posted
Why should I respect someone who gives me no reason to do so? The respect of others is not a right, but a privilege to be earned; if you want respect, behave in a manner that inspires it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you agree to post here, you agree to respect other people and their beliefs. You have already promised to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, are you saying that anyone who is religious automatically gives you no reason to respect them? That no respect is due the religious from you?
Do you automatically treat people with no respect until they give you reason to treat them with respect?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, kat, there is a difference between "not attacking others' beliefs" and "respecting others' beliefs".
Bev, now I think about it, that's not the way I usually act. Let me instead say that respect is a privilege granted by default, but easy to lose. Being silly is a good way to do so.
And I'm sorry, but no amount of respect for the worshippers of the Holy Shovel of Sacred Earth-Moving is going to keep me from calling it a damn spade.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do have to treat people with respect. Calling it a spade is fine. Calling people who believe in the spade idiots is not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you believe that all the religious believe in silly things, right? So if in your mind all religious are automatically being silly, do you automatically lose respect for them?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are lucky Geoff is here to make the rest of the Mormons look good, like there's someone capable of having a debate without succumbing to the vapors or just mounting flaccid little one-liners as a response.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans have an innate desire for fair play (at least, to be on the receiving end of fair play), so it is very hard for people to stand there and take crap from King of Men without screaming at him His attitude is unfairly contemptuous of other people, and it can get pretty intolerable.
But then again, he seems to thrive on his own indignation at the reactions he gets from people. I'm sure he thinks he looks like some kind of champion for a worthy cause, battling the nasty forces of ignorance, and doesn't realize that the way he argues just makes him look closed-minded and immature.
So if I react by screaming at him, all that does is feed his ego. Hardly productive. If I get sick of him, I'll just ignore him for a while. For now, I deal with him the way I plan to deal with my own children one day — talking and keeping a level head, no matter how much he screams and hits Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, actually, I am. I tolerate the existence of people with silly beliefs; I just don't approve, and make no bones about it. Tolerance, as our esteemed host has pointed out in at least one of his essays, does not mean you have to praise the behaviour in question; you just have to find some accommodation both parties can live with.
More to the point, tolerance means to endure without approval or enjoyment. We tolerate bad living conditions because we can afford no better. We tolerate a certain level of pollution because we need the industrial products. We tolerate diseases to the extent that they cannot be cured. In at least one case on these boards, we tolerate homosexuals because we haven't the power to imprison them. And we tolerate different religions because we've tried eradicating them, and it's seriously nasty.
If you approve of a behaviour, you have no need to tolerate it. Tolerance means living with those who annoy you; there is no obligation to be respectful.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tolerance means living with those who annoy you; there is no obligation to be respectful.
If you're actively fighting something and trying to cause hurt feelings for people who pursue it, it's very hard to convincingly say that you're tolerating it.
And yes, it cuts both ways. I'd say the same about the many opponents of gay marriage, for instance. Though you can definitely draw a boundary between opposing something on legal or other legitimate grounds, versus simply being mean and intolerant on a personal level.
That may be the distinction you're missing, KoM. I have no problem with you opposing religious influences in public life. I oppose many of them myself. (Prayer in school, God in the pledge of alliegiance ... what's the point?) But the fact that you frame your positions in personally-insulting language calculated to make people feel small, stupid, or looked-down-upon ... well, that makes you QUITE intolerant, to say the least.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tolerance, as our esteemed host has pointed out in at least one of his essays, does not mean you have to praise the behaviour in question; you just have to find some accommodation both parties can live with.
Your 'accomodation' seems to be calling theists idiotic jackasses every chance you get, King of Men, and puffing out your intellectual chest at the same time. That's not just 'not praising' behavior you disagree with, that's going out of your way to insult and belittle the people who disagree with you, constantly.
That's not tolerance, unless you dumb down the word to mean simply breathing next to someone you don't like.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tolerance means living with those who annoy you; there is no obligation to be respectful."
Actually, KoM, you accepted such an obligation when you signed the user agreement for this site. If you want to post, you are obliged to be respectful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, You go far beyond the limits of the user's agreement. The Mods would be well within their rights according to that contract to sanction or even ban you. I very much doubt they'd get any argument if they decided to do so.
But that's almost irrelevant. What may be of more interest to you is how remarkably ineffective your arguing is. Your style is often puerile and your foundations seem to almost invariably boil down to "I think religious people are stupid."
This is a poor base to build and argument on, not just because of it's essentially subjective and untransferable nature, but also because it's objectively untenable. There are plenty of extremely intelligent religious people. There are plenty of relatively unitelligent and foolish atheists. And in the realm of values, besides being possessed in copious amount by both sides, intelligence is by no means of primary importance.
Likewise, you tend to greatly oversimplify the complexities of religion. Unless you can address this issue in depth, it is trivialy easy to dismiss your arguments.
I very strongly doubt anyone here has been swayed by your arguments. I know that I, one of the posters most critical of religion, find them mainly annoying and often embarrassing.
Unless your goal is to play to an audience of one and congratulate yourself on how much superior you are to other people, I don't think that you are acheiving it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
His attitude is unfairly contemptuous of other people, and it can get pretty intolerable.
