quote:I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
But your sight of that truth is in direct contradiction of the express statements of the only person with firsthand knowledge of what the truth actually is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
If you are talking about what he believes, then you kind of have to take his word for it when he says you are wrong about what he believes.
If you want to believe that he is inconsistant, because his posts lead to a conclusion that he rejects, then you can argue that.
But then you at least have to post what he said that contradicts if you want to be taken seriously.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last half page or so kinda makes me wish this forum had an explicit rule against speculating on the motives of other posters.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The last half page or so kinda makes me wish this forum had an explicit rule against speculating on the motives of other posters.
I bet I know why you wish that...
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
But your sight of that truth is in direct contradiction of the express statements of the only person with firsthand knowledge of what the truth actually is.
Indeed, but such statements, as you must well know, are not the only factor to be weighed when judging what is true.
quote:If you are talking about what he believes, then you kind of have to take his word for it when he says you are wrong about what he believes.
But now we are discussing why he believes what he believes, and that is a point where even a sincere statement may be mistaken; what's more, Dag refuses to say anything intelligible at all, except the refrain of "Wrong! Wrong!" so I've got nothing to take his word for.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I know. But you, KoM, and Javert seem to be defending Myers' approach to different degrees.
I'm not sure why thats relevant. I was proposing why Dagonee's model of PZ Myers as well, just a jerk, would be motivated to use a fake cracker.
Then you followed up with a proposal that would seem fairly contradictory with that model. Why would a jerk want to make people their friends, live in harmony, and promote a fairly glowing and optimistic view of civilization?
Of course, I don't believe that a simplistic model of PZ Myers as just a jerk and that "his only interest is in pissing people off" is sufficient to describe what is occurring here.
Similarly, I could consider Catholics to be "just jerks" and endangering human life to boot in giving a reason for why the Church opposes condoms in Africa. However, this model would not have sufficient accuracy to really describe how Catholics feel about the situation and predict how the policy may change and be affected.
Of course I still *disagree* with whatever more complicated motives that Catholics may have for this policy, but I don't pretend that "being jerks" is enough to describe whats going on.
But in this specific hypothetical, both models (PZ Myers being simply a jerk or a more complicated model) seem to agree on effectiveness of a fake cracker, which I think gives the possibility of a fake Chunk of Christ desecration worthy of some consideration and potential amusement.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I don't understand why this simple respect for other people's feelings wouldn't be enough to prevent decent people from mocking or desecrating things that are sacred to others, with an intent to annoy or hurt or anger them.
Do you *literally* don't understand or is that just some hyperbole?
Run through two scenarios: 1) American military tortures Muslim POW by desecrating Koran in front of him to hurt and anger him to get information 2) South Park or Dogma depict religion in a satirical fashion to annoy people of those religions and provide entertainment for others
When you hear about these scenarios, do you literally think something like "Whats going on? I have no idea why someone would do that. I cannot understand their reasoning or emotions pushing them to such acts?"
Or more likely, do you really actually understand why simple respect for people's feelings is not enough to prevent people from these acts but simply *disagree*?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indeed, but such statements, as you must well know, are not the only factor to be weighed when judging what is true.
Ah, so you're calling me a liar, intentional or otherwise.
Factor that into your calculation of what my possible motives might be in not writing the thesis you demand in order to stop saying untrue things about me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Run through two scenarios: 1) American military tortures Muslim POW by desecrating Koran in front of him to hurt and anger him to get information 2) South Park or Dogma depict religion in a satirical fashion to annoy people of those religions and provide entertainment for others
When you hear about these scenarios, do you literally think something like "Whats going on? I have no idea why someone would do that. I cannot understand their reasoning or emotions pushing them to such acts?"
Well, I worded my comment the way I did for a reason. I said, "I don't understand why this simple respect for other people's feelings wouldn't be enough to prevent decent people from mocking or desecrating things that are sacred to others, with an intent to annoy or hurt or anger them.
Okay, so in your scenarios, I do understand the reasons for #1. In that scenario their offensive actions are not solely to anger others for their own amusement. But this is not really what this whole thread is about. No one is trying to torture Catholics for purposes of national security. I believe you are the one who said back on the first page that this mockery was really just "a practical joke for the non-religious to be amused by."
Which leads to #2. This type of thing is exactly why I used the phrase "decent people" in my post. Meaning, people who care about other people. And no, I don't understand why a decent person would want to anger or offend others just for entertainment. I mean, I've heard the reasons - I guess - they find it funny. But I don't understand that. I don't find it amusing when people make fun of fat people either. Which is why people who make fun of others that are different from themselves, for the amusement of people who ARE like themselves, do fall squarely in the category of "jerks" to me.
And lest anyone misunderstand, let me add that the response is entirely out of proportion, and of COURSE death threats are worse than whatever what's-his-name did to provoke them.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've heard the reasons - I guess - they find it funny.
Did you miss the article I linked adjacent to your previous post? There are reasons beyond just being a jerk or being funny.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Okay, so in your scenarios, I do understand the reasons for #1. In that scenario their offensive actions are not solely to anger others for their own amusement. But this is not really what this whole thread is about. No one is trying to torture Catholics for purposes of national security. I believe you are the one who said back on the first page that this mockery was really just "a practical joke for the non-religious to be amused by."
You misinterpret me, I'm simply trying to figure out your use of the word "understand." You seemed to claim that while you knew the *reasons* why someone would mock religion faith, you did not *understand* it. I'm trying to investigate what this exactly means, not make a point about the PZ Myers issue.
So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that you would understand someone mocking Christianity in order to torture a Christian but that you do not understand someone mocking Christianity for their own amusement. Is this correct?
quote: I mean, I've heard the reasons - I guess - they find it funny. But I don't understand that. I don't find it amusing when people make fun of fat people either. Which is why people who make fun of others that are different from themselves, for the amusement of people who ARE like themselves, do fall squarely in the category of "jerks" to me.
I guess this is the crux of the issue. You don't find it amusing when people make fun of fat people, but do you "understand" it?
Furthermore, how about ethnic stereotypes (Rush Hour), class-based humour (Fraiser), height (movies with Schwarzenegger and De Vito), or intelligence (Talking to Americans)? Would you also claim that you do not understand any of these examples of in-group/out-group (for lack of a better word) humour?
Additionally, would you claim that the writers of Dogma and South Park are indecent people solely due to their participation in such humour?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. It is very fortunate that Hatrack doesn't contain anybody whose religion might possibly lead to irrational behaviour. Why, we might have long, passive-aggressive threads in which people refused to answer questions about why they are right, but nonetheless insist on the correctness of their beliefs!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I find the letters especially amusing. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. (metaphorically, not literally)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed. It is very fortunate that Hatrack doesn't contain anybody whose religion might possibly lead to irrational behaviour. Why, we might have long, passive-aggressive threads in which people refused to answer questions about why they are right, but nonetheless insist on the correctness of their beliefs!
I don't insist (or even desire) that you believe the correctness of my beliefs. Nor do I take any delight in mocking yours. What you are calling passive-aggressive (assuming you mean me*) is merely passive.
*And giving such a good example!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, a whole lot of comments in there from people absolutely ignorant about what they're mocking. One example:
quote:Surely Catholics will be able to tell if the wafer is consecrated or not. In fact this whole thing has been about just that claim, that there is a difference. Well if there is, Catholics presumably will be able to tell. After all if that wafer really is the body of Christ it will not be the same as just an ordinary wafer.
So come Catholics, tell us. Is that wafer consecrated or not ?
posted
Honestly, would you really approve if the people doing the mocking *were* better informed as to properties of a Chunk of Christ? I would have thought that you would prefer people to stop mocking rather than simply upgrade the mockery.
On a related note, MattP and I were trying to figure out some of these properties back on page 3 with no real answers, if you could shed some light on that, that might be helpful.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, would you really approve if the people doing the mocking *were* better informed as to properties of a Chunk of Christ?
No. This is an additional criticism.
quote:I would have thought that you would prefer people to stop mocking rather than simply upgrade the mockery.
I figured I've covered the bases on that other criticism.
quote:On a related note, MattP and I were trying to figure out some of these properties back on page 3 with no real answers, if you could shed some light on that, that might be helpful.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you clarify.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: I didn't mean that property, Dagonee's Moody and Draco analogy covered that pretty well. It is actually kind of prerequisite for the side-discussion about the possibility of a "fake" cracker.
Dagonee: The questions at 9:05, July 17th and a guess by MattP shortly after, and a response to that at 9:17.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You misinterpret me, I'm simply trying to figure out your use of the word "understand." You seemed to claim that while you knew the *reasons* why someone would mock religion faith, you did not *understand* it. I'm trying to investigate what this exactly means ...
I'm not sure I can explain better ... I meant that I had heard the reasons and that my brain is capable of processing them, but I do not understand why a desire to make fun of people would not be overridden by a basic respect for people and a (what I thought was common) desire not to hurt people. I don't like hurting people. I don't understand why some people do. Meaning, I guess, that I don't feel the way they do or think the way they do, and it's hard for me to understand why their feelings and thoughts are so different from mine that they would lead to exactly opposite actions. I cannot imagine having a desire to hurt someone's feelings.
Well, that's not entirely true. I've had my feelings hurt before and then had a desire to hurt back. I usually try to refrain, though. Is that it? Has this man had his feelings hurt by Catholics believing that the Eucharist is the body of Christ? Hurt badly enough to want to hurt them in return? That I can understand. I don't approve, but I understand.
Or perhaps he has had his feelings hurt in general by religious people not tolerating his lack of faith, and he is striking back at all Catholics. Rather primitive, I think, but I suppose I understand that.
But I don't really buy that he's been hurt by people's belief in the Eucharist. I think his inability to understand why some people might believe in something he cannot see is so incomprehensible to him that he no longer considers them humans of the same species as he is, and no longer considers them worthy of any respect. I do understand thinking the belief itself is crazy. But having a desire to hurt people just because they believe that, that's what I don't get.
quote:So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that you would understand someone mocking Christianity in order to torture a Christian but that you do not understand someone mocking Christianity for their own amusement. Is this correct?
Well, almost. I would understand the reasons behind torturing a Christian for national security. I even understand that the beliefs of Christians might seem funny or insane to some, and that among themselves they might want to mock them. But in this case they're not just mocking Christians for their own amusement - they're mocking Christians by trying to hurt them and then laughing at the pain. People who enjoy the pain of others make me sad.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
