posted
Okay, in all seriousness, I really did want to know what people thought of the portrayal of third world Africans in the Book of Mormon. It seems to me like it did highlight some important issues that people in western countries would prefer to ignore... but also might have come across as kind of patronizing.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the whole idea of the play offensive and juvenile. Parker and Stone, along with South Park, are crude and not watchable at all for me. Therefore, from the very beginning of who did the play I am offended. That it ends with some "sweet" thought that religion is full of lies, but it does well and ends up with nice people, is condescending as others have said. I would much rather be respected for what I believe than how I act as a religious person, because its my faith that makes me who I am. Doesn't matter if its gold plates, American Indians as part of a tribe of Israel, Garden of Eden in Missouri, Kolob, or my sacred Temple Garments; they all work together and are not separable from the person I have become. To say I am nice, but my beliefs are stupid or crazy doesn't impress me. Take me as a whole or don't take me at all. Do you have to believe what I do? No, but you better respect it nonetheless or I will not care how much you say you like me because disrespecting what I believe shows you don't care for me.
As an example, how many might have run into people who think your nice, but express your like of science fiction and you become an unsophisticated adolescent adult. Don't tell me you haven't run into that as science fiction or fantasy fans. True, there really are "fanboys" out there, but isn't pointing that out a simplification of what the comic-con costumed fans represent? I admit to laughing at them. Yet, I also admit that I understand why they do that without the "unsophisticated adolescents adults" label on the traditions and activities. If I sat with most of them I could (partly as a fan myself of the genre they represent) have a deep conversation about the costumes, the characters, the movies, the books, and the general meaning of life as expressed by the "strange" things they do.
It isn't because what Mormons or "fanboys" of science fiction do and believe isn't weird, strange, unusual, or even unbelievable. From outside perspectives it most certainly is. That view still misses the point of what true respect is, and its not about making fun of a culture you don't belong to or believe in yourself with potty jokes and blasphemes. True respect comes with seeking to understand, not mock or take lightly. In that respect the Book of Mormon play fails miserably.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As an example, how many might have run into people who think your nice, but express your like of science fiction and you become an unsophisticated adolescent adult.
This comparison doesn't work, because if I expressed that I thought that a science fiction book were literally the objective guideline of all morality and understanding of creation, I'd expect to be considered more than unsophisticated.
religion is not equivalent to a genre enthusiasm.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, marriage qualification of at least a Bishop is part of the Scriptures as recorded in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 where is says among other things, "A Bishop then must be . . . the husband of one wife." I don't know if there is any other marriage requirements for other offices, but this is certainly there. Modern Scriptures don't to my knowledge have any other statements like this, although its hard to say if the one in Timothy is more than specific to the time it was given.
The problem with understanding what is Mormon doctrine is that its not a legalistic religion in the traditional sense. Much like art, a Mormon will know it when they see or hear it. Often like art the meaning and importance will be debated among those who both teach it and hear it as a participant. Some things will be emphasized while others de-emphasized, with a few getting tossed out completely over time with new developments or greater understanding. There are definitive doctrines for sure, but for the most part its an organic faith. This analogy can't be taken too far because there are authoritative Scriptures and those who hold responsibilities to keep orthodoxy. It is easier to ask "what do you believe as a Mormon" than it is "what do Mormons believe" when dealing with particulars. There is a framework of faith, but that allows greater latitude than outsiders usually understand or appreciate.
"what people thought of the portrayal of third world Africans in the Book of Mormon"
You can read here and here where the writer considers racism. I disagree with the toned down feelings they have that The Book of Mormon musical is not that bad, but overall agree that the racism has been ignored. I would argue it has been precisely because it makes fun of Mormons as the main attractions.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, although I am not surprised, your missing my point. That point is that Mormons believe what they do for a reason and not just because "they believe" or they are silly or crazy. True respect is seeking to understand they whys and wherefores and not just make fun of what you don't believe because it doesn't sound credible.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, what could the creators have done or changed to make you feel respected?
And I'm not sure if your example works. I think what the play's creators were aiming for is exactly what you're advocating yourself...respect for a person independent from what they believe. The creators have described the show as an "atheist's love letter to religion" and the three writers (including the writer of the music) have expressed strong interest in the Mormon faith in particular. They are exactly the kind of atheists that would love to sit down with someone and talk about scripture or the mythology.
Do they think the beliefs are illogical? Most assuredly. But I don't think the conclusion is that "People of faith are unsophisticated." I think there's an admiration for people who do good things, even if they don't agree with the motivation. Just like how I may admire a comic book fan's passion, while still thinking the whole costume thing is alittle silly.
Personally, as a fellow atheist who is also very fascinated by religion, I feel like the show was a breath of fresh air. I've long been annoyed by Dawkins and the breed of atheism which thinks that just because religion is false, that it is without merit. I think its very respectful to value a story and its effect, even if I view the piece as fiction while you view it as autobiographical.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Samp, although I am not surprised, your missing my point.
I'm not missing your point. I am pointing out a bad analogy you made to try to make your point seem more credible, but which doesn't actually work.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've long been annoyed by Dawkins and the breed of atheism which thinks that just because religion is false, that it is without merit.
I think that if you're saying these two groups -- Dawkins, and a breed of atheism that finds religion without merit because it is false -- are the same, then you haven't read or understood Dawkins. Dawkins argues that religion is dangerous, not that it is meritless.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"respect for a person independent from what they believe."
That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
"What reason?"
There are several reasons. None that I care to go into here because I have a disrespect for Hatrack where I made the post I did against my better judgment.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "respect for a person independent from what they believe."
That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
I do not, necessarily, respect what it is you believe. That depends on the belief, and it doesn't get a pass just because you believe it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
Do you respect a person's belief in astrology?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
Frankly, I think that's ridiculous. Lots of people believe lots of stupid things, and I don't need to respect the things they believe to respect them as people.
quote: There are several reasons. None that I care to go into here because I have a disrespect for Hatrack where I made the post I did against my better judgment.
Fair enough. Rest assured that you are just another person who, when asked for a reason for your belief that doesn't amount to "I choose to believe," has failed for whatever reason to actually provide one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "respect for a person independent from what they believe."
That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
I do not, necessarily, respect what it is you believe. That depends on the belief, and it doesn't get a pass just because you believe it.
What right? People throw that around so loosely. Is it a positive right, a negative one? A legal right? A natural right? To top things off, depending on your conception of what a person is it can very well be impossible to respect a person without respecting their beliefs. I can't walk into a room full of woman and spout off misogynistic rhetoric about feminists and then say,"don't worry I still respect you as people," and expect them to feel respected. Come on!
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, then exactly what is respecting someone as a person? Not randomly gunning them down in the street? Not hurling insults at them at random? It seems that your criteria for respect is low enough to make mute the notion of respecting someone in the first place. Of course, I don't hold to notions that I need to respect everyone because the idea sounds nice. Also, I believe when it comes to respect it is not so much if you believe you are respecting the person, but if they feel they are being respected. Your subjective belief of the enterprise has little to do with its success.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect them as a person. I agree with Tom that a requirement that you respect people's beliefs to respect them as people is ridiculous.
As to Black Fox's question of what entails respecting someone as a person: I would say, listening to them, giving their idea's a fair chance, speaking to them in a noninflammatory fashion, not demanding that they agree with you on your opinion, honesty (to a certain extent) and doing no violence to them and giving them the benefit of the doubt/not assuming the worst possible motivations for their actions but instead allowing them to explain are all parts of being respectful as a person.
By your definition all people who disagree with your beliefs are disrespectful. But I say reasonable people can disagree, it is a sign of civility to allow that others might think/feel different about something and yet even with that contrary opinion still be good and sane people who have nothing fundamentally wrong with them, nor does their disagreeing cause you any harm.
In regards to Black Fox's assertion that only the receiving person can determine if the speaker is respectful, I again, disagree vehemently. I would agree that people can feel disrespected regardless of the intent of the speaker, but emotional responses are not always logical, appropriate and can be based on miscommunications. While the end result should be taken into consideration, the intent of the speaker should receive even more regard.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I wonder, if you only respect people who's opinions you respect...doesn't that mean you don't respect strangers or acquaintances who's opinion you simply do not know?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I disagree that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect them as a person. I agree with Tom that a requirement that you respect people's beliefs to respect them as people is ridiculous.
As to Black Fox's question of what entails respecting someone as a person: I would say, listening to them, giving their idea's a fair chance, speaking to them in a noninflammatory fashion, not demanding that they agree with you on your opinion, honesty (to a certain extent) and doing no violence to them and giving them the benefit of the doubt/not assuming the worst possible motivations for their actions but instead allowing them to explain are all parts of being respectful as a person.
By your definition all people who disagree with your beliefs are disrespectful. But I say reasonable people can disagree, it is a sign of civility to allow that others might think/feel different about something and yet even with that contrary opinion still be good and sane people who have nothing fundamentally wrong with them, nor does their disagreeing cause you any harm.
In regards to Black Fox's assertion that only the receiving person can determine if the speaker is respectful, I again, disagree vehemently. I would agree that people can feel disrespected regardless of the intent of the speaker, but emotional responses are not always logical, appropriate and can be based on miscommunications. While the end result should be taken into consideration, the intent of the speaker should receive even more regard.
If you read back my post I'm sure that you'll see that I did not lay out a definition of what I would consider to be respecting a person. Also, I believe there is an important distinction between trying to be respectful and actually respecting the person from the view of the person being respected. What I was trying to lay out is the notion that someone feeling respected, which I do honestly believe is one of the goals of being respectful, can be considered necessary in some people's definition of someone being deemed respectful.
Look at your own definition of respect. Now to twist your definition somewhat, say I was disrespectful to an idea. Would that require me to approach the idea with inflammatory language? Would it induce me to violence against that idea? Or does respecting an idea require that I agree with it? I don't think respecting an idea requires me to accept it. Neither do I think that I can truly respect a person whose views I cannot respect. Could I be civil to them, certainly. Respect, no.
Intent is often a powerful tool in determining the actions of people, but I for one often feel that giving an undue weight to intent allows a defense by ignorance. I had no idea that talking about subject x would come across as disrespectful to an audience of women. This might be a defense for not holding the speech against the speaker, but I certainly do not see an argument for his being respectful. He may have tried to be respectful, but that is something entirely else.
Also, I think the subjective feelings of the person being "respected" is entirely important in the event. What is the point of being respectful if the act is only there to justify your actions to an third party? The intent of the speaker certainly shows the lack of a malicious feelings, but in no way does it actually raise or lower the actual respectfulness of the discourse or action.
Also Stone, by definition you can disrespect and respect someone's opinions that you don't know. Given that the feeling of respect comes from the other party it does not matter what you know or do not know about their opinion. This does not stop us from being civil or trying to be respectful, which is important. It's hard to do it when you're not trying.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least the play doesn't bring up the Lafferty brothers or the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Not to mention Warren Jeffs etc.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
It's amazing you manage to hold your nose long enough to come back and post.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then stay away from Hatrack for good, if interacting with it is going to make you act this childish and petulant!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I was trying to lay out is the notion that someone feeling respected, which I do honestly believe is one of the goals of being respectful, can be considered necessary in some people's definition of someone being deemed respectful.
Okay, so you have a crazy person, who thinks they are king of the world, and someone approaches them and says, "Excuse me sir, but could you please tell me the time." The person inquiring the time by our societies standards has treated the crazy person with respect. The crazy person deems the other to be -very disrespectful- as they did not bow their head to the ground and refer to them by the title "Your royal magnificence." By your standards, the time asker has been disrespectful. Correct?
quote:Now to twist your definition somewhat, say I was disrespectful to an idea.
Can one be disrespectful to a concept? And if one could, wouldn't the definition of "respectful" be different then say to a person? I'm sorry but pointing out that my definition of being respectful to a person doesn't work when applied to a non sentient non being doesn't actually prove anything. I mean, it was a specific answer to a specific question.
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: ...exactly what is respecting someone as a person?
quote:Also, I think the subjective feelings of the person being "respected" is entirely important in the event. What is the point of being respectful if the act is only there to justify your actions to an third party? The intent of the speaker certainly shows the lack of a malicious feelings, but in no way does it actually raise or lower the actual respectfulness of the discourse or action.
Let's say that two people from two cultures are meeting for the first time, they both attempt to be respectful to each other, but because of the different meanings of the actions in their different cultures they end up both being very offended by the meeting. Now if there was someone there who was versed in both cultures and translate the actions, wouldn't intent and ignorance be the determining factor and not the outcome without interpretation?
quote:Also Stone, by definition you can disrespect and respect someone's opinions that you don't know.
Missing a "n't" there? If so, that's my point. If knowing, and respecting someone's beliefs is a prerequisite for respecting them as a person, then not knowing their beliefs precludes the ability to respect them.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the best post of the year award goes to....
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Why are you here then?
Well. Occasional is merely trying to demonstrate how "True respect comes with seeking to understand, not mock or take lightly."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Criticism of ideas (even deeply held, "sacred" beliefs) <> rudeness. Your belief that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect a person is illuminating and helps to explain this little tantrum.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I am saying is that if the person you are acting upon is the deciding factor it doesn't matter if you know or don't know their thoughts and opinions when it comes to the act being respectful or not. Knowing their thoughts and opinions certainly increases the chances of being successful in the pursuit of being respectful
Also, living up to society's standards of respecting someone does not mean you've been respectful. It simply means that you have lived up to some social norm. The point is that you can be disrespectful and not be a "bad person." It is disrespectful to the crazy man to not call him your majesty, but you also don't have to live up to everyone's desire for respect. The King may deem it disrespectful to not kiss his finger and I might deem it to be disrespectful to myself to do so. When it comes to matters of respect there are "lose-lose" situations where you can't help having one party feel disrespected. Do reasonable people generally fall into these kind of situations with one another, no. I'm just stating that it does happen and it is not exactly difficult to see why.
What I'm trying to show by asking how you respect an idea is important in the debate as we are talking about not respecting someone's ideas, but still respecting the person. How do you respect someone's ideas? I would say it is possible to respect some people's ideas and not accept them. Of course others could certainly disagree and that is really what matters in the end. Perception is king.
Also, your whole two cultures meeting with a translator analogy is extremely muddled. Without a "translator" the intent does not matter for anything. It is the actual content of the action that matters, which is what I was trying to state. If you have a translator then the actual contents of the actions is changed. Respect and pretty much all discourse is performative. The fun thing is that in real life the translator does not necessarily even matter. Not every society is full of relativists. They may very well be offended by the actions of the other regardless if the other people saw it as good.
Think of it like this. If you give me chocolate ice cream and I hate it the fact that you like it does not make it taste any better to me. Now, if I find out that you love chocolate ice cream and that is why you gave it to me I might not be offended or hold it against you, but it still won't make it taste good! The same goes for respect. Your action may very well be disrespectful regardless of what you meant by it, but they may not hold it against you as much or at all at a future date upon finding out why you did it. It does not change the reaction at the time of the performance.
I don't mean to come off as a jerk, but I don't see how this is a difficult concept to stomach. You can very well disrespect an idea and therefore necessarily not be able to actually respect the person(They will feel disrespected).
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Criticism of ideas (even deeply held, "sacred" beliefs) <> rudeness. Your belief that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect a person is illuminating and helps to explain this little tantrum.
This shows such an ignorance. How can you determine rudeness for other people? You attack them for not holding your social norms, but then are superior for upholding the better social norms. Come on now. I personally think that he or she is coming off as a total adolescent, but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of "difficult concept to stomach"...it's a matter of I disagree.
Your standard for people acting respectfully only takes the outcome for the receiver into consideration and since it is an interaction between two people, you by definition are throwing away half the data.
Should the outcome be taken into consideration, yes. Should it be the only thing taken into consideration, no.
Also, people, even crazy stupid ignorant opinionated loud mouthed louts deserve some respect as human beings regardless of their beliefs. Not the same level of someone you find personally moral and admirable, but some level, and that level is the "as a person" level which even strangers who you have no clue as to their beliefs should receive.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This shows such an ignorance. How can you determine rudeness for other people?
Let me restate:
In this community, criticism of ideas is not generally considered rudeness. It is, in fact, a significant portion of normal discourse.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Criticism of ideas (even deeply held, "sacred" beliefs) <> rudeness. Your belief that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect a person is illuminating and helps to explain this little tantrum.
This shows such an ignorance. How can you determine rudeness for other people? You attack them for not holding your social norms, but then are superior for upholding the better social norms. Come on now. I personally think that he or she is coming off as a total adolescent, but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same.
Would you mind explaining how MattP's post was adolescent?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not a matter of "difficult concept to stomach"...it's a matter of I disagree.
Your standard for people acting respectfully only takes the outcome for the receiver into consideration and since it is an interaction between two people, you by definition are throwing away half the data.
Should the outcome be taken into consideration, yes. Should it be the only thing taken into consideration, no.
Also, people, even crazy stupid ignorant opinionated loud mouthed louts deserve some respect as human beings regardless of their beliefs. Not the same level of someone you find personally moral and admirable, but some level, and that level is the "as a person" level which even strangers who you have no clue as to their beliefs should receive.
I'm not saying it is the "only" thing to be taken into consideration in evaluating a situation in a greater say "moral" sense. However, you can't say you respected a person if they feel disrespected. You can certainly say you tried to respect them, but that is something different. If your goal is to make them feel respected, which as I've stated earlier seems to be an important part of respect, then you should be more worried about the receiver than the giver. That doesn't mean that the giver is a bad person or what some might deem a "disrespectful" person, just that they failed in this situation.
A loud mouth lout may deserve having certain parts of their person respected, but this is different from respecting them as a person. For example, I don't respect people who beat their children mercilessly, but that doesn't mean I would say take away their legal rights or kill them. I would even respect some of their ideas, but not them. Does that make a kind of sense. I think you're making an error of composition and I'm sure it might look like I'm doing the same, but you're not looking at what I mean by disrespecting an idea. If I went into a Catholic church and told them all that I thought the notion of Jesus Christ is silly, they all aught to be sleeping in this morning, and that their priest was probably a pedophile I would not be respecting them! I could also think all of those things and still in a sense "respect" the idea by not blathering madly about it in the middle of a mass. As I said earlier, I don't think you have to agree with an idea to respect it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BF, I think we are cross talking with "respect for" and "respect of"...the former being a positive feeling of admiration and esteem about something/someone and the second being a general attitude of courteous civil behavior.
Yes, if someone is not respectful of your beliefs it is hard to show respect for them.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I'm rather open about coming off as combative and not necessarily coming from any kind of moral high ground. I just believe in attacking the axioms that we tend to take for granted. That this is good or this is bad. In this case the attitude that a person can just respect everyone but then also not respect their ideas. That is a much different statement than saying we can agree to disagree. What you're saying is that you can disrespect a person's beliefs yet respect them. Tell me if this just sounds contradictory to you? You might respect their right to life, libery, etc. etc, but I certainly don't think you can come off and say that you respect them.
That and I was trying to call him ignorant ( in the situation ), combative, superior, and adolescent. It seems as if I was successful in communicating the message.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes...you can disrespect someone's beliefs and still respect them. That's my point.
So...what happened to "but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same."
Two wrongs don't make a right, but the third one is okay? (I still don't see either of his posts as "wrong" for the record).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is necessarily adolescent to point out to someone that hey my norms should be your norms and you're wrong for not having my norms is a wonderful message. He basically points to the fact that "obviously" the reason he is having this tantrum is due to the fact that he thinks people have to respect his beliefs to respect him. Which, if you haven't noticed, I think is actually a pretty salient point. How dare he feel offended!
Now, in his second post MattP comes across with a great deal more thought. Basically he makes the excellent point that on Hatrack it is the norm to deal with criticism of ideas and that if you want to be in this community you will have to accept that. Not only this, but this very criticism that the other viewed as being rude was a general part of the Hatrack community. Much different message.
I don't think that all criticism is disrespectful. That being said, this person obviously does feel disrespected by the criticism found on this forum board. In response I would say deal with it. If they don't like the critical thought found here no one is forcing them to be a member of the community.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yes...you can disrespect someone's beliefs and still respect them. That's my point.
I refuse to fight this argument anymore. One last shot: If I go into a situation and disrespect a part of someone's beliefs or ideas then I be definition have to have disrespected them. Respecting a belief does not mean agreeing with it! You may not even like it, but respecting it is something entirely different. However, if I actually go through the motions and disrespect a person's beliefs, then they feel disrespected. Hence, they are not respected. You can respect their rights and everything else, but that does not change the fact that you disrespected them!
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt's first post offended...you...Occasional didn't comment...to which you did attempt to come from high ground...that's why I quoted you. ("but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same.") And then when I pointed out that your reply was more offensive then the comment you were commenting on being offensive, you claimed to be purposefully offensive...
Please consider Matt's second comment as a clarification for you personally, he didn't change anything he said initially.
I get what you are saying...but instead of saying "To respect me as a person, you must respect my beliefs." you should say, "If you are disrespectful to my beliefs then I feel disrespected as a person." as it's what you really mean.
I can hold the opinion that your beliefs are not worthy of respect, and not share it with you, and still respect you as a person and still treat you with respect.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please consider Matt's second comment as a clarification for you personally, he didn't change anything he said initially.
This. My second post wasn't more thoughtful. It just provided additional context in response to the apparent confusion on Black Fox's apart. I believe it was fully appropriate to refer to Occasional's slighting of the majority of Hatrack as a tantrum.
I actually found it fascinating in a meta sort of way that Occasional was offended at having people not respect their beliefs about disrespecting beliefs.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, your beliefs help define who you are, so by disrepecting part of who somebody it, by definition you are disrepecting the person.
Nah. I indicate respect for someone's intelligence and agency by attempting to correct what I believe to be incorrect beliefs. I certainly appreciate when my errors are pointed out in a manner in which I have an opportunity to address them. I especially appreciate having sloppy thinking pointed out.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: I think his behavior is a tantrum. That being said, I wasn't confused by your initial post. I think it is appropriate to point the fact out that he came to this community and this is the way this community works. He may very well be offended, but he made the choice to come post here.
That is a completely different line of thinking than just saying criticism of ideas does not equal rudeness, or to be nice to MattP: criticism of ideas does not necessarily mean that a person is being rude. At this point I'm beating a dead horse, but just because you find a behavior respectful does not mean it actually is to others.
Also, I'm all for pointing out inconsistencies in people's beliefs, but don't expect them to feel respected or happy about it. It's hard enough to find people who will calmly disagree about milder topics than their religious beliefs. You should also not be surprised when people get offended when you criticize their beliefs. You can certainly be angry when the bear rips off your arm, but then maybe you shouldn't have poked it with a stick.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can certainly hold the opinion that someone's belief does not deserve respect and not disrespect them. However, as soon as you voice that lack of respect you are probably going to get under their skin. Respect is performative, and for that reason it does not matter so much what you are trying to do, but what you actually do. In this case what you "actually" do is generate feelings in the other party. If they feel disrespected then you have disrespected them. Someone else might come across and say yes you tried to be respectful or even say something like wow what a crazy sensitive person for bursting up over that. That being said, that party does not matter in the "performance" between the two people in that interaction.
Also, I wasn't trying to come from the "higher" ground on MattP just indicating the fact that he was trying to do so.
I've always thought that our - I use the term loosely - thoughts that to respect others you should treat them the way you would want to be treated is a silly notion. You should treat people the way they wish to be treated and to assume that others wish to be treated the same way as you do is a rather large assumption to make.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
