quote:Well, I guess that is the point where the conversation for all practical purposes ends. Good day to you.
Conversation ended when you lied about what I was saying. you've quite simply refused to respond to any explanation about why I have made the decisions I have about what to post here, so it's clear you didn't care a bit about having a "conversation."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that most people will recognize that, no matter what their personal beliefs are, elements and symbols of other people's beliefs need to be respected. I would never desecrate the Koran, for example, because being a civilized human being, I recognize that it has worth to other civilized human beings. And for the sake of civilization, I show respect to things that other people hold sacred even though I don't consider them sacred.
I expect the same sort of civilized behavior from others when it comes to things that I hold sacred.
Really, this is kindergarten civics, isn't it?
The death threats aren't warranted, no matter what. Not even if there was an intentional act of desecration and mockery.
NOW...PZ Meyers is a jerk. He does not convince me that his opinions should be treated with anything but scorn.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really sure how Myers can be considered a victim. Mr. Cook was the one who took the Eucharist from the mass and received the original volume of death threats. In that sense Cook is definitely a victim. Myers observed the reactions to Cook's action and has decided to incite more reactions of the same type. He may be a victim in the strictest sense but I don't feel that is the sense in which you were using the word.
EDIT: In response to KoM. I'm a slow poster Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that most people will recognize that, no matter what their personal beliefs are, elements and symbols of other people's beliefs need to be respected.
Well, I am not 'most people', to be sure; but I don't recognise any such necessity. If a belief is not backed up by credible evidence, then I give it no respect no matter how dearly held it is. That is because I respect (by default - such respect is easy to lose) the person, instead, and expect them to use their dang brains, not hide behind "You gotta respect my belief!" I don't gotta, except of course where moderators enforce a public facade, and I won't. Show me the evidence, and I will respect that. If you have no evidence, be quiet.
Edit: Well, 'be quiet' is too much to expect. Let me instead say, "Count on no respect, nor even silence about my disrespect, from me. Unless you're on a forum I don't care to be banned from, that is."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So annoying people at a parade is taboo, but entering private property to steal sacred items for the purpose of desecration in order to show your disrespect is to be encouraged?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So annoying people at a parade is taboo, but entering private property to steal sacred items for the purpose of desecration in order to show your disrespect is to be encouraged?
I doubt KoM would object to this individual being asked to leave and being arrested if he refused.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, if this is so important to you, why let the silly ToS of one blue/yellow themed forum stop you?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What stealing? Communion wafers are handed out freely, like cookies. It is then the recipient's property, to dispose as he wishes, presuming of course compliance with the law and no harm to others. What private property? The church is a private organisation, but when it gives out a standing invitation to the entire public to come in, it can hardly complain if people accept the invitation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: KoM, if this is so important to you, why let the silly ToS of one blue/yellow themed forum stop you?
In the first place, it's grey/pale yellow. In the second place, what would I have to gain by going out of my way to show disrespect? It's not as though I feel a need to actively go around saying to people "You are stupid, I disrespect you, woo! Ph34r my disrespect!" What would this accomplish other than getting me banned?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church does not give a standing invitation for the entire public to receive communion. Communion is distributed for a specific purpose to specific people who have vowed to honor that purpose. That we generally take on trust that a person who comes forward is one of those specific people does not make it less reprehensible to pretend to be one of those people.
Would "obtain by fraud" suit you better than "steal"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is because I respect (by default - such respect is easy to lose) the person, instead, and expect them to use their dang brains, not hide behind "You gotta respect my belief!" I don't gotta, except of course where moderators enforce a public facade, and I won't. Show me the evidence, and I will respect that. If you have no evidence, be quiet.
It's really not about evidence, KoM, but collective emotional value.
Recognizing others' sacred cows-- and treating them with respect-- is a demonstration of the social adult. It is a sign of a mature intellect and a cognizance of one's place in culture. Even though I don't believe in the Catholic communion, I respect my fellow adults' feelings for it as something worthy and valuable in their lives. Because I love them-- not the communion wafer, or the religion behind it-- I keep my objections to their religion on a level that is a bit higher than the childish prankishness that Meyers and those who emailed him death threats exhibit.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is true that the original cookie-stealer is apparently a bit of a troll, yes. Still, when the response to trolling is death threats, I feel that outrage over the trolling is a little bit misplaced.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's really not about evidence, KoM, but collective emotional value.
Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's really not about evidence, KoM, but collective emotional value.
Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
But adults *are*. Now what? I don't see why it's so difficult. I can respect that fact that although you are very vocally against anything that I find truly important, you seem to value certain things (granted, I'm not quite sure what they are, but I figure I'll handle them as they come), and because I think that deep down, you are ultimately a decent and hard-working person who's fairly intelligent, I don't go around insulting Norway or Atheism. So why is it so hard to show a modicum of respect to me in spite of my weird, proof-lacking beliefs?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Church does not give a standing invitation for the entire public to receive communion.
Technically, yes, but not in practice. There is no explicit statement made that the Eucharist is only for those who have made the appropriate vows. Only practicing Catholics and other who happen to know a bit of Catholic theology would know this.
My grandfather had a Catholic funeral mass and many of his non-Catholic family members went up to take the Eucharist. There was an awkward moment when I was being encouraged to go up by some of these non-Catholic family members and I explained that it would be offensive to Catholics for us to do so. They acted like I was nuts and shrugged it off and went up anyway.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Actually, there often is an explicit statement, either vocal or written in the program. I know this doesn't always happen, as your example attests, but it often does.
Moreover, the original taker did know. And now that Meyers has advertised how upset Catholics are because of this, it is clear that he knows and those potentially responding to his request know.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although this is one of the things I would consider common knowledge, there is actually an explicit statement in the printed material that is usually at the doors or handed to you when you enter - either a program or the missalette that is present in just about all Catholic churches.
You were correct in not going up to take Eucharist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
How do you feel about desecrating graves?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, some interpretation of my posts to catch-up with:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Talk to the OP, who described this as amusing, not serious.
I described it as amusing, that does not mean I said it was not serious. There are many things that I find both serious and amusing at the same time and much of dark humour or satire is closely tied to (or even requires) serious issues.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Not true. The opening post found the whole idea amusing. That might not be an explicit defense, but it is a favorable statement about the correctness of PZM's actions. No such favorable statement has been made about death threats.
To clarify, I do think PZ Myers is being a jerk. I also find it amusing.
The English makes it difficult to convey the right nuance, but there is a phrase in Cantonese in Stephen Chow films that does, "oi yunsherng lei" roughly translated as "I appreciate and enjoy your presence in this world and what you're doing, even if it is not quite what I would do."
Since that reference would not be relatable to most people, I could also relate it to House. House is a jerk. However, the world is a better place with him in it and he would be less effective at what he does if he were not a jerk.
How you would translate that kind of idea into a strict binary correctness schema is up to you.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think that most people will recognize that, no matter what their personal beliefs are, elements and symbols of other people's beliefs need to be respected.
I respectfully disagree. I think most people do not recognize this. Specifically, I suspect a fair number of people brought up in a Western culture dominated by religion will recognize that elements and symbols belonging to *major non-extinct beliefs* need to be respected.
However, even in the West many people do not respect elements or symbols of religions that are minor OR extinct. Many will snicker at the idea that photos can capture a piece of one's soul and should be avoided or the idea that John Frum (cargo cult) will return and usher in a paradise. We can pose jokingly with staues of Greek gods at the museum and write and enjoy movies such as 'Dogma'.
If we move outside the West, this becomes even more clear. There is a very large portion of Chinese society that feels free to think that Christianity is simply superstition and its symbols are not worthy of any more special respect than say "Journey to the West" which is famously parodied.
To make this distinction clear, most people will recognize that people holding what they observe to be silly beliefs should be respected as fellow humans. Most people will not respect the actual symbols of those silly beliefs.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many will snicker at the idea that photos can capture a piece of one's soul and should be avoided or the idea that John Frum (cargo cult) will return and usher in a paradise. We can pose jokingly with staues of Greek gods at the museum and write and enjoy movies such as 'Dogma'.
I think most people would say that deliberately taking a picture of someone who said, "Don't take a picture of me; it's against my religion to allow it!" would be rude.
Where adults recognize a valued belief, they try to make accommodations for it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What stealing? Communion wafers are handed out freely, like cookies. It is then the recipient's property, to dispose as he wishes, presuming of course compliance with the law and no harm to others. What private property? The church is a private organisation, but when it gives out a standing invitation to the entire public to come in, it can hardly complain if people accept the invitation.
You are wrong here the Catholic church does not openly invite anyone to come and recieve a host (cracker). Yes they invite all to attend their services but they do not practice an open Communion. You must have your first communion through a Catholic Church and be a practicing Catholic to be invited to recieve the host.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think most people would say that deliberately taking a picture of someone who said, "Don't take a picture of me; it's against my religion to allow it!" would be rude.
Thats actually a good example. Most people would not deliberately take a picture of a person in that circumstance. However, most people that actually really wanted to take a photo would simply take the picture behind their back and not confront them about it. To make this concrete, I've been to a decent number of temples which display the sign "No photographs" which really just becomes "No photographs while someone is around that actually cares" for the majority of people.
Those are actually examples of respecting the person, but not respecting the belief.
(This is someone tangential to what PZ Myers is doing, in this case he's neither respecting the person or the belief, just to make that clear)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that taking pictures in places where one is asked not to is an example of rude and self-centered behavior. Also disruptive and possibly destructive if there is a flash or particular artwork.
I would never consider taking such a picture whether it were a religious space or a museum.
You and I have very different ideas of courtesy, Mucus.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most people would not deliberately take a picture of a person in that circumstance. However, most people that actually really wanted to take a photo would simply take the picture behind their back and not confront them about it. To make this concrete, I've been to a decent number of temples which display the sign "No photographs" which really just becomes "No photographs while someone is around that actually cares" for the majority of people.
I'm glad I don't know the people you've gotten this impression from.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm glad I don't know the people you've gotten this impression from.
*shrug* You made a statement about "most people", not "most people that you know." I'm just making the correction.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You and I have very different ideas of courtesy, Mucus.
You and I have very different ideas of language. Most people enjoy spicy food. That does not mean I enjoy spicy food myself. Most people display the behaviour indicated. That does not mean I necessarily perform the behaviour or consider it courteous. What it does mean is that "most people display the behaviour indicated."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What it does mean is that "most people display the behaviour indicated."
Do you have some evidence of this? It certainly has not been my experience. I recently spent a lot of time sightseeing in churches and museums and, by far, most people seemed to be obeying the rules.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only have my personal experiences in temples and churches, I have not as of yet encountered a survey indicating how many people sneak photos in places they are not supposed to or do I really think such a survey would exist for the obvious reasons.
However, a little bit of googling shows this thread in which 3 out of the 6 people participating publicly admit to giving into the temptation to perform the practise. Very unscientific, but there you go.
I would also note that this is strongly related to my aforementioned clause of most people feel that "*major non-extinct beliefs* need to be respected." I suspect that the people that go to the churches that you mention have a much bigger personal investment in the beliefs surrounding churches than for the temples that I am thinking of.
In other words, it is unsurprising to me that tourists would pay greater respect to beliefs that are somewhat similar to their own rather than those that are relatively alien.
Edit to add: Here's another example.
quote: Officially, no photographs are allowed. However, most of us managed to sneak a photo or two when the guards are looking away. Apparently, this is due to the problem the government had with camera flash, but if you're using high ISO speed and no flash, then it is okay.
quote:Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
How do you feel about desecrating graves?
It's under control, man - I can stop any time I like.
Private property protected by law. Done. No respect required. Although the belief "There existed a person that I cared about, and this is a memorial to him" is generally fairly well backed up by evidence anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As is the belief, "there's a ceremony performed every day, attended by millions of people each week, and many of those people care strongly about one of the elements of that ceremony" is also fairly well backed up by evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rephrase. "There existed a person I cared about" is two statements: One of fact, about the existence, and one of feeling, "I cared". The fact is verifiable, so I respect the feeling. The death threats arise from a similar double statement:
a) Statement of fect: The cookie is the flesh of Christ. b) Feeling: I care deeply about the flesh of Christ.
The first statement being utterly without evidence, I could care less about the feeling.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Oy. The Catholic league wants more security for the Republican National Convention because it's about 150 miles from Myers' home.
quote:a) Statement of fect: The cookie is the flesh of Christ. b) Feeling: I care deeply about the flesh of Christ.
It seems like your straining a bit to make sure the proposed analogues don't match. Couldn't you say:
a) Statement of fact: The cookie exists b) Feeling: I care deeply about the cookie
Fair enough. Let's try this:
a) The reason I cared about [person X] was [good things Y from our relationship]. b) The reason I care about the cookie is that it is the flesh of Christ.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
a) The reason I cared about [person X] was because I believe [Y from our relationship] were good things. b) The reason I care about the host is that I believe it is the flesh of Christ.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To get that to run in proper parallel, you need this change:
The reason I care about the host is that I believe doing [what it was] to the flesh of Christ is bad.
Again, there are two statements: One of fact [things Y happened] and [the cookie is the flesh of Christ] and one of feeling [Y were good] and [doing X to the flesh of Christ is bad]. If you cannot show that X really happened to the flesh of Christ - that is, you can show that X happened to the cookie, but not that the cookie is the FoC - then no respect for the badness. Conversely, if you were unable to show that Y happened - for example, the father buried under your gravestone might be fictional - then no respect for the goodness either. But I'd hold that to a much lower standard of proof, people that we care about being much less extraordinary than the body of creators of the universe, and thus requiring less extraordinary evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that your respect for the feelings of others is so shallow.
Not all others. He has great respect for the feelings of parade-goers, for example. He just disrespects people who disagree with him.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that your respect for the feelings of others is so shallow.
I notice that as soon as you are convinced my approach does not have an internal inconsistency, you go instantly into attack mode with the ad hom. Would you like to edit that post to something that's not a personal attack?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that your respect for the feelings of others is so shallow.
Not all others. He has great respect for the feelings of parade-goers, for example.
a) Those preachers shouted at me. b) I dislike being shouted at.
The factual claim has strong evidence - there's a YouTube video of it! - so the emotional claim gets my respect. Further, loud noise is a clear aggression/dominance signal in primates, a preliminary to attack. That's measurable harm right there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I notice that as soon as you are convinced my approach does not have an internal inconsistency, you go instantly into attack mode with the ad hom.
This has nothing to do with being unable to find an internal inconsistency in your approach, but rather having now gotten a reasonably complete explanation of why you don't respect others' feelings in certain situations. Now that I have that, I feel on strong grounds making the comment I made.
Had I found an internal inconsistency, I would not have made that statement (most likely). Because, in that case, you wouldn't be presenting a consistent yet shallow and mean-spirited approach to respecting others' feelings.
quote:Would you like to edit that post to something that's not a personal attack?
No. You have stated broadly that your approach in determining whether someone going out of their way to emotionally hurt others is acting poorly is to subject others' feelings to an evidentiary examination based on your particular views of evidence.
I think my opinion about that approach is valid and correct.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
a) At negligible cost to me, I can avoid causing distress to people because of their cherished beliefs (the cost and distress are easily evidenced) b) I don't care, and I cause it anyway
Applies to Myers's call to steal the wafers. Not only disrespectful of the beliefs, but uncivil and mean.
May apply to some degree to other behaviors, like being careful not to give any impression of respect for beliefs one believes are mistaken.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we've already established that I have no respect for the people being targeted, so why should I care about distress to them, other than purely tactical considerations like their ability to retaliate in kind? And if I felt that they were an active danger to civilisation, I might even go out of my way to cause such distress, just to focus their energies on something other than their active dangerousness.
quote:Now that I have that, I feel on strong grounds making the comment I made.
Well then, we have here
a) KoM's respect for others is shallow by my definition b) I think that's bad.
The factual claim being well grounded, I am clearly bound not to disrespect you for the emotional statement. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't care if you cause needless distress to other people who haven't earned your respect (in your opinion)? Then, in my groundless, unevidenced opinion, religion was invented for people like you, KoM.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
