion cross the line into intolerance?

when you want to discuss that, ill be happy to give you a full response. the rest is your attempt to "win" by changing the subject.

Neo Brettonia, while I understand your point, I also get Szanth's. The problem here is that you believe intolerance to comprise of a lack of politeness, lack of sensitivity, and neglecting to actively try to not offend others. To Szanth, intolerance would be more along the lines of personally flaming someone, or actively preventing them from expressing their views. The fact that personal offense might result from the attack of ideas close to people's heart means that there's overlap between the two points of view. It means we often risk of offense in discussions. That's a risk you undertake when you join a discussion, and expecting people to tiptoe around you is unreasonable. The fact is, that the rules on this forum require a base level of civility (no personal flames). They by no means require that posters avoid personally offending others with their opinions and questions. It's unfortunate when that happens, but it happens alot. I'm taken aback and offended quite often by what I see here. The only difference is that I don't leave in a huff, because I understand that protecting my sensibilities from offense isn't what this forum is about.

You bring up a very good point.

Something I hadn't considered, being that NeoB has put up a separate set of standards other than what is given by the mods, is entirely possible.

Taking that into account, I must simply say I do not abide by such standards.

lol

you sure have thrown quite a pile of horse shit on me.
the discussion isnt about when is intolerance justified. im sure that every intolerant person considers himself very justified. just as i feel completely justified in being intolerant of violent criminals

the discussion is about WHAT IS INTOLERANCE and what is expressing an opinion. when does expressing an opinion cross the line into intolerance?

when you want to discuss that, ill be happy to give you a full response. the rest is your attempt to "win" by changing the subject.

He's a lawyer, it's his job. *zing!*


<3 Arth.

It isn't exactly the same idea. There's a difference between, "I don't understand your beliefs and I think they are stupid," and, "Only and idiot would believe something like that."

Well...yeah. That's the difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person.

"That IDEA is stupid" =/= "You must be stupid because you believe that idea."

One of the thing I find myself restating the most around here is my firmly-held belief that very smart people will sometimes have stupid ideas.


You do come off as harsh in many cases. Sometimes, it's one of the things I like about you. =) But you've also been careful to point out that you don't think all people who hold beliefs that you call stupid are, in fact, stupid.

I certainly don't deny that I am harsh at times. I have my "mean" days and my "nice" days. Sometimes I feel like being the mellow voice in a thread. Other times I feel like being the hot-head.

The thing is, my ideas don't change. My stances don't change. And if you actually read what I write, my fundamental respect for other people DOESN'T CHANGE. But some people see me drop an f-bomb or say that something is a pile of bovine feces and they immediately start shrilling about intolerance.


No. But such a person needs to realize that their views will come off as very insulting if they aren't careful. I think that a great deal of religion - particularly organized religion - is quite often a crutch. But I generally won't put it quite that way, because I know that the polite conversation will end there and any point that I might have made will likely be out the window.

I'm a great believer in pragmatism, and this is a point I've brought up on threads before. What I'm most interested in is a good debate, and there's a point when using certain language or certain lines of argument is counterproductive to that aim.

However, I've also found that the closer you get to the heart of an issue, the harder it is to avoid terms and phrases that piss people off. The issue of "superstition" on this very thread is a glowing example. Precisely how is it possible to have a meaningful discussion of modern religion WITHOUT discussing superstition? If referring to superstitious beliefs as superstition pisses off the superstitious, are we really going to expect everybody to dance around that term?

If referring to racism as racism pisses off racists, are we really supposed to dance around that term?

(PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT trying to equate religion and racism. I was simply trying to use a topic on which people's "sides" tend to be shuffled around more.)


It also boils down to the opinion of the other person, of course. You don't believe that those who hold "stupid" beliefs are necessarily stupid themselves. Some people, on the other hand, do. So if they see you going on about a belief you think is stupid, without the qualifier you occasionally add that you don't believe that all who hold it are stupid, they are going to make that assumption. It's not a good assumption to make, but it is an easy one - and all of our reactions to something are going to be filtered through our own viewpoints (and hopefully a healthy dose of other viewpoints we've seen expressed).
Absolutely. And that's a large part of why my posts usually end up being so damn wordy. But my patience has limits, and I'm not going to pussyfoot around and pretend like I "respect" ideas that I think are utter BS. I'm not going to avoid using accurate terminology simply because it hurts the feelings of people to whom it accurately applies.

Neo Brettonia, while I understand your point, I also get Szanth's. The problem here is that you believe intolerance to comprise of a lack of politeness, lack of sensitivity, and neglecting to actively try to not offend others. To Szanth, intolerance would be more along the lines of personally flaming someone, or actively preventing them from expressing their views. The fact that personal offense might result from the attack of ideas close to people's heart means that there's overlap between the two points of view. It means we often risk of offense in discussions. That's a risk you undertake when you join a discussion, and expecting people to tiptoe around you is unreasonable. The fact is, that the rules on this forum require a base level of civility (no personal flames). They by no means require that posters avoid personally offending others with their opinions and questions. It's unfortunate when that happens, but it happens alot. I'm taken aback and offended quite often by what I see here. The only difference is that I don't leave in a huff, because I understand that protecting my sensibilities from offense isn't what this forum is about.


You are quite right, and if it were only a matter of abrasive people being abrasive then I wouldn't bother because it is something we all have to live with.

Where I take exception is when one tries to point out to someone where they've crossed the line, and instead of being open to that and trying to keep it civil, you see instead hypocrisy and shout-downs.

Hmm.. do you value motivation ?

As in: do you believe that someone who empties a machinegun into a room filled with Al Queda terrorists, saving 1000s of people is still a hero if he believed the room was filled with innocent children and was hoping to bade in their blood afterwards ?

Your answer is important to be able to answer your question. Afterall, a Christian is statistically more likely to perform good deeds than a racist, but that does not mean one needs to approve of their motivation...

Well to be sure certain beliefs can PROMPT certain acts. In which case the belief serves as motivation.

But I'm not talking about acts motivated by belief. I am talking about beliefs themselves.

Every belief we hold is inherently a belief that every position contrary to our belief is wrong.

A racist believes minorities to be inferior, thus a racist believes that everyone who believes minorities are not inferior is wrong.

A christian believes jesus christ is divine, thus a christian believes that everyone who believes that jesus christ was not divine is wrong.

We recognize, validate, support, and encourage protests against racists, because we believe their fundamental position is wrong, and harmful.

There are those who believe the fundamental position of christianity is wrong, and harmful. These people are labled intolerant. We would not do so to those who protest the racists. Or, if we did so, we would see apologetic behavior as viewed here "it's intolerant, but THIS kind of intolerant is ok".

The only thing that seperates the racist and the christian is subjective views. We in general believe that racism is far more harmful and destructive than religion. We believe it is a position of ignorace and hate, but one can be shown how not to be a racist.

Some believe that religion is harmful and destructive, and a position of ignorance.

We celebrate those who combat racism. We call those who combat religion "bigots". While it's true someone against religion can be a bigot, someone against racism is equally a bigot against racists.

It's just that we uphold some bigotry as good, some as evil. We condemn those who view religion in a same or similar fashion as we view racism. And we take massive leaps to somehow twist and turn our meanings, crumple up our justifications to make it seem like this is somehow objectively right, and not our own subjective position.

Actually, many of our superstitions [i]do/[i] comprise a 'system of belief'. It is an oral tradition, and it is less than entirely formulaic or dogmatic, but it is both persistent and pervasive. Indeed, much of our 'cultural' superstition is actually directly linked (now) to Christianity - the salt over the shoulder is to blind Satan, the black cat crossing the path is a mark of animal familiar-ism.

You perceive it as lacking a 'system' because there is no codified treatment, but it is a pervasive cultural affectation - we all 'know' that walking under ladders is 'bad luck' - so there is no need for one.

As for being 'shallow'... I assume you mean there is no formality. Personally, I find the answer 'god did it' pre-eminently 'shallow'... so, we need to work out what you mean by it. Or - do you really mean that people have to die for something, for it to be a religion?

The 'scope' I can argue... the 'spirituality' I can argue... especially due to the close links between modern superstitions and cultural religious consciousness.

The 'having to die for it' bit I can't really argue... but I have known an awful lot of people who didn't seem to have that approach to Christianity, either...


To me - superstition is accepting something that might be irrational, as being able to govern your reality. Touching wood, throwing salt... the recitation of mantras (we call them 'prayers')... awaiting the intervention of an unseen force... all of those look like superstition to the impartial observer.

To those who were demanding that I show an example of expressing disagreement without being nasty... Grave_n_idle has done it.

Thanks :)

And of course you know I'd disagree with that post, but to avoid a hijack I won't do it here.

lol

you sure have thrown quite a pile of horse shit on me.

the discussion isnt about when is intolerance justified. im sure that every intolerant person considers himself very justified. just as i feel completely justified in being intolerant of violent criminals

the discussion is about WHAT IS INTOLERANCE and what is expressing an opinion. when does expressing an opinion cross the line into intolerance?

when you want to discuss that, ill be happy to give you a full response. the rest is your attempt to "win" by changing the subject.

see, I already told you. Intolerance is attempting, by act, to prevent a certain outcome. I am intolerant to your lifestyle when I attempt to stop you from having it.

Words, spoken without heh intent to do so, is not intolerance.

I said that many many pages ago.

YOU are the one who took issue with that definition and proceeded to try and explain it your way, and in doing so got yourself so damned twisted around that you don't know which way is up anymore.

Instead of sticking with a simple definition of "intolerance is an attempt to oppose something, words alone do not oppose or inhibit, thus are not, by themselves, intolerance" you went on some MASSIVE trip through neverland coming up with "intolerance is a bad thing, except when it isn't, and is speaking out against something done in private, but if you do it in public you're fair game and speaking out isn't intolerant, unless it's done in excess, except when it isn't."

Forgive me for, instead of trying to dissect that miandering disaster, I stick with my far more simple, and far more useful definition.

Actually, many of our superstitions [i]do/[i] comprise a 'system of belief'. It is an oral tradition, and it is less than entirely formulaic or dogmatic, but it is both persistent and pervasive. Indeed, much of our 'cultural' superstition is actually directly linked (now) to Christianity - the salt over the shoulder is to blind Satan, the black cat crossing the path is a mark of animal familiar-ism.

You perceive it as lacking a 'system' because there is no codified treatment, but it is a pervasive cultural affectation - we all 'know' that walking under ladders is 'bad luck' - so there is no need for one.

As for being 'shallow'... I assume you mean there is no formality. Personally, I find the answer 'god did it' pre-eminently 'shallow'... so, we need to work out what you mean by it. Or - do you really mean that people have to die for something, for it to be a religion?

The 'scope' I can argue... the 'spirituality' I can argue... especially due to the close links between modern superstitions and cultural religious consciousness.

The 'having to die for it' bit I can't really argue... but I have known an awful lot of people who didn't seem to have that approach to Christianity, either...


To me - superstition is accepting something that might be irrational, as being able to govern your reality. Touching wood, throwing salt... the recitation of mantras (we call them 'prayers')... awaiting the intervention of an unseen force... all of those look like superstition to the impartial observer.

Let me ask this with no really concept of what your answer SHOULD be - do you think perhaps the difference might be in whether or not the person you're talking to, or even most people involved in the superstition, finds that superstition silly.

For example. if you say to me, you know on wood, that's silly? I and most people who know on wood would like not even defend the practice and admit it's just something they do, like wearing lucky socks to a game, or trying not to split a pole. Most people doing it know it's silly, but it makes them feel like they have some control and for them, that's enough.

If I hop on one foot three times and dance a jig, then the bad luck goes away.

Now while some religious practices may have exactly those points... say three hail Marys and make the sign of the cross and your sins will be forgiven or walking along spreading incense or any other number of religious practices that aren't Catholic... painting religion with the term superstition really does little to enlighten the situation, foster debate or to actually analyze what religion or superstition are.

Calling a religion superstition is like calling Republicans fascists, it might be how you feel but it's not exactly going to give people the impression you're actually interesting in discussion on any level.

You are quite right, and if it were only a matter of abrasive people being abrasive then I wouldn't bother because it is something we all have to live with.

Where I take exception is when one tries to point out to someone where they've crossed the line, and instead of being open to that and trying to keep it civil, you see instead hypocrisy and shout-downs.

Being "open" does not denote that I must kow-tow to your definitions and standards of what is "civil".

I've considered your complaints, I've thought about them, and I've refused them. Your application for citizenship has been denied.

see, I already told you. Intolerance is attempting, by act, to prevent a certain outcome. I am intolerant to your lifestyle when I attempt to stop you from having it.

Words, spoken without heh intent to do so, is not intolerance.

I said that many many pages ago.

YOU are the one who took issue with that definition and proceeded to try and explain it your way, and in doing so got yourself so damned twisted around that you don't know which way is up anymore.

Instead of sticking with a simple definition of "intolerance is an attempt to oppose something, words alone do not oppose or inhibit, thus are not, by themselves, intolerance" you went on some MASSIVE trip through neverland coming up with "intolerance is a bad thing, except when it isn't, and is speaking out against something done in private, but if you do it in public you're fair game and speaking out isn't intolerant, unless it's done in excess, except when it isn't."

Forgive me for, instead of trying to dissect that miandering disaster, I stick with my far more simple, and far more useful definition.

I'm intolerant of bigots. I'm intolerant of fanatics. I'm intolerant of people who refuse to question things.

Intolerance it may be, but intolerance is not always a bad thing.

I'm intolerant of bigots. I'm intolerant of fanatics. I'm intolerant of people who refuse to question things.

Intolerance it may be, but intolerance is not always a bad thing.

Then can I be intolerant of black people and have that not be a "bad thing"?

And if not, what makes your intolerance good and mine bad?

see, I already told you. Intolerance is attempting, by act, to prevent a certain outcome. I am intolerant to your lifestyle when I attempt to stop you from having it.

Words, spoken without heh intent to do so, is not intolerance.

I said that many many pages ago.

YOU are the one who took issue with that definition and proceeded to try and explain it your way, and in doing so got yourself so damned twisted around that you don't know which way is up anymore.

Instead of sticking with a simple definition of "intolerance is an attempt to oppose something, words alone do not oppose or inhibit, thus are not, by themselves, intolerance" you went on some MASSIVE trip through neverland coming up with "intolerance is a bad thing, except when it isn't, and is speaking out against something done in private, but if you do it in public you're fair game and speaking out isn't intolerant, unless it's done in excess, except when it isn't."

Forgive me for, instead of trying to dissect that miandering disaster, I stick with my far more simple, and far more useful definition.

But wouldn't protesting be doing exactly that? What other purpose does a protest have other than to promote change? If I stand outside an abortion clinic with pictures of "murdered babies", what other purpose do I have than to stop you from going inside?

To those who were demanding that I show an example of expressing disagreement without being nasty... Grave_n_idle has done it.

Thanks :)

And of course you know I'd disagree with that post, but to avoid a hijack I won't do it here.

Thanks. It could just be a matter of how I view the forum, perhaps.

Some people see it as a game, itself - I think - and have to 'score' and 'win'. To me, it has always been more like a school - I come here to learn, and I learn by debate.

Under those circumstances, a question asked in a rational manner is far more use to me than 'stfun00b'... :D

Then can I be intolerant of black people and have that not be a "bad thing"?

And if not, what makes your intolerance good and mine bad?

Theoretically, yes.

Nothing more than personal preference, based on personal standards.

You are quite right, and if it were only a matter of abrasive people being abrasive then I wouldn't bother because it is something we all have to live with.

Where I take exception is when one tries to point out to someone where they've crossed the line, and instead of being open to that and trying to keep it civil, you see instead hypocrisy and shout-downs.
Ah, but the only "line" that objectively matters on this forum is the one that the mods set, which is far below the level of "being nice" or "avoideing offense". I agree that we should be aware that other people's lines may not match out own, and in the interest of not stalling debate, it is prefferable to be sensitive to them. Sometimes, I really don't see how some questions can be asked without risking offense though. I'd be interested if someone could rephrase the example Bottle offered: if someone thinks religion is a fantasy and a crutch.

I haven't seen anyone else (for lack of a better term) "get it" any more than I have. If someone else has said "Oh, that's what you mean - I see, you mean it's like this --" than please, show me the way. I haven't seen anything nearly like that. In fact, I've seen Bottle doing pretty much the opposite.

I know you feel you have to save face by not conceding this.


You considered some of my posts to be appalling. Alright. Admittedly, I could quite possibly not care any less if I were in a coma at the moment. I don't really care if people get offended at the way I word things - regardless of how they feel or the way I say something, the idea is there, I'm simply showing it to them. If they can't handle it, then they become offended. Most are, however, more secure in themselves to where the wording of my questions has no apparent affect on them, and certainly wouldn't make them "appalled" to any degree, because they can look at what I'm saying and read the meaning, see the questions, without having a heart-attack.


And once more you return to the "I'm just telling it like it is and anyone who can't handle that is just oversensitive."

That doesn't make you impressive. It makes you clueless.


For you to accuse me of 'playing innocent' is for you to accuse me of being guilty of something. I know you're a bit on the sensitive side, and were I to be any more direct than you're being to me, you may have a fit, but please for my sake just come out and directly accuse me of something if you're going to do it anyway.

I've done so, but hey thanks for the patronizing. Is this your attempt to gain the moral high ground? You are guilty of something and you admit it yourself, which is that you don't care if you hurt people in your debates. You expect people to just suck it up merely because you're either too lazy to make the effort to be polite or you just don't know how.


Who takes exception to my methods? I'm honestly asking. This is the first I've heard of it. I've seen people take exception to UB's methods, and associate me with him simply because I didn't chastise him for acting that way, but not once have I seen anything more.

You're not honestly asking and you know it. I've seen people take you to task before. Either you DO know and you're being dishonest here, or you've forgotten in which case there' s little point in me wasting my time gathering quotes.


Logic justifies all. If it's logical to say unkind things in order to get the point across, it's justified. That's the definition of justification. At least, to me - you may put the sensitivities of others above your ideas and your arguments. I'm not entirely certain why you're in NSG, but I'm here to learn - I'm here to get heated and debate in the most fruitful and non-bullshittery way possible, and if someone's feelings gets hurt in the process, I apologize, but I will not concede that doing so was wrong.
If you won't concede that doing so was wrong then any apology you may have made is utterly meaningless.

Logic is logic. It isn't about justifying anything. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying you're here to learn. In order to learn one must be open-minded and you have NOT demonstrated that trait.


By you trying to delegate what I can and cannot say, what methods I can and cannot use, what ideas I can and cannot question, what metaphors I can and cannot present, you are indeed, to the fullest extent, questioning my right to debate.

BS. I'm calling you out for playing innocent while using tactics that you know to be hurtful. You've tried dodging that left, right, up and down by trying to characterize me as some kind of censor but at the end of the day you've already revealed yourself as a hypocrite and quite probably a liar.

*I'm not a racist, I have three black friends...*

This was utterly foolish of you. This is how I know you're not really reading my posts for content. By you inserting this into my paragraph it shows me that you were reacting before understanding what was actually being said.

...not that I find that surprising.


Would you be such a third party? I had to keep reminding Smunk in our discussions that I do respect her, I think she's a nice person, I like her as a member of the NSG residential area - but again, you seem to be confusing my questioning her admittedly almost groundless beliefs for attacking her character as a whole. This is wrong. I can question her all day, seeking answers, wanting to know more about her and how she thinks and what her reasoning is, and this just means I'm interested in her and I find her to be a curious possibility to give me more information in my goal to learn as much as possible through debate.


So... you look at her as if she were in a petri dish, stroke her ego, then can't understand why this is a problem. Nice. Are you really this clueless or has this kind of inane tactic worked fr you in the past?


Smunk's a nice person.
That's true. So what?


Diplomatic? I know that technically, we're nationstates here, but this isn't the RP forum. My name is Tommy, I'm a payroll/billing administrator for a security guard company. I live in Virginia.

I'm not an ambassador. I'm a person, and I have opinions. I will show you these opinions, should you give the opportunity, and if I see an opening I'll ask what you think about them. From there, it may go for pages and pages of me trying to find more about you through questioning your beliefs, and if you can't handle it then you're not my kind of person.

If you're not my kind of person, it's not worth it for me to debate with you.
You do understand that diplomacy is a context that isn't only reserved for international contexts, right? My name is Chris, I'm a software developer and I work in Virginia. Relevance?

I have found you incapable of actual debate, and whether or not I'm "your kind of person" is uttterly irrelevant to me. You keep trying to characterize yourself as being an open minded reasonable guy and yet you've also admitted that you don't care if you harm people with your approach. This is hypocritical.

Thanks. It could just be a matter of how I view the forum, perhaps.

Some people see it as a game, itself - I think - and have to 'score' and 'win'. To me, it has always been more like a school - I come here to learn, and I learn by debate.

Under those circumstances, a question asked in a rational manner is far more use to me than 'stfun00b'... :D

QFT

And in a learning atmosphere, unkind words and harsh arguments tend to be an obstacle.

But wouldn't protesting be doing exactly that? What other purpose does a protest have other than to promote change? If I stand outside an abortion clinic with pictures of "murdered babies", what other purpose do I have than to stop you from going inside?

ah, a PROTEST might. Debatable but it might. If I stand and protest outside a clinic, but take no actual effort to STOP you, is this intolerant of your position?

Is the possibility of influencing your mental state a form of intolerance, even if I don't actually stop you?

Again, it has to do with intent. A protest, in your fashion, might do that.

Can I do that while sitting here on NSG talking to another poster (which really is what caused this whole thing). Probably not....

And if so, then EVERY SINGLE DEBATE we have on this forum becomes an exercise in intolerance as every single one involves at least in part, some attempt to change the other's views. If that's the case, then the very word becomes meaningless, and attacking someone because he's intolerant of your religion becomes as worthless around here, because everything everyone does in a debate then would be an exercise of intolerance.

Theoretically, yes.

Nothing more than personal preference, based on personal standards.

then what then is the use of calling anyone intolerant?

Ah, but the only "line" that objectively matters on this forum is the one that the mods set, which is far below the level of "being nice" or "avoideing offense". I agree that we should be aware that other people's lines may not match out own, and in the interest of not stalling debate, it is prefferable to be sensitive to them. Sometimes, I really don't see how some questions can be asked without risking offense though. I'd be interested if someone could rephrase the example Bottle offered: if someone thinks religion is a fantasy and a crutch.

Yeah, I can't see any other way to say that phrase.

I consider, in most situations, religion to be a metaphorical crutch - something someone uses so they can get by, and without which, the person would be disabled somewhat.

I consider, in -all- situations, that religion is fantasy.


I can't word it any other way.

Then can I be intolerant of black people and have that not be a "bad thing"?

And if not, what makes your intolerance good and mine bad?

Well, I'd notice that his examples are all of choices people have made and yours of something that cannot be helped.

I think a better example would be "Can I be intolerant of gays" since most who are intolerant of gays believe it to be a choice, and those who claim it's a bad thing to be intolerant of generally believe it to be something we cannot help. It's much more the gray area than what you mentioned.

Being "open" does not denote that I must kow-tow to your definitions and standards of what is "civil".

I've considered your complaints, I've thought about them, and I've refused them. Your application for citizenship has been denied.

Then you need to quit griping when you DO get called out. You don't care, you've admitted you don't care, which is all perfectly fine, but stop playing the innocent when people take you to task. You can't have it both ways.

see, I already told you. Intolerance is attempting, by act, to prevent a certain outcome. I am intolerant to your lifestyle when I attempt to stop you from having it.

Words, spoken without heh intent to do so, is not intolerance.

I said that many many pages ago.

YOU are the one who took issue with that definition and proceeded to try and explain it your way, and in doing so got yourself so damned twisted around that you don't know which way is up anymore.

Instead of sticking with a simple definition of "intolerance is an attempt to oppose something, words alone do not oppose or inhibit, thus are not, by themselves, intolerance" you went on some MASSIVE trip through neverland coming up with "intolerance is a bad thing, except when it isn't, and is speaking out against something done in private, but if you do it in public you're fair game and speaking out isn't intolerant, unless it's done in excess, except when it isn't."

Forgive me for, instead of trying to dissect that miandering disaster, I stick with my far more simple, and far more useful definition.

no, you limited it to a legal definition. if i had been wrong on that, you would have corrected me immediately and i would have apologized for being wrong.

and you still mischaracterize my position so badly that either you didnt read it or are deliberately mistating it.

leaving intolerance to a legal definition or limiting it to actions that would deny someone their right to lve as they please is not an adequate definition of intolerance as it doesnt cover the vast majority of ways that people show intolerance.

Yeah, I can't see any other way to say that phrase.

I consider, in most situations, religion to be a metaphorical crutch - something someone uses so they can get by, and without which, the person would be disabled somewhat.

I consider, in -all- situations, that religion is fantasy.


I can't word it any other way.

Then I suggest that's an intellectual limitation on your part. I think Grave_n_idle did a great job and he (or she) probably wasn't even trying.

no, you limited it to a legal definition. if i had been wrong on that, you would have corrected me immediately and i would have apologized for being wrong.

and you still mischaracterize my position so badly that either you didnt read it or are deliberately mistating it.

leaving intolerance to a legal definition or limiting it to actions that would deny someone their right to lve as they please is not an adequate definition of intolerance as it doesnt cover the vast majority of ways that people show intolerance.

then what USE is your definition? It's become a subjective test based on a subjective standard of "excess" which then MAY be good and MAY be bad depending, again, on a subjective position.

What good is covering the vast majority of ways that people show intolerance if we have rendered it so subjectively mushy that it can be argued all people are at all times intolerant of SOMETHING?

Let me ask this with no really concept of what your answer SHOULD be - do you think perhaps the difference might be in whether or not the person you're talking to, or even most people involved in the superstition, finds that superstition silly.

For example. if you say to me, you know on wood, that's silly? I and most people who know on wood would like not even defend the practice and admit it's just something they do, like wearing lucky socks to a game, or trying not to split a pole. Most people doing it know it's silly, but it makes them feel like they have some control and for them, that's enough.

If I hop on one foot three times and dance a jig, then the bad luck goes away.

Now while some religious practices may have exactly those points... say three hail Marys and make the sign of the cross and your sins will be forgiven or walking along spreading incense or any other number of religious practices that aren't Catholic... painting religion with the term superstition really does little to enlighten the situation, foster debate or to actually analyze what religion or superstition are.

Calling a religion superstition is like calling Republicans fascists, it might be how you feel but it's not exactly going to give people the impression you're actually interesting in discussion on any level.

I don't think it is a matter of 'painting religion with the term supestition'... I think it is more that there is might be no objective difference between them. As I said, waiting on intervention by an unseen force sounds like superstition when viewed from outside of the confines of (the) religion.

It isn't derogatory, so much as descriptive. It isn't 'how I feel', it is 'how it appears'.

Now, I can understand that - as a believer - there might be a perceived gap... and that that void might seem titanic... but from the outside, that all just looks like quibbling the details.

And that's the crux... from the outside perspective, it looks like the suggestion of 'religion' as subset of 'superstition' is enlightening, since it partitions something that appears counter-logical into an area of human experience based on ritualistic behaviours based on 'anecdotal' or 'perceived' observation of effect.

Perhaps, then, you can appreciate how illogical it appears for the 'believer' to disclaim a relationship?

Thanks. It could just be a matter of how I view the forum, perhaps.

Some people see it as a game, itself - I think - and have to 'score' and 'win'. To me, it has always been more like a school - I come here to learn, and I learn by debate.

Under those circumstances, a question asked in a rational manner is far more use to me than 'stfun00b'... :D

Can't it be both. Can't we be honing our debate skills, our ability to be persuasive and win in a forum where the game is debate and at the same time be honestly interested in also exposing our views and those of others to the light that we might see them more clearly?

Again, I think its about balance.

Of course, I have to say that because debate is the reason I come here. As such, I honestly say things here and in other places where I go in person with the expectation of debating points that I would never say if I was having a discussion with a friend or my mother about politics.

I think we have to recognize that we are here serving multiple purposes. Recruiting others to our view is one. Debate is another. Enlightenment still another. As people balance those purposes we'll see their methods also change.

For me, it's the reason I never put people on ignore. The last thing I would ever want to have is someone attacking my points without me seeing what parts of their points might need addressing. I think 'ignore' is a dangerous tool to use if your purpose is to debate. If enlightenment is your sole purpose and the person has nothing of value to add, well, then that's different.

I think maybe the best approach is to just do your best and realize that each person is different. Some will be offended by absolutely nothing and let practically any statement slide, while others will be much more picky about phrasing either because they're offended easily or because frankly, insulting language can be unclear and difficult to debate with no matter how you feel about it.

And when you find that someone chafes at your approach, is it realy so much to ask that you tailor it a little in the interest of friendliness and discussion? I try to do that myself, and I find it works fairly well. Mind you I don't always do a great job, and when I get mad I come out swinging, but I also try to clarify or apologize when I see that I've hurt someone's feelings by mistake.

The way some people act, you'd think something that simple would require an act of Congress to do it.

then what USE is your definition? It's become a subjective test based on a subjective standard of "excess" which then MAY be good and MAY be bad depending, again, on a subjective position.

What good is covering the vast majority of ways that people show intolerance if we have rendered it so subjectively mushy that it can be argued all people are at all times intolerant of SOMETHING?

i set out a very straightforward test for figuring out if you or someone else is being intolerant. its as useful as that knowlege is useful.

HERE it is very useful to know if someone is being intolerant of you or your opinions since it helps you gauge your response. is szanth debating with me or is he an asshole? i can look at what i said or christians have said and what he responded to us and, even if his response made me angry, realize that he was just debating a point, not attacking me. other people you can look at a pattern of responses and know that they are completely intolerant of religious people and put them on ignore as soon as they start in on you.

I don't think it is a matter of 'painting religion with the term supestition'... I think it is more that there is might be no objective difference between them. As I said, waiting on intervention by an unseen force sounds like superstition when viewed from outside of the confines of (the) religion.

It isn't derogatory, so much as descriptive. It isn't 'how I feel', it is 'how it appears'.

Now, I can understand that - as a believer - there might be a perceived gap... and that that void might seem titanic... but from the outside, that all just looks like quibbling the details.

And that's the crux... from the outside perspective, it looks like the suggestion of 'religion' as subset of 'superstition' is enlightening, since it partitions something that appears counter-logical into an area of human experience based on ritualistic behaviours based on 'anecdotal' or 'perceived' observation of effect.

Perhaps, then, you can appreciate how illogical it appears for the 'believer' to disclaim a relationship?

However, I think there is a practical and objective difference between the two.

Let me ask you this - I believe that rights are endowed you when you become a person. Is this a superstitious belief?

EDIT: By the way, superstition pretty much requires you to believe in a false understanding of causation (which SOME religion does) or to ignore or not be aware of evidence that would be contrary to your view (which also some religion does). As an implicit Atheist, can you really argue that people who hold religious views are necessarily superstitious?

i set out a very straightforward test for figuring out if you or someone else is being intolerant. its as useful as that knowlege is useful.


Your test wasn't straightforward int he slightest. It was basically it's intolerant to speak out against what someone does in private, but not intolerant when that person makes their private life at hand in the public.

Know what the problem with this is? You have made whether or not MY acts are intolerant contingent on someone ELSES actions. Two people, doing the exact same things, with the exact same frame of mind, and the exact same intent, one is intolerant, one is not, based only on what someone ELSE was doing.

Nonsense. It's a worthless test.

I know you feel you have to save face by not conceding this.

One.

And once more you return to the "I'm just telling it like it is and anyone who can't handle that is just oversensitive."

That doesn't make you impressive. It makes you clueless.

Clueless to.. what?

I've done so, but hey thanks for the patronizing. Is this your attempt to gain the moral high ground? You are guilty of something and you admit it yourself, which is that you don't care if you hurt people in your debates. You expect people to just suck it up merely because you're either too lazy to make the effort to be polite or you just don't know how.

No you haven't. You have in this post, farther down, but not before. Not in plain words.

You're not honestly asking and you know it. I've seen people take you to task before. Either you DO know and you're being dishonest here, or you've forgotten in which case there' s little point in me wasting my time gathering quotes.

Two.

If you won't concede that doing so was wrong then any apology you may have made is utterly meaningless.

I disagree. I'm sorry she was hurt, but I do not wish to take back what I said.

Logic is logic. It isn't about justifying anything. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying you're here to learn. In order to learn one must be open-minded and you have NOT demonstrated that trait.

I'm quite open-minded, in that I question everything I possibly can. I was once quoted (to my delight) in someone's sig, where I responded to someone asking if authority should be questioned. I replied, stating that everything should be questioned.

If questioning everything equally is not open-minded, then you may show me to the welcome mat, because I need to wipe my feet off and leave.

BS. I'm calling you out for playing innocent while using tactics that you know to be hurtful. You've tried dodging that left, right, up and down by trying to characterize me as some kind of censor but at the end of the day you've already revealed yourself as a hypocrite and quite probably a liar.

I've done no such thing. I can't read anyone's mind. I have no idea what people find to be hurtful. In your defense, though, I don't really care what people find hurtful, either, so the point is moot.

You're trying to tell me not to say something - that's what a censor is. I'm sorry, but it's true.

This was utterly foolish of you. This is how I know you're not really reading my posts for content. By you inserting this into my paragraph it shows me that you were reacting before understanding what was actually being said.

...not that I find that surprising.

Holy shit, I made a joke - get the guns, we're going to war!

I saw an opening and I took it, so sue me. I thought it was funny.


So... you look at her as if she were in a petri dish, stroke her ego, then can't understand why this is a problem. Nice. Are you really this clueless or has this kind of inane tactic worked fr you in the past?

I look at her the same way I look at everyone. Every time I talk to someone, I learn something. Even if I just learn pieces of something, it eventually adds up. I look at her as a person whose mind is a mystery to me, and whose actions and thoughts are unaccessable by any way other than to question her about them. I look at her as a friend, and I look at this as a debate with a friend. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and please stop calling me "clueless" without specifying what you're talking about. I could go the rest of my life without being reminded of that horrid movie.

That's true. So what?

So you must realize I mean no hostile intent towards her.

You do understand that diplomacy is a context that isn't only reserved for international contexts, right? My name is Chris, I'm a software developer and I work in Virginia. Relevance?

Relevance being we're now talking as people, rather than psuedonyms. From here on I'll enjoy the conversation much more than I have, previously.

I have found you incapable of actual debate, and whether or not I'm "your kind of person" is uttterly irrelevant to me. You keep trying to characterize yourself as being an open minded reasonable guy and yet you've also admitted that you don't care if you harm people with your approach. This is hypocritical.

It is not. I'm open-minded - I consider everything. I think about everything. Everything that goes into my mind gets a chance to change my mind about something.

This does, however, not mean it goes in and changes my mind without question. It is challenged in every way possible. If it survives, it changes me. If not, it is discarded.

I'd also like to note the misconstrued language you're using. I'm not 'harming' anyone, in any way. Nobody has been hurt. I doubt Smunk has even given me a second thought after leaving the thread we debated on.

But, using correct language, I don't care if others are offended by the way I word my arguments.

Taking offense and being harmed are two and a half far cries from the same thing..

Then you need to quit griping when you DO get called out. You don't care, you've admitted you don't care, which is all perfectly fine, but stop playing the innocent when people take you to task. You can't have it both ways.

I don't care when my wording offends someone.

I do care when, because my wording offends someone, they take it upon themselves to play victim, to which they point the finger at me - suddenly I'm on shit lists, because some people are only looking at her finger, rather than where the 'crime scene' is.

I care when I'm called things that I'm not. I care when I'm being flamed for things I didn't do. I care when I'm innocent by disassociation, while nobody seems to want to look at it and see that I didn't do anything.

And I care when you try and point your mighty finger at me because someone else is doing so and using it as a soapbox to which you can stand and shout about your own personal beliefs.

I care when people who have NOTHING to do with what happened try to shove their noses into it and find a scapegoat.

You might notice that while I am Catholic, I don't bring up the Bible or Catholicism when I am trying to argue for or against a social point.

That's why I think it's pretty rude when people mock "my invisible friend in the sky". I don't mind that you don't believe. Hell, though people have assumed it in the past, I don't particularly care if a person is religious or not -- their actions speak plenty loudly for what type of person they are. What I mind is folks going way out of their way to show their contempt for what they've lumped together as my beliefs.

QFT

And in a learning atmosphere, unkind words and harsh arguments tend to be an obstacle.

Didn't you JUST post a post that was primarily an agressive personal attack often times avoiding points to replace them with insults?

You can't have it both ways.

I don't agree that unkind words and harsh arguments prevent learning among adults. On the contrary, I think it's occasionally the best way to learn.

I learned more electronics in a few months in the military than in four years of college because they sliced through all the nonsense and told us what we were supposed to understand and why. If you were playing games or being argumentative, you could quickly, unkindly and harshly shut down the moment it was recognized that you were arguing nonsense.

If you claim to believe this is a necessary part of the learning environment (it sometimes is, for children) then you've exposed yourself as uninterested in creating a learning environment.

EDIT: Make that several posts with pretty much the only purpose of personally attacking Szanth. Whether Szanth deserves it or not you can't claim that you're trying for learning and that you can't have unkind words and such here while making them the focus of your posts in this thread.

Then I suggest that's an intellectual limitation on your part. I think Grave_n_idle did a great job and he (or she) probably wasn't even trying.

He didn't mention anything referring to a crutch or something someone must use so they can stand up.

It's not the same metaphor - it's not my words, it's not what I was thinking, it's not the same thing.

Sure, if you take the entire crutch metaphor out, it sounds nicer, but then there's an entire point through which I can discuss that's just laying on the ground because I didn't want to say what was on my mind.

Your test wasn't straightforward int he slightest. It was basically it's intolerant to speak out against what someone does in private, but not intolerant when that person makes their private life at hand in the public.

Know what the problem with this is? You have made whether or not MY acts are intolerant contingent on someone ELSES actions. Two people, doing the exact same things, with the exact same frame of mind, and the exact same intent, one is intolerant, one is not, based only on what someone ELSE was doing.

Nonsense. It's a worthless test.

geeez its only intolerant when you act on it. if you are a bigot but dont ACT on it, you are a tolerant bigot. there would still be problems with being a bigot but intolerance woudlnt be one of them.

if all bigots were tolerant, the world would be a better place.

you are judged intolerant based only on your own actions. that its in response to someone elses actions (or your supposition of their actions) doesnt mean that its THEIR actions that decide the issue.

if someone is making a public argument, it is certainly not intolerant to debate them, is it? well no, its not.

and yet sometimes we can see clearly that a response to a public argument IS intolerant whether that be shouting down fred phelps or disrupting a gay pride parade.

its very useful to know when that line is crossed. when tolerance in debate becomes intolerance.

this is NOT a moral judgement on whether or it was RIGHT to be intolerant in any particular situation.

geeez its only intolerant when you act on it. if you are a bigot but dont ACT on it, you are a tolerant bigot. there would still be problems with being a bigot but intolerance woudlnt be one of them.

if all bigots were tolerant, the world would be a better place.

Actually, most definitions of bigot includes the word intolerant. You'd probably do well to choose a different word.

I think the problem here is that we have to look at intent when discussing the word intolerance. If I hinder someone without that intent then I'm not being intolerant, just insensitive. If I wish to hinder someone and would if I could, then the fact that I don't doesn't mean I'm tolerant.

You might notice that while I am Catholic, I don't bring up the Bible or Catholicism when I am trying to argue for or against a social point.

That's why I think it's pretty rude when people mock "my invisible friend in the sky". I don't mind that you don't believe. Hell, though people have assumed it in the past, I don't particularly care if a person is religious or not -- their actions speak plenty loudly for what type of person they are. What I mind is folks going way out of their way to show their contempt for what they've lumped together as my beliefs.

Agreed, but if someone were to be debating with you about a certain point, and it got to discussing about why you believe what you do, you would be right in bringing up the bible or catholocism when asked.

From there, they can debate the point in the bible, because it's most likely the only way any kind of a conclusion will be resolved. Find the root, and deal with it. In this case, the root is the bible - so debate the specific part of the bible that's relevant.

Though if it's grounded on such belief, then it's hard to get down to the 'why', and most likely will end up agreeing to disagree - this is where the 'because that's just how I feel' comes up, and then the debate can end.

One.

?


Clueless to.. what?

To the idea that if a person is insulted/hurt/whetever by something you've said, it is entirely possible that you crossed the line. Your argument seems to hinge upon the idea that you've been nothing but reasonable and any example of someone being upset just proves that they're the ones with the problem.

This is not open-minded.


No you haven't. You have in this post, farther down, but not before. Not in plain words.
I disagree, but that's not really relevant anymore.


Two.

?



I disagree. I'm sorry she was hurt, but I do not wish to take back what I said.

That's fine but it still nullifines the meaning of an apology. On this we may simply have different experience with what constitutes a valid apology but I was always taught that an apology is only good when it's sincere, and if you don't regret your actions, it's not sincere. It still implies you haven't done wrong to begin with.


I'm quite open-minded, in that I question everything I possibly can. I was once quoted (to my delight) in someone's sig, where I responded to someone asking if authority should be questioned. I replied, stating that everything should be questioned.

If questioning everything equally is not open-minded, then you may show me to the welcome mat, because I need to wipe my feet off and leave.
Something we have in common: Everything should be questioned.

But that doesn't make you open-minded. Again, this may be different worldviews, but if you're going to question something out of a sincere desire to gain understanding, you ought to be willing to go wherever it takes you, for better or for worse. Harassing someone with questions when you know they may not have the answers is a form of attack, often used to illustrate someone's gaps in knowledge.


I've done no such thing. I can't read anyone's mind. I have no idea what people find to be hurtful. In your defense, though, I don't really care what people find hurtful, either, so the point is moot.
You're right. The point is moot. I will state for the record that you don't have to be a mind reader to know if you've hurt someone when they come out and tell you.


You're trying to tell me not to say something - that's what a censor is. I'm sorry, but it's true.
I'm not telling you to say anything. I'm not even telling you NOT to say anything. I'm saying that people who come on here and use vitriolic attacks and then play innocent later are hypocrites and/or liars.


Holy shit, I made a joke - get the guns, we're going to war!

I saw an opening and I took it, so sue me. I thought it was funny.

It would have been funny were it in context. My point is that it wasn't.


I look at her the same way I look at everyone. Every time I talk to someone, I learn something. Even if I just learn pieces of something, it eventually adds up. I look at her as a person whose mind is a mystery to me, and whose actions and thoughts are unaccessable by any way other than to question her about them. I look at her as a friend, and I look at this as a debate with a friend. Nothing more, nothing less.
Can you see where people find being looked at as a lab specimen annoying?


Oh, and please stop calling me "clueless" without specifying what you're talking about. I could go the rest of my life without being reminded of that horrid movie.

Now that was funny. :p


So you must realize I mean no hostile intent towards her.

I have no reason to believe you don't, based on what I saw. People get hostile with folks they know to be nice all the time. They're called bullies.


Relevance being we're now talking as people, rather than psuedonyms. From here on I'll enjoy the conversation much more than I have, previously.

Fair enough.


It is not. I'm open-minded - I consider everything. I think about everything. Everything that goes into my mind gets a chance to change my mind about something.

This does, however, not mean it goes in and changes my mind without question. It is challenged in every way possible. If it survives, it changes me. If not, it is discarded.

I find this difficult to accept, based upon what I've seen. Half the time it seems you're not even reading a post for its honest content, let alone give it due attention in your mind.


I'd also like to note the misconstrued language you're using. I'm not 'harming' anyone, in any way. Nobody has been hurt. I doubt Smunk has even given me a second thought after leaving the thread we debated on.

I really hope you're right.


But, using correct language, I don't care if others are offended by the way I word my arguments.

Taking offense and being harmed are two and a half far cries from the same thing.

That's true but that doesn't mean you can just write all cases off as being of the former and not the latter.

However, I think there is a practical and objective difference between the two.

Let me ask you this - I believe that rights are endowed you when you become a person. Is this a superstitious belief?


I might be the wrong audience. I don't believe there are any innate rights.

So... yes?


EDIT: By the way, superstition pretty much requires you to believe in a false understanding of causation (which SOME religion does) or to ignore or not be aware of evidence that would be contrary to your view (which also some religion does). As an implicit Atheist, can you really argue that people who hold religious views are necessarily superstitious?

I'm not entirely sure I agree that superstition does require the things you say.... not walking under ladders seems like the perfect example of superstition reflecting really nothing more than experience and pragmatism. So - while superstition might be largely "based on ritualistic behaviours based on 'anecdotal' or 'perceived' observation of effect"... it isn't intrinsically ignoring evidence or ignorant of causality. It just processes through a different filter. So - it can still be 'right'... just like religion can.

Superstition (and religion, I'd say) are just about which data you'll process as valid.

Didn't you JUST post a post that was primarily an agressive personal attack often times avoiding points to replace them with insults?

You can't have it both ways.



I posted an aggressive post targeted specifically at people for specific reasons and made no pretense of it being an academic exercise. See the difference?

It DOES mean being polite exactly because it is quite possible to cause injury with statements. Ironically, your reply here was reasonable. I'm not addressing arguments where people air their disagreements. I'm talking about vitriol. You know it exists. You see it on here every day, and the people that do it are always perfectly innocent in their own eyes.

There are specific instances where statements can cause injury, and they are very limited. Damage to your reputation, causing economic loss, etc. Yes, I'm speaking in legal terms here, but it also makes sense outside of the legal context.

I'm also not going to argue that vitriol can have serious consequences for the mental well-being of people. Nonetheless, we need to distinguish between attacks on religion per se, and attacks on people who hold religious beliefs.

1) Attacking a person for the beliefs they hold is intolerant.

2) Attacking the beliefs is valid, and does not constitute intolerance.

You can do both, and be a douchebag in the process. Douchebaggery does not automatically mean you are engaged in either 1, or 2.

I don't care when my wording offends someone.

I do care when, because my wording offends someone, they take it upon themselves to play victim, to which they point the finger at me - suddenly I'm on shit lists, because some people are only looking at her finger, rather than where the 'crime scene' is.

I care when I'm called things that I'm not. I care when I'm being flamed for things I didn't do. I care when I'm innocent by disassociation, while nobody seems to want to look at it and see that I didn't do anything.

And I care when you try and point your mighty finger at me because someone else is doing so and using it as a soapbox to which you can stand and shout about your own personal beliefs.

I care when people who have NOTHING to do with what happened try to shove their noses into it and find a scapegoat.

I'm not a lemming. I had a problem with you at the time and I said so. I was involved so yeah, I had something to do with it. In fact, I even tried to defend Smunk and got grief for that, too.

That's the stupidest definition of tolerance that I've ever heard. That is most certainly what some people WANT it to mean, but no...'without hindrance or contradiction'? Please. Any belief you hold is going to hinder or contradict someone else's belief (if you consider contradiction to actually be a form of hindrance) if you in any way voice it.

I'm not preventing you from pushing this definition, I'm not trying to ban it...I'm just not going to give it any respect.

2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

http://m-w.com/dictionary/tolerance

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Perhaps it is your definition that is faulty.

there ya go. if you put on your "i love bananas" t shirt, if you get all your friends to do so too, you are just disagreeing with me

if you start interfering with my life somehow, blocking my way to the produce aisle maybe, you are being intolerant.

You didn't actually answer my question.

In wearing the 'I hate bananas' shirt...am I putting my beliefs out there in the public marketplace? As in, is it now valid to oppose my beliefs?

geeez its only intolerant when you act on it.

Yes, that is what "tolerate" means, after all.

if you are a bigot but dont ACT on it, you are a tolerant bigot. there would still be problems with being a bigot but intolerance woudlnt be one of them.

yes, yes that's correct.

if all bigots were tolerant, the world would be a better place.

There would be less attempts to supress rights, this much is true.

Are you done trying and failing to point out some problem with what I've said?

I might be the wrong audience. I don't believe there are any innate rights.

So... yes?



I'm not entirely sure I agree that superstition does require the things you say.... not walking under ladders seems like the perfect example of superstition reflecting really nothing more than experience and pragmatism. So - while superstition might be largely "based on ritualistic behaviours based on 'anecdotal' or 'perceived' observation of effect"... it isn't intrinsically ignoring evidence or ignorant of causality.

That is however a flawed idea of causality. Walking under a ladder is dangerous because ladders fall. It's not because it will cause bad luck.


It just processes through a different filter. So - it can still be 'right'... just like religion can.

Superstition (and religion, I'd say) are just about which data you'll process as valid.
You didn't give an example of it being right. You gave an example of taking evidence and coming to a provably flawed conclusion. Superstitions have a provably flawed view. Religions may as well, which is where they would be superstitious, where they don't according to definition, they are not superstitions.

That's objective.

Meanwhile, if your goal is learning, do you think calling religions as a whole, superstitious, promotes learning and open-mindedness or not?

There are specific instances where statements can cause injury, and they are very limited. Damage to your reputation, causing economic loss, etc. Yes, I'm speaking in legal terms here, but it also makes sense outside of the legal context.

I'm also not going to argue that vitriol can have serious consequences for the mental well-being of people. Nonetheless, we need to distinguish between attacks on religion per se, and attacks on people who hold religious beliefs.

1) Attacking a person for the beliefs they hold is intolerant.

2) Attacking the beliefs is valid, and does not constitute intolerance.

You can do both, and be a douchebag in the process. Douchebaggery does not automatically mean you are engaged in either 1, or 2.

While I agree with the substance of your post let me take exception with this: Why must it be characterized as an attack? Grave_n_idle (If I may keep using the example) did a fine job of posting an argument without it being an attack. He basically came out and expressed why he feels religion is comparable to superstition and did so without being in the slightest bit mean-spirited or offensive.

But I think you and I are probably saying the same thing, I just wanted to address an issue of semantics because I think in this case, it can be quite relevant because it speaks to the mindset of at least one of the parties involved.

I'm a great believer in pragmatism, and this is a point I've brought up on threads before. What I'm most interested in is a good debate, and there's a point when using certain language or certain lines of argument is counterproductive to that aim.

However, I've also found that the closer you get to the heart of an issue, the harder it is to avoid terms and phrases that piss people off. The issue of "superstition" on this very thread is a glowing example. Precisely how is it possible to have a meaningful discussion of modern religion WITHOUT discussing superstition? If referring to superstitious beliefs as superstition pisses off the superstitious, are we really going to expect everybody to dance around that term?

I think part of the problem is just one of language. It is imperfect. It is completely dependent on context and connotations are a huge part of it, even if someone is meaning only to use the direct definition of a word. If I hadn't seen many of your posts and I came into a thread and saw you calling all religion "superstition", I might be somewhat insulted, because of the way I would use the word. You use it differently and, understanding that, it isn't a problem to me.

Especially in written form, communication is one of those things that takes effort on all sides. I'm as guilty as anyone of occasionally jumping to a quick conclusion about what someone might mean by a given phrase and then being pissed off enough that I don't really listen (at least at first) when they try to explain what they actually meant. And I've been on the other end of that as well.

Look at the debate here on precisely what "tolerance" means. Language is a wonderful tool, but it can cause an awful lot of misunderstanding as well.

Nees, I thought it was unfortunate we were losing you. You're back, but I can't say that I didn't miss you in the interim. Then I'm shocked you'd actually think I wouldn't come back, even though I was certain I wouldn't.

No one gets out of here alive...

Smunkee will be back, and I'll be happy when she is. I simply do not feel any need to mourn what is going to turn out well anyway.

Blame the optimist in me. You bloody pessimist.

I posted an aggressive post targeted specifically at people for specific reasons and made no pretense of it being an academic exercise. See the difference?

Ah, I see. So as long as you decide that you can step out of the academic discussion and attack people for specific reasons, then it's acceptable to do so even if it's done in the same place as the academic discussion and involves the same people.

Yeah, no hypocrisy there. Well, unless, you know what hypocrisy MEANS.

I also hope she'll timeout and then return.

We have largely lost SoWiBi. Peech has become almost a memory. I've not seen Willamena lately. Muravyets seems to have been gone a long time.

Some of the ones I lament might not even be remembered by most... Ph33r, Personal Responsibilit, Tropical Sands... even Iakeokeo seems to have finally given up the ghost.

Okay okay, I just don't want to get so depressed that I walk into traffic. This is my version of 'lalalalalala, I'm not listening!'. :D

Blame the optimist in me. You bloody pessimist.

I'm less optimistic than Sinuhue? This is perhaps the harshest criticism I've ever received.

but but

smunkee you there?

I consider, in -all- situations, that religion is fantasy.

I can't word it any other way.

Can you not? You know of no words that would express the same viewpoint without using a term that will quite often carry abrasive connotations?

Ah, I see. So as long as you decide that you can step out of the academic discussion and attack people for specific reasons, then it's acceptable to do so even if it's done in the same place as the academic discussion and involves the same people.

Yeah, no hypocrisy there. Well, unless, you know what hypocrisy MEANS.

What academic discussion? What were we discussing academically when I pointed out there are people out here who can't seem to be civil in a debate?

?

I'm counting how many times I directly request you to provide proof of something, and you decline the opportunity.

To the idea that if a person is insulted/hurt/whetever by something you've said, it is entirely possible that you crossed the line. Your argument seems to hinge upon the idea that you've been nothing but reasonable and any example of someone being upset just proves that they're the ones with the problem.

This is not open-minded.

Oh. I'm sorry if it sounded otherwise, but let me make it clear just to make sure there's no misrepresentations or incorrect ideas:

I can be wrong. I might be wrong right now. I don't think I am, but I could be wrong about that, too.

I encourage you to provide basis upon such statements and show them to me.


I disagree, but that's not really relevant anymore.

Indeed, glad we got that out of the way.

That's fine but it still nullifines the meaning of an apology. On this we may simply have different experience with what constitutes a valid apology but I was always taught that an apology is only good when it's sincere, and if you don't regret your actions, it's not sincere. It still implies you haven't done wrong to begin with.

*shrugs* Different interpretations, different definitions, I suppose.

I can see nothing wrong with being sincerely sorry that something happened, while still not being sorry that the actions that lead up to such an event had happened.


Something we have in common: Everything should be questioned.

Woo! Something I haven't seen in a long time on NSG between two masterdebaters - common ground! Gives me a fuzzy feeling. Not warm, though, I've got the AC on.

But that doesn't make you open-minded. Again, this may be different worldviews, but if you're going to question something out of a sincere desire to gain understanding, you ought to be willing to go wherever it takes you, for better or for worse. Harassing someone with questions when you know they may not have the answers is a form of attack, often used to illustrate someone's gaps in knowledge.

If they don't have the answers, I'm simply asking them if they have the answers. All that's required is that they tell me "No, I'm sorry, I don't have the answers." and that will be the end of it.

You're right. The point is moot. I will state for the record that you don't have to be a mind reader to know if you've hurt someone when they come out and tell you.

She hasn't told me anything. I've yet to receive a TG from her stating that she feels I've done her any kind of harm.

I'm not telling you to say anything. I'm not even telling you NOT to say anything. I'm saying that people who come on here and use vitriolic attacks and then play innocent later are hypocrites and/or liars.

And I would agree. The fork in the road where we diverge is that I don't believe I've used vitriolic attacks at all.

It would have been funny were it in context. My point is that it wasn't.

Meh. Half the funny stuff in Family Guy is out of context, but that show still rocks my cock.

Can you see where people find being looked at as a lab specimen annoying?

Not looking at her as a lab specimen. Just because I see opportunity in our discussions doesn't mean I don't value her as a person.

Now that was funny. :p

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

I have no reason to believe you don't, based on what I saw. People get hostile with folks they know to be nice all the time. They're called bullies.

Indeed. They are.

I find this difficult to accept, based upon what I've seen. Half the time it seems you're not even reading a post for its honest content, let alone give it due attention in your mind.

I just think quickly.

I really hope you're right.

I'm reminded of an Olde English (.org) sketch where there was writing on a bathroom stall that said something along the lines of "I WAS WRONG! I WAS SO VERY WRONG!" - and it was funny.

There are specific instances where statements can cause injury, and they are very limited. Damage to your reputation, causing economic loss, etc. Yes, I'm speaking in legal terms here, but it also makes sense outside of the legal context.

I'm also not going to argue that vitriol can have serious consequences for the mental well-being of people. Nonetheless, we need to distinguish between attacks on religion per se, and attacks on people who hold religious beliefs.

1) Attacking a person for the beliefs they hold is intolerant.

2) Attacking the beliefs is valid, and does not constitute intolerance.

You can do both, and be a douchebag in the process. Douchebaggery does not automatically mean you are engaged in either 1, or 2.

I just wanted to quote this post for celebration of how funny the word "douchebaggery" is.

Carry on.

Can you not? You know of no words that would express the same viewpoint without using a term that will quite often carry abrasive connotations?

Not without changing the end meaning, no.

i set out a very straightforward test for figuring out if you or someone else is being intolerant. its as useful as that knowlege is useful. No offence (oh that phrase is becoming meaningless, isn't it)...but your test is anything but straightforward. Can you please restate it?

I'm not a lemming. I had a problem with you at the time and I said so. I was involved so yeah, I had something to do with it. In fact, I even tried to defend Smunk and got grief for that, too.

Indeed you did!

But there are others who simply saw that Smunk was leaving, saw a suggestion that hinted that I may have been the cause, and then put me on their shit list.

These are the people I'm talking about.


Deus Malum, surprisingly, is one of them - I'd thought more of him than to assume such a thing.

While I agree with the substance of your post let me take exception with this: Why must it be characterized as an attack? Grave_n_idle (If I may keep using the example) did a fine job of posting an argument without it being an attack. He basically came out and expressed why he feels religion is comparable to superstition and did so without being in the slightest bit mean-spirited or offensive.

But I think you and I are probably saying the same thing, I just wanted to address an issue of semantics because I think in this case, it can be quite relevant because it speaks to the mindset of at least one of the parties involved.

because if its not an attack, whats the problem?

I don't care when my wording offends someone.

I do care when, because my wording offends someone, they take it upon themselves to play victim, to which they point the finger at me - suddenly I'm on shit lists, because some people are only looking at her finger, rather than where the 'crime scene' is.

I care when I'm called things that I'm not. I care when I'm being flamed for things I didn't do. I care when I'm innocent by disassociation, while nobody seems to want to look at it and see that I didn't do anything.

And I care when you try and point your mighty finger at me because someone else is doing so and using it as a soapbox to which you can stand and shout about your own personal beliefs.

I care when people who have NOTHING to do with what happened try to shove their noses into it and find a scapegoat.

If you don't care how people take what you say, what are you getting all bent out of shape for when they decide they don't like what you say?

geeez its only intolerant when you act on it. if you are a bigot but dont ACT on it, you are a tolerant bigot. there would still be problems with being a bigot but intolerance woudlnt be one of them.

if all bigots were tolerant, the world would be a better place.

you are judged intolerant based only on your own actions. that its in response to someone elses actions (or your supposition of their actions) doesnt mean that its THEIR actions that decide the issue.

if someone is making a public argument, it is certainly not intolerant to debate them, is it? well no, its not.

and yet sometimes we can see clearly that a response to a public argument IS intolerant whether that be shouting down fred phelps or disrupting a gay pride parade.

its very useful to know when that line is crossed. when tolerance in debate becomes intolerance.

this is NOT a moral judgement on whether or it was RIGHT to be intolerant in any particular situation.
Ash, do you seriously not see how hopelessly this subjective 'line' is that you've drawn?

It's intolerant to 'act'?

Debate isn't action? It's not intolerant?
Shouting is action? Thus intolerant?

Huh?

Another question...why is it useful to know 'when the line is crossed'?

If you don't care how people take what you say, what are you getting all bent out of shape for when they decide they don't like what you say?

Because it's not just people thinking that I've said something and have gone too far.

They're blaming me for something. They're calling me names. They're insulting me.

Indeed you did!

But there are others who simply saw that Smunk was leaving, saw a suggestion that hinted that I may have been the cause, and then put me on their shit list.

These are the people I'm talking about.


Deus Malum, surprisingly, is one of them - I'd thought more of him than to assume such a thing.

Not really. That would imply I didn't really know much about the circumstances of Smunkee's leaving NSG.

As I recall I was on your side in the discussion that sparked Smunkee's leaving. And even I felt the way you and UB presented your arguments were unnecessarily confrontational and abrasive.

Perhaps it is your definition that is faulty.

Thanks Kat, but the dictionary definition you provide in no way contradicts my original position. Jocabia characterised CONTRADICTION as intolerance. That is nowhere supported in the defintions you quoted. I can consider, show interest in, be permissive of other points of view, AND STILL CONTRADICT THEM. Emphatically. Without being intolerant. So no, I think my definition is just fine.

By the way, although I've used some stock phrases in this thread about religious beliefs (imaginary friend in the sky and such), I'd like it noted that I was doing so to highlight the attitude being objected to here. Oh, I'll pull that one out every once in a while when the only counter-argument IS religion, to point out the fact that if the discussion is going to hinge on subjective beliefs alone, then there really isn't any point in continuing. I realise that regardless of this caveat, some people are going to think I'm a bigotted, anti-religious cad. Oh well.

That is however a flawed idea of causality. Walking under a ladder is dangerous because ladders fall. It's not because it will cause bad luck.


What is 'bad luck'?

Falling ladders might be bad luck. Or dropped paintpots from ladders... or a half-hod of bricks... or the windowcleaner falling off...

I don't see that 'bad luck' is necessarily anything other than recognition that shit happens.

You can avert 'bad luck' by not putting yourself in certain positions. Some of those rely on unflawed causality, and some might rely on an anthropomorphic filter on universal forces. Maybe you can 'placate' bad luck with rituals. Or appeal to bad luck through observations.


You didn't give an example of it being right. You gave an example of taking evidence and coming to a provably flawed conclusion. Superstitions have a provably flawed view. Religions may as well, which is where they would be superstitious, where they don't according to definition, they are not superstitions.

That's objective.


I don't see that I cam e to a provably flawed conclusion. Walking under ladders is a bad idea.


Meanwhile, if your goal is learning, do you think calling religions as a whole, superstitious, promotes learning and open-mindedness or not?

I don't see a connection. It seems to me that religion and superstition are basically the same mechanism... and, again, that isn't derogatory to either of them. I certainly don't see it as any more likely to cause closeminded ness to say 'hey, these things seem to work on the same mechanism', than to say 'these two things are disparate because.... well, they just are'.

And, if I'm wrong, and can be shown to be wrong.. .it was a learning experience, no?

Alrighty people, it's been fun - going home, now.

I'll see you crazy kids tomorrow.

No offence (oh that phrase is becoming meaningless, isn't it)...but your test is anything but straightforward. Can you please restate it?

oh if only i could.

at the risk of being inaccurate

if the person has not put their life, beliefs, opinions, whatever, "out there" for public debate, its none of your business and its intolerant of you to call them out for it.

no matter WHAT those lifestyles, beliefs, or opinions are. if they are keeping them to themselves and going about their own lives, its not open for your comment.

if a person IS putting out a public opinion (and of course sometimes this is a matter of personal judgement) then it is your right to comment on it. its NOT intolerant to disagree with an antiwar protestor. by making a public protest, they are inviting comment.

it CAN be intolerant if you make a comment on a public argument that is far exceeding the level of civility of discourse. (i suppose if both sides escalate the fight, they may well both be intolerant of each other). to break up, disrupt, or outshout someone else's protest is a show of intolerance.

which is only a judgement of intolerance not a judgement of right or wrong.

I'm counting how many times I directly request you to provide proof of something, and you decline the opportunity.

If by that you mean I'm declining the opportunity to repeat myself, you're right.


Oh. I'm sorry if it sounded otherwise, but let me make it clear just to make sure there's no misrepresentations or incorrect ideas:

I can be wrong. I might be wrong right now. I don't think I am, but I could be wrong about that, too.

I encourage you to provide basis upon such statements and show them to me.

I was making a general statement, what examples are you looking for?


*shrugs* Different interpretations, different definitions, I suppose.

Apparently so.


I can see nothing wrong with being sincerely sorry that something happened, while still not being sorry that the actions that lead up to such an event had happened.
There isn't. I just don't think an apology is apropriate in such a case.


Woo! Something I haven't seen in a long time on NSG between two masterdebaters - common ground! Gives me a fuzzy feeling. Not warm, though, I've got the AC on.
I'm a masterdebater? Heh almost warm fuzzy for me too, only somebody's got the A/C cranked in here too.


If they don't have the answers, I'm simply asking them if they have the answers. All that's required is that they tell me "No, I'm sorry, I don't have the answers." and that will be the end of it.

The problem with that is twofold: One (And I'm not saying you do this) a lot of people take an "I don't know" as a trophy and hold it up as proof of their "rightness." The other problem is that sometimes it isn't that people don't know the answer, it's that they don't know how to articulate it. And you can take it a step further and see there are people who can't easily articulate THAT either.

The result is that the person who doesn't have the easy or eloquent answer gets creamed by a series of questions that have the effect of making them look ignorant or foolish.


She hasn't told me anything. I've yet to receive a TG from her stating that she feels I've done her any kind of harm.
Is that absolutely necessary?


And I would agree. The fork in the road where we diverge is that I don't believe I've used vitriolic attacks at all.

At least we have the parameters defined. That's got to mean something, no?


Meh. Half the funny stuff in Family Guy is out of context, but that show still rocks my cock.
Never, ever put that mental image in my head again. I beg you.

Well if you meant it in a Family Guy context, I must concede. :)


Not looking at her as a lab specimen. Just because I see opportunity in our discussions doesn't mean I don't value her as a person.

I used to have a buddy who sort of got a jolly off of getting into people's heads. I don't know exactly how it worked with him but he admitted it to me once. After that, it became VERY difficult to open up to him as my friend knowing he had that sort of side-motive for talking to me about my problems.
(Not the same friend I referenced before)


I just think quickly.


I'm reminded of an Olde English (.org) sketch where there was writing on a bathroom stall that said something along the lines of "I WAS WRONG! I WAS SO VERY WRONG!" - and it was funny.

That one went right over my head.

*snip* Okay, well is it fair to say that this 'test' is actually NOT straightforward? It actually seems to involve a fair amount of subjective interpretation.

Not without changing the end meaning, no.

In other words, you want the abrasive connotations to be there. Otherwise, there are any number of other ways you could express the same idea.

And if you want to be abrasive and insulting, there really isn't much point in being upset when people are insulted or turned off by your discourse.

Because it's not just people thinking that I've said something and have gone too far.

They're blaming me for something. They're calling me names. They're insulting me.

Again: your words provoked a reaction that others disapprove of. If you don't care what reaction your words provoke, it's difficult to understand why you're upset.

because if its not an attack, whats the problem?

In a context like this, where not only are all communications written but also the issues discussed are very sensitive, it is imperative that people go the extra mile to be clear. If someone has an "attack" mindset they'll tend to phrase their replies as attacks.

Thanks Kat, but the dictionary definition you provide in no way contradicts my original position. Jocabia characterised CONTRADICTION as intolerance. That is nowhere supported in the defintions you quoted. I can consider, show interest in, be permissive of other points of view, AND STILL CONTRADICT THEM. Emphatically. Without being intolerant. So no, I think my definition is just fine.

By the way, although I've used some stock phrases in this thread about religious beliefs (imaginary friend in the sky and such), I'd like it noted that I was doing so to highlight the attitude being objected to here. Oh, I'll pull that one out every once in a while when the only counter-argument IS religion, to point out the fact that if the discussion is going to hinge on subjective beliefs alone, then there really isn't any point in continuing. I realise that regardless of this caveat, some people are going to think I'm a bigotted, anti-religious cad. Oh well.

I never said contradiction was not allowed in tolerance. I observe that "sympathy" was in the definition, which has not been shown much by anyone on the opposing side here.

I observe that "fair", "objective" and "permissive" also are in that definition. It seems rather that "permissive" is the only part of the definition that's being paid attention to.

Ash, do you seriously not see how hopelessly this subjective 'line' is that you've drawn?

It's intolerant to 'act'?



read it again.

its NOT intolerant if you dont act on it. action doesnt MAKE it intolerant, but if you dont act, you arent intolerant




Debate isn't action? It's not intolerant?
Shouting is action? Thus intolerant?

Huh?

Another question...why is it useful to know 'when the line is crossed'?


if you think its a good thing to tolerate other people, their lifestyles and opinions then you need to know when you and they are being intolerant.

do we ONLY expect toleration of the things we like? in my country, i want a toleration of even the ugly abrasive people. they have the right to live unbothered and unmolested just like anyone else does.

to do that you HAVE to understand when you are crossing that line of tolerance. as far as im concerned that line is when i try to disallow them from THINKING bad thoughts or expressing those bad thoughts to like minded people in private. i have no right to barge up to a racist in line at the grocery store and yell at him for his private opinions. his thoughts are none of my business.

are you suggesting that YOU would put honest debate into the category of intolerance?

are you suggesting that YOU would consider shouting down fred phelps as anything BUT intolerance? (not that you would be wrong to shout down fred phelps but that doesnt mean you are intolerant of his bigotry)

do i need to repeat my point?

if you dont act, you are by definition tolerating the person.

if you DO act, you may or may not be tolerating them, it depends on the action.

In a context like this, where not only are all communications written but also the issues discussed are very sensitive, it is imperative that people go the extra mile to be clear. If someone has an "attack" mindset they'll tend to phrase their replies as attacks.

true

i have been on rare occasions accused of attacking someone. its a bit disconcerting when you have no such intentions.

Okay, well is it fair to say that this 'test' is actually NOT straightforward? It actually seems to involve a fair amount of subjective interpretation.

seems very straightfoward to me. try it out sometime maybe you will find it useful

i know that its kept me from making many unnecessary criticisms of people here.

true

i have been on rare occasions accused of attacking someone. its a bit disconcerting when you have no such intentions.

I remember once reading that when people communicate in person, their meaning is 10% what is said and 90% HOW it's said, meaning body language and tone.

When you write, there's neither body language nor tone of voice to act as a guide to cue the person on how to take it. Considering we're getting at best 10% communication on here, it's no wonder we sometimed have discussions that resemble a gang of monkeys humping a football.

What academic discussion? What were we discussing academically when I pointed out there are people out here who can't seem to be civil in a debate?

We were discussing civility in debate, tolerance, religion, superstition, and a plethora of other things. I know it's hard to believe that discussion goes on without you, but *gasp* it does. It's good to know that unless you think it has academic value, there is no need to treat it as if it does have academic value. I think you'll what Szanth does shows little difference. I think you're not in a good position to criticize Szanth on this basis. In fact, I don't think your position could be much weaker.

I never said contradiction was not allowed in tolerance. I observe that "sympathy" was in the definition, which has not been shown much by anyone on the opposing side here. Then why did you single out my post and berate me from working from the wrong definition, when the focus of that post was 'contradiction'? Nothing, on either side was said about sympathy. Ah, perhaps that is your point, finally made clear.

However, I never precluded the possibility of 'sympathy'. I simply do not believe it is an operational definition of the term 'tolerance'. It is desirable, but not central to tolerance.

Why should I have 'sympathy' for homophobia, or racism, for example, in order to not be accused of intolerance? Frankly, 'sympathy' for these things strikes me as asinine.

And 'the opposing side'? Is...what? Seems to me there is a lot of opposition, contradiction, mixed-up meanings, and different viewpoints. If somehow you are seeing two clearly delineated 'sides' here, could you please describe them to me?

Thanks Kat, but the dictionary definition you provide in no way contradicts my original position. Jocabia characterised CONTRADICTION as intolerance. That is nowhere supported in the defintions you quoted. I can consider, show interest in, be permissive of other points of view, AND STILL CONTRADICT THEM. Emphatically. Without being intolerant. So no, I think my definition is just fine.

By the way, although I've used some stock phrases in this thread about religious beliefs (imaginary friend in the sky and such), I'd like it noted that I was doing so to highlight the attitude being objected to here. Oh, I'll pull that one out every once in a while when the only counter-argument IS religion, to point out the fact that if the discussion is going to hinge on subjective beliefs alone, then there really isn't any point in continuing. I realise that regardless of this caveat, some people are going to think I'm a bigotted, anti-religious cad. Oh well.


It's supported by the same dictionary if you look up INTOLERANCE. She pointed out the definition of the antonym, TOLERANCE. I suspect as they are from the same dictionary, that they are consistant.

We were discussing civility in debate, tolerance, religion, superstition, and a plethora of other things. I know it's hard to believe that discussion goes on without you, but *gasp* it does. It's good to know that unless you think it has academic value, there is no need to treat it as if it does have academic value. I think you'll what Szanth does shows little difference. I think you're not in a good position to criticize Szanth on this basis. In fact, I don't think your position could be much weaker.

Whatever, Jocabia. :rolleyes: You're still making strawmen out of my posts.

If I had attacked Szanth merely over his stance on religion, you'd have a point.
If I had attacked Grave_n_idle for his position regarding religion=superstition, you'd have a point.

As it was, I aggressively called out a few individuals whom I felt were acting like asshats, as well as others like them generally. I also went into why.

You're the one trying to somehow put that into an academic context in order to try and call me out. This is fallacious because academics was not my intent in my post.

I don't have an academic position and I never claimed to. But I suspect your motive here is personal, anyway.

Pssst. That's not academic, either. Are you attempting to be?

2 things,
1- is there any one thing that made you want to leave or several
2- i will try to explain why people like me (who think they have thought about our personal philosophy and therefor seek to 'enlighten' oth.....)... o wait, i just explained it in the () ..nm

What is 'bad luck'?

Falling ladders might be bad luck. Or dropped paintpots from ladders... or a half-hod of bricks... or the windowcleaner falling off...

However, the view is that this possible consequence extends past their time below the ladder, but I think you know this. Bad luck is more than a possible and natural consequence of the action you take.


I don't see that 'bad luck' is necessarily anything other than recognition that shit happens.

Really? So you see no problem with the causal relationship between claiming that walking under a ladder might cause you to have bad luck a week later? Or breaking a mirror might cause you bad luck seven years later? That's not a misunderstanding of causality?


You can avert 'bad luck' by not putting yourself in certain positions. Some of those rely on unflawed causality, and some might rely on an anthropomorphic filter on universal forces. Maybe you can 'placate' bad luck with rituals. Or appeal to bad luck through observations.

Again, it's not superstitious to avoid walking under a ladder so nothing falls on you. No one is claiming it is, even superstitious people. It is superstitious to think it affects beyond your range of the ladder.


I don't see that I cam e to a provably flawed conclusion. Walking under ladders is a bad idea.

Neither did you address the actual belief. In fact, you addressed a belief that would not be considered superstitious. You addressed the possible, even likely, origin of the belief. It became a superstition when you extend that causality to things it cannot affect.

If I find a penny, it is a good thing. It doesn't cause good luck that is not directly tied to having a penny. And certainly whether it is heads up or down does not have any effect on whether finding the penny is positive or not.


I don't see a connection. It seems to me that religion and superstition are basically the same mechanism... and, again, that isn't derogatory to either of them. I certainly don't see it as any more likely to cause closeminded ness to say 'hey, these things seem to work on the same mechanism', than to say 'these two things are disparate because.... well, they just are'.

I don't think anything I've said equates to "they just are". I've addressed the difference in both connotation and denotation, neither of which have yet been settled or even addressed well, quite frankly.

And, if I'm wrong, and can be shown to be wrong.. .it was a learning experience, no?

You are wrong, because you're intentionally limiting superstition to what it's not and limiting religion to only a subset of religion in order to equate the two.

read it again.

its NOT intolerant if you dont act on it. action doesnt MAKE it intolerant, but if you dont act, you arent intolerant

Buh?? My point is...what are you characterising as 'action' here? On one hand, you downplay the importance of action by saying it doesn't automatically mean you are being intolerant. Okay, got that. Then you play up the importance of action by saying that IF YOU DON'T ACT you can't be intolerant. Alright. I want to avoid being intolerant. What do I do? When is my action intolerant, and when isn't it?

See? I want to know your definition of 'intolerant action'.




if you think its a good thing to tolerate other people, their lifestyles and opinions then you need to know when you and they are being intolerant. YES. And I'd like to know your opinion on how to know this, however, you continue to fail at providing me with some sort of operational definition to work with.

So you've stated again, it's good to know when you're being intolerant.

Now please explain when that is.

do we ONLY expect toleration of the things we like? in my country, i want a toleration of even the ugly abrasive people. they have the right to live unbothered and unmolested just like anyone else does.

to do that you HAVE to understand when you are crossing that line of tolerance. as far as im concerned that line is when i try to disallow them from THINKING bad thoughts or expressing those bad thoughts to like minded people in private. i have no right to barge up to a racist in line at the grocery store and yell at him for his private opinions. his thoughts are none of my business.

Alright. Your definition of intolerance is:

Trying to disallow someone from thinking bad thoughts or expressing those bad thoughts to like minded people in private.

So if I try to convince someone that their 'bad thoughts' are wrong, am I intolerant? Or do I actually have to, in some forceful way, enter their brain and MAKE them think 'good thoughts'? Can I advertise? Can I influence? Can I have a curriculum suggesting that racism is bad? I'm disturbed by the level of vagueness in this definition. Do I have to, as you keep saying, "NOT ACT" in order to ensure that I am being tolerant? How on earth can I possibly "NOT ACT"??

Someone comes to school wearing an 'I hate bananas' shirt. Let's not worry about what would constitute intolerance TOWARDS them. I want to know if that person, wearing the T-shirt, is being tolerant or not of people who love bananas.


are you suggesting that YOU would put honest debate into the category of intolerancce?

are you suggesting that YOU would consider shouting down fred phelps as anything BUT intolerance? (not that you would be wrong to shout down fred phelps but that doesnt mean you are intolerant of his bigotry)

do i need to repeat my point?

if you dont act, you are by definition tolerating the person.

if you DO act, you may or may not be tolerating them, it depends on the action.
Again. Please tell me how I can not act, to ensure I am tolerant.

Barring that, please tell me how I can tell which actions are tolerant, and which are not.

Because once again, this is anything but straightforward.

It's supported by the same dictionary if you look up INTOLERANCE. She pointed out the definition of the antonym, TOLERANCE. I suspect as they are from the same dictionary, that they are consistant.

My point is this:

You can contradict and be tolerant.

Alright. Anyone want to jump in now and debate that? Chiding me for not including 'sympathy' or any number of other words has nothing to do with the fact that I was originally focusing on your claim that contradiction is inherently intolerant.

seems very straightfoward to me. try it out sometime maybe you will find it useful

i know that its kept me from making many unnecessary criticisms of people here.

Try WHAT out? That's my whole point here. Try what?

You claim you have a straightforward test to work with that means 'not acting' (automatically making you tolerant) or acting in a manner that is tolerant.

And yet your test is totally, and completely based on subjective decisions as to what constitutes inaction, or tolerant action.

I'd love to try it, Ash, if I could figure out what you were talking about.

If it is so important to know when someone is intolerant or not, then it must be equally important to be able to consistantly figure that out. You have stated that doing so is possible, and I'm not denying it....but I'd like you to show me.

By the way, I know this is going to sound silly (and I'm not saying it isn't important), but I really do want to know this: why is it important to know when someone is being intolerant or not?

Whatever, Jocabia. :rolleyes: You're still making strawmen out of my posts.

A strawman? So am I wrong to characterize your post claiming that unkind and abusive words as being a detriment to learning as saying that unkind and abusive words are a detriment to a learning environment? Now, you've added in that it only counts if those attacks are broadly against all opponents instead of an individual, and you, below, example this using Szanth and GnI to prove your point. Do you wish to clarify the point you MEANT to make instead of the one you did?


If I had attacked Szanth merely over his stance on religion, you'd have a point.

Why? Are personal attacks more conducive to a learning environment if they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand?


If I had attacked Grave_n_idle for his position regarding religion=superstition, you'd have a point.

No, I still have a point. That your attacks are reserved for people you think deserve them makes you like most people who offer personal attacks.

Attacking the entire group is an entirely different kind of attack, but since you didn't qualify, would you like to do so now?

Your original statement was that unkind and harsh words are not conducive to a learning environment. Did you mean unkind words aimed at the group that holds a belief, rather than just simply personally attacking the poster? If so, perhaps saying so would help.



As it was, I aggressively called out a few individuals whom I felt were acting like asshats, as well as others like them generally. I also went into why.

And? Is asshat an unkind word? Well, yes. Is this thread a potential learning environment? Of course. According to your claims are you not thwarting efforts at learning with those words? According to what you SAID, yes. Now, again, if you meant something else, perhaps you should have SAID something else.


You're the one trying to somehow put that into an academic context in order to try and call me out. This is fallacious because academics was not my intent in my post.

So? Are you saying that it's okay to attack as long as the person posting the attacks to not intend them to be academic? If not, how about you express this in a way that doesn't suggest as much?


I don't have an academic position and I never claimed to. But I suspect your motive here is personal, anyway.

Um, no. That your actions don't match your claims has nothing to do with you as a person, but with your position and that said position is undermined by your actions. This has nothing to do with your person and everything to do with your argument.

I'm pointing out that we're all guilty of such things and that to claim you're above such things or to suggest that learning can't go on amongst adults simply because some idiot is caught up on personal attacks is ludicrous.

I don't know you. I don't care about you. If GnI'd said what you said right after a post full of abuse like yours, I'd have called him out as well. Ask him if he thinks I would. And I do know him and care about him. That everyone here seems to think that I only call them out because I have some personal issue with them is an ego trip on their part.

It's an attempt to dismiss my argument as personal instead of rational. Demonstrate that I'm being irrational or address my post.

Pssst. That's not academic, either. Are you attempting to be?

I'm attempting to demonstrate that even the people who claim that harsh words don't have any place in a learning atmosphere deny their own claims with their actions and that you are no exception.

My point is this:

You can contradict and be tolerant.

Alright. Anyone want to jump in now and debate that? Chiding me for not including 'sympathy' or any number of other words has nothing to do with the fact that I was originally focusing on your claim that contradiction is inherently intolerant.

Well, to be fair, you jumped on my pointing out the denotation of the word according to the dictionary, not the other way around. If the point is too petty, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up.

Meanwhile, I do think a discussion of the connotation is very valuable to what we're discussing which I THINK is what you were trying to get at when you pointed out the problem with the denotation. Standing on its own it isn't very useful.

And you used some examples of not having sympathy. Taking the example of the racist, you're right to not have sympathy for racists and, as such, I would claim that you are not tolerant of racists and shouldn't be.

Can you do so without falling back on religion though?

Perhaps not that its wrong, though it is rather obvious to me that homosexuality is at very least unnatural and doesn't serve the purpose of reproduction, which is rather the point to sex or they wouldn't call them reproductive organs. To be frank about it, two rods weren't meant to go in each other, nor were two holes. However a rod can easily fit in a hole.


At any rate, go ahead and make your argument - I am interested to see what exactly it will be.
Alright here it goes. I accept the Qur'an to be the words of God. Most on here do not but that an entirely seperate argument. Seeing as they are the words of God it stands to reason to follow them.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not is not an issue. It doesn't matter who or what you are attracted to. So to say "well its not a choice so we can do it" is a flimsy argument since you DO have a choice on whether to act on the attraction or not. Punishment is reserved for those who act on it.

In the Qur'an ch.26:165-167 Allah swt tells us;
"Of all the creatures in the world, you approach males(for sexual satisfaction), And leave those whom God has created for you to be your wives?(women) Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" ... "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be the banished ones."
Further Allah tells us in Al-Mu'minun: 5-7;
"And who guard their modesty, save from their wives or the slaves, that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, but Who so craveth beyond that, such are transgressors.”

meaning such acts are reserved for a husbands and wives.

feel free to refute or ask questions.

Perhaps not that its wrong, though it is rather obvious to me that homosexuality is at very least unnatural and doesn't serve the purpose of reproduction, which is rather the point to sex or they wouldn't call them reproductive organs.

Unnatural? By unnatural do you mean to say that it doesn't occur with equal frequency in nature, because that's pretty ignorant of reality. Or do you mean it doesn't serve a valuable purpose?

And of course the reproductive value of a trait has to do with whether it helps your line reproduce, not necessarily you personally. You knew that, right?

To be frank about it, two rods weren't meant to go in each other, nor were two holes. However a rod can easily fit in a hole.

Wow, now that is proof if I ever saw it. This way overrides the thousands of examples of homosexuality in nature and the fact that it's been shown that in social animals it can often lead to increased productive value. But hey, if two rods don't go in each other, I guess there is no way science and observational evidence could override such an astounding work of reason.

You know penises fit in anuses too, right? Must be meant for each other.

Alright here it goes. I accept the Qur'an to be the words of God. Most on here do not but that an entirely seperate argument. Seeing as they are the words of God it stands to reason to follow them.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not is not an issue. It doesn't matter who or what you are attracted to. So to say "well its not a choice so we can do it" is a flimsy argument since you DO have a choice on whether to act on the attraction or not. Punishment is reserved for those who act on it.

In the Qur'an ch.26:165-167 Allah swt tells us;
"Of all the creatures in the world, you approach males(for sexual satisfaction), And leave those whom God has created for you to be your wives?(women) Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" ... "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be the banished ones."
Further Allah tells us in Al-Mu'minun: 5-7;
"And who guard their modesty, save from their wives or the slaves, that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, but Who so craveth beyond that, such are transgressors.”

meaning such acts are reserved for a husbands and wives.

And slaves, apparently.


feel free to refute or ask questions.

Refute your rods don't go in rods argument? Impossible, I say. It's really the height of enlightenment.

And the Qu'ran is of course being read by you in the original language, no?

Perhaps not that its wrong, though it is rather obvious to me that homosexuality is at very least unnatural and doesn't serve the purpose of reproduction, which is rather the point to sex or they wouldn't call them reproductive organs.However, the planet already has way too many humans, and most of them are humans who will never have any chance in live. Reproduction should no longer (if it ever was) the purpose of sex. And btw, if there were more homosexuals, none of them would end up being a self-styled super-hyper-duper-fundamentalist wannabe-muslim.

...I've been trying to follow this discussion, but...

Buh?? My point is...what are you characterising as 'action' here? On one hand, you downplay the importance of action by saying it doesn't automatically mean you are being intolerant. Okay, got that. Then you play up the importance of action by saying that IF YOU DON'T ACT you can't be intolerant. Alright. I want to avoid being intolerant. What do I do? When is my action intolerant, and when isn't it?


are you OK with understanding that if you do nothing, you are being tolerant?

thats what toleration IS. if your neighbor hates you because you are half cree, he is a jerk. if he doesnt treat badly, he is tolerant.


See? I want to know your definition of 'intolerant action'.


YES. And I'd like to know your opinion on how to know this, however, you continue to fail at providing me with some sort of operational definition to work with.

So you've stated again, it's good to know when you're being intolerant.

Now please explain when that is.


Alright. Your definition of intolerance is:

Trying to disallow someone from thinking bad thoughts or expressing those bad thoughts to like minded people in private.

So if I try to convince someone that their 'bad thoughts' are wrong, am I intolerant? Or do I actually have to, in some forceful way, enter their brain and MAKE them think 'good thoughts'? Can I advertise? Can I influence? Can I have a curriculum suggesting that racism is bad? I'm disturbed by the level of vagueness in this definition. Do I have to, as you keep saying, "NOT ACT" in order to ensure that I am being tolerant? How on earth can I possibly "NOT ACT"??

Someone comes to school wearing an 'I hate bananas' shirt. Let's not worry about what would constitute intolerance TOWARDS them. I want to know if that person, wearing the T-shirt, is being tolerant or not of people who love bananas.


Again. Please tell me how I can not act, to ensure I am tolerant.

Barring that, please tell me how I can tell which actions are tolerant, and which are not.

Because once again, this is anything but straightforward.

im sure you think this hyperbole is clever but do you REALLY not know the difference between polite discourse and intolerance?

i think you do.

you can ensure that you are tolerant by engaging in polite debate with those who are interested in debating you. you do that every day.

if you want to protest something, you are tolerant by engaging in orderly protest that makes your point or demonstrates that many other people agree with you by joining your protest.

if someone disagress with your protest they are not intolerant for saying so. they are intolerant ONLY if they raise the level of incivility involved. if they call you names, if they disrupt your protest, any number of things. if they do not TOLERATE you having a civil legal protest, they are ....intolerant.

once you bring your opinions into the public sphere be it a protest, a speech, a letter to the editor, a book, etc, it is NOT intolerant for someone to publicly say that the disagree with you. thats the way new ideas are spread.

remember when jane fonda was doing her book tour? a man spit on her, resorting to illegal actions indicates intolerance on his part. those who disrupted her book signings were intolerant. were they WRONG? they certainly didnt think so. but that is a different debate. what is obvious is that they were not going to tolerate jane fonda.


now, if you are still around how bout YOU give a definition of intolerance. lets see how your definition differs from mine.

Try WHAT out? That's my whole point here. Try what?

You claim you have a straightforward test to work with that means 'not acting' (automatically making you tolerant) or acting in a manner that is tolerant.

And yet your test is totally, and completely based on subjective decisions as to what constitutes inaction, or tolerant action.

I'd love to try it, Ash, if I could figure out what you were talking about.

If it is so important to know when someone is intolerant or not, then it must be equally important to be able to consistantly figure that out. You have stated that doing so is possible, and I'm not denying it....but I'd like you to show me.

By the way, I know this is going to sound silly (and I'm not saying it isn't important), but I really do want to know this: why is it important to know when someone is being intolerant or not?

maybe its not important to you at all. if not, what do i care? i can tolerate your lack of tolerance sensitiivity. its a discussion not a mandate.

many people seem to need help in understanding what is their business and what isnt. many people are extremely sensitive to criticism and dont seem to realize that they invited others to criticise them by posting something on an internet forum. i personally find it very helpful to understand that certain people here are sincere bigots instead of just trolls.

these are all good reasons to sit back and think about what toleration means, if you really want a tolerant society as many people claim they do, and to understand when you are being intolerant yourself.

if you read through any religious thread you will see horrendous intolerance of religious belief in the first page or 2. most of these posters dont think of themselves as that kind of person and could use a little test themselves to see just what they are doing.

Oh, I think I get it now. Hmm. Well, in a nutshell, this is precisely why I left the Unitarian Universalists oh so many years ago. They were tolerant to a fault - the fault being that they tolerated even the intolerant. I decided I was better off calling dumb shit-heads out for their dumb shit-headdery rather than bottling it all up and letting it eat away at my insides, all in the name of civility (though that somehow really only ever amounted to not offending the dumb shit-heads of the world, even at the best of times).

Oh, I think I get it now. Hmm. Well, in a nutshell, this is precisely why I left the Unitarian Universalists oh so many years ago. They were tolerant to a fault - the fault being that they tolerated even the intolerant. I decided I was better off calling dumb shit-heads out for their dumb shit-headdery rather than bottling it all up and letting it eat away at my insides, all in the name of civility (though that somehow really only ever amounted to not offending the dumb shit-heads of the world, even at the best of times).

and i have no problem with that. not that i would suggest that YOUR intolerance necessarily meets my definition unless you make a habit of calling out assholes who are minding their own business.

my goal is to accept that other people have their own opinions and ways of life and to not let those things bother me as long as those opinions and lives have no affect on my life. to call out every asshole in the world would be exhausting. (not to mention that i have my own rather odd ways of life and harsh opinions of others)

and i have no problem with that. not that i would suggest that YOUR intolerance necessarily meets my definition unless you make a habit of calling out assholes who are minding their own business.

my goal is to accept that other people have their own opinions and ways of life and to not let those things bother me as long as those opinions and lives have no affect on my life. to call out every asshole in the world would be exhausting. (not to mention that i have my own rather odd ways of life and harsh opinions of others)

Well, yes - but of course. I more-or-less limit my "calling out" of shit-heads to the shit-heads who cross my path. To call out a shit-head who was just minding their own business at the time, I'd have to have a pretty damn strong reason for doing so - like maybe their ongoing, habitual shit-headedness had resulted in some sort of overall turn for the worse.

Well, it's better than being a complete milquetoast and always turning the other cheek, I'd say anyway - provided you make a point of slaying 'em with words and not fists.

Well, yes - but of course. I more-or-less limit my "calling out" of shit-heads to the shit-heads who cross my path. To call out a shit-head who was just minding their own business at the time, I'd have to have a pretty damn strong reason for doing so - like maybe their ongoing, habitual shit-headedness had resulted in some sort of overall turn for the worse.

Well, it's better than being a complete milquetoast and always turning the other cheek, I'd say anyway - provided you make a point of slaying 'em with words and not fists.

id agree. but then i dont have a religious mandate to turn the other cheek.

its quite the art to know when to leave something be and when to fight against it. i havent mastered it by any means but i am coming to realize how important it is to know the difference.

...I've been trying to follow this discussion, but...

Yeah, it's kind of all over the place...it's fractured off into a couple loosely connected, but mostly separate discussions.

maybe its not important to you at all. if not, what do i care? i can tolerate your lack of tolerance sensitiivity. its a discussion not a mandate. I'll deal with this before I get to your other post.

I asked you that question for a reason, not because it's not important to me. I wanted to know what use YOU personally had with being able to accurately determine who is being intolerant and who is not.

If it is just about having people reflect on their level of tolerance...okay, all good and fine.

It seemed, however, that there might be some more overarching reason for this sort of identification, and I was trying to get to the root of it. I know you think you're being clear, and I'm being obtuse. I'm simply trying to point out to you while you claim clarity, your points thus far have really lacked it. It boils down to...'use your common sense'.

And yet, as we know, common sense is anything but common.

People like to point at one another and say, 'you're being intolerant'. It's the PC Godwin. And yes, I'd like those people to consider what intolerance actually means, and what level of 'acceptance' their arguments merit. Yes, I would hope people could find a way to engange one another with more civility. However, I have never felt the need to tolerate intolerance. If that makes me, by the definitions held by some people here 'intolerant', so be it. If it fits into the description 'tolerant' for others, okay.

It's an awfully subjective term. And that's all I wanted you to acknowledge.

Edit: come to think of it, I don't have anything to add to what you said in your other post.

id agree. but then i dont have a religious mandate to turn the other cheek.

There's such a thing as turning the other cheek, and then there's willful masochism. Now I might enjoy the occasional crack of a whip in the bedchamber, but I certainly wouldn't in my everyday life...

its quite the art to know when to leave something be and when to fight against it. i havent mastered it by any means but i am coming to realize how important it is to know the difference.

No argument there, and from my experience, it doesn't get any easier.

Yeah, it's kind of all over the place...it's fractured off into a couple loosely connected, but mostly separate discussions.

Aww, that's okay - I made enough sense out of it so far to carry on this conversation with Ash, here. I still don't know what Smunkee was on about though. *smacks own forehead* Hang about - is this why all those people claimed to have quit NS over the weekend, or something? Issues of tolerance?

Aww, that's okay - I made enough sense out of it so far to carry on this conversation with Ash, here. I still don't know what Smunkee was on about though. *smacks own forehead* Hang about - is this why all those people claimed to have quit NS over the weekend, or something? Issues of tolerance?

I don't know...I'm mystified. I also don't see a huge change in NS...it ebbs and flows, as always...and always there are doomsday predictions about how it will finally just descend into madness....I'm still waiting though.

I'll deal with this before I get to your other post.

I asked you that question for a reason, not because it's not important to me. I wanted to know what use YOU personally had with being able to accurately determine who is being intolerant and who is not.

If it is just about having people reflect on their level of tolerance...okay, all good and fine.

It seemed, however, that there might be some more overarching reason for this sort of identification, and I was trying to get to the root of it. I know you think you're being clear, and I'm being obtuse. I'm simply trying to point out to you while you claim clarity, your points thus far have really lacked it. It boils down to...'use your common sense'.

And yet, as we know, common sense is anything but common.

People like to point at one another and say, 'you're being intolerant'. It's the PC Godwin. And yes, I'd like those people to consider what intolerance actually means, and what level of 'acceptance' their arguments merit. Yes, I would hope people could find a way to engange one another with more civility. However, I have never felt the need to tolerate intolerance. If that makes me, by the definitions held by some people here 'intolerant', so be it. If it fits into the description 'tolerant' for others, okay.

It's an awfully subjective term. And that's all I wanted you to acknowledge.

Edit: come to think of it, I don't have anything to add to what you said in your other post.


you seem to be thinking that im advocating tolerance. or that i think that being intolerant is automatically bad.

im just giving a definition. if you disagree with my definition, im very willing to consider YOUR defnintion for a change.

i think its very valuable if you know people who accuse you or others of intolerance, to have a grasp on whether or not that accusation is true and why.

Perhaps not that its wrong, though it is rather obvious to me that homosexuality is at very least unnatural


It occurs in nature, aside from human intervention. Thus, it must be 'natural'.


and doesn't serve the purpose of reproduction, which is rather the point to sex or


Sex, like eating, serves a number of purposes... from disease prevention, to stress relief, to social bonding.


they wouldn't call them reproductive organs.


So, my dick isn't a 'reproductive organ' because, most of the time, I use it for urination?


To be frank about it, two rods weren't meant to go in each other, nor were two holes. However a rod can easily fit in a hole.


But a woman has three holes, and a man has two - any of which can accomodate a rod.

Interesting fact - if the 'goal' of sex for the man is to sow his seed.... and you argue that that automatically means one rod one hole... why is the quickest way to make a man orgasm only attainable with anal penetration?

(The prostate can only be directly stimulated through the back door).


Alright here it goes. I accept the Qur'an to be the words of God. Most on here do not but that an entirely seperate argument. Seeing as they are the words of God it stands to reason to follow them.


Unless you are listening to the wrong god... or it's the right god, but he's a noob about sex...


Further Allah tells us in Al-Mu'minun: 5-7;


You spelled 'aluminium' wrong.

you seem to be thinking that im advocating tolerance. or that i think that being intolerant is automatically bad.

im just giving a definition. if you disagree with my definition, im very willing to consider YOUR defnintion for a change.

i think its very valuable if you know people who accuse you or others of intolerance, to have a grasp on whether or not that accusation is true and why.

Well, with many people crying intolerance, it's boiled down to so far as....

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

With not much more backing it up. So yeah.

It's true that I'm going to be both tolerant and intolerant at the same time, depending on who is looking at me at any given moment.

I'll listen to people, and debate them...but I will also ruthlessly mock bigotry at every given chance. That may be intolerant...but as I stated much earlier in this thread...I'm fine with that.

Aww, that's okay - I made enough sense out of it so far to carry on this conversation with Ash, here. I still don't know what Smunkee was on about though. *smacks own forehead* Hang about - is this why all those people claimed to have quit NS over the weekend, or something? Issues of tolerance?

honestly i dont like to post what might well be considered flame but united beleriand is the most offensive poster i have seen here on the topic of religion. he masks his hatred of all jewishly derived religion behind a thin cloak of intellectualism. i can see why it would be too much for any particular poster who is having a bad day to get tricked into responding to him only to be told that they are stupid and have no rational basis for their belief. its quite different from being flamed by a hit and run troll who just wants to lash out for a moment against anything religious. i dont blame smunkee for being pissed and needing some time away to deal with it.

but united beleriand is the most offensive poster i have seen here on the topic of religion. he masks his hatred of all jewishly derived religion behind a thin cloak of intellectualism.
I agree. There is really no need to tolerate someone who is as much an anti-Semite and an anti-religious bigot as UB. The thing is...he doesn't want to engage people in debate, and actually consider alternatives to his positions.

It's fine...we all have positions we aren't willing to compromise on...but sheesh...state them and move on if you don't actually want to discuss them.

honestly i dont like to post what might well be considered flame but united beleriand is the most offensive poster i have seen here on the topic of religion. he masks his hatred of all jewishly derived religion behind a thin cloak of intellectualism. i can see why it would be too much for any particular poster who is having a bad day to get tricked into responding to him only to be told that they are stupid and have no rational basis for their belief. its quite different from being flamed by a hit and run troll who just wants to lash out for a moment against anything religious. i dont blame smunkee for being pissed and needing some time away to deal with it.

well, if that wasn't enough the repeated TG's from him outlining how stupid, cowardly, insecure, close minded, illogical, unrespectable, brain dead, ignorant, and brain damaged I am.....well, they aren't very nice either, I quit reading after the first paragraph in the series (and yes, there have been more than one)

being still in a bad mood, and a little tired of the crap.....I might just post them (although I am sure that's probably against the rules, and I don't want to cause trouble for the mods)

honestly i dont like to post what might well be considered flame but united beleriand is the most offensive poster i have seen here on the topic of religion. he masks his hatred of all jewishly derived religion behind a thin cloak of intellectualism. i can see why it would be too much for any particular poster who is having a bad day to get tricked into responding to him only to be told that they are stupid and have no rational basis for their belief. its quite different from being flamed by a hit and run troll who just wants to lash out for a moment against anything religious. i dont blame smunkee for being pissed and needing some time away to deal with it.

Ahh, yes I'd noticed UB up near the front end of this thread. Well, as far as 'off-the-shelf' forms of ready-made spirituality go, I have to admit, I'm not a subscriber. I can't countenance anything - organizations, clergy, books, rituals - that attempt to interpose themselves myself and what I understand to be God. Still and all, I'll allow that organized religion apparently satisfies the spiritual needs of many people - and insofar as it meets those needs for those who choose to subscribe, there's really nothing terribly wrong with it.

Personally, I think it's a sign of weakness to subscribe to a major religion; I feel very strongly indeed that there's far more to discover about yourself, about others, and about God by simply striking out on your own, and charting your own course - after all, we're all equidistant from God. No priest, no minister, no pastor, no vicar, no rabbi, no imam, no guru, no shaman is any closer to what you, as an individual, understand about God than you are already.

Fuck UB, he's just a troll - and not a terribly gifted one, either.

well, if that wasn't enough the repeated TG's from him outlining how stupid, cowardly, insecure, close minded, illogical, unrespectable, brain dead, ignorant, and brain damaged I am.....well, they aren't very nice either, I quit reading after the first paragraph in the series (and yes, there have been more than one)

being still in a bad mood, and a little tired of the crap.....I might just post them (although I am sure that's probably against the rules, and I don't want to cause trouble for the mods)

If you received flamegrams, please just report them via the Getting Help page.

At this point, I think I'll just close this thread since it seems to be heading towards being a "bash on United Beleriand" topic. Regardless of my personal opinions about the poster, that's to be avoided.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia