quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I would rather, for the sake of law and order, have the uneducated and poor as believers...that way they remain civilized, even if they don't respect/understand the ideals of being nice to your fellow man. Often without some form of social control the uneducated and needy become barbarians.
This is exactly my point as to why on a first blush approach people in general might be less trusting of an atheist versus someone claiming some other established religion.
Part of it is unfortunately tied to the realization that keeps hitting me more and more, that a large portion of the general populus is pretty dumb. If I don't know that you're reasonably intelligent and well schooled/read then I'm going to be doubtful that your self-formed "religion" is going to mesh with mine in terms of morality and/or basic outlook on life. Now the same is also true of certain religions, where my initial reaction to say... fundamentalist evangelical Christians, may also be skewed to the non-trusting side of things because of preconcieved stereotypes.
I personally find it more likely that an average or below-average joe would have a decent moral foundation as a part of a church (or at least established philosophy) than as if he was pretty much just deciding on each issue entirely for himself.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would rather, for the sake of law and order, have the uneducated and poor as believers...that way they remain civilized, even if they don't respect/understand the ideals of being nice to your fellow man. Often without some form of social control the uneducated and needy become barbarians.
This is a horrid and I would even say sinful use of religion. For too long religion has been used to keep the "poor and uneducated" "civilized". In other words, in their place. This use of religion has corrupted religion and it has corrupted humanity. It is often at the heart of what is wrong with organized religion. And, as far as Christianity is concerned, it is absolutely contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christianity calls for us to feed the poor not to use Christ to keep them "civilized".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I would rather, for the sake of law and order, have the uneducated and poor as believers...that way they remain civilized, even if they don't respect/understand the ideals of being nice to your fellow man. Often without some form of social control the uneducated and needy become barbarians.
This is exactly my point as to why on a first blush approach people in general might be less trusting of an atheist versus someone claiming some other established religion.
Part of it is unfortunately tied to the realization that keeps hitting me more and more, that a large portion of the general populus is pretty dumb. If I don't know that you're reasonably intelligent and well schooled/read then I'm going to be doubtful that your self-formed "religion" is going to mesh with mine in terms of morality and/or basic outlook on life. Now the same is also true of certain religions, where my initial reaction to say... fundamentalist evangelical Christians, may also be skewed to the non-trusting side of things because of preconcieved stereotypes.
I personally find it more likely that an average or below-average joe would have a decent moral foundation as a part of a church (or at least established philosophy) than as if he was pretty much just deciding on each issue entirely for himself.
What terrible, bigoted things to say.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...denied myself the joy of knowing that God created the world...
You actually "know" no such thing. You believe it to be true. Yes, there is a world, but you have absolutely no idea how it got here (through the actions of what God, I might say...). I would imagine that the proofs for your claim are pretty threadbare.
But I'm sure that many would say the same things about "science's" claims.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I, for one, do not find Telp's statement as bigoted. Heck, kmb even seems to agree with it. She doesn't like the truth behind it, but recognizes the truth nonetheless.
Whether the statements are bigoted or not, do you believe that they are true?
I find them to be unfortunate, but true.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not really. I don't think religion (as we have used it) as either a good or an effective way of "civilizing" people. Perhaps oppressing them. Raising people up is a good way of civilizing them - we just don't use it often enough.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, what exactly do you find bigoted about what I am saying?
I can see parts of it as jaded, which I fully agree with.
And I am pointing out that whether we like it or not our first impressions of people are going to be based on preconcieved notions/stereotypes, even if we try to avoid them.
I'll admit that I'm saying that I personally feel more initially comfortable with the philosophy of random Joe if he claims some affiliation to an established religion than if he claims to be an atheist, because I don't necessarily trust that he has taken the time and thought to establish a "non-belief" system for himself.
All that being said, I am perfectly comfortable trusting an Atheist who I feel has put the time/thought/intelligence into his convictions, just as I'm MORE comfortable with a religious person who has done the same thing.
If a 22 year old comes up to me saying he's self-taught and intelligent but never went to Highschool, I'd definitively going to be less trusting of his abilities in a subject such as basic chemistry than I am of someone who has graduated highschool. Now once the first one shows me his GED, proving that he really has put some time and work into it I'm not necessarily gonna prefer one to the other based on very similar logic.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem to me that atheists are still rare enough that you can safely make the basic assumption that they have, indeed, thought about it. In America, at least, second-generation atheists who inherited it from their parents are going to be rather unusual. This is not true of the mainstream Christian sects.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
addendum: in terms of creating a valid moral code:
Most formal religions have had theologians and scholars (highly trained and intelligent individuals) spending lifetimes developing complex moral codes, attempting to cover most bases and eliminate areas of confusion/loopholes.
Would you be more confident of the general moral standing of: a)a 19-year-old who hasn't fully studied these precepts, but in principle tries to follow them OR b)a 19-year-old who has decided to develop their own because they do not believe that God/gods exist.
and remember that this is all based on a first-blush reaction to these people. If one or the other turns out on closer inspection to be a psychopath, or have the intellect of a child, or be a tremendous intellectual/moral genious it will skew things.
basically my personal opinion is that those following established religions have a little bit better starting position, if potentially the same maximum level of trustability.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, given the state of organized religion, I am as likely to want to be around the second of the two 19-year-olds. Too often religion is used as an excuse for appalling behavior.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I guess the problem is I'm coming from this background: All the atheists I've known have been of 2 types: 1) The fairly well-educated/thought-out kind that I don't really have an issue with (as long as we agree to disagree as it were) 2) Confused highschool/college students who hadn't really thought about it but were mostly just rebelling at authority.
and kmb, I'm going on the basic assumption that "some system, even a flawed one" > "no system" which is a personal choice I suppose.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed there are a lot of confused high school/college students who haven't really thought about it but were mostly just listening to their parents.
I'm trying not to get worked up right now, but I completely reject the notion that my "ethical code" should be examined more thoroughly than a Christian's on the basis that I don't believe in God or have the the Bible to "guide" me.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I considered the comments bigoted because it appears as though they are saying that a person's morality is dependent on their educational level and class status. I could elaborate, but I think that's what it would all boil down to.
The second thing that bothered me (however I don't view it as bigoted) was the underlying assumption that adopting a religion means you've thought less about your own moral code than an atheist.
To almost quote Chungwa:
I'm trying not to get worked up right now, but I completely reject the notion that my "ethical code" should be examined more thoroughly than a atheist's on the basis that I do believe in God or have the the Bible to "guide" me.
It really goes both ways.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You misunderstand me. I think that everyone should examine their moral code. Whether they tailor their own or buy one off the rack. Or somewhere in between.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I understood what you were saying. My post was in response to TheGrimace.
I agree that everyone should examine their moral code.
I also hope that my post didn't come off as suggesting that religious people don't question morals as much as atheists. When I was talking about people just listening to their parents, that was in response to the idea that many atheists are only atheists because they are rebelling and haven't actually thought things through.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say, could we please stop talking about sub-average Joes?
-o-
[derail]
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: If a 22 year old comes up to me saying he's self-taught and intelligent but never went to Highschool, I'd definitively going to be less trusting of his abilities in a subject such as basic chemistry than I am of someone who has graduated highschool. Now once the first one shows me his GED, proving that he really has put some time and work into it I'm not necessarily gonna prefer one to the other based on very similar logic.
erm, are you familiar with the GED? I am. It's a reading comprehension test. You could pass it with no more than an eighth grade understanding of chemistry, if that.
posted
I might point out, at the risk of being hated here, that many people follow the religions of their parents. I'm not saying that these people don't believe in their religion, but if their parents were Buddhist as opposed to Chrisitian, they would be Buddhist too. There are the odd people that honestly don't believe in the religion their parents passed down to them, but come on, how many people do you know that don't have the same religion as their parents? So if someone had atheist parents, they're most likely going to be atheist. Does that make them bad people? Does that make their parents bad people? In my opinion, no.
Edit: Has some of this already been said? I apologize if so.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why is it rude to admit you're an atheist?"
What I think is rude is assuming people are Christian and when you find out they aren't, thinking differently of them. (Not pointing fingers, don't worry)
I'm certainly showing myself to be an past-topic poster here.
[ March 27, 2006, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: The Fae-Ray ]
Posts: 29 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Fae-Ray: I might point out, at the risk of being hated here
Fae, you have to work pretty hard to be hated here. You express your opinion well, which is a trait I both admire and envy, regardless of what it is you are expressing. Keep at it, I'm enjoying reading what you have to say.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, thanks, Dr. I've been kicked out of many a forum for my views. It's nice to find one where they're accepted like this. Posts: 29 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
TheGrimace- You'll recall my post on the first page, that friend is being kicked out of her house by her Catholic parents. One of my friend's girlfriend is being beaten by her strongly protestant parents. According to my former pastor, my boyfriend is raping me everytime he has sex with me because I don't have the right to give consent for myself- my father must give that consent for me. I've sat at a dinner table while another former pastor dominated the conversation by humiliating his wife, for the whole dinner. Why? Because while following him somewhere she'd had the temerity to switch lanes.
Humans are humans, regardless of what faith they follow, they do great things, and they do horrible things. For many, religion brings out the best in them. But for just as many religion has no effect. And for a small but significant number, religion brings out the worst in them. To believe that just because someone is religious they will behave in a way that is good is naive and dangerous.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: According to my former pastor, my boyfriend is raping me everytime he has sex with me because I don't have the right to give consent for myself- my father must give that consent for me.
How....in the world...what is this, Mesopotamia? Seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I dunno, Karl. He used what seemed to me to be a theological statement as the foundation for his conclusion: "From this experience I learned that Catholics deny the ability of humans to truly question their beleifs."
So... I guess I'll wait for Orincoro to clarify.
Sorry scott, I went away for the weekend and didn't anticipate the discussion blooming into 4 pages...
Anyway, my point in that particular sentence was pointing out what I felt to be a very convenience quirk of the Catholic ideology: all actions and beliefs are contained within God. Its an interesting dicotomy, I have always felt, that Catholics believe that they have free will AND that they are acting in God's interest. Can both be true? I don't know. It always confused me that the religion could continue to evolve over 2 thouand years, and continueously claim that it was the truest expression of the will of its particular god: how can a God's will change? I asked myself. I still don't know.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: According to my former pastor, my boyfriend is raping me everytime he has sex with me because I don't have the right to give consent for myself- my father must give that consent for me.
How....in the world...what is this, Mesopotamia? Seriously.
-pH
I met a girl over summer session in 2005 who was a about to enter into an arranged marriage (she is muslim). After getting to know her a little, I commented that I felt this was unfair. She responded, althought I beleive she agreed with me, that this was "her culture." The idea being: how dare I question her culture. Seems to me that some things are just backward, and the belief that a woman is never really independent and free is a prime candidate for being one of those mistakes that civilazations make. It is never right, just a very common mistake.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arranged marriage ≠ lack of independence for women
And she's right -- you don't understand her culture. And apparently YOU don't think she has the right to make her own decisions. At least not without condescension.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I see that my intial attempt was taken differently than I intended because of bad examples/wording on my part.
The key issue that I'm going for, and which I respectfully disagree with kmbboots:
I think that if someone has a pre-set moral basis that they can stand by and build off of then they have a better chance at posessing some kind of complete moral code (whether that basis is religious or not).
By views are definately biased because I personally don't know of a secular (atheistic) philosophy that is well-founded (has a significant community of supporters) and has anything comparable to things such as the ten commandments, or various parallels within Islam, the Dao, Shinto etc... This lack of knowledge is quite possibly just a personal flaw that I don't know of established secular humanists etc...
And while I know it goes against some of the wording used before, the key behind my "well read etc" argument is that I want someone who's taken the time and effort into developing a moral code.
And again, I'm fully aware that any number of religious people can be quite immoral because of either ignoring their religion's teachings or misinterpreting them... but I am working on the basis that some foundation (even if flawed) is better than none at all.
I'm also not saying that I'm going to completely trust someone because they claim to be X religion. I would just have ever so slightly less reservations with them than with someone claiming to be an atheist and saying nothing more.
and Jenny, by this logic: yes, witches would be more trustworthy than atheists.
Addendum: this is all about the initial reaction. to be honest I would probably be more likely to accept an atheist's moral code in the long run because I would tend to think that they'd have put more thought into it that anyone (myself included) who has been indoctrinated by imperfect teachings.
It's easier to build a house on a cracked foundation, even if the stronger house needs to be built by starting all the way over.
As for the GED example, change that to an AP chemistry exam and the point still holds, and I'm pretty sure the gist of my point was carried through even with a bad example.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Arranged marriage ≠ lack of independence for women
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Because off the top of my head, I don't see how a person whose spouse is chosen for them by someone else can reasonably claim to be independent. Am I missing something?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you elaborate a bit on this? Because off the top of my head, I don't see how a person whose spouse is chosen for them by someone else can reasonably claim to be independent. Am I missing something?
You can still be an independant woman and choose to allow your parents to pick your spouse.
At least for modern immigrants, a lot of the time they are choosing to follow the tradition voluntarily.
For instance, one of my coworkers is from India. If I remember correctly, her marriage was an arranged one to another Indian immigrant.
She's a software engineer who could easily support herself, and her parents live in India, so she could have easily said no.
But she chose to let her parents pick her spouse, and they seem very happy together. I don't have the statistics handy, but if I remember correctly, arranged marriages have a higher chance of being successful than marriages for love. I don't blaim anyone for choosing to follow tradition in this aspect.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My issue is with Christians, really. Actually, Southern Baptists. I find the idea that a woman needs her father's approval to have sex...well, if it's considered RAPE if the father doesn't give his approval, that's just...not cool.
I was raised Southern Baptist, and they also are very...
I remember once when we were discussing how divorce is only okay in the case of infidelity, and someone asked about the wording of the particular passage (which said basically that a man could divorce his wife if she were unfaithful)...and the teacher responded that she thought that the passage only applied to MEN...so that if a woman's husband was cheating on her and she divorced him, she would be sinning in the eyes of God if she remarried.
I have no problem with arranged marriage; I think that Americans find it strange because we are raised in a culture that emphasizes that you have one true love, and only you can find him/her, etc. But the thing is, we romanticize marriage so much that people become incredibly disappointed when they realize that their marriages are going to require actual work. Would I, personally, be okay with an arranged marriage? No. But I had some classmates in high school who were, and I can understand that.
posted
pH, I'm a Southern Baptist, or at least I go to a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and that aint quite the way we roll. Without a doubt my church is quite different then most, what with the rock band, regular Halo 2 parties, and other stuff. But the point is that not all Southern Baptists deserve your contempt.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no problem with arranged marriage; I think that Americans find it strange because we are raised in a culture that emphasizes that you have one true love, and only you can find him/her, etc. But the thing is, we romanticize marriage so much that people become incredibly disappointed when they realize that their marriages are going to require actual work. Would I, personally, be okay with an arranged marriage? No. But I had some classmates in high school who were, and I can understand that.
Are you sure it's not because we live in a culture that emphasizes individual autonamy and freedom? I don't think I have one true love waiting for me out there. But I also don't think that my parents have the right to set me up with a wife. Maybe I just don't want to get married.
quote:Arranged marriage ? lack of independence for women
That depends. Is the woman (or man) free to reject the arranged marriage? If not, than it very much means a decrease in independence.
There are many cultures which I am not a part of. This does not mean that I am not allowed to comment on them.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: pH, I'm a Southern Baptist, or at least I go to a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and that aint quite the way we roll. Without a doubt my church is quite different then most, what with the rock band, regular Halo 2 parties, and other stuff. But the point is that not all Southern Baptists deserve your contempt.
I do realize that not all Southern Baptists are the same...but it seems like the ones I've encountered are more the sort that won't let you watch Jumanji because it promotes mysticism than the sort that play Halo 2.
posted
Avatar, as for personal freedom and whatnot, I really think the bigger problem is romanticizing partnerships. I don't think people realize how much WORK it is to be married; I'm sure I don't. So I think, at least in the US, a lot people get married thinking that everything will be rainbows and unicorns, and then all of a sudden, they're like, "?!?! I have to WORK at this?! Divorce time!"
So I think in our culture, the concept of an arranged marriage is foreign to a lot of people because it seems to me that one would DEFINLTEY have to work at making an arranged marriage work. And we don't think we have to work at relationships.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Arranged marriage ≠ lack of independence for women
Could you elaborate a bit on this? Because off the top of my head, I don't see how a person whose spouse is chosen for them by someone else can reasonably claim to be independent. Am I missing something?
One, as Xavier said, for many people raised in a culture where it is normal, arranged marriages are something they choose.
Two (and this is more what I meant, but I posted in a hurry), if there is a lack of independence inherent in arranged marriages (and I don't agree that this is necessarily the case, but certainly it can be), surely that is just as true for the men involved? So there is not a correlation with "lack of independence for women."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Arranged marriage ≠ lack of independence for women
And she's right -- you don't understand her culture. And apparently YOU don't think she has the right to make her own decisions. At least not without condescension.
According to your logic, I am not allowed to have an opinion. Way to be, Rivka.
Your wrong though, since you assume facts NOT in evidence: mainly that I believe she shouldn't have a right to do whatever the hell she feels like doing, including following her culture.
I failed to mention that the girl is an American, from my town, and that I was not a visitor in her country, rather we were both visiting England.
It disturbs me that you drew the harshest conclusion possible from the facts I provided. You assumed that YOU knew the situation better that I do, and you turned out to be wrong about that, and wrong about me.
So apparently I'm not qualified to feel that some things are wrong, and some things aren't. I can't make my own decisions, at least not without condescension from YOU.
Edit: I wouldn't go this far normally, but how dare you try to shut me down for giving an honest opinion, you really don't know the context of the conversation, or how condescending I am. I shouldn't be required to present everything I've said to others in the most generous light possible. Just try and imagine that I actually have a few social skills and didn't look up from my bagel one morning and tell someone how their culture sucks so much.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that religious people apologizing to KoM for what religion has 'inflicted' on him to be more than a little...misguided. Others have suffered much worse and not come out one-tenth as...rude.
Furthermore, KoM, do you have any statistics on the types of birth control available in your nationalistically-loved Norway, perchance?
quote:In America, at least, second-generation atheists who inherited it from their parents are going to be rather unusual. This is not true of the mainstream Christian sects.
I'd be delighted to hear about your rigorous statistical analysis that led you to this conclusion.
As for IPU and FSM, well depending on the context it's frankly as condescending, rude, and eye-rolling inducing as any fundamentalist getting up a good rant.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I met a girl over summer session in 2005 who was a about to enter into an arranged marriage (she is muslim). After getting to know her a little, I commented that I felt this was unfair. She responded, althought I beleive she agreed with me, that this was "her culture." The idea being: how dare I question her culture. Seems to me that some things are just backward, and the belief that a woman is never really independent and free is a prime candidate for being one of those mistakes that civilazations make. It is never right, just a very common mistake.
I'm struggling to read this-this is the third time now-and come to a conclusion that isn't that you're being condescending and myopic and xenophobic, and I haven't been able to do it yet. Rivka's similar reaction to mine is not as out of line as you are shrilly insisting.
Perhaps you need to re-examine your own conclusions, instead of shutting off your ears when someone questions them.
The assumption that the other party really agrees with you but is restrained from expressing that agreement is smug, short-sighted, and offensive. That you somehow arrived at her only response being, "How dare you question my culture?" is another.
It reduces her to the ignorant, culturally inferior savage resorting to defensive emotion when faced with your superior, civilized calm statements of rationality. It does not treat this woman with much respect at all.
Because if she is an American and going to college, then she knows she does not have to do what her parents are instructing her to do. Surely you must be aware of that? So it's myopic as well.
Arranged marriage does not equal (sorry, I don't know the keystroke for the mathematical sign) forced, painful, torturous marriage. Just because that's the play it gets in popular media, does not make it true. Media which, by the way, is invested in the marriage-for-love/desire paradigm.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I wasn't bothering with this thread until the whole arranged marriage thing came along...
quote:if there is a lack of independence inherent in arranged marriages (and I don't agree that this is necessarily the case, but certainly it can be), surely that is just as true for the men involved? So there is not a correlation with "lack of independence for women."
Absolutely.
Fahim's parents wanted to arrange a marriage for him. In fact, he'd given them his list of requirements for what he wanted in a woman. One of those requirements was that there had to be love. If there was no love, even if everything else was there, it would not go forward. He with his parents met some women, but none fit his requirements.
Well, he ended up falling in love with me and we got married instead...
Now his brother is getting married - in an arranged marriage. Fahim's brother, after giving his list of requirements to his parents, then met a whole lotta women, rejecting dozens as not suitable, until he found the one he's marrying. My understanding is that the parents also had veto rights. Yes, it's an arranged marriage, but one in which he has a say in who he marries as well.
I don't doubt for a minute that it's similarly arranged on the other side.
Fahim's parents had an arranged marriage. But then, a lot of people I know here have had arranged marriages. While not every single couple is happy, there do seem to be a lot of happy marriages, Fahim's parents included.
Fahim's parents love each other and their kids and grandkids - it's obvious based on their actions. They're kind, decent, respectful, loving, and caring towards each other. They laugh with each other and enjoy each other's companionship. They like each other, too, and they seem extremely compatible (both highly intelligent and funny). They have a happy successful marriage. It just happens to be arranged.
I've known others with arranged marriages in Canada as well, and those people could have easily refused an arranged marriage - they certainly had the freedom to. But they didn't - they voluntarily went ahead with the arranged marriage because it was a part of their culture and they trusted their parents and the process to find someone who was compatible with them.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Karl Ed: Way to classify a broad group of people such as "gamers" and call them all 14 year olds. There isnt a single person under the age of 18 in the group I play with and the oldest is in his 30's.
What study are you using to show that Norway has lower levels of all of your mentioned evils? You know negative population growth probably contributes quite significantly to lower and lower murder rates, crimes, and just about any social ill. You can't rape anybody if you were never born.
This is really late in the game (since I basically stopped reading this thread) but I just noticed that you are misattributing your objection to me. I'd still let it slide, except that I went back and found out that the post you are attributing to me was actually posted by King of Men. I'm horrified by the possibility that anyone could confuse me with KoM and I feel a need to clarify that you have made a mistake here. I am not King of Men, and I never made the comments you are objecting to.
And incidentally, I would never classify all gamers as 14-year olds. I'm a gamer myself and I'm pushing 40. If I can still push buttons by the time I'm 90 I'll probably be a gamer then, too. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] I feel that religious people apologizing to KoM for what religion has 'inflicted' on him to be more than a little...misguided. Others have suffered much worse and not come out one-tenth as...rude.
Why is that? I have seen an awful lot of harm done in the name of religion. I assume that his vehemence is, at least in part, by that kind of hurt. Maybe not.
But his rudeness should have no bearing on my attitude toward him. Why don't you think that I should take, "bless those who curse you," seriously?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, I'm probably less likely to make it to 90 than to not be able to press buttons at that age. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: I wouldn't go this far normally, but how dare you try to shut me down for giving an honest opinion, you really don't know the context of the conversation,
First, how was she shutting you down. You expressed an opinion. Rivka disagreed. You ventured to guess what the person really believed. Rivka concluded from your post that you were condescending.
One might as well decry your attempt to shut Rivka down.
Disagreeing with you <> shutting you down.
By the way, there's nothing particularly sacrosanct about an "honest opinion" that places it above negative response.
quote:or how condescending I am.
I think we have a very good idea exactly how condescending you are.
quote:Just try and imagine that I actually have a few social skills
Or, you could try demonstrating your social skills here instead of making us imagine them.
All we have to go on is what you posted. And what you posted says that you believe this woman thinks her arranged marriage is unfair, despite her not saying so. "It's my culture" could also be an attempt to say, "You wouldn't understand why I don't find this to be unfair." But, according to your post, you didn't bother to confirm your belief about her. Nor did you give any indication that what she said actually mattered to your opinion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I do realize that not all Southern Baptists are the same...but it seems like the ones I've encountered are more the sort that won't let you watch Jumanji because it promotes mysticism than the sort that play Halo 2.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
