FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Judeo-Christian polytheism? (Page 10)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Judeo-Christian polytheism?
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
No. You don't understand the light of Christ or free will.

Don't knee-jerk react to the idea and actually think about it.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:

boots's version is somewhat different, in that she is supposing an immanent versus a separate entity. However, in that case, there is no case for fallen mankind to start with.

Exactly. I would say that the "fallen" stuff reflects that there are some difficulties being incarnate.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No. You don't understand the light of Christ or free will.
From the long conversation I had about it with BlackBlade, I kind of think I do.

How about you explain where I (or he) got things wrong, though? Because, after all, if I don't understand it, how am I going to think about it correctly?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'll reiterate my core question: how do you know that everyone doesn't need an external impetus? What, just because some people say they don't?
Well, for one thing, I think it's slightly rude to say that someone does need an external impetus in reaction to their explicit claim that they don't. If Scott's talking about mind-reading, that's precisely the sort of mind-reading that I don't think is actually universally possible. (Note, by the way, that I've engaged in this sort of mind-reading before. But that doesn't mean that I don't concede it's rude.)

That said, I think everyone does "good" in each situation based on an internal code of conduct that varies with the situation. In some cases, I might do good because I want something; in other cases, I might do good because I don't want something else; in other cases, I might do good because I've rationalized that it's a valuable thing for its own sake.

I believe that many of these causes are "baser" than others. If I do something because someone is standing behind me with a stick, threatening to hit me if I don't, that is a less "evolved" decision than, say, doing it because I believe it's for the good of humanity. I may support, for example, the short-term result of tossing indigents into the cold because I oppose mandatory taxation. This doesn't mean my actions are actually empirically good, but it means that my motivations are more complex. The most "immature" morality is one that is directly concerned with personal punishment and reward; appeals to divine mandates generally fall into this category, but indeed "I'm doing this because I think it would make God happy, and I love God and want to make him happy" is slightly more sophisticated.

Keep in mind, again, that this has nothing to do with any empirical evaluation of a given morality (or set of actions) as "good" or "evil." It means merely that the underlying, stated motivation is one that is relatively unformed.

---------

By the way....
You have to understand that the phrase "I wouldn't be a good person if it wasn't for God" is especially scary from an atheist's perspective. Keep in mind, from our POV, that this is exactly like saying "if I were less delusional, I would be evil." For those of us who think that this particular delusion is on average a net negative, the fact that there are individuals who claim that they would be incapable of behaving morally without it represents a major stumbling block. It's like hearing someone say "if I weren't manic-depressive, I couldn't write this beautiful poetry." It's probably not true, but it might be true -- and what then? Is it worth the cost?

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh,
I'm certainly willing to answer your question, but I have to know what length to go into. This could be an interesting spur for a respectful discussion, but, especially given the behavior of other people in this thread, whom you seem to support, I have my doubts that this is what will result or what you are looking for, in which case, I'm sure you could see why I'm not all that willing to invest myself in the response.

Can you honestly say that you are looking for a respectful discussion here? If so, I look forward to giving you an extensive response.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Where did you define "goodness?"

Intolerance is not necessarily evil.

And tolerance isn't necessarily good.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You have to understand that the phrase "I wouldn't be a good person if it wasn't for God" is especially scary from an atheist's perspective.
Even scarier is the statement, "I don't believe it's possible to be a good person without God's influence."
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
How am I supposed to respond to that, Mr. Squicky? If I respond in the affirmative, I'm essentially coming to you and promising I'll behave. Which makes you boss. If I respond in the negative, you get your initial assumption affirmed.

I reject both choices, and I don't want to discuss this with you at all if you're going to set preconditions with yourself as the arbiter.

But clearly you want to be treated rudely if you're going to set yourself up so condescendingly, I'll oblige: it'll be a cold day in hell before I make concessions* to you just to speak with you at all.

*The concession being that you're up there, and I'm down here, asking to ascend the ivory tower.

-------------------

Tom,

quote:
Well, for one thing, I think it's slightly rude to say that someone does need an external impetus in reaction to their explicit claim that they don't.
Well, sure it's rude to insist to someone that they are-or may be-wrong about something deeply important to them. If you want to have a discussion involving religious matters beyond, "I respect your right to believe etc. etc.," or, "God is great!" it's territory you're going to have to become comfortable with.

As for being rude in itself, I'm really not sure why you're making that clear to me: neither of us are famed for our respect for courtesy over all else.

quote:
That said, I think everyone does "good" in each situation based on an internal code of conduct that varies with the situation. In some cases, I might do good because I want something; in other cases, I might do good because I don't want something else; in other cases, I might do good because I've rationalized that it's a valuable thing for its own sake.
I hesitate to call doing good because I want something* part of a code of conduct, simply because that's a very basic instinctive response: if one wants something, one does something to try and get it. It's not a 'code' any more than eating vegetables when you're a kid is a code: I want dessert. The last part of your statement is the one I'm most interested in, when you decide to do something good because it's intrinsically good. I'm trying to think of doing some good deed which offers no benefits to me or to society. The part where it's good for society is obvious. The part where it's good for me is hazier, because I like to feel like I'm a good person. That sort of self-respect can last awhile: for example, I still feel good about myself re: one house in particular I helped build with Habitat for Humanity, even though it's been years since that house was built.

Until and unless a test is devised in which a person is offered a choice between the self-helping bad (or even evil) choice, and the self-hurting good choice, without the resulting feeling of being a good person, no one can truly say they do good just because it's good. How can a person truthfully gauge that sort of thing? How can a person divide up the thing, so they know where they were doing it because it made them feel good ends, and where they were doing it because it's good begins?

I'm not suggesting that we should abandon doing good things, or that all good deeds are inherently selfish (but partially, that I AM suggesting), just that I doubt up front anyone who says, "I do good because it's good, for no external reasons." Or at least I doubt that they can be sure: I don't necessarily doubt that they mean it.

quote:
The most "immature" morality is one that is directly concerned with personal punishment and reward; appeals to divine mandates generally fall into this category, but indeed "I'm doing this because I think it would make God happy, and I love God and want to make him happy" is slightly more sophisticated.
From another perspective, it could be argued that the personal punishment morality is the more honest morality. I won't say it's better, because obviously, what happens when the guy with the stick is gone?, but it could arguably be more honest.

I'm aware of the many reasons why the "I'd be worse without God" is especially worrisome to atheists. On another note, it's rare to see someone aside from KoM cop to the 'd' word with respect to religious people:) At least, around here.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How am I supposed to respond to that, Mr. Squicky? If I respond in the affirmative, I'm essentially coming to you and promising I'll behave. Which makes you boss. If I respond in the negative, you get your initial assumption affirmed.

I reject both choices, and I don't want to discuss this with you at all if you're going to set preconditions with yourself as the arbiter.

But clearly you want to be treated rudely if you're going to set yourself up so condescendingly, I'll oblige: it'll be a cold day in hell before I make concessions* to you just to speak with you at all.

*The concession being that you're up there, and I'm down here, asking to ascend the ivory tower.

I'm not sure you understand what I asked. All I want to know is your intentions.

I was hoping you to respond with "Yeah, I am looking for a respectful discussion." I just had a fun, respectful conversation on this thread with boots and Eowyn. I like having these sorts of conversation and I'll put out a ot of effort for them.

It's not like I'm putting preconditions on wheter I'll talk to you or not. I'll talk to you either way. I just want to know what type of interaction you are looking for, so I can tailor my response and the effort I put into it accordingly.

I'm not asking you for anything other than what I've already done. I've stated, emphatically, that I'm looking for a respectful discussion here. I don't see how asking you to clarify what you are looking for is being condescending.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
Squicky, your question casts yourself as the arbitrer of a respectful discussion. You are not the police, the arbitrer, or any king of authority in this case, moral or otherwise.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
No, it doesn't. I'm not arbiting anything. I'm just asking Rakeesh what he is looking for. If, using his definitions - which could be different from how I see things, he is looking for a respectful discussion, then yes would be a completely proper answer.

I don't expect people to use or accept my definitions over there own. I'm just asking how he, himself, by his own lights, is approaching this interaction.

---

Incidentally, you may have missed it, but I was looking for clarification above. Could you explain what you think I am missing about the Light of Christ and/or free will?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I understood precisely what you asked, and there was a concession involved. I have a hard time believing you're truly unaware of that. You have my answer, Mr. Squicky. I reject both choices and go with option 'c': I don't want to discuss the issue with you at all right now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suminonA
Member
Member # 8757

 - posted      Profile for suminonA   Email suminonA         Edit/Delete Post 
Long live Communication!

A.

Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh,
I'm unsure of what this concession is. Are you losing something to admit how you are approaching a conversation?

The only way I could see that as being true is if you don't want people to know what your real answer is. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like you are giving anything up. What do you see that you would have conceded?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
No, you asking him to humbly come to you and confess how he is approaching the conversation.

Asking that of anyone is a descicable bullying tactic that you use far too often when you're being proven wrong in a discussion.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure if you've been following the thread, kat, but I've been getting jumped on, abused, and disrespected from many different people. I'm not sure where I'm in a place to do much bullying.

I don't care about humble. He can boast all he wants. I'm not interested in lowering him at all or elevating myself.

I just want to have a respectful conversation and would like to know if Rakeesh wants one as well. That would seem, to me, to put us on equal ground, no more, no less.


Maybe it would help to give concessions and humble myself. I promise not to refer to your answer at all once you give it. If I find myself of the opinion that you haven't really lived up to your stated intent, I'll keep that opinion completely to myself. Does that make it any better?

---

I'll point you again to my request for clarification above. Could you explain what you think I'm missing?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
It's pretty condescending to even question that.

And pretending that everything hinges on him answering you is a bullying tactic, regardless of what else happens.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Kat, Squick, can I ask that the two of you not address each other, particularly in any attempt to describe your counterpart's behavior or motivations? It's really not productive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
I wasn't aware I was describing her behavior or motivations Tom.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Whether or not one of you is being temporarily less abrasive than the other, I would ask that you both stop addressing each other. As a favor to me, if nothing else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
I've got to wonder, Tom, what you've ever done that would make you think I'd feel obligated to give you a favor?

You want to deal with this, then deal with it where it starts. I don't initiate this crap and I don't appreciate you equating me with kat.

The point to step in when people started being disrespectful and nasty, not when things get unpleasant because I'm not willing to back down. If you ever spoke up then, I might be inclined to listen to you now.

As it is, I'm being bullied and insulted. I respond with a great deal more restraint and respect for the rules of Hatrack than the people attacking me. If this behavior only becomes a problem for you when my not backing down makes things unpleasant, I don't think you've got the right to ask me anything.

---

edit: The somewhat amusing thing is that I was done with kat on this particular issue already.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Whether or not one of you is being temporarily less abrasive than the other, I would ask that you both stop addressing each other. As a favor to me, if nothing else.

That would be lovely.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
Just a random question, Squicky: do you treat people in real life the same way as you treat people on Hatrack?

I'm not setting you up for anything; just curious. I understand if you don't want to answer.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, Tom and Porter, ask a different favor. I'll respond as I find appropriate.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The point to step in when people started being disrespectful and nasty, not when things get unpleasant because I'm not willing to back down. If you ever spoke up then, I might be inclined to listen to you now.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Honestly, Scott, I don't see why you're so offended by what Squicky's saying here. He's not saying he's a mind-reader. He's saying that, by their own admission, people who believe they need God to be moral are less ethically mature than people who don't.

This counts as at least a step, no? Unless you actually want him to issue a warning to every single person that you feel has wronged you, which would be somewhat more of a *job* than it would be recreational forum posting.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
JT,
Do you think people in real life treat me people on Hatrack treat me?

In general, probably not. I'm not concerned with investing my personality here, whereas you can't really go long outside of a professional setting in real life without doing that.

I don't come here to be liked or for interpersonal interaction and I can understand why some people don't particularly like me here. I don't think them not liking me means that it should be okay to be treated unfairly.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattB
Member
Member # 1116

 - posted      Profile for MattB   Email MattB         Edit/Delete Post 
Squick, I'll talk with you.

From what I gather, you believe in libertarian free will (at least in a theological sense). I'm reasonably sympathetic to that; I think Mormonism's rejection of the creation ex nihilo of humanity lends it a great deal of credence. Many Mormon thinkers have spent a great deal of time emphasizing the importance of unrestrained human choice to what Mormonism understands as salvation. Blake Ostler, an analytic Mormon philosopher, wrote a whole book about it.

In any case, I, personally, lean toward your position on free will - I believe that theological libertarian free will is essential if our own lives are to have any meaning. However, I don't think that the existence of God is necessarily incompatible with that.

Traditional doctrine of the Fall makes libertarian free will difficult for traditional Christianity. Most Protestants teach that the Fall corrupted our original human nature utterly; Catholics like Aquinas, on the other hand, use phrases like "damaged but not destroyed." In any case, all of these faiths teach that humans need the grace of God to regain the uncorrupted ability to choose that God intended for us to have. For strict Calvinists and some Catholics this goes hand in hand with absolute predestination.

However, it does not have to. There's an entire school of thought called compatibilism that argues that some form of determinism - be it divine intervention or the biology of our minds - are reconcilable with free will. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both materialist compatibilists; Augustine was a theological compatibilist. That is, he believed God's grace enabled humans to do what they would do but were unable to do because of their fallen natures. This grace is always already present, saving us from our corruption. Wesleyans take the same tack. This, is, I think, a form of free will; it's not libertarian free will, but it's incorrect to accuse Methodists of determinism, or not believing in free will. Indeed, their entire theology is predicated on a rejection of predestination (which is not necessarily the same thing as

Now, back to Mormons. The concept of 'the light of Christ' is nebulous in Mormon theology. It's unclear whether it's inherently a part of our uncreated natures, or whether it's a version of Methodist prevenient grace, always already granted by God. If the former, it's compatible with libertarian free will. Personally, I find this the more convincing interpretation because I don't believe the fall corrupted human nature, and therefore I don't think that God is the necessary source of all goodness in the world. If the latter, however, is the correct interpretation (which I think most Mormons accept), then it makes Mormons compatibilists. So, I think Kat and BB are talking about free will in the latter, compatibilist sense.

Thus, it seems to me you two are talking past each other, I think, and accusing each other of not understanding whatever is missing the point.

Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think you're treated particularly poorly here. I think you are treated poorly by some people, but I can't say I don't see why they do it.

I think you treat people here worse than you do your real life acquaintances and I think they respond in kind.

I don't understand what you mean when you say you 'don't come here for interpersonal interaction'. What else does Hatrack have to offer?

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This counts as at least a step, no?
I don't see that as one, no.

I'm not worried about my ideas or statements standing on their own. Tom has never had a problem stepping in when he agrees with the ideas of what I'm saying. We didn't get here because Scott disagreed with what I was saying, even in his eyes closed, dogmatic way.

What I would love is to never have to ask people to keep a civil tone. I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What I would love is to never have to ask people to keep a civil tone. I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.
Well, I've asked you not to accuse me of being dishonest, not speaking openly, and playing games, and you haven't been able to do that. Maybe we'll both get what we want for Christmas.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post 
"I'd be worse without God."

As stated I can see the point people are making with respect to atheists and their feelings on the matter.

But I question, from a practical perspective, is it really God you can't do without, or is it the spiritual and moral guidance that faith in God and his religious philosophy brings you?

If it is these secondary benefits that you really can't do without, then, of course, we must realize that atheists and other people can draw that same moral guidance and comfort, and draw on a equally moral yet non-religious philosophy and accomplish the same thing.

I don't necessarily derive benefit for the mere existence of God. But faith in the existence of God is accompanied by many secondary aspects. I am given a moral code to live by, a foundation for what is right and wrong, a moral and spiritual philosophy to guide myself through life. In short, faith in the existence of God gives me a moral foundation to build my life on.

People who are atheist or people who believe in non-God religions also have valid alternate sources of the same guidance and philosophy that I derive from Christian religion.

Personally, while I identify as a Christian, I am somewhat of a universalist. I draw my spiritual guidance from Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian philosophies, or where ever else I might find truth.

I see the Church and Christian religion on many levels. Some of those levels are true and pure. But some of those levels are hopelessly corrupt. There is a bureaucratic element of all religions that is certainly the most corrupt. It is the element of religion that is hungry for power and greedy for wealth, and is responsible for turning more and more people away from religion in general.

Despite those gross and obscene aspects of religion, there are other aspects that are positive and good, and, whether God is real or not, still provide positive comfort and guidance to our lives. And, that's not such a bad thing.

Steve/bluewizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
What I would love is to never have to ask people to keep a civil tone. I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.

Since it's a religious thread, I'll go ahead and say , "You reap what you sow."

I perceive that you place yourself above the community and the individuals in the community (as evidenced by you continuing to think it's necessary that you be the one who demand people stay 'civil'). Why would anyone stick up for you when it's clear you think we're all beneath you?

When I agree with you, I say so. When I don't, I say so. But I'm not sticking up for you because, frankly, I think you've earned most of the bad treatment you get by refusing to be an full member of the community.

It's like you're giving Hatrack a really extended Turing test before deciding to interact with us as equals. I mean, I don't like the identity you've created here. But I can see that that's not your real self, because someone as smart as you has to have learned how to participate in polite society. I can also see that I probably would like the real you (taking your views and mixing them into a real personality). Hypothetically speaking, anyway. I think you're too egotistical to ever admit that I'm right about this, so I doubt very seriously we'll ever find out for sure.

Also, I realize I phrased this post as if I'm speaking for the majority. That's probably not the case, and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say they disagree with what I've written here.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'd like to at least one person to respond negatively when I'm directly called an idiot.
At that point things were such a mess that I didn't see it as a major increase in nastiness.

I do agree that some people responded with unnecessary nastiness to what they perceived to be a rude comment by yourself. I think the drive to berate you for your comment was kind of ridiculous and that a more reasoned objection would have produced much more effective dialog, but having responded in a similar way to Ron recently on another thread, I don't feel I'm in a place to speak up beyond making a couple more-or-less neutral comments.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I perceive that you place yourself above the community and the individuals in the community (as evidenced by you continuing to think it's necessary that you be the one who demand people stay 'civil'). Why would anyone stick up for you when it's clear you think we're all beneath you?
I think he's just saying that he's willing to discuss these topics but that he's finding it difficult to do so because the people he's trying to talk to are being abrasive, sarcastic, and otherwise, well, uncivil. It's no different than when someone is yelling at you for something and you say "please stop yelling at me so we can discuss this."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post 
In your scenario and in Squicky's, he's set up as the voice of reason and the moral authority. Both are wrong - he is neither.

Hmm...

It seems that if someone wants a conversation about the topic and not a meta-conversation about the debaters, MattB's post is the one to respond to.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
MattP, there's a lot more going on here than what you see in this thread. No offense, but it's more like when your girlfriend screams at you for not taking the dishes out of the dishwasher. It's not really about the dishes.

quote:
It seems that if someone wants a conversation about the topic and not a meta-conversation about the debaters, MattB's post is the one to respond to.
Agreed.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Janitor
Member
Member # 7795

 - posted      Profile for Papa Janitor           Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry I've been away from the 'rack for a couple days. Time-out for review.

Ok, I've reviewed, as much as my wandering and oft-interrupted attention would allow. Frankly, although I can certainly see that some people are upset about things, it could be argued that nobody actually broke the letter of the TOS. I think there have been some rather rude and inconsiderate and intentionally offensive things implied, but I could be inaccurately inferring. I'm sorta surprised and sorta not surprised at how often people rely on "this is what I actually said" versus "this is what you're claiming I said," then react so negatively to what another didn't actually say.

Anyway, I feel like I should say something before unlocking it, so here goes. Be excellent to each other. At least try to let bygones be bygones. That's not a requirement, but rather a suggestion. I think it'd help.

--PJ

[ December 14, 2007, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]

Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2