Category: the Rant Board
It's rare that I post in this board, and rarer still that I talk about people, as I hate drama. But enough is enough! I'm constantly having debates on Facebook, with a wide variety of people, sharing an even wider variety of beliefs. Most times, things get heated. But in 99% of all cases, we manage to talk about the issues at hand. Even when we go offtopic, the discussions turn to other things. Here, I come into Quicknotes and am teased for no reason, before I even say so much as hello, or when I'm discussing a perfectly normal topic, like upgrading my Macbook. I post topics on the boards, and admittedly, some of them are very controversial. But instead of discussing the issues contained within them, or even flatly disagreeing with me, people personally attack me and use the threads to spew their hatred of me. Not all are like this, of course. In fact, some people here post truly interesting responses, which is why I keep coming back. But this hate has got to stop! If you can't disagree with me in a civil manner, don't bother posting anything to my discussions! And if you have a problem with me, please do the adult thing and send me a private message or an e-mail!
While I think Cody was not at all justified in saying such harsh things, however, if you have the right, and the desires to create board topics, other people have the right to voice their opinions no matter if they are differ from yours! If you can't stand the heat, don't add flame to the fire, and then be surprise that it has the potential to burn you!
Well, I've had the same thing happen to me on more than one occasion on this site. That's why I usually change my username at least once a year, to try to get a fresh start so that maybe, just maybe, I'll be taken more seriously.
But this last time, I told myself, there are going to be people who just rip everyone down if they disagree with whatever the person is saying. So I made myself controversial by picking a username that would shock people. I know I won't please everyone, so I won't even bother to try anymore. I've created a persona for myself that matches what people normally think of me when they respond to posts I make.
mini schtroumpfette, there's a huge difference between voicing your opinion and disagreeing with someone, and just being an outright ass, in plain English. You don't need to personally attack someone or their faith to get your point across. Gods know I've had many debates in my life, and there were times I wanted to shout and throw my laptop across the room in frustration. But I still didn't attack my opponents! I can remember only three times, maybe even just two, where I did that, and it was because I was attacked first.
ShatteredSanity, that's quite an interesting strategy. I'm not one for personas, and am the same person online as off. But I do wish to change my username, largely because, in real life, I like to be called Eleni. It's not my legal name, but I hope to change that one day.
Hey, I tend to agree with you largely. I did disagree with you on some points in the child discipline thrhead, but I didn't imply that you're a monster nor did I aim to post a vicious attack your way. If I came across that way, I'm sorry. I try to be civil, but I do have topics I'm passionate about and I do like a debate just for the sake of debating once in a while. I think you have a lot to offer to a conversation judging from your posts. and the fact that you strongly abide by your religion and are very patriotic is your own business, and so what if you frequently refer to it. You're not pushing it on others, nor do you require others to think the same as you in order to be included in your conversations. I respect that.
Cody gets out of line sometimes, this time it was by far the case. He has some good points a lot of the time, but I think he does tend to disagree and argue purely for the sake of argument. He likes to provoke people, whether he knows it or not. Some people deserve the argument while many don't. And I agree that people should debate civilly. It doesn't only take the right spelling of words to be respectful and articulate. It takes some thought and some well constructed posts. If I think someone's being an ass, I'll tell them so, but once, and I dont' reiterate it in more unkind terms. you have a right to be a bit peeved. I think some people just like drama on here... That's all.
Anyway, why would you prefer to change your name to eleni? I'm curious about that because I'm Pollish, and I am familiar with a Pollish-Greek singer that's pretty famous--at least in Poland, and I was wondering if Eleni is just a common greek name or if it had anything to do with the celebrity I speak of.
I find Greek culture to be somewhat fascinating, although I only know what I know from glimpses into it through literature and other media. Sorry for getting off topic.
No, you posted with civility as well. As you said, you disagreed with me, but you also made some valid points, a few of which were lost in the discussion, due to the constant fighting. As you said, I don't proselytise my faith and don't exclude people from conversations just because they disagree with me. I like to debate for the sake of it, but when I post something prevocative, it's to get people to think, not to anger or to insult them.
As for my name, I have never liked my birthname of Tiffany. It always sounded too American, even when I later discovered that it comes from Theophania, which is Greek, and was then changed To Tiffani, by the French, before acquiring its' current spelling. Eleni is, indeed, quite a common name. But I don't know of this celebrity, as I don't follow modern music. I have always loved the name Eleni, and in late 2009, I chose to start using it as my name in nonlegal matters. It relates to Helen of Troy, as well as to Greece (Ellas/Ellada) and to being Greek (Ellinas/Ellinida). Vamvakari, the last name that I've chosen, is taken from Markos Vamvakaris, a composer, singer, and musician, who has inspired me for many years. So it's sort of ancient meets modern, which is a reflection of me as a whole.
Thank you for defending my rights and for understanding my feelings on the matter. Like I said, I'm not the type to start drama, and normally try to avoid it at every opportunity. But I fail to see a reason why we can't respect each other on here.
Why are people so afraid to get angry? Imagine what would happen if the founding father's had not gotten angry, or if ghandi had not gotten angry, or if martin Luther King had not gotten angry. Anger is a good thing, you should allow yourself to get angry, and wield it as a sword.
Now, you raise a valid point, I do riddicule you, and your faith, and in this case a board post about child punishment. However, let me ask you this, would you rather I lied to you? Would you rather everyone who disagreed with you simply lied to you constantly just so you never got your feelings hurt? what kind of life would that be if we all went around lying to each other?
In point of fact, I find your ideas proposterous, but how do you want me to phrase that? Would you feel less insulted if I said your ideas were completely moronic, over me calling them proposterous? Would you rather I said I felt you were ignorant, rather than saying I feel you were a moron? Is one so much better than the other?
You feel that helenistic polytheism is a true religion. This, to me, is one of the most absurd notions I've ever heard said in all seriousness. In fact, there is a book called "letter to a christian nation" in which that very sentament is said, that helenistic polytheism is one of the most idiotic things anyone could take seriously.
That is my opinion, so how would you like it said? Would you like me to attack the idea only? But that does not take into the account that it is your idea, and that it seemed like a good idea to you. I cannot condemn your actions without condemning you.
Notice that, and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, Write Of way did not say "I don't think you're a monster", she merely said "I didn't call you a monster". This means that, theoretically, she could think you monstrous, and in fact she probably thinks smacking a child in the face (as was in question at the time) is a monstrous act. You do not take offense with her, but that is because she does not disclose her entire argument.
Let us say that you do have children, and you do strike one of them across the face. Now, nearly everyone hear I am sure, would say that was a monstrous act, but what does that say about you who actually committed it? If you commit a monstrous act, are you not a monster? If you claim complete agreement with an idiotic idea, are you not then idiotic? does not one follow the other?
So please, what would you rather have me say when you post moronic ideas on the boards such as thinking the gods of olympus actually exist, or that striking a child in the face is a rational response to a situation? How should I respond when I think you are being an idiot? Because no matter what I say, no matter what pretty wrappings I put on it, and no matter how many bows I tie it up in, it will be the exact same message.
As my mother likes to say, "You can pour chocolate on a piece of shit, that doesn't mean it ain't shit". I could phrase my ideals in the nicest words I can think of, stringing my sentences out a mile long, but at the end of the day I'm still calling you an idiot. So who is at fault, the person who put up an honest and straightforward opinion, or the person who got offended at the truth they were told?
The fact of the matter is, you put the posts up, and you ask us for truth, now you are crying when that truth cuts you deeper than you expected. I am sorry that I don't put enough pretty ribbons on my opinion for it to please you. Perhaps you should not put idiotic ideas onto the public forums?
Cody, whether you like him or not, does have some damn valid points! This said, while sugar coding somethings does not mask the truth, it however tend to make someone more receptive to your points of view.
A side note, I always thought long and hard before I post something, because words, once said, can never be taken back. In other words, what I say is what I mean, and I am not at all apologetic should you not like what you've read.
You know, I honestly wonder: as much as many people here get offended when verbally attacked with brutal comments such as cody's, wouldn't you be just as offended, if not more, if people saw you as a weakling, and held back for nothing more than the fact they didn't feel you could handle the honesty? if you ask me, that's much more of a personal attack than the brutal comments. for those of you who went to public school, I'm sure, at some point, you were urged to sit out of an activity because your teachers wrongly assumed you wouldn't be able to handle it. They always said things like: "You could get hit in the head with a flying basketball", or, you might trip over the obsticles while running". Without failure, that was always more insulting to me than the idea of a flying ball to the face, or a bruised and scraped knee from falling. Just the fact that I didn't get hurt because I wasn't given the chance in the first place hurt a lot more. This is the same idea, only in an online debate sense instead of a physical one. Now, if you would rather be spared the brutality at the expense of your own reputation, my suggestion is to stick to "Safe haven" where the brutality is, at the very least, limited.
I refuse to sugar coat things, for any reason. if those posting to the boards can't handle what I represent, feel, or believe, oh well.
to me, sugar coating is dishonesty portrayed as honesty. people often aren't okay with knowing they've hurt other's feelings, which is the real problem here.
I'm certainly never out to hurt anyone, but if that happens in the process of me being honest, so be it.
that's life, and if it weren't me saying whatever it was, someone else would. maybe in nicer words; maybe more harsh.
my point is, someone will always find fault with what a person says, does, or doesn't do. given that fact, why should anyone be made to feel responsible for how others interpret things?
that view isn't only wrong, but totally inaccurate, as each individual is solely responsible for him or herself.
if I posted something totally ludicrous, I'd hope someone would be genuine enough to tell me. not through painting a beautiful picture that doesn't exist, but giving a heartfelt answer as they see it, rather than concerning themselves with how I/others are gonna react.
sure not everyone has a thick skin. however, asking those who do to cater to their sensitivity, is like asking us to stop being passionate.
There is a difference between getting angry and expressing your frustration, and personally attacking someone. Everyone disagrees from time to time. That's one of the cornerstones of debates! But you can express your opinion without insulting your opponent. Since you clearly understand how not to treat a child, and I'm being serious here, let's put it this way. If a child misbehaves, you're not going to say "you stupid good for nothing piece of crap! How dare you do that," and start kicking and hitting him. You're going to explain what he did to make you angry, and you're going to give him a suitable punishment, like a chore, time-out, or grounding. In the same way, if you agree with an adult, is it not good to just state your opinion without all the insults? Certainly, you'll receive more respect as a worthy opponent than as someone with a chip on his shoulder.
As for my religion, everyone has different beliefs. I've met people who didn't agree with mine, including some who found them ridiculous. But in almost all cases, they didn't disrespect it or me. I may not agree with Christianity, or monotheism in general, but I'm not going to bash them or go out of my way to insult people just because they're Christians. I think it's far better to create bridges between faiths than to burn them. Also, just because someone has an idea with which you disagree, even one that you find idiotic, doesn't make the person an idiot. Grandma believes that opening an umbrella in a house brings bad luck. I call that superstition. But does it mean I think she's a complete moron? No!
I, like many here, don't believe in sugar coating or saying things just to make others feel good. But there's a way to disagree without being completely rude and obnoxious, and there's also such a thing as separating the idea from the person, unless it's a major part of that persons' philosophy.
You, I assume, are not a child. I would raise a child to base their beliefs on logic and reason. You have already been raised, and something in that raising has led you to believe that striking a child out of fear is ok, and that the gods in the iliad were real characters. This is absolutely mind-boggling, and you want me to pat you on the back and say its all ok?
Its strange how we only disassociate the idea with the person when it is a bad idea. Thomas jefferson writes the declaration of independence, he's a great man, Locke writes his treatesses, he's a great thinker, you talk about striking a child in the face, oh no, that's not you, its just an idea, yyou have to see it in context. You are your ideas, that is all we have to see of you on this site. That makes your ideas your identity, and as long as your ideas continue to reflect stupidity on a monumental scale, and as long as you continue to believe in things which even elementary school children know are not true, I will continue to treat you accordingly.
Let's leave the child bit, as we all know that's bad. What makes my religion any worse than any other faith, particularly for those who view it in a nonliteral fashion? Most religions have some kind of supernatural elements to them, or myths which disagree with history. Why does my faith matter so much to you that you must repeatedly put it down? Do you do this with other religions as well? If not, then I must seriously question your intelligence.
well said, Cody, about good ideas someone has being part of who they are, but ideas that are constantly challenged, or bad, not being part of them. I couldn't have articulated it better.
Tiff, you obviously haven't bothered to look at religiously oriented topics that Cody and I've posted to along with others, expressing our extreme distaste for all religions.
yes, we criticize every one, as we feel they're detrimental to society. however, we only do so when they directly infringe upon our wrights, the wrights of others, are used as justification for people committing crimes, or, in most people's cases here, using religion to appear better, wiser, and more together than those who subscribe to none.
When have I ever used my religion to infringe on people's rights, to justify committing crimes, or to appear better or wiser than anyone else? My faith is not a shield against criticism or a weapon to be used to harm others. It is merely a set of beliefs that I possess. Granted, I could never understand pure secularism. Even before I became a Hellenic Polytheist, I still believed in some kind of higher power. There appear to be two extremes, the one pushing for all to follow a certain religion and the other pushing to eradicate all religion from the face of the Earth. Neither is healthy and both are dangerous. There must be middle ground.
Tiff parden my stupidity but are you not boarn in the US? So why do you or to my lack of understanding not wish to stay in the US? Its something I have always wanted to ask so there, answer the way you want to answer.
Tiff, you asked why Cody specifically attacked your religion. I provided an answer. sorry to know you didn't like it, but it is what it is.
The way I see this, someone can sure dish it, but cannot take it when it is thrown back. Just the way I see it.
starfly, that was a perfectly reasonable question. I think that, the best way to answer it, in order to not get offtopic here, is to direct you to my essay entitled "My Greekness: How it Began". It's not long and both it and the comments do answer your question to some degree. If, after reading it, you have more, please feel free to ask there and I promise to do my best to answer.
latino heat, I am not in the habit of insulting people to get my point across. Yes, I did resort to name calling in one of the threads, but that was only after repeatedly being put down. As I've said, several times here, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of voicing your opinion.
Oh, that essay is under Getting to Know You, just incase you or anyone else is ignoring that board.
Oh but Chelsea, I don't suggest sugar coding to spare anyone's feelings. We are all adults are we not? and thereby should be able to handle any and all criticisms. Personally speaking, Depending upon what it is that I'd like to achieve, my approach would differ. if my goal was to simply drive my point of view home sort of speak, then bluntness is the way to go, however, if my goal is to sway someone to my way of thinking, then "sugar coding" tend to work better. You catch more fly with honey afterall.
Yes tif, I put down all faiths, but yours holds a special place in my heart. You have taken myths which have been completely and entirely disproven, and you think they are fact. You don't even have popular support behind you. At least christians have the excuse that their parents taught them this, and its all they've known, you don't have that. You chose to follow Zeus, and believe in stories which are taught as faerie tales in fifth grade classrooms. That, to be perfectly frank, is a special kind of stupid. That is the kind of ignorant thinking you actually have to work at. Your religion is literally the religion that A. I don't think anyone actually believes in, and B. if they do actually genuinely believe in it,, I genuinely think there is something physically, mentally or biochemically wrong with them. It is no stretch of the imagination to think that if you think the stories of the Odysy are true, that you have a screw loose somewhere.
Don't get me wrong, I love mythology, I love it with a passion, especially greek mythology, but that doesn't mean I think its true. There is absolutely no basis of fact anywhere in greek mythology, except maybe that there actually is a mount olympus. That in itself should prove your beliefs wrong, since millions of people have been to the top of mount olympus, and ain't one of them come back and said they found gods there.
So as long as you continue to talk about your belief in Zeus and Aphrodite, I will continue to put it down. However, I welcome your revenge. You are welcome, and even invited, to put down my Atheism with whatever evidence, logic, death threats or vitriolic name calling you can come up with.
I, too, welcome whatever way you'd like to put down our atheism, Tiff.
And, I agree with Sam, don't dish it out, and then retreave into the safety arms of victimization please. You earn more respect by taking the criticisms in strive the way a grownup would.
The fact that you are Greek and are actually saying such things speaks volumes. Need I remind you that it was the ancients who created the basis for Western society? Everything from drama, to art, to poetry, to science, to mathematics, to philosophy, to the Olympics, to strategies in military combat, to democracy, and more. And all of these people, with the possible exception of some of the philosophers, followed The Gods in one way or another. No, I am not an ancient. But there are many polytheists all over the world and not everyone follows the religion of their families. Would you have said the same thing had I become a Hindu? There are many Hellenic Polytheists who are parents, and who are bringing up their children in the faith. There are also a small number of families where the religion has been practiced for many generations. So are all of these people stupid? Should all religions which aren't mainstream be considered faerie tales? What is so different about a man born of a virgin, through the intervention of a god, who raised the dead, healed the terminally ill, and turned water into wine, then was crucified and survived, only to fly back up to heaven? How about a god who created the world in seven days and made humans out of Earth? Yet millions of people believe in these things. Should I call them stupid just because I happen to not be one of them, or should I remember that to them, these things are sacred, and that not all take The Bible etc. literally?
I'm not the type to start antiChristian nonsense, but for the sake of history and accuracy, let me remind you that part of the reason why there isn't a huge number of Hellenic Polytheists out there is that religious freedom was crushed for centuries. A few hundred years ago, speaking against The Church, let alone being openly pagan, could get you killed. But we, and others of ancient faiths, from Religio Romana, to the Norse religion, to the Egyptian one, and more, are steadily growing. Please, before you start making accusations and assumptions about us, at least learn about the modern followers of these faiths! For one, most of us don't believe that the physical Mount Olympos is the home of The Gods. For another, there are several mountains with that name, aside from the famous one. Troy was also discovered to have existed, and several of the things said by the historian Herodotos are also being proven true as archaeology uncovers more ancient sites and artefacts. I'm not saying that all myths are true, but some do have a basis in fact.
There is a difference between criticism and insults. Saying that you don't agree with something, and explaining why is fine. personal attacks are not.
would you like some cheese with your wine, Tiff?
Yeah, unless you're frustrated and being a victim and life is so hard and mean Cody is picking on you, then insults are fine, right?
To answer your question, there is no difference between Athena leaping forth from the head of Zeus, and Jesus coming from a virgin, absolutely none. They are both equally as childish and stupid. But to believe in mythology, to believe in something which is actually called mythology, is different. That's like if I walked up to you and said, "I'd like to sell you this completely bulllshit snake oil. What, you want to know if it works, no, of course it doesn't work, its complete bullshit. Look, here on the label, it says, complete bullshit snake oil, right there in big green letters. Oh, you'll take six, excellent, will that be cash or charge?" That is what you did. The word mythology actually means these stories are crap, but we study them as history. You went, "Yes, I believe this stuff, its excelllent." That, as I said, is a special kind of stupid.
Oh, and I have to add this to mini's post earlier. There is a wonderful phrase I love to say whenever people say, "You catch more flies withh honey". I can't remember who said it but its, "Yes, and you catch even more with manure, so what's your point?"
Most of the world's great religions started as campfire religions. The initial spark of the religion may have come from a remarkable human being having an insight or a vision, but much of the dogma and tradition was formed by ordinary disciples long after the founding teacher's death. Many religious myths, which strict fundamentalists accept as fact, were created by disciples gathered around a fire at night and telling stories about the glory days of their long dead spiritual heroes.
Imagine the world before the printing press and electricity. In ancient times nights were long, dark, and potentially very scary, with no television or radio for entertainment. Huddled around a fire at night, story tellers would gain recognition by fabricating heroic tales of perfect saintly beings in order to entertain and comfort. Over the centuries religious myths became wildly grandiose and fact was lost in a sea of invention.
Sourced from the Meditation Handbook website.
http://meditation-handbook.50webs.com/
Damn, I was hoping you'd written that on the spot, I was gonna give you major props for that.
Lol. I wish I could write like that. Just a nice little website I've come upon in my internet travels that explains quote unquote spiritual things in scientific terms.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on mythology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
"The term "mythology" can refer either to the study of myths (e.g., comparative mythology), or to a body or collection of myths (a mythos, e.g., Inca mythology).[1] In folkloristics, a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form,[2] although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[3] Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form".[4] Myths typically involve supernatural characters and are endorsed by rulers or priests. They may arise as overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are transmitted to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach." "Further, modern mythopoeia such as fantasy novels, manga, and urban legend, with many competing artificial mythoi acknowledged as fiction, supports the idea of myth as ongoing social practice."
Note that, when religion is discussed here, myths are not described as fiction. That aspect of the term is only used to describe modern fantasy novels. So they are using the word mythos in its' ancient sense, which does not imply falsehood. So someone who follows a nonmainstream faith could easily call the sacred texts of the mainstream ones myths, with the modern connotation. But if a bookstore put The Bible on the same shelf as Theogony, either in religion or in mythology, many Christians would throw a fit! Plus, most people don't even know that followers of The Gods still exist! So the status quoe is maintained.
Imprecator, that actually makes sense, from a sociological point of view. There was also cultural contact, which helped bring certain deities and/or customs from one place to another. Does it mean, then, that all deities are fake? No. It means that each culture has a different way of seeing them. Even so, someone who could write like that is being scientific and expressing their lack of belief in a respectful and well-educated manner.
None of which proves that your beliefs are not complete poppycock, which they are. Everyone with any use of reason knows that myths, whether greek, egyptian or otherwise are not true. We all know this, it is no different than santa claus or the easter bunny, we know they're not true.
Even mainstream christians are going away from calling the stories in their bible true, and are scrabbling desperately to find other meanings which keep the text of the bible, but don't make them look like faerie tales. This, I don't think is possible, but that is not my problem yet.
At the moment, on this board, your beliefs are up for debate, and its rather easy. Storms are not caused by poseidon, nor are earthquakes. Lightning is an act of nature, not the wrath of Zeus.
If you want to take some meaning from a myth and apply it to your life, that is fine, I do that myself. There is much to be learned from the myths which warn against pride and other negative emmotions. But that doesn't make them true. Aesop had fables which taught the exact same lessons, and I hope with all my might that you don't think those are true.
Eleni, I think that if you have the tits to put your beliefs and ideas on any forum, then you need to have or grow the tits to take any kind of insult, criticism, or bashing in stride. If you can't take it, I don't think you have the right to say: "If you can't disagree with me in a civil manner, don't bother posting anything to my discussions!" Instead, if you cannot properly deal with and accept the responses given to your work, then perhaps you should keep your ideas in your head or post them to a site where the majority is on the same page as you. When you put your ideas and beliefs before an audience, you make yourself vulnerable and available for attack, insult, criticism, and bashing. It's up to you to ignore such things or answer them. It is okay to govern yourself as one who can and does criticize without insulting or personally attacking an opponent, but to say that others shouldn't and to ask them to stop shows weakness and is also pointless. In debates, people get heated and angry, and so they weave personal attack in with their opposing arguments.
Also, I think everyone who is a veteran poster on these boards should be accustomed to how Cody presents his arguments. He is far more brutally honest than most people on these boards, which is surprising considering that we're all communicating online and ultimately face no consequence from the person/s that we have the opportunities to attack. I admire Cody for not being a polite sap who beats around the bush, wasting so much time considering how someone will feel about his arguments on these threads. Given, he usually starts out with manners, being quite "civil," but when people start whining and keep defending the same argument that he's already destroyed, that's when you fall victim to his ridicule and personal attacks.
I think that you really just can't give a shit about how people feel, especially when you believe that the arguments they are using and points they are defending are monumentally stupid and astoundingly idiotic. You just have to be blunt, honest, and straightforward with people, and if they don't like it, it's not your job to care. People are quickly offended and somehow think whining or complaining will solve the problem. Sorry, it doesn't.
Although I carry this attitude, I come across far more respectful on these boards than I am with people I interact with on a daily basis. If someone hangs around me for five minutes, they quickly understand that I am a complete asshole and have no problem pointing out flaws or bashing someone's beliefs. For instance, my catholic and blonde acquaintances and friends enjoy hanging out with me, but they know
I come prepared with jokes and insults, specially tailored for them.
By the way, this is my favorite quote from Cody on this thread:
You are your ideas, that is all we have to see of you on this site. That makes your ideas your identity, and as long as your ideas continue to reflect stupidity on a monumental scale, and as long as you continue to believe in things which even elementary school children know are not true, I will continue to treat you accordingly.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Lolololololol! Lmaooooooooooo!
Oh my grapes, I could not stop laughing. It so true, but hilariously brutal. Reminds me of how I used to just blast and bash people on zbp, and yes, every word of those insults was warranted and well-earned.
Cody, I love your ideas, and so I love you. :)
Aww, I'm touched, and honored.
I think when posting a subject especially one that is controversial or an opinion we should post what we truly believe.
A post should be thought out unless you take the other side just because. If you take the other side, say you agree, but for the sake of debate you are on the other side.
If you are not prepared to stand on what you think no matter what is said you should not post in the form of an opinion, you should post in a question format. This means you are ready to discuss a topic and you are open to learning.
When posting something you strongly believe you should be ready to defend it no matter how personal, or scathing the remarks become. This is your opinion, and your opponents are invited to bring it on!
Sure, these things can get personal, but they are not life changing, so be tough and don’t back pedal, unless you learn that you are truly wrong. If you have to eat some words admit it to your opponents and get out gracefully
Last if you are attacked outside of your postings on something you really believe, stand tough. If you don’t feel like discussing it at the time ignore the comments directed at you and continue on with the subject at hand.
Posting a board like this one doesn’t earn you any sympathy it just makes you seem petty or wining, because people have disagreed with you.
You can’t take your toys and go home when you get mad because the game isn’t going by your rules. Stand strong.
Love me, or hate me, but this is what I am!
Cody, are you gaining a fan club?
No, just a cadre of people who think like me. Scary, isn't it?
Nope.
Obviously, you people have never heard of civility and treating others as you wish to be treated. I pitty you for your lack of manners and respect, and for the fact that you can't simply disagree with someone without having to use ad hominem. I thought such childish behaviour would be left on the playground or in high school, and that we could discuss things in an adult manner. I don't know on what planet discussing things civily equates to being a sap. You could still be honest and decent about it.
I honestly don't see anything not honest or decent. You are not called names, slammed, that sort of thing. You are just disagreed with.
Come on. You are a smart lady. You can handle a little of this easy. Stop taking it so personal. It won't change the fact you rise at 7 and eat Wheaties now will it? Smile.
Ok...I'd just like to ad that wickipedia is by far, not a reputible source. Any scholar and journalist, librarian etc. will tell you that. Wickipedia is like poison to reputable sources. Some things are very factual, yet some are not. Let's not use wikipedia as any kind of evidence, ok? That's automatically dismissed.
Imp, your site was reputable and rich with reputable facts. Props to you.
The moon is made of green cheese. An angel with white powder on her face and a straw up her nose came down from heaven yesterday and told me so, therefore it's true. Please respect my beliefs, or I'm gonna cry.
Tiff, just put the rude people on ignore.
So the main question I have for the OP is this.
Why should we take you seriously, considering you have admitted to using name calling and slanderous attacks in anger? Many could be doing the same thing to you, when debates get heated, but none I see here who have been heated simultaneously attempt to justify their past actions as the right thing to do, while bitching about receiving the same from others. To be blunt, your posts on this topic drip with hypocrisy I can't really overlook.
If you don't like a behavior, why did you proliferate it, much less defend it when used for your own gain?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
On top of that, slapping someone because they make you angry and then running to mommy and daddy when you get slapped down in the future is just as futile.
Hahahahahahah chelsea!!! Wow, Tiff, way to assume I meant you insult people. I meant you can sure disagree with people, but when you're disagreed with, you pitch a fit. If you wish to believe that I meant insulting though, by all means, please continue to think that. Being angry because you're disagreed with is a child's way of dealing with things.
Mmm, I love the smell of hippocracy in the morning.
I really don't know what more I can add to this. Apparently nothing said against her has any effect. While I admire that in a way, she has taken it to a level where she can never admit her mistakes, and thus cannot learn from them. This is, in point of fact, rather childish, which is really not that surprising. I guess we'll just have to put up with her pointless drivel for a bit longer untill she has to roll that boulder up the hill forever.
You know, I used to actually believe that stupid people don’t exist, but thanks to people like tif that brought me out of my illusions! Have you, Tif, heard of the quote: "Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people look bright until you hear them speak?." I know this concept is perhaps too advanced for you to grasp, but please do yourself a favour and meditate on it. Read it over and over, and hopefully, something might click in your brain and help you to realize that silence is indeed golden especially if all that comes out of your mouth is unfounded facts and useless dribbles…
And before I close, civility has a price tag! It’s call respect! Something we’ve given you at the beginning when you first posted to the disciplining topic. it is lost along the way however, when you remain dim and refuse to admit that it is wrong to entertain even the thought of possibly slapping a child across the face as a knee jerk reaction under the pretext of fear and love no matter how we try to convince you otherwise.
To ridicule yourself in the eyes of others even further, you went and create this topic to wine and placate to the victim mode which does nothing but make yourself sound more childish and frankly stupid! Need I say more?
I don't think she's going to budge at this point. Though, I honestly do wonder how you could post a topic complaining about people's comments about you, on the place the comments are being made. Did you really think people were going to post here going: O, I totally didn't realize I was bothering you! I'm so, so, so sorry! Please forgive me! I will absolutely never, under any circumstances, say anything like that to you again!
Honestly, did you even think people were going to walk away quietly? if you thought you were the only person around here to raise comments like that, you're giving yourself way too much credit.
I can't help but notice that tiff isn't trying to defend herself.
Welll, with all the other tactics she's used, cut and run without admitting your wrong isn't much of a far fetched idea. In fact, it would not shock me if that's exactly what she did. However, I will give her the benefit of the doubt, and will be more than happy to continue proving her wrong at any future date she may wish to continue flooding the boards with her inane diatribe.
I'm going to enter into the lion's den here. I fully realize that most of you aren't going to like what I say, and honestly, I don't care. Somebody's gotta say it.
I've been on the Zone for a long time. I joined in 2004, and in that time, I've made many posts that people took issue with. As I said above, I have my own way of dealing with that. But what's important is that at times I look back on things I said, and there are things that I know I said that were idiotic, but there were also plenty of things that I didn't back down or change my mind on just because someone tried to make me feel worthless because they thought my opinion was wrong.
I seem to hear people lashing out a lot of the time against things they disagree with, but are too big for them to tackle. Religion, for instance, will never be completely erradicated. Expressing your opinions is fine, but it's awfully grandiose to assume that by doing so, you will erradicate and destroy all religions. With the discipline topic, I too disagreed with what was being said about hitting a child across the face. But you're never going to completely rid the world of abuse just by wishing it to be, and damning someone who is just expressing her own personal viewpoint. Do I like the fact that abuse exists? Fuck no. But I do not think it's wise or productive to imply, however indirectly, that someone is worthless or evil.
Of course, there are truly evil acts, including rape and murder that have been justified by religion throughout history. I understand your frustration with such things, but facts are facts. You can't change history, nor can you personally reach out to every person who has been raped or abused, nor can you stop every rapist or abuser before they harm the innocent. I think that "acting with civility" was a perfect title for this topic. Perhaps if you all would respond in kind, you wouldn't push people deeper into their dysfunctional ideas and beliefs.
Now dig in, I know you want to rip me apart. It's definitely not the first time, nor will it be the last. But just like some of you, I feel the need to express my own opinion when it's strong enough.
Shattered Sanity, whether or not I agree with you, I think we can all agree on one thing: the comments will not cease; with or without a topic like this to complain about them. people who make such comments, (and yes, I admit I am among them at times), are not concerned with how the intended recipiant, or anyone for that matter, feels about, and responds to, their viewpoints. Bringing one's offence to the forefront is only going to make it worse. If we intended to destroy religion, we sure as hell wouldn't be doing it here, on these boards, with our comments. Likewise, if we intended to hurt or destroy anyone here, comments made on a forem would be the least of their worries. Clearly there are debates where nobody can be swayed, which is why they'll never truly end until everyone gets bored with them and forgets they exist.
That's true. I definitely don't think that creating this topic was the way to go about making a point. However, as I said, I think people should be careful with the way they generalize each other. As I see it, none of us are putting our best foot forward on a forum like this. It's very easy to be blunt or present yourself one way that doesn't exactly show your charm, or even the side of you that close friends or family find endearing about you. We could argue back and forth all day about whether or not it's right to imply someone is inherently evil because of what religion they practice or the choices they make, but none of us personally know who we're talking to. Most of us don't, anyway. In real life every one of us could be someone completely different. That's not to say that you or I wouldn't still hold the same beliefs, simply that in any given real life situation, we might handle ourselves differently, or speak in a different tone of voice, or any number of things that seem unimportant when a screen reader is coldly stating things to us as if they're fact. It all seems very final and direct when it's put that way, but if we were all sitting around a campfire, or the dinner table, or what have you, talking about these things, it could completely change the dynamics of it.
Besides, we are not solely made up of our beliefs. Experiences, morality, and any number of other things shape our personalities. That's why I strongly disagree with the view that just because a person is religious, they're automatically bad. It doesn't work that way. You're walking a very fine line there between condoning religious intolerance and all kinds of other bigotry. Yet I doubt that any of you are racist or homophobic. In fact, I've seen posts from some of you that would lead me to believe exactly the opposite. So please explain to me why, besides the fact that the Bible condones slavery, rape, incest, etc. and that Greek mythology is basically the same as fairy tales, you feel that it's ok to put down every individual who has a different opinion from you.
shattered sanity, just cause you don't seem to believe people are being themselves due to how blunt some of us are, doesn't make it true.
I, for one, have stated on various topics that I'm just as blunt offline as I am here. the only difference is that, in person, people usually realize I'm coming from a good place, don't say stuff just to say it, and never say things out of anger.
so, love it or hate the way some of us come across, it is what it is.
as has been said, if people can't handle the fact that everyone conveys themselves differently, that's their problem. Jess said it best, though. when one is secure in who they are, they aren't concerned with whether they hurt other's feelings, cause that's just part of life. as long as they're being truthful, and presenting their thoughts as they really are, that's all that matters.
Yes, it is true that it is possible that we would be different if sitting around a campfire, but we're not, so that's completely pointless. We might also be green chickens with pretty bows in our feathers, but we're not, so why talk about it?
If you look back at my posts, you'll see that I said that your opinions is all we have to view of you hear. The only things on this site that we have to see of you are your opinions. Granted, there is something to be said for writing style and the like, but the vast majority of the things you know about a person as far as the boards go is there opinion. This means that we judge everyone on there opinion.
Now, I certainly don't think anyone on here condones slavery, or owns slaves, or would rape someone else, or any of those terrible things, but that isn't the point. The point is that the ideas they cling to do condone those things. So I treat them as if they believe in those things. If you make the claim that you believe everything the bible says, then you take the good with the bad. The problem is, there's a lot of bad, and atheists know how to shovel it into great big piles when debating. In fact, there was a recent test done that showed that Atheists actually knew more about the bible than most christian groups in america, and about religion in general.
You have to be careful what you hitch your wagon too, because you are going to be judged based on that to which your wagon is attached. If you want to hook it to the bible, or to greek mythology, or to hitting a child in the face, then you can't expect to be treated nicely for some arbitrary reason.
Do I think Tifanitsa would hit a child in the face, probably not, but that doesn't change the fact that she is defending the action. Thus, I treat her as I would treat those who performed the action. At least in a textual basis.
Also, look at the first post I put up on this board. What makes saying something nicely so much better than saying the same thing bluntly? It doesn't hurt your feelings? But you are the one in control of your feelings, if you don't want them injured, don't let them be exposed.
I have come under vast amounts of scrutiny over the years. I've been told my parents should have had an abortion, that the cancer should have killed me, and had death threats delivered against me and my friends. Did this offend me? No, because I laughed it off. I chose not to let my emotions get scarred.
You have to know when to invest your emotions in something, and when not too. These boards are somewhere you really shouldn't.
Cody brought up a great point. the boards are certainly a place where one shouldn't invest their emotions. if you do, it's no one's fault but your own when you get pissed off at the way people convey themselves.
it's beyond ludicrous to think, or even hope everyone will play nice when disagreeing with one another, and that we should agree to disagree and quietly move on. that isn't how the real world works.
You're right, and I've had to learn that lesson the hard way myself. What I still don't get though is how you can justify drawing conclusions about someone just based on one fact about them, such as their religion. True, you only have what they say on the boards to go on, but by the same token, all they have to go on is how you're presenting yourselves, too. Now, you probably don't care about that, it would be pretty ludicrous to go up to someone you know and say that everyone on a forum is attacking you, and expect to get sympathy. It's not ludicrous, however, to demand a modicum of respect while you're on the forum in question. As I said, I don't agree with the stance she has taken on this issue. It probably would have been more effective to bring up her concerns in the discipline topic, or whatever topic she felt disrespected in. But I don't really think that adding insult to injury is helpful. You guys could have had a good laugh about it, if that's how you feel, and then ignored it. But adding fuel to the fire, as I said, is probably not only making her think not very highly of you, but also is cementing those beliefs you deem wrong even further. That's how I've reacted in the past, anyway, so I understand the thinking behind creating the post. However, I won't say any more about that since I'm speaking for her and I don't know how she really feels about it.
I agree with you completely Tiff. i've noticed a lot of this on the boards, some geared towards me, most towards other people. Time and time again I've tried to get people to understand the difference between civil debate, or even disagreement, and being condescending and all-out rude. There is a difference. Mostly I get responses like "if you don't like it, don't post, or just ignore them. Granted those are valid actions, but they don't make the problem go away. Some people think that being oppinionated gives them the right to spout whatever they want whenever they want however they want, and damn what anyone else thinks. Be who you are and say what you feel, sure. But if people at least try to show respect to you, do feel free to return the favor. I myself respect others' views and their rites to hold them. But freedom of speach does not give a person the right to be a douche canoe. This topic isn't going to matter to people like that, Tiff. But it's great to know other people feel this way, and you're definately not alone in your thoughts on this matter.
for the record, Tiff is the one who has pushed us all to where we are now. in fact, Cody himself admitted things started off nicely. however, when someone continuously displays stupidity as Tiff has done through repeatedly trying to make her views seem pretty, when they clearly aren't, that warrants harsher words. how is that so hard to understand?
you're acting like we all decided to attack her without provocation, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I'm sorry, let me try to be clearer.
I know that what she was saying pissed you off. I didn't agree with it either. But this whole online thing goes both ways. If people on a forum mean nothing to you, and their opinions and feelings aren't worth a damn, then why do you get so heated about them? Couldn't you expend your time and energy on convincing the ones that are close to you instead? Or, if not those who are close to you, since I can only assume that they would hold similar opinions as you, at least people in your everyday lives who you disagree with? If interactions on forums count for nothing, which we both seem to agree on, just on opposing sides of the spectrum, why do you bother? Pardon me for saying so, but what you're saying about getting emotionally invested in these debates is pure baloney. If you weren't emotionally invested, you wouldn't feel the need to so exuberantly defend your stances with such passion and anger. To be completely frank, that shows me that you are letting this stuff get to you, no matter how much you want to say you aren't.
Ah, I see what you're saying, and that would be a valid point, I congratulate you on forming such a well thought out opinion. However, the mistake in the idea is that I don't get much into this. I know it seems that way because I rant and rave and carry on, and you think that it takes a lot for me to do that, but it doesn't. I have never spent more than maybe five minutes researching a board post.
Now, certainly, there are board posts I follow, this one included, but that should not give you the idea that I invest energy in this. It is a bit of entertainment for me. It is, if I can sound so brash, practice. None of the arguments on here are all that challenging for me, or really present any ideas which I haven't fielded a hundred times successfully in the past. I'm sorry, I know that sounds really conceited, but when you argue as much as I do, it tends to happen.
Please don't think that because I write vehemently, or fluidly, or with vigor, that I am investing a lot of emotion in these posts. I enjoy the boards, and these posts, but that is as far as it goes. If this board post were to be shut down by the admins for whatever reason, I'd shrug and wait for the next one to come up, or start one myself if I had a thought in mind. I would not, and have never, lost sleep over it. I'm sorry, but this place just doesn't matter that much to me. Its a passtime, nothing more, and it doesn't really test my faculties to any degree of notice.
Now, in regards to your asking about why I sometimes put people down, it is because many of the people I debate on here are unwilling to change. I am not going to try and make the claim that once I say something, everyone should just agree with me and go on about their way, but I will say this. If you present a point, and it is proven wrong by someone, consider abandoning that point. Do not, as so often is the case, continue to stand by that point, even if it is untenable, or in the presence instance, simply try to change the phrasing a bit to make it more palletable.
That is one of my biggest complaints about religion, so few people are willing to step outside their box of thought and actually look at a situation. I understand why, its extremely difficult to do, I have been there myself, but for one who has done it, it is frustrating to see. That is why it seems like Chelsea and I get so heated when we are in a discussion. Its mostly because we have to repeat ourselves so often.
I don't want to come off as if I'm perfect, because I'm not, and there have been many times that I've had to change my stance on things. However, when I, and chelsea, and several others are all in agreement against Tifanitsa, to use the present situation, it makes it quite apparent that Tifanitsa is going outside the norm. Often that is a good thing, but in the case of hitting a child, it is not. If you are standing outside the crowd, you need to have a good reason for doing so, and Tif just doesn't.
I hope this explains sufficiently, if not, please ask whatever questions you may have and I will do my best to explain further.
Okay, some things need to be said:
ShatteredSanity, I get what you are saying, but you are arguing against human nature. For every action there is an equal but opposit reaction. If I say I like chickens, somebody will more than likely respond that chickens are the problem with society. It seems to me that it is our nature to disagree, if only to be heard, and, gasp, be talked about in certain circles.
SilverLightning, tiff has no right to continuously go after you in such a way. Yes, you and I have disagreed. I do tend to find your posts most pompus, however, I respect your freedom of speech. You and I hate religion with all of our beeing but we cannot change the minds of religious people. I personally would like to rid the world of such superstition but I do not have this power. Furthermore, I do not have the energy to try to change the mind of a stubborn person.
Finally, I will address tiff as if she were even here to defend herself. She has the right to post what she wants just as we do. That said, she shouldn't go around attacking others. We all have anger, however investing such raw emotions in the words of people you will most likely never meet is laughable at best. Okay, I think I about covered everything. Have a nice day and happy ranting!
Silver Lightning, you've definitely explained things reasonably and I applaud you for it. I understand where you're coming from, and that's settled the doubt I had in my mind that perhaps you were being a bit hypocritical. I also agree with you that somewhere along the way, there will be another post similar to this, that will probably get similar responses. I guess that sort of segues into my next point.
Margorp, well, you have a valid point there. Part of human nature is to validate one's place in life, and if that means arguing and debating back and forth, it satisfies a need we have, however subconsciously, to be heard and even to prove ourselves worthy. And that's sure as hell not changing any time soon.
Chickens are evil, yes. They are the reason the world's morals are going down the tubes!
Well, chickens have a right to be loved, damn it! Love the chickens, eat beef!
Oh yes, love the chickens, especially when they're extra crispy. Lol, sorry, couldnt resist.
Chelsea, yourpost about getting emotional on the boards, I couldn't have said better myself. I definitely have made a stupid board, or at leas, a couple of them in my younger days, but I've grown out of that. Let's just hope she does the same, but I am skeptical. Lol.
Really? I and my beliefs haven't been attacked, insulted, and treated with sarcasm? Let's gather the evidence, beginning in the Disciplining thread?
Post 27
SilverLightning
"Parenthetically, "Oh thank gods of olympos" made me giggle uncontrollably, thanking dozens of beings on top of a perfectly climbable mountain, talk about regression."
Post 46
SilverLightning
"So wait, putting a bit of completely nonharmful soap in a child's mouth is abuse, but smacking them across the face isn't? You crooked-minded waste of space you. I beg whatever gods, olympian or otherwise, will rip your uterus out before allowing you to have children. A person with such incredibly fucked up morals should not legally be allowed to be entrusted with anyone weaker than they are, let alone allowed to bear them themselves. You make me sick beyond all description."
Who the fuck says that to anyone, unless they are an abuser, a druggy, a rapist, etc? I mentioned a single hypothetical (that means it might not even happen) incident and got this in return.
Post 54
SilverLightning
"If you continue to put up board posts insisting Bullfinch and Homer were composing true accounts of history, then I will continue to point out the shheer idiocy of that claim. Ideas like that are dangerous to a healthy society, and must be dealt away with. When you see an insect on your kitchen floor, you don't pour it a cup of tea and ask it nicely if it wouldn't mind packing up and moving into a studio apartment downtown, you crush it. Your ideas, whether about religion, or about smacking a child in the face, are insects upon society and humanity, and I will do everything in my power to stamp them out. I can only hope that others will join me in doing so."
As a sidenote, he never answered my question, in that thread, on why my religion is dangerous. Also, while the part about smacking a child was totally relevent to the thread, what the hell does my religion have to do with it?
Post 80
SilverLightning
"The yelling of a public speaker is designed to raise the emotional state of the crowd. Not, and I'd like you to read this really really slowly so that you might possibly understand it, not I say, not, to punish them. Get that, not, let me know if I'm going too fast for you here, I'll stop and define a few words if you need me too, I don't mind.
Now, as I said, the yellling of a public speaker like your precious colonel, they yell to express emotion. They do not, there's that word again, yell to punish. When punishing, or rather reprimanding or disciplining a child, your emotion should not play a part in your actions. Again, notice that word not, I'm trying to use small words here for you, cuz you're either not reading, or not understanding.
So, and follow me on this Tif, cuz its gonna get a little complicated, no matter what you're feeling, whether its fear or sadness or anger, you can't let it effect your action with your kid. The only emotion, the only one, that word means that there's one emotion allowed Tif, I know this is complicated but hold on, I'm almost done, the only ONLY one that is allowed to effect the way you treat your child is your love for them. That's all Tif, the only one, that's all that's allowed, that one solitary emotion. Your fear and your anger must be taken out of your thoughts while you deal with your kids.
Now, did you get all that? Cuz you seem a little lost lately, need us to slow down and explain things in really small words? Cuz really, if you don't understand the difference between a public speaker yelling, and a parent yelling, I don't know what help we can give you. You're working on square one, we're a few squares ahead here. Don't you worry though, we'll do everything we can to get you up to speed. Now, what do you need defined?"
Again, you can disagree without the sarcasm. But if you'd like to define things, let's begin with a refresher in Dimotiki and then you can teach me katharevousa. I'm sure you know the latter, as you're Tso much smarter than I.
"From this thread:
Post 13
SilverLightning
"That makes your ideas your identity, and as long as your ideas continue to reflect stupidity on a monumental scale, and as long as you continue to believe in things which even elementary school children know are not true, I will continue to treat you accordingly."
Then you can expect my animocity towards you to continue. When you begin respecting me as a person, and disagreeing with my ideas as what they are, ideas, then I will treat you in a decent manner.
Post 28
happy heart
"would you like some cheese with your wine, Tiff?"
No, but a knife would be nice.
Post 35
SilverLightning
"None of which proves that your beliefs are not complete poppycock, which they are. Everyone with any use of reason knows that myths, whether greek, egyptian or otherwise are not true. We all know this, it is no different than santa claus or the easter bunny, we know they're not true."
That's a logical fallacy, called appealing to authority. Also, religion and science are two different things. Religion cannot be proven in the same way as science, and this is why faith exists. If everyone believed that either religion wasn't true, or that there was no human need for it, none would exist.
Post 44
Imprecator
"The moon is made of green cheese. An angel with white powder on her face and a straw up her nose came down from heaven yesterday and told me so, therefore it's true. Please respect my beliefs, or I'm gonna cry."
You're confusing me with an eclectic. My religious beliefs have ancient origin. My secular ones are mostly from experience and from analysing the world around me, not settled on the flip of a coin. Both are worthy of respect, as I would say about the beliefs of most people.
Post 49
mini schtroumpfette
"You know, I used to actually believe that stupid people don�t exist, but thanks to people like tif that brought me out of my illusions! Have you, Tif, heard of the quote: "Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people look bright until you hear them speak?." I know this concept is perhaps too advanced for you to grasp, but please do yourself a favour and meditate on it. Read it over and over, and hopefully, something might click in your brain and help you to realize that silence is indeed golden especially if all that comes out of your mouth is unfounded facts and useless dribbles"
Have you ever heard the phrase "the world would have been better off had you not been born?" Since many of you have issues with distinguishing between debating and insult, let me explain that the previous sentence was an insult.
Yes, now, I am fighting back. But I have never resorted to these kinds of attacks. The most I did, and not here, was to basically call someone stupid, once in a thread, and say they didn't listen. I've also said things like "you people just don't get it" and "you guys make absolutely no sense", when referring to Libertarians. But that was it. In the case of using the word stupid, I apologised for my behaviour. Not a single person here has had the decency to apologise or to refrain from these attacks. Rather, they act as if this is the normal way to debate. Perhaps, among barbarians, it is. But among civil people, this is not considered proper decorum. It is not childish to demand respect from opponents, particularly when it's given, even when strongly disagreeing. For the record, the name that I used on this site was pseftomangas. Really simplifying things, a mangas is a tough guy, who puts his money where his mouth is, but a pseftomangas is a faker, with a big mouth, who just likes to get into fights. And the reason why I've quoted so much from Silverlightening is that he was the one who said most of the really bad things. The rest disagreed and showed sarcasm, but weren't on that level, and some were just frustrated.
On something as basic as the definition of mythology, Wikipedia can be trusted. However, I will ask my scholarly friends for an anthropological source, as well as one from a dictionary of ancient Greek to English, to prove the point.
I have no problems modifying my stance on things, or admitting when I'm wrong. But insulting me will definitely not get me to agree with you, even if you are, in fact, correct. Let's see, how many times did I stress that hitting is wrong? I've excluded posts 25 and 30, because they were similar.
From the Discipline thread:
Post 19
"Again, it might not even happen. Maybe, I'd just grab him, or yell at him, or smack him on the arm. I certainly don't advocate hitting a child on the face, even for that. The only reason I *might* do such a thing is, as I have said, an automatic reaction out of fear. I would also apologise afterword and would feel quite guilty."
"Post 28
"Woe! A single smack, even on the face, is not beating! Doing it repeatedly is. I believe that those who abuse children should be tortured, and if it's severe enough, they should be executed! So I would never! take part in such things! And I never said, anywhere, that "the subconscious recourse should be to use unmitogated violence against an innocent child." Note the word should. I do not promote such things. I said it would "probably" happen, so it's not a given."
If I believe that abusers should be tortured, and in some cases, executed, why on Earth would I abuse my own child?
Post 61
"The post was not about striking children. It was about different forms of discipline, and hitting is one with which I happen to disagree, as I've said many times here. The only reason I even brought up that example was because it was a rarity. But do I think it should be done? No! And to answer the question as to whether a child should hit back, yes, he should, because the adult was in the wrong! I never said it's acceptible either. I said it can happen, because we're all human beings, we all make mistakes, and yes, sometimes, we act out of fear! Perhaps, if I could see, it might be different. But in the back of my mind, there's always the thought of being responsible for the death of a child, due to something like this. I don't see what people are missing here! Yes, in a logical frame of mind, I would never hit the child, not even after he ran into the street! I would call him back, or grab him, to get his attention, and explain why he shouldn't do this. Fortunately, I live on a quiet street. So it very well could be that I would just call out to him to come back and then tell him that going into the street without me is a bad thing to do, since he could get hurt. But what if I lived near a highway, with cars wizzing by! I wouldn't be thinking "oh gee, I don't want to humiliate my son" I would be scared out of my mind! Even my own life would be in danger there, as I brought him to safety. And before anyone says anything, my own life would be the absolute farthest thing from my mind."
"Post 64
"This is a purely hypothetical situation. It may not happen that way at all, in real life. I may do just what your mother did, grab my child, hold him close, cry and tell him never to do that again. My example was not meant to be an absolute. It was, rather, meant to show the one time when I *might* hit a child. Obviously, it's wrong, and it's not acceptable. I'm not sure why I'd do it, because I'm not even sure if I would. Hopefully, I would react in a better manner, as you've described. It is perfectly fine and I could support and understand any parent who did that."
"Post 65
""The only reason why I am defending it in the first place is not because it's right. As I've said, it's not. It's just that it's not the abuse that some here are making it out to be. Even yelling could be taken as abuse. When you yell at your child to not do something, or because he has done something wrong, and you stop after a short time, that's normal. When you yell at him for every little thing he does, because it's not absolutely perfect, or constantly tell him he's ugly, you wish he was never born etc., that's abuse! it's the same with hitting. Yet some people are fine with a swat on the butt or a smack on the arm and not with one on the face. Biologically, the face is probably more delicate, so I can understand it that way. But if one form of hitting, even just one time, is considered abuse, why are not the others?"
Again, I stand by biology. There are certain people who should never even smack on the arm or on the butt because the're so strong that they would actually harm the child! Not, again, I say not, that anyone should ever hit a child anywhere!
ShatteredSanity, thank you for posts 53 and 59. Apparently, you understand that, while we may disagree, both of us can still remain respectful, whether or not we manage to sway one another to our viewpoint. The comments on my religion, and the fact that, as you said, I was judged on that fact alone, were truly ridiculous. Everyone believes in different things. That's no reason to bash them, particularly when religion isn't even the topic being discussed! Who cares if I say "oh Gods" or "dear Gods of Olympos". Christians say "oh God" and "dear Lord". Oh, and I loved Post 62! I got so involved in this thread that i didn't even realise just how hypocritical these people are being.
I'm sending a huge virtual hug to The_Blind_Guardian for post 60! It's really sad. I've had hundreds of debates on Facebook, many times, with complete strangers who were friends of friends or fellow members of groups but not personal friends of mine. Yet somehow, no matter how strongly we felt about things, we all managed to respect each other, regardless of our nationalities, religions, and beliefs on the issues. This site is tiny in comparison, and yet, the hatred and sarcasm here gets so thick you can stir it with a spoon and cut it with a knife!
This is fighting back? Really tif? You think any post, or plurral posts, is fighting back when you openly admit that you won't change your way of thinking simply because you're being insulted? That is A. exceptionally childish, and B. ignorant to the point of stupidity. If you know I'm right, which I'm thinking you do because you continually back away from the issue, but you refuse to admit I'm right, just because you view me as a big bad wolf whose blowing your house down, then you are being a child.
Really, if the only thing you can do to fight back is copy and paste to show that I'm being harsh with you, then you really should just stop and not embarrass yourself anymore. Here's a bit of a news flash for you tif, I admit that I'm harsh. I admit I'm insulting you. I admit that I don't respect you. There's no need to copy and paste it, everyone knows, and not a lot of people are jumping to your defense.
Even the posts you thanked people for, except for BG's, were questioning me on why I seemed hippocritical. To which, I wrote an explanation, which was in turn accepted. There was no hippocracy involved. You're the only one with her granny pannies all wadded up over this.
Now, go back and try again and we'll talk when you actually start fighting back. Compose a thought of your own, don't copy and paste mine and think that they will serve you. You haven't earned that right yet.
Latino Sam, she's um, about 28 years old or something like that i think. so, i won't consider young?*smurk*
Tiff, the fact you feel copying and pasting is your way of insulting us, and attempting to prove your point that we're the ones whose views are wrong, is laughable.
as for your question of whether one of us has been told the world would be better off if we didn't exist, guess what? I sure have; more times than you can begin to imagine. but, you know what? I didn't let it have a negative impact on the way I live my life.
did it hurt as a child? yes, it did. however, I always knew it wasn't true, and found strength within myself to rise above it and actually make something of myself.
to answer shattered sanity's question about Cody and I appearing emotional on the boards, that's simply how we're perceived.
honestly, posting to them is a passtime for me, like it is Cody. as he also said, the reason we appear emotionally invested, is cause we've had to reiterate the same arguments more than anyone could probably imagine.
I won't bother repeating the rest of what he said, but, I've taken, and will continue to take a similar stance to any and every board topic I see fit to.
I also admit that I'm harsh, unafraid to call things as I see them, and don't respect things or people that have beliefs I think are utter crap. I accept that others believe differently than I do, but that's the extent of it.
as has been said time and time again, respect isn't, and shouldn't be given automatically. especially, not when people's views differ from one another.
Let me break it down for you, since you apparently don't get it. When you wish to make an argument, you do not do so with personal attacks. This will only put someone on the defence, meaning that whatever value your argument may have had is overshadowed by your insults. They then become a distraction from the point at hand. This does not mean, however, that I would never change my stance on an issue, if treated with civility, so that I could actually focus on the debate. That said, it doesn't mean that I will always change my mind, just because someone has a strong opinion on something. There comes a point when it's time to agree to disagree and move on. There are many other issues out there which are up for debate, and perhaps, you may convince me to follow your arguments on one of them.
I never said that copying and pasting is equivalent to insulting. If I want to insult, I can do so in several languages, by a bunch of childish name calling, and also wishing ill on people. But then I would be stooping to your level. No, what I did was "fight back", by using your own words against you, in order to prove my point about being attacked. I also used my previous words to prove that I repeatedly said that hitting a child is wrong. Am I the only one who took honor's logic and learned how to form an argument and back it up?
Since this topic is civility, I wanted to add the following:
I respect that people have strong opinions. However, I think it's pretty idealistic and fallacious to say that the most secure are the most blunt, and the most insecure are the most civil. Being comfortable in one's skin, or being secure, is completely separate from being blunt, or choosing to temper one's feelings with a bit of respect for the feelings of others.
Both are actually necessary in order for societies to function. But I have grown to rather resent the presumption by some on these boards that being blunt or less considerate makes them a more 'secure' or 'mature' person. I know quite a few unconfident people who are as diplomatic as a bull in a China shop, and there are quite a few of us, myself included, who have a reasonable amount of self-confidence but by either choice or personality aren't as blunt.
I would venture, though I usually leave talk of maturity to the younger pepole, that a mark of growing up is to be able to control one's personality traits: note I didn't say repress or suppress them. Simply harness them. That means whatever traits you have, to be able to maximize their usefulness. Some people, insecure or secure, have a bit less of a backbone, and so have to learn to step it up at times. I don't personally see any particular trait as either a virtue or a vice, nor is it a sign you have or haven't grown. It's all in how you manage what you've got. By all means, be blunt if you want, but don't presume blunt is an automatic certificate of maturity and self-confidence. Neither is being a peacemaker an automatic virtue: they're all just traits.
That was beautifully said, and I agree with all points! Neither one makes for maturity or makes you a better person. I'm all about being honest,, but there are still ways to do it. If someone has a horrible singing voice and asks me how she sounds, and whether she should try out for an audition, I'm not going to say "you sound so horrible that my ears are bleeding! Your high-pitched off-key voice could be taken for screeching!" I might say "well, honestly, singing isn't your strong point." And if asked to explain, I would say "you seem to have trouble holding a tune. I don't want to hurt you, but it's better that you hear it from a friend then to go out there and be told by the judges." Even if I didn't add the extra nicety, I still got the point across without being ridiculous about it. The same holds with clothing. If I came out looking like a clown, I would want my friend to tell me. Now a good friend could say "gee, are you trying out for the circus? You look like a clown," and we could laugh, because I know it's being said good-naturedly. Someone who doesn't know me that well, however, might say "well, I really wouldn't go out like that if I were you. The colours are all mismatched." In both cases, the person was looking out for me, so that I didn't make an ass of myself in public.
I agree with that. I can be blunt, but there is a limit. I still make an effert to consider one's feelings. After all, I understand that the world does not revolve around me. It is important to have a backbone, but there is no need to act like a ripe asshole.
The thing you fail to take into consideration though, is that I am not instantaneously harsh with you. My first posts are polite, somewhat respectful, if perhaps a bit sarcastic and humorous at times. Not on this board itself, but that is because this board is clearly an extention of another board, upon which my first response was polite as could be.
Its when I'm challenged, and more importantly, challenged poorly, or when you continue to defend positions which have clearly been proven wrong, that I begin to disrespect you. If you're not going to evolve, I'm not going to waste time trying to nurture you into a more rational and logical mindset. That isn't my job, and its not something I care to waste my time doing.
Now, if this were a more professional setting, or frankly if I actuallly cared about you, then I would. When debating in person, I use completely different tactics. Does that mean I am a different person, no, I just use different tactics. I prove the same points, and I am equally as hard in my delivery of them, but I use different tactics.
On here though, I do not really care whether you come away improved or not, I feel that is up to you. Thus, if you refuse to do so, as Tifanitsa clearly did in the post from which this is a spin off, then I refuse to treat you with anything resembling respect.
So to use Tif's example, I have told her that she is a bad singer, and yet she is continuing to screech into my ear. It is at that point that I unplug the microphone.
We are so set on respect these days, feeling as if it is something that is instantly deserved, and should be instantly supplied. This is utter nonsense. You don't get respect just because you're a person. You get respect for being more than a person. You are judged by your actions and your ideas. Since there are no actions on this site, you are judged only on your ideas. I find Tifanitsa's ideas to be moronically fictional, or terrifyingly cruel in the case of the child striking issue. Why am I being expected to treat either of those with anything resembling respect? She has not earned my respect yet. I invite her to, in which case I would treat her accordingly. Has no one noticed that I don't treat people like LEO Guardian, or Write Of Way, or Chelsea or a whole list of other people that wayy? That should tell you something.
to clear up leo's misunderstanding, I wasn't saying, or even trying to imply that just cause one is blunt, that means the person is more secure than someone who isn't. cause, as has been said plenty of times by several of us, everyone conveys themselves differently.
I respect those of you who aren't as blunt; in fact, in particular, I have tremendous respect for leo.
so, sorry for the misunderstanding. hope that clears things up.
No, being blunt or being sugary is no sign of security or maturity. I know incredibly secure people who just don't have the aggressive nature in order to be blunt, and I know blunt people who are blunt simply because they aren't secure. Usually, those people are denoted by them yelling really loud about things which are completely incorrect.
I do not want to come off as seeming that if you're not blunt you are insecure and worthless and whatnot. Its just that I don't see the need to be gentle, so to be told I should be is a bit insulting. I'm not asking anyone to be anything they're not, and I won't be anything I'm not. I'm not gentle.
No need to be extra gentle with others. Hell, I can come off as quite the prickler at times, but I make the effert to spare people. That's all I'm saying.
From what I've read this is a site moderation issue. Moderators should prevent and respond effectively to personal attacks. People should be able to disagree with each other without resorting to personal attacks.
Taking pride in things like bluntness and hard delivery is immature.
Fair enough Chelsea and Cody. And yes, neither of you have ever asked anyone to be what they're not. I can see that.
How is that immature? Taking pride in being completely and entirely honest without fear of backlash or unpopularity is immature? Please explain why.
As for the site moderators needing to get involved, first I don't think they could, nor do I think they want to. It would require them to read all the boards, and then find some reaction which would nullify the situation. Secondly, what do you consider personal attacks? Because if we're really going to be technical, you just insulted me by saying that mmy stance is immature. I don't care, but if you're going to have a governing body, you have to have a set of rules. Where would your rule of overwatch end, at calling someone immature?
I think not being able to handle other people insulting you is immature. My opinion of you shouldn't matter to you, who am I to you? I'm just some guy on a website, why in the world would you get insulted at what I say?
I agree most with posts 77 and 84.
The main thing we should take from this discussion is that if you're going to post on a forum, you should probably expect any and all possible reactions. You may not agree with every single one you get, but if you're always in agreement with everyone you know in real life, too, I would be worried.
I personally can separate a person from their beliefs, even online, even though we don't have much to go on. But I do try to read other posts the person has made, maybe on less heated topics, to try to paint a broader picture of what the people in question are like. Of course, I could be totally off base, but that's the beauty of it: on a forum, it doesn't really matter, because what you see is what you get, and you can't really do anything about it, so why fight it? On the other hand, there are people here who don't wish to take someone's full personality into account, and honestly, neither approach is right or wrong. It's like if you went to a concert and some drunk guy is stumbling all over the place, knocking people down, and then he throws up on you. Are you going to be pissed off? Sure. But are you going to see him again? Probably not. It's kind of like that here, and on any other online presence you choose to have. You may find people obnoxious, and they might shit on your head from time to time, but is there really anything you can do about it? And, more importantly, does it matter whether you could or not?
As an aside, I do agree with Leo about the point he made. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round. That means aggressors, pacifists, and every other personality type in between. Just because my style isn't to ridicule someone when they're wrong doesn't mean there aren't a hundred people who do just that, and just because that's what they do doesn't mean you have to start bending to their will.
I believe, and this is a personal opinion, as everyone has their own levels/groups, that there are various levels of respect. The first is given to everyone, and includes being cordial and civil. The second is given to friends, particularly after you've learned that you can trust them with basic things. The third is given to very close friends and family, when you know that, no matter what, you can trust them and they'll always look out for you. The fourth is given to national saviours, heroes, great philosophers, and so on, who have earned the respect of the world. The fifth is given to The Gods Themselves. Sometimes, I merge the second and third, but the first is always a given. I will respect someone on a common level, unless they prove to me that I should do otherwise, usually by attacking me for no reason, lying, or trying to harm me in some way. That said, I do agree that I don't respect people for just being people and/or human. It's just that I can't judge people until I get to know them, and see no reason why I can't be at least cordial to most individuals whom I meet.
Thank you, Senior, for post 84. I never even thought of this being a moderation issue, as The Zone is largely unmoderated. ShatteredSanity, you made excellent points in post 88. I think it's a wonderful thing that you try to get to know more about the personalities from people based on their other posts, and I'm sure their profiles as well. Most of the time, I'm very approachable. I don't always answer private quicknotes here, as many times, I'm on The Boards, and by the time I see them, much time has passed. But I almost always answer MSN immediately, and Facebook, if I'm running AIM.
As for moderating board topics, I don't see that flying around here any time soon. It's not unusual for other forums to have sometimes strict standards, but this isn't one of them. Changing that, after the site has been running the way it has for what, 9 years now, would definitely be an unpopular decision, and I wouldnt be surprised if it caused lots of people to leave the site. Then there's the fact that it wouldn't stop at board topics. Staff would be called into every squabble that happened in quicknotes, even private ones, I bet. Imposing stricter moderation at this point in the game would cause more problems than it would solve.
I wonder if we're all on the same page as regards what the meaning of respect is, and specifically what is reasonable to ask of anyone, religious or atheist, or what is asking too much. Since I do not like getting into big bad long debates, I do want to point out, I'm an atheist, just like Cody and Chelsea and a few others who've posted here. My impression is that the way many religious folks define respect, in my point of view, is asking too much. To say one must never question, criticize, or openly lampoon a person's religious beliefs, to me, is asking too much. Disagreement is not a hate crime, it is not persecution. Saying belief in invisible magic sky people is not persecution, it's expressing an opinion. Vandalizing your property, burning your house down, threatening your life because we're afraid of the different or the strange, that is persecution. As one atheist, although I do not understand or agree with religion, I'm not going to waste my time trying to hurt or threaten people. Besides, that's not nice. But I will openly disagree with you if I have a mind in the places where I am allowed to do so. I will not treat you like royalty because you're religious when I don't treat others like royalty. I'm not going to walk around on tiptoe for your sake, that's asking too much.
And on the other hand, I seem to never see atheists making board posts claiming they are generally put upon by the world, picked on, questioned, being accused of every nasty thing there is, being accused of being associated with groups such as Communists, devil worshippers, or Muslim extremists, merely because such groups are not understood very deeply and yet are considered pretty much the most evil of evils. This shows ignorance of what atheism really is and what it really means. Muslim terrorists, my foot! We as atheists expect persecution at every turn and all we get is being disagreed with. If we're comfy in our beliefs, we can deal with disagreement, it doesn't kill us. Some of us take the bait and start a lively debate. Others, like me, just let it roll by and sometimes stick our heads in for a word or three.
Chris brought up a great point. when people who subscribe to any religion demand atheists respect their beliefs, we feel they're asking too much.
although they aren't directly articulating the fact they want us to accept them without second thought, or attacks on said beliefs, that's what they're aiming for.
in short, this idea that's often perpetuated about us giving into their request for respect simply cause they're religious, is utter lunacy.
we're smart enough to know our atheism isn't widely accepted, and guess what? as Chris said, you don't see us wining about that fact, or the fact that, more often than not, we lose contact with people after they find out about the beliefs we hold...all cause of misconceptions the majority of the world has about what atheism is, isn't, and who we are, and aren't as people.
despite this, we move on, and, in mine and Cody's case, allow that sort of attitude to fuel our outspokenness.
Silver lightning brings to mind a part of human nature I'd like to explore. People get so upset about the "online world." It shouldn't be taken so personally, yet it often is. hmmm.
I can't speak for everyone, but it's not so much that we want atheists (or even others of different faiths) to respect our beliefs exactly. It's more like we want others to respect our rite to hold those beliefs, and to treat us less like dirt scraped off a boot and more like human beings with ideas and principles just as valid as yours. This is embellishing, and I admit that. But hopefully the point can be discerned. I can accept that there are facets of my religion that are very difficult for those who do not believe to swallow. It's how I feel about certain other beliefs like Scientology. But the beliefs we hold are as valid as those which you atheists hold. I can see by that last post, and others before it that you have likely dealt with your own intollerence regarding your beliefs. But I for one don't think all atheists are evil, or even bad people. Far from it. Perhaps there is a lot of misconception flying around on both sides. I've said this before - probably more than once. Our beliefs are not what define our actions towards one another. Whether one chooses to believe in a higher power or not matters little in the day-to-day interactions, and even debates. We can disagree, but that does not mean we need to be douchebags about it. Those of us who have suffered one degree of intollerence or another should be especially sensitive to how we treat others. If we treat others the same ill way they treat us, then what have we gained? I am straying perhaps too close to the single topic of religion again, but this applies to all beliefs and ideals.
I understand what you are saying but picture this:
What if I came to you and said that I believe in magic dragons. I then read a book to you that I found on the subject. Would you not wiggle about in your seat? Wouldn't you wonder if I had gone mad? Of course you would!
Naw, I'd give ya a great big hug and say, "welcome to the brotherhood of the Dragon."
Depends on the book perhaps. But if you actually believed that and it wasn't making you a danger to society, who am I to judge? Sure I might question the origins and content of that book, but if you truly believed in it and you didn't want to make me into dragon food, I might scratch my head and wonder about you, but I'd hardly make a huge production about my misgivings. Though the example is moot because I do believe dragons in some form existed at some point; every legend has at least some truth.
BG, something you said in a pm you sent me, is worth mentioning. since you don't check your messages often anyway, I won't bother responding with another one. we shall continue our discussion on this topic, as what I have to say is relevant to what's being discussed here.
you assume I'm only civil to those whose opinions closely mirror mine, which is perhaps the most ignorant/judgmental thing I've heard in awhile. not to mention, it's as far from the truth as one could possibly get.
you've never gotten to know Cody, myself, or any other outspoken atheist outside of the board posts you've seen that you allow to make your skin crawl, cause it's beyond you, and many who share similar views as you to get to know people in spite of this one belief you take issue with.
and, you know what? I have to say, it's you who's missing out. I guarantee, if you were open minded enough to realize and accept that being an atheist doesn't define us, I'm almost certain we'd share other interests, and that you'd like us as people.
because, we are, in fact, moral, kind, caring, compassionate, and any number of other adjectives society often thinks we're not.
for someone who claims to try hard not to find fault with others, though, there's a perfect example the exact opposite is actually true.
as has been said countless times by myself and others, we always start out in discussions nicely. however, when people like you come along, continuously misinterpret what we're trying to convey, and go off in a corner when we refuse to respect your beliefs without question, or challenges thrown your way, some of us are gonna attack that, like it or not.
I've realized that the zone isn't a place where most can handle different approaches, so I'm simply sharing my thoughts cause backing down isn't my way of life.
I would like to add to the last post by saying that I think it is a shame that your religion has to define you as much as you think our atheism defines us.
I totally agree. things like religion, or atheism, or political views, or level of education/income, or whether a person has straight or curly hair should not define an individual. Not saying that these things aren't important, but there's just so much more than that.
That's the problem Happy; I don't judge whether a person is atheist or not. My oppinions of you and others are formed by my interactions with you on these boards, and it is clear that I am not alone in my interpretations of many of your words. Does that mean I think you are an evil or even a bad person? Not at all. I'm sure you are caring and kind, though I personally have not witnessed much of that in my limited interactions with you. Whether you and others are emotionally invested in such topics, I really don't know. Though I find it interesting that you felt the need to let this bubble over into the realm of private messages, only to say pretty much the same thing you're saying publically. But as cliche as this is going to sound, some of my really good friends ar atheists, and somehow that's never been an issue. If you object to my beliefs that's fine; I have no problem with that, even if you often do come off like you consider my responses well beneath you. Could that be my own perception? Certainly. Maybe if these topics were vocal it would be easier to distinguish your true intent by your voices. Unfortunately this is text, and that often brings with it a certain loss in translation. But I've had enough discussions with people with differing oppinions to have a pretty good idea of their dispositions. And whether or not Tiff is everything some of you are saying she is, I do have to agree with her with regards to this topic. Believe it or not Happy, my feelings about this aren't directed mearly towards you, or even towards you and Lightning. I've seen so much inappropriate and foul behavior directed towards others on this site (especially in quicknotes) to make me seriously reevaluate the blind community as a whole. Sure some of that is done in fun, but I really wonder how much.
BG, since you clearly don't get the point, I'll say it for you in simple words, one last time. ready?
I speak similarly throughout these board topics, and in private messages I send, because you fail to understand where I (and others who share my beliefs) are coming from.
if you accepted them the first time, we wouldn't have to sound like a broken record.
notice, I didn't say you should respect our beliefs; simply that you oughta try accepting their existence, and perhaps consider getting to know us for who we actually are, rather than continue to hide behind your incorrect ideas/assumptions.
the fact you choose not to get to know me/others who share my views outside of the boards, is perfectly fine. I just had to point out that that was the case, cause I think it's important for people to know the truth. I mean, you talk about acting with civility; yet, here you are, avoiding atheists like the judgmental mormon you aren't.
A....voiding? avoiding? You're serious about this. I'm not sure how I gave off THAT particular impression. I will be happy to have a straight conversation with any Atheist, including anyone here. I simply haven't encountered You, lightning or anyone else in any sort of interaction aside from these board posts. Furthermore there have been topics - not many mind you - that have nothing to do with anything like this at all where one or both of you have offered me or others some pretty darn good suggestions; and I said as much. I'd also like to point out that you're one person; one atheist, and one name in a sea of people I have met and interacted with. There's no way for you to varify this, but as I've said, I do have various atheistic acquaintances, and even friends, as well as Wikkans, Muslims, Jews.... I really don't care who or what a person does or doesn't believe in, as long as they treat me and others around them with kindness. Obviously you've determined through our interactions that I judge you harshly, or disrespect you. Maybe you really feel that way, or maybe you just like to turn things back upon others and create contention and drama. I don't know, but if you want to have a conversation great. Send me a message; I'll be happy to get to know the person you really are, as long as you grant me the same courtacy of course. I absolutely accept that you believe the way you do as I've said time and time again. I have no idea how you think otherwise about me, but if I've given you that impression, please, by all means let me know how (a straight answer) and we'll see what we can do about that. perhaps we both judge each other too harshly and are completely misunderstanding one another. It's possible I suppose. All I know is I try my best not to look down on your beliefs. I've never called them or you stupid, and never belittled you for the way you view the world. If you think otherwise, by all means let me know how I have done so, lest I keep making the same unintentional mistake.
Wait, blind community? Here we go again. How many times have I seen comments suggesting that what happens on the zone somehow reflects the so called blind community? Plenty of times! Yes, the boards seem to be the place to orchistrate a pissing contest. Yes, it can get out of hand. But you are going to "reevaluate" all of the blind based on that? Seems a bit silly to me.
While I believe that yes, there is a blind community, I don't see my actions as being representative of it, for the most part. Now if someone asks me about blindness and I get nasty, for no good reason, then that will reflect badly on all of us. But usually, I'm more focussed on representing other parts of myself. Having said that, since most of us here are blind or visually-impaired, and since many of us have been here for a long time, I do consider this place to be like a community, and I believe that we should respect one another even more for that.
I just have to throw this in here. Since BG is comparing Chelsea's, and thus mine since we are so similar, actions and behavior on here to the blind community at large, I feel something must be pointed out. Chelsea and I, with a bit of assistance from others, are the most hard-charging, in your face, kick your ass and not care when you bleed on our rug assholes on this site. That may sound conceited, but its kinda true. Even if you hate us, you have to admit, there's no one else quite like us.
So, because we are the only ones on here, how can we possibly be compared to the blind community? There isn't even anyone else on here like us, let alone in the rest of the blind community that has no idea this site even exists? Really BG, your argument just falls on its face, and its rather comical. For one who hates it when Chelsea or I lump you together with the christians you claim not to be like, you are really doing a lot of lumping.
Anyone who has had the meanest exposure to the blind community at large will tell you its A. nothing like this places since there is far less sex, and B. exactly like every other community since it is in fact made up of all walks of life and personalities. So please, stop lumping everyone together. If you hate me and chelsea, which is no skin off my nose if you do, don't lump us in with the rest of the blind community. Its not fair to us, and its not fair to them, and its not fair to those on here who don't claim to be part of or a reflection of the so-called blind community.
To phrase it simply, practice what you preach.
very, very well stated, Cody. not only do I wholeheartedly agree with what you said, but I'll say it for myself, lest BG wrongly have cause to assume you're simply defending me.
BG, if I implied in my last post that I'm deeply offended/perhaps even lose sleep over the fact you refuse to get to know me outside the boards, let me assure you, that isn't the case.
it's no sweat off my back whether you choose to or not. atheism isn't my life; it's simply one aspect of who I am, unlike the way religious folks such as yourself allow religion to dictate your entire being.
traits of mine and Cody's that are often brought up such as our bluntness, outspokenness, unwillingness to back down from stances we take, etc, are discussed as if BG and others think we are, or should be ashamed of them. however, I'd argue all of those are aspects of our personalities the two of us embrace most.
we aren't asking or anticipating that others like them. in fact, what we do accept is the fact that most likely won't. and, I know, for me, that's one of the greatest joys ever.
yes, I just said that I like it when people don't find my way of conveying myself appealing.
you know why? cause, not only does that sort of thing build character if one allows it to, but it shows me I'm doing something right.
it's perfectly fine to not like everyone, cause, contrary to this notion I feel is indirectly being perpetuated here that we should all get along and be friendly towards one another, that's no way to go if one wants to get far in life.
knowing I not only have a backbone, but am willing, eager, and ready to defend myself, my friends, and my points of view as often as I need to, and with as much force as is warranted, is something to be proud of, not shy away from. I'd venture to guess Cody feels/thinks similarly.
oh, and Cody's comment about us being the most in your face, not care if you bleed on our rug assholes, is a perfect description of who I am.
and, you know what? this may shock some of you, but I'm damn proud of that.
Chelse and Cody, I'm proud to know your kick your ass selves. I don't know where I'd be if you guys didn't call me on ome of my shit and helped me see other sides of things that I wouldn't have known. I suggeset other people look at other sides than their own and see things through a different perspective.
Glad to be of service Sam.
And for all of those people who felt like typing out some retort in the nature of, "But cody and chelsea only see their side of an issue, shouldn't they see both sides too?" How do you think we got these ideas? Its not like they just pop into our heads cuz we eat our wheaties folks. We actually have gone through this stuff, and come out with a better understanding of the perils which lie within.
BG, if you're going to talk about the blind community, just remember that by being blind, you are a part of it. if you think badly of any particular group, you wouldn't want to be part of that group, would you. Much like Senior, who used a personal attack to personally attack the act of personally attacking people, your own post proves that you're guilty of the very thing you've accused others of doing. Don't throw stones from a glass house.
Wow! There's your problem, right there! You don't understand the necessity of compromise, of getting along, and of actually caring enough of what others think, to at least be respectful. I'm not saying let them dictate your thoughts and actions, or to be afraid to speak your mind. But to actually be glad that others don't find your ways appealing? I can't help but wonder why you socialise with people at all in that case. Being able to defend yourself is great, but there are times and places when it's appropriate, and also ways which fit the situation. Hopefully, in most cases, you're not going to disagree with a boss or teacher in the same way you disagree with a friend or loved one.
This is how the world works. People aren't always going to get along and go along with everything because they don't want to hurt your feelings. It would be a boring place if everyone did that.
I never said agree with everything or be afraid to speak for fear of hurting people's feelings. I just said be civil.
Why should I be civil though? To be perfectly bllunt about it, why in the world would I be civil about opinions which I find abhorrant and bewilderingly idiotic? Sure, if we're having a discussion about chocolate and whether dark is better than white chocolate, then I wouldn't defend my opinions so vehemently, because that doesn't really matter. But when it comes to things like hitting children, or religion which poisons the minds of children and frequently destroys lives and families in this and other countries, which has fueld wars and hatred beyond the scope of imagination, why in the world would I be civil about it?
Let's make a deal. This is not just for our original poster, but for all religious folks here. If you're wanting respect, civil treatment and never to be questioned, criticized, or even made fun of here in society, we're all just going to have to strike up a deal according to the following conditions. Put your money where your mouth is. That is to say, afford us atheists the exact same treatment you want from atheists and other outsiders whom you see as a threat somehow. I mean, after all, aren't all your holy books filled with commands to do that very thing? You've not had a very good record of following through with that over the centuries, and now we've got one seriously pissed-off piper that's wanting some pay if you know what I mean.
Now, before you jump in there with both feet and overconfidently believe you can do this, I'm needing to draw up some examples so you know just what you're getting into.
No longer may you associate atheists with entire groups of people that you seem to not understand all that well but you know deep down to your core that they are the worst sorts of people that can ever dare breathe the Earth's atmosphere. Such groups include but definitely are not limitted to: Communists, Muslim terrorists, or worshippers of the Christian devil creature. Again, these are just the most common examples. Nope, you will have to completely refrain from doing this.
No longer will you accuse atheists of being behind the total suckiness and downfall of everything in your decidedly gloomy outlook on everything earthly. We do not brainwash children, there are no grand government conspiracies, and we did not pick anybody's god up and throw him out of government-funded public schools. And, once and for all, we are not out to ruin Christmas! You will either have to find other unsuspecting groups to blame, or, here's a novel thought, look in your own mirrors and face the monsters that lurk there instead of looking for monsters down your street.
You no longer can walk up to any unsuspecting atheist and, once you discover they are atheist, start quizzing them about how human life or the planet earth got here. Those are questions to ask only qualified people, like scientists or philosophers. Somehow, I don't think the answer involves talking snakes either, just so you know ahead of time. Nope, quizz time is over.
And again, what I've laid down here is just the tip of one monstrous iceberg, but hopefully you'll get the gist of what my little deal is all about. So, which is it? Deal or no deal?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't go around attacking atheists for their lack of belief. I may not understand it, and I may question it, in order to learn more about their views, but I won't resort to calling them names or making assumptions about them just because they're atheists. I think that pure secularism (notice I didn't say atheism) is as dangerous as a theocracy. There must be balance. So while I don't believe in forced prayer in public schools, for example, I do think that, should someone wish to pray quietly on his own, he should have the right to do so.
Hey, if all the religious folks did all their praying and worshiping at home and kept it out of everyone else's business, that'd be poifect.
Why can't we have our own places of worship? We're not forcing you to join us? As for prosyletisers, I can understand your point. They can be quite annoying, especially when you respectfully ask them to stop and they continue.
Tif, you can't have a secular theocracy. That's like having a black white person, or having a jumbo shrimp, or having military intelligence, in short those are contradictions in terms. Secular means nonreligious, theocracy means run by the church. You can't have a nonreligious run by the church society.
I'm not advocating a theocracy of any kind. The laws should be based on secular reasoning, not on religion. These places of worship should have nothing to do with the laws of the land, and everything to do with the beliefs of the people who go to them. And how is military intelligence a contradiction?
Right. Your place of worship can be your house.
Certainly, the home is an important place of worship. But what is wrong with a public one? It's not as if we'd be worshipping in the street, blaring loud things, or forcing anyone to join us.
So, noone so far is up for taking Godzilla's deal? Why am I not surprised? that's all well and good, but instead of pointing out that you haven't attacked atheists, why not just refrain from doing it? that'll demonstrate this fact a lot better. to put it another way: If the leasing office at your apartment complex hands out letters to every one of their tennants reminding everyone that they need to pay their rent on time, do you think it would be in your best interest to run over to the leasing office and personally let them know that you've always paid on time? Even if it's true, you're just bringing attention to yourself, and now everyone will remember you if you're so much as 1 day late. the same applies here. Now that you've pointed out that you don't attack atheists, if you utter so much as one word that might even remotely be considered an attack to anyone, everyone will remember.
Certainly, the home is an important place of worship. But what is wrong with a public one? It's not as if we'd be worshipping in the street, blaring loud.
Again, keep it out of other people's business. Wanna worship with your friends? Invite them to your house. Simple as that.
So then we shouldn't have any businesses relating to personal things. No more hair salons/barber shops, clothing stores, bookstores, music stores etc. All revolve around preferences, so all should be ordered from the home. I don't really think that makes sense. How am I interfeering in your business if I go to a temple or church? The only way I can possibly see that argument making sense is with things like church bells, loud speakers with prayer etc. What if, for the sake of argument, those were banned or only aloud inside the church? Would it make a difference? You could pass one each day and not know what's going on.
No more hair salons/barber shops, clothing stores, bookstores, music stores etc.
You are blowing things way out of proportion. I said nothing about those types of places.
I know that. But they, like places of worship, are related to personal preferences. It's just that in the case of religious places, we're talking faith instead of products. Let's take another example to demonstrate my point. I don't like tattoos. So I would never go to a tattoo parlour to get one for myself. I could pass one every day, even get fliers for it, but I still wouldn't go. But maybe my neighbour loves them. In a free society, why shouldn't she be able to get as many tattoos as she wants? She's not bothering me with them and the owner of the place isn't banging on my door, demanding that I visit his establishment.
Why the hell should religion be a business and not a private afair?
Why should people not have the right to come together and worship in a place that's not someone's house? I guess it really depends on the religion. There are two sides to Hellenic Polytheism, the home worship and the public worship. Granted, we don't do much public worshipping today, and if we did, it would probably need to be modified for modern society. But my home is not a temple. Why, hypothetically, can't a temple be built so that those of us who follow The Gods can go and worship. Even in Christian settings, churches are often meeting places for worshippers. So after the mass is over, they go and have lunch and catch up on regular events. I certainly don't have room for a few hundred people, or even fifty, in my home. *smile* But a church/temple does. And what about working to help the community? I'm sure most people don't have room to stock tons of food or clothing in their homes for food and clothing drives.
So then you improvise your own little temple in your home with whatever resources that are available to you? I dunno. I'm not gonna get into the whole "religion is required to be charitable" thing. That's been pretty well covered on other boards.
Alright Lightning, Happy, I agree. I should not have compared the actions on the Zone here to the blind community as a whole. That was rather silly, and I take it back. It's not really what I meant, but after reading it, it definately makes sense that you called me on it.
Godzilla, I will be happy to take you up on your deal. I definatley thought I'd made my feelings towards atheists quite clear, but perhaps you all missed that. No matter. I see no reason to repeat myself, but I will say I don't have a problem with a person who is an atheist, A muslim, an Agnaustic, or anything. I form my oppinions of a person based on their actions, how they treat me, and how they treat others. I'll be more than happy to treat any atheist here like a human being with individual personalities, needs, desires, beliefs and characteristics....because yes, that's what you are. I don't care what you believe, as I've said time or time again. But in return I would like the same courtacy, again as I have already said. You don't have to agree with a religious person's beliefs to respect that we believe them. No matter how foolish you find them. I don't agree with your views either, but I accept that you whole-heartedly believe in what you believe, and I understand that you've made your decisions based on your own personal experience. I believe too that you're intelligent enough to make those decisions based on your own perceptions of the research you've done. So why is it so difficult for some of you Atheists to realize the same things about people who believe differently?? Not every religious person is the monster you equate with some of the terrible things that religion has purpotrated throughout history. Judge us as individuals, not by a blanket of religious bias. For the record, I have quite a huge problem with many of the things religion as a whole has done in the name of its ideals. But I also accept that much of those deeds were done by fowlable humans in the grip of whatever destructive emotion drove them to commit such acts. I myself do try really hard not to misrepresent my faith. I'm not perfect, but I'm no monster either. I might not agree with your beliefs as I said; I may even challenge them at times. But I will never call you stupid, or foolish, or childish because you believe the way you do. And I will never tell you you're going to hell, because I personally don't believe that for a second, because as I said before, the hereafter isn't that cut and dry.
Impricator, everyone has the rite to believe and worship however they like, or nothing at all. We are - supposedly - a society of equal rites. So you saying nobody should pray in public? Why should we not? Why should it offend you? Most prayer is silent and rather inconspicuous. When I pray in public, I bow my head, shut my eyes and either think the words to myself or whisper them. Explain to me why that is a problem? Explain to me why having a place to meet every week is a problem? Explain to me why, if I have to listen to other people blaspheme my God, swear insessently, abuse one another, infest my lungs with smoke, and show a general disregard for anything around them, should I not be allowed to talk about my religion to people who are genuinely interested, pray in public and have buildings in which to meet. I don't agree with the way some people choose to live their lives or present themselves in public, but except in extreme circumstances, I'm going to let them be. Because I simply live a different standard than they do, and I accept that. Notice that I didn't say a better standard, or a more righteous standard, just a different one.
Because religion is like a penis.
Praying is, or at least can be, different from preaching. You don't need to preach to pray. Keeping that in mind, I don't have a problem with public prayer, so long as nothing, individual or group related, is disrupted by this activity. I don't believe that prayer is any more than a sense of psychological self-satisfaction. Consequently, why should I care if someone does it in public? Even if you are praying out loud, as long as you don't break my focus on whatever it is I'm trying to do at the time, I really don't care. Preaching, on the other hand, involves taking time out of someone else's day, which is why I draw the line here.
Yeah, if you wanna sit on a bus bench with your eyes closed and your head down and quietly send out bursts of thought to your invisible daddy in the sky, I don't care. Out loud? Nope, put your dick back in your pants.
hahahaha lol Imprecator. :)
Silver lightning and happy heart. I am shocked that you take pride in beeing theese rough and tumble, don't give a fuck ass holes. Sounds like a teenaged mentality. "You don't understand me, mom!"
That would be rebellion, we're not being proud of rebellion. We're proud of the fact that we are willing to fight for what we believe in. We don't just back down because someone might get offended, or on the flip side of the coin, because we might be proven wrong. We throw our opinions out there to be torn apart by the wolves, and we do it without fear. I'd say that's something to be proud of, wouldn't you?
Okay, Granted Ocean. I can see how unwanted preaching can be frustrating; I've heard enough of that in my lifetime to be able to agree with you whole-heartedly. But this is how I understand what you're saying. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. You want anyone who has a religious belief to keep it hidden, at least to the point that you don't have to be affected by it in any way shape or form. So what you're getting at is that people's religious utterences offend you, upset you or annoy you. Whatever the case may be. I can accept that. I'm not one to make a public testicle out of my religious beliefs. That said, if someone asks me why in the world I don't drink alcahol, I'm going to assume they're actually curious and not just looking to get a rise out of me. If I start talking about what I believe and they aren't interested, I'm not going to continue. You can't have a worth-while conversation about something if the person you're talking to could really care less about said topic. If they act interested, I'm going to continue. Tell me why there is a problem with such public discussions.
On the other hand, say everything's the problem. Say any sort of religious activity outside of a secluded area is a terrible thing that nobody wants to see for whatever reason. I don't necessarily want to see and hear a whole lot of things that go on around me. People talking about how drunk they got on the weekend and how they banged that one girl at the bar is an example. Some angry father screaming and verbally abusing his little daughter just because she happened to touch his arm with a cheezie encrusted hand is another. People mouthing off and spewing mindless and uncreative obscenities as if they were punctuation marks is another. Or even just someone talking waaaaay too loudly on a cell phone. Strange examples given the context perhaps. My point is I have to deal with it, for the most part without protest, even though I certainly don't agree with or condone that behavior. Tell me why that sort of thing is okay, while my public displays of religious observance is not? I don't condemn anyone as a heathen, I don't say they're going to burn in hell because they don't believe the way I do. My actions harm no one. The worst I hope I ever do is unintentionally offend someone who probably just wants to be offended. Ocean, You don't like religion, that's fine. You've told me a little of the reasons why, and I can accept them. But please don't expect it to just disappear because you don't like it. Someone specific gets under your skin and condemns you for being who you are, begrudge that person. It has been stated by an Atheist that they do not want to be lumped into one catagory and condemned for what they believe. That is a completely reasonable and important expectation. But the opposite also holds true. Treat others the way you want to be treated. That rule doesn't just apply to someone who is religious.
Public testical? Please don't make a public testical out of anything, especially your testicals.
BG, to give my own four cents, the only problem I have with public religion is when it tries to enter into social or political life. Gay marriage, for example, should be a social matter, not a religious one. Voting is political, not religious. Religious should talk in the churches, about the churchhes, nothing more. Anything more, and they are political, not religious.
I actually agree with BG on this. There are far more disgusting things that people do in public than pray, or stream in and out of a church on Sunday morning. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in this topic. I know you all wish religion would just go away, but that's not happening. Why not try to accept it? Sure, we all have our pet peeves. I, too, don't particularly care for it when people talk loudly on a cell phone, or hock up their loogies and spit them on the sidewalk, or smell like they haven't taken a shower in months and choose to sit next to me on the bus. But I can't eliminate those behaviors in people. I can be annoyed with them, I can even wish people weren't rude, but people have their habits. Religion is like a habit, and I do mean that in the sense that it's a drug to most people who practice it. I consider myself an agnostic at this point, though I'm leaning towards atheism. But I just thought I'd point that out because I don't think keeping your dick in your pants is really a relevant way of describing it.
Oh, and as a side note, religion could be practiced in the home easily. The Amish have their religious services in their homes sometimes, and I'm sure you all know how famous they are for having huge families. Not only that, but when I was younger, and considered myself a Christian, my mom once told me, "You don't need to go to church to praise God. Do it by living your life and being grateful to him for what you have." It made a lot of sense, maybe not from the religious point of view she meant it from, but as a general rule, you don't really need to surround yourself with other people to pray or feel close to whatever deity or deities you worship. It's all about how you feel in your heart, not how much money you give to an organization that's probably not using it for anything legitimate anyway.
I was actually gonna mention the Amish thing, but I kept forgetting.
The_Blind_Guardian, that was very well-said and I couldn't agree with you more. Not all religious people are the same, and yet, we seem to fall under a blanket with many atheists, just as many religious people do to them. But not all of us are like that, as you and I have demonstrated. I, too, judge people on personality and not their faith, and I don't think it's wrong to ask that much of everyone else. Imprecator, if religion is like a penis, then we we definitely don't want to get rid of it! *smile* OceanDream, I agree with you about the difference between praying and preaching, which is why I don't believe in prosyletisation. But why can we not go to places where people preach to us, in said building if we desire it? I know you didn't speak against this, but I'm throwing it out here. Even out loud, what's the issue. So long as we're not screaming it or directing it at others, what's the problem? Granted, I don't pray that way, but I suppose others may.
SilverLightning, sticking to your beliefs is fine. But there's no need to be rude about them. And why on Earth would you not back down when you have been proven wrong? Is this not hypocritical of you, being that you've accused me of not doing the same?
The_Blind_Guardian, public testical? That made me laugh! But I agree with you. If someone is completely uninterested in what I'm saying, why should I continue discussing it? On the other hand, if someone shows interest, why should I not discuss it? Let's say I'm on a bus, and talking with someone. For whatever reason, she and I get into the topic of religion and she starts asking me questions about mine. Should I not answer her just because there might be atheists on the bus? I also agree that there are many things that I don't want to hear. But in a free society, people have the right to say them. These are not strange examples at all, and demonstrated the point quite nicely.
SilverLightning, I agree with you about the separation of church and state, particularly as it involves things like marriage, voting, etc. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, or even allow them to attend services, that's their business. But they shouldn't try to make laws/rules outside of a religious context. Certainly, that would be effecting everyone, whether or not they're members of that church or faith.
ShatteredSanity, I agree with you that religion should be something that you feel inside, not merely an outward projection. At the same time, as a practitioner of a faith whose members are scattered all over the country and world, I do think there's something to be said for worshiping together. I've never done it and would like to do so. Some of our festivals etc. really are made for public worship, and it's difficult to partake in them on your own.
BG, as it happens, you do appear to have misunderstood my post, and I'm not really sure why. didn't I say, very clearly: I don't care if you pray in public, even out loud, so long as you aren't disturbing anything or anyone? By disturbing, I mean inhibiting someone's ability to carry on with their daily lives. Preaching is a different story, but preaching means you are actively seeking someone out and trying to convince them to follow your religion and your belief system, whether they've chosen to hear this or not. I never said, or even implied that I want religion to disappear.
if you're talking about taking issue with people who ask about your beliefs and why you choose to believe what you do, and then get offended when you talk about it, that much I can understand. that falls into the "don't ask if you don't want an honest answer" category. But this isn't what I've been talking about here.
Cody is right about our attitudes not having anything to do with rebellion, and everything to do with fearlessly throwing our opinions out there cause we wholeheartedly believe in them.
how many times have you heard us crying about religious people constantly saying we're wrong, calling us names, or placing us far below them? show of hands, please. none, that's right, folks, none!
for the record, from what I've seen on the boards, and experienced with the zoner atheists I know personally, I can say that none of us have ever advocated religion completely disappearing.
we've said we can't stand it, think it's poisonous to the world/humanity as a whole, but we're smart enough to know that nothing we say or do will immediately change its existence. so, why not speak out about it, just cause many others find fault with our doing so?
I assure you all, that isn't gonna happen, despite the fact many of you indirectly wish it would.
besides, if religion went away, we'd have to find something else to firmly critique.
and, as sure as I am that we'd succeed, I'm one who loves picking apart arguments religious people put forth that are so obviously flawed, and discussing the freedom atheism provides, every chance I get.
although those things are also tiring, I realize (and I'm sure Cody does, too) that if we don't speak up about atheism, the truly wonderful quality of life it allows for, no one else will have the balls to do so. or, if they do, they'll quickly back down the second religious folks make them feel like lesser people.
so, yes, it's crucial that Cody, myself, and others stand up for the ways in which religion continues to ruin the world.
I see what you are saying. As you know, I too am an atheist. However, by preaching about it don't you make that a religion in some way? Many on here have learned my feelings on religion which is exactly I don't go around spreading the gospel of atheism. It just doesn't make sense to me. How can we talk about freedom and such when we sufficate those around us with our views? Also, yes, don't ever back down from what you believe but no need to be rude, as tif says. I hate all religions for many reason but what good will it do to say that? I don't think anybody really gives a fuck do they?
We're not preaching; we're having a debate. This is a forem, and reading/responding is completely voluntary. if you have something to say, please, speak up. Now, if I pulled you aside, either in public or otherwise, asked you about your beliefs, and then proceeded to lecture you about how incredibly liberating atheism is if you would just give it a chance, without giving you a chance to express whether you would like to hear my opinion or not, then I would be preaching. A two-sided conversation does not apply. Likewise, if I ask you about your beliefs and why you choose to follow the religion of your choosing, then I can't accuse you of preaching because I am voluntarily taking part in this discussion. I don't wish for religion to disappear for the same reason I don't want atheism to disappear. O, by the way, if you take issue with people talking loudly on their cell phones in public, music listened to so loudly that you can clearly hear it even if the person is wearing headphones, and any other common *minor* annoyances, you really have no room to complain that we take issue with you praying out loud in public. Once again, I have no issue with a prayer spoken in a quiet to moderate voice, because at this rate, you're probably not disturbing me or anyone else, much the same way someone's discrete phone conversation probably won't disturb anyone. But if you feel the need to shout your words of grace, you're no better than the loud phone talkers, and all the other people BG mentioned as an example. it's not that I have any issue hearing the word "God". You are simply distracting me, much like the people shouting into their cell phones.
no, margorp, I don't, for a second, think we should quiet down regarding our stance on atheism/religion. I thought I had made myself clear about that, in numerous other posts I've made, but evidently not.
also, I agree with Jess that if some of you are bugged by such minor annoyances as having to hear someone's cell phone conversation, you really have no right to take offense that we object to prayers being said in public.
happy heart, I think margorp expressed this quite eloquently. If you're so eager to preach the joys and freedom of atheism, at every opportunity you get, how does this make you better than the evangelist who preaches The Bible? I wholeheartedly agree with OceanDream that, if anything, it should be a two-sided conversation, not one point of view bashing and destroying the other. Discussing faith is not like discussing most other things, unless it's faith mixing with politics. Otherwise, there is no right and wrong in the realm of belief, just serious disagreements.
No, preaching, though I wouldn't call it that, does not make atheism a religion. People preach about being republican, no one would say being republican is a religion. Atheism is a lack of god, religion is the system of beliefs in a god, it is thus impossible for atheism to be a religion.
The difference between shouting about our atheism, and preaching about a religion is the pure and simple fact that religions are full of hatred. The bible alone is packed to bursting with hatred of one group or another, instructions to kill one group or another, and a whole list of other things that are absolutely awful things to be preaching.
Granted, most people shy away from them these days, but that doesn't mean they aren't in there, it just means we know your bible better than you do.
Atheism, on the other hand, preaches hatred of absolutely no one. It advocates the killing of absolutely no one. It just says, live your life, and let everybody else live theirs. That is the difference.
Actually, there are several religions which are atheistic, though atheism, itself, is not a religion. I think what you mean is secularism. In any case, I have heard hatred spew forth from the mouths of atheists towards theists. They don't condemn them to a bad afterlife, but they do often resort to calling them stupid and to putting down their religions in such a way that it's clear that they hate them. This is in contrast to saying something like "I personally find the ideas of your faith to be foolish" or "I can't understand them". Even that's a bit much, but it's still an opinion. Calling someone stupid because they believe in such in such is hate, or at the very least, attacking them.
Oh I feel that all religions are hogwash but at the same time I know nothing I say will ever change people. If we try, we are converting, and that is the work of religious groups. Sinse we don't go for that religion nonsense, we shouldn't start acting like them.
once again, Cody is right that us speaking out about atheism is nowhere near similar to preaching/spouting religious crap.
as I've also said countless times, I'm not trying to convert anyone. however, people will clearly continue thinking otherwise. that's just something that comes with the territory, so to speak.
I have no trouble giving my views at such religious folks but I will not blab away.
While I don't see any way most theistic religions can be supported, deemed credible in any logical or reasonable context, I don't advocate the total destruction of religion or even praying/observing in public as long as I am not forced to participate, or dragged in to the worship.
to be blunt, i'm sick of full of shit crackpots grabbing my head, and praying to their "god" that I may see again. Usually i'm never asked, these people just force their way in to my personal space and start praying. then, when nothing happens, i'm accused of being a creation of the "devil."
People are more than welcome to pray for me, but again, I'd like no part of it directly. most of the people I know of who pray for me do it more out of a sense to show god they're special/prove their worth, and i'd rather not enable this addiction directly. thus, I think its a good thing religious institutions have temples/churches/mosques etc.
While I believe in freedom of religious expression to a degree, I do not believe that religious institutions should be allowed to set, promote or sway political agendas that create law and policy that a secular society will have to live by.
In my mind, saying "gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "abortion should be illegal" with the reasoning god said so should be laughed at, not taken seriously by a population. Principle, policy and development should be set by reasoning, not one religious viewpoint. At the moment a religious body starts acting politically, they should be held to the same regulations all other political campaigns are.
I also believe religious institutions should be taxed, most of them are obscene prophet machines. I think I see a way to force this issue in tex law, and should I become one of wealth, I intend to bring this issue in to the spotlight.
In america, religious views seem to be over abundantly protected from even civil disagreements and protests. This attitude is dangerous for a society as a whole because it protects the institution over freedom to develop.
People take these completely false ideas that the USA was founded on christian doctrine and use them to call people devil worshipers, while expecting no challenge be raised. If people want equality for all, we need to stop protecting the institution from logical and sound inquiry, so that logic and reasoning have just as much water and light to fuel their equally important growth.
I agree with you James. There is nothing more annoying and unnecessary than a person coming up to you in public and doing that. It's happened to me on numerous occasions. I don't believe in miracles, and when I tell them that they usually are upset that I don't want to participate in a prayer to "help me see again." There's no proof of that being of any help, therefore no point.
Converting people is also not soully a characteristic of a religion, people try to convert people in regards to their favorite beer, beer is unfortunately not a religion. I could get on board with that religion though.
Tifanitsa, first of all, calling someone stupid is not hate, saying that people's ideas are hogwash is not hhate, having passages where you are ordered to kill your own children for the simple sin of trying to lead you to a different god, that is hate. I think you're religious, and most of your other ideas for that matter, are completely moronic, that just means I think you're a moron, it doesn't mean I hate you. It doesn't mean I even care about you.
Let me ask this of all the Atheists who think we shouldn't try to convert people, how did you discover you were an Atheist? Did you do it on your own? Did you have something you read, something you saw, something you heard that made you focus your mind enough to realize that all of this was a complete crock? If you did, then you were converted. Converting things, and being out there trying to prove that its ok to be an atheist, and that religions are wrong and harmful is a good thing. I wish more people had been doing that when I became an atheist, it would have made it a lot easier.
As long as there is people who preach religion with its hatred, then I will continue to shout it down and expose it as the fraud and snake oil that it is.
I, too, wish more people were as outspoken about atheism as Cody and I are. it's a real shame that some atheists would rather sit back quietly and claim we're taking an immature stance, rather than do their part to help atheism be seen for what it is/isn't.
Let me cover a few things here.
Praying in public. Now I thought there was some passage in the New Testament that said you're not supposed to do that because in doing so all you're doing is putting on a show for outsiders as to how moral you want them to think you are, and that's not how it's done. Go home and pray in your closet, you are told. No, I don't know the Bible three kinds of sideways but that bit sticks in my mind, so maybe somebody can pull up chapter and verse for this.
Now, preaching. I see preaching as more of a one-way thing, like broadcasting to a captive audience. This is interactive, so it cannot be preaching.
And, in the name at least of establishing my own case as one atheist, I do not see Chelsea and Cody as immature or whatever else they're being accused of. I'd get in there if I thought debating people and repeating myself umpty-seven zillion times was fun, but I'd prefer not to, and this is how I roll. I may be quieter than they are, but I'm not shutting up to please the public either. Every so often if I'm so moved I'm going to get in there and state my point, and it's up to the rest of you to either get it or refuse to listen, your choice.
Oh, and on the subject of blind people specifically being prayed at or to or over or upon so that the supernatural can transform us into fully sighted people, I think it's a shame that when these sad fools do not get the magic show they want, they'll pick up their marbles and stomp home for not getting their way. Are they children? I wish I could find somebody who held such sentiments but was perhaps a little less emotionally volatile and ask them this. Why is it better to ask the supernatural to make a blind person see instead of shifting your own point of view so you can start to accept a blind person completely as they are in the moment. I doubt I could get a good answer for that one. They must live sad lives. LOL!
Lightning, I came to it on my own. So you're trying to say I converted myself? Come on! I simply learned what was what in the world.
So you're saying you never had anyone who gave you a hint? You never even did research, picked up a textbook? You're really missing out. I mean, read some dawkins or some harris or some hitchins, they will really change your life.
Even so, if you did come to it on your own, that's great, and I applaud you for it. However, that does not change the fact that most do not. Most of us had to have a trigger, something to follow, something that forced us to change our beliefs. That is why I am so vocal. If you don't like it, I guess you'll have to skip to the next link, because the only thing that will keep it from happening is the loss of my ability to write or speak.
Let me relate a bit about my atheism. I was always just not religious all my life. I understood most people believed in a god and I went through the motions and stuff, but I never really understood it or had that special spiritual or emotional connection a person is supposed to have. I suppose I always tended to be an agnostic until recently when I saw this video on YouTube, and damn if I can't find it again. For a while I thought atheism was interesting and I enjoyed the irreverence of it all I have to admit and still do, but was still waffling around with agnosticism until I saw this video that pointed out ten reasons why God is man-made. Damn if it all just made sense at that point, so I re-designated myself as atheist.
For me it happened about nine years ago, pretty soon after I read about the origins of christianity and saw how it's just solar worship in a new package.
I have to comment on this, I really do... from so many angles.
As for the praying in public/private thing, it does say in the book of Matthew not to pray austentatiously in public like the Pharisees (self-righteous Jews) did, but to go into your closet and pray to your Father in heaven, who hears you in secret. Now, whether that is metaphorical (how many of the disciples had closets?) or figurative, I don't know, but the principle is common-sense. I too have been assaulted by Word of Faith-ers (AKA Name is and Claim it) who want to pray for my healing. Occasionally I have said yes to make them feel better, but it hasn't happened in a long time, so I don't know how I would react today.
As for the original post regarding civility, and others regarding kick-ass tell it like it is, both sides are right to a degree. There is no place online for personal attacks (bitch, moron, idiot), even if one vehemently disagrees. To the OP, however, claiming the victim - poor me - doesn't win you any points. THis is an online forum, and you put your opinions out there for all to read and comment on. So you got comments that youdidn't like? Get over it! That's life. Based on some of the other posts I have seen from you, you expect a world to be all nice and neat and orderly where there is no suffering except what governments will inflict in order to protect their own self-interest. News flash: whining about being picked on doesn't help your cause(s), and the world is not a nice and neat and tidy place. THere will always be suffering in the world - it will never be a socialist utopia with benevolent dictators, and not all children are sugar and spice and everything nice and would just not pick on people just because it's bad.
As for the kick-ass, take-no-prisoners, tell-it-like-it-is attitude... While I tend to agree with you - sugar-coating something doesn't necessarily make it any less palitable - but, as stated above, there are places and times for temperence. As Leo has said farther up in this board, part of a mark of maturity is to be able to harness one's personality. Perhaps in person, your comments would not seem as harsh or as vitriolic, but simply reading words on a message board frankly leads one to believe that you are as closed-minded and intolerant as you accuse others of being.
Honestly, I have to agree with Leo - that harnessing one's more dominant personality traits may make some of this discussion moot. If all personalities were kick-ass, take-no-prisoners, then nothing would get done because everyone is so confident that their beliefs are right that there is no room for learning from each other. But if everyone is cow-towing to each other - you first, no you, no you! - then there is no place for strong opinions where they are needed.
In short.... we live in a messed-up world, nobody is going to agree on this issue... but hey, I had to say something!
Kate
just cause mine and Cody's personality traits don't appear harnessed to most of you, doesn't mean that's true. in fact, I find it unbelievable people are still trying to make it seem like we should examine how we represent ourselves. especially given that, as has been said before, we wouldn't be as harsh if there wasn't a need to be.
let me clue you all in on something. I used to be the most quiet, unassertive person, never speaking up about anything at all. however, when I lived life a little, frequently finding out that if I wanted to make it, being quiet, incredibly mousey, and having no confideence, something needed to change. I quickly realized being straightforward was the only way to meet my goal. I also knew/accepted the fact some people would appreciate it for what it was, and plenty of others wouldn't. so what, that's life.
Iagree about most atheists having been converted. I did tons of research, in addition to already knowing as a child that I didn't believe subscribing to any religion was right or fulfilling in any way.
the difference between an atheist being converted, and someone being converted to, say, christianity, is that atheists didn't have support. at least, not when Cody and I grew up.
can any of you even imagine how lonely, scary, and frustrating a time we had? probably not, as you likely think it was easy as pie to come to those conclusions, and get along in the world. then again, it's easy to wine, when the religion you subscribe to happens to be the one that's most common.
Even if it wasn't the most common religion, being in the minority is really no reason to complain. I don't mind being in the minority. In fact, I find it quite liberating. But if needing the majority of others to believe as you do is the only way you can find complete comfort, that kind of defeats the purpose of following your religion in the first place, does it not?
It certainly shows a lack of comfert in one's own skin. I think this is why some people put on this tough guy/girl act. They are insecure about something. Now to be fare, I've exchanged many qns with happy heart and she is not the monster that the first poster and some others are making her out to be. I do, however, feel that if she was so far abuv all of this bullshit she wouldn't come on so strongly.
once again, margorp, you're wrong in making that assumption. if people didn't push me to come on in such a strong manner, I wouldn't.
I'd still speak my mind, but if people weren't so defensive, didn't hold their religion so close to their heart that they're unable to see/accept other points of view, and wouldn't cry cause their beliefs are constantly being picked apart, I wouldn't come on so strong. there wouldn't be a need to.
like Jess, I love being in a minority.
Coming on strongly is much different than complaining. I'm not going to make a list of all the Christians on the site, and send them all a PM demanding they write a 500 word essay on why, exactly they believe as they do. that said, I'll gladly take a challenge any day, and these forems, where people seem so willing to jump into the debate, is a great place to find one. I'm not bothered by differing beliefs. I openly welcome them. Some really give me some valuable insight I had yet to consider, while others just make me rejoice that much more about my own opinion, but one way or another, I benefit.
So chelsae, you are saying that if tiff never said anything you wouldn't feel inclined to come on so strongly? You say you were "pushed." That sounds like someone who is emotionally invested. Didn't you claim that you don't get emotionally invested in the boards?
I typically don't get emotionally invested. however, as you should've seen both Cody and I state, her recent views/ways of responding to things, has angered me more than words can express.
call it what you want; you aren't the first person to dislike what I represent, nor will you be the last.
I understand getting angered by it. Her views are certainly...hmmm shall we say unorthodox? But don't sit there and act like nothing gets to you when it obviously does. That is all.
I admit I'm angered and absolutely disgusted by some of the original poster's recent board posts; to say otherwise wouldn't be honest.
I don't like many of them myself, but all I can really do is pound my head against the wall.
exactly. at the end of the day, there's nothing you can do, except move on and keep living life.
Yes, that's true. I would be furious if this was a friend of mine spouting crap, but it isn't, so I treat it as if its a book. A book can make you feel any number of things, but at the end of the day, its fiction, and you have to just keep going on with your life. As I said several times before on this topic, there's no way that anyone is going to change their views on a topic just because some anonymous people on a forum think they should. No matter how many hateful words are exchanged, no matter how many valid or invalid points are raised, the truth is, it's all just dialog. It's a saga.
So long as she isn't maging to get herself into a position of political power, we'll be fine. That being said, just because forem posts aren't going to accomplish anything in the long run, doesn't mean they're not going to get posted. And there's nothing wrong with that.
recently, I've stated in a few of her topics that I'm angered by her views. so, I'm not sure why anyone would think I'm being dishonest.
Nope, there's nothing wrong with it at all. That's why forums exist, after all. All I'm saying is that there are certain people who take their posts way too seriously. I was guilty of that myself at one time, so I know how it is.
All you can do is bang your head against the wall, really?
No, it's not. What you can at least try to do is make the OP understand just how ridiculous and foolish her beliefs are and try to guide her toward replacing such bullshit with beliefs that are consistent with our form of government, and the preservation of humanity and unalienable rights.
If you walk around with a booger hanging out your nose, making you look ridiculous, you need someone to tell you, and force you to look in the mirror. This is what the OP needs.
And yet it would be more powerful if someone sat down and told her in real life. All we are, as I said, are bits and bytes, basically. We're not sitting there telling her how it is. Well, we are, but only in text. It may be a figurative punch in the gut, but how hard can it really hit when a screen reader is saying our words? There is so much you don't get when you don't hear a person's tone of voice and how they're saying things.
very true.
Shattered, I like the way you put that.
It is perfectly natural to try to convince people of your point of view during a debate. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a debate. So I have no problems with people presenting their cases and trying to win me over to their side. I have learned a lot while debating, not just here, but in general. There have been times when I was forced to rethink or elaborate on my stances on given topics. There have been times when I changed them entirely, or considered new ways of viewing them. This doesn't always happen, though, and I shouldn't be criticised if that's the case. I may wonder why certain people don't see the logic in some of my posts, but I'm not going to put them down for it. All I can do is present my case and hope that some agree with me, or at least, that they keep an open mind to my views.
I disagree and do not see this as some kind of fictional forum at all. This is real people, with real thoughts, in a real debate.
No, I'm not saying the forum is fictional. I'm saying that's how you should view it if you're getting too emotionally involved in a post. I'm saying that if you read a book and it makes you angry, there's comfort in the fact that it's not events that are happening to you. You can look at this the same way. Why should it be any skin off your back if people disagree with you? Why should you care if people make scathing remarks? Do you get yourself all worked up over the way characters talk in a book? Do you feel that their stances are personally attacking you? I would hope not.
The difference is that people in a book aren't speaking directly to you and personally attacking you.
Why are you feeling like the one being attacked? Has this debate and all this talk not dawned on you that is has more to do with your thoughts and beliefs rather than you as a person?
In a normal debate, I would agree with you. That's how it should be. But normal debates don't involve name calling and other insults. Still, things do seem to have calmed down and we're now discussing interesting issues. So that's a good thing.
Okay some things to say here:
Raven, I am not going to hold someone's hand and explain to them that they are wrong. This is not my job and I lack the energy to bother. To shattered sanity, thank you! People need to learn to separate there emotions. Yes, these are real people but it's just words at the moment. I cannot ever see myself giving a damn about every single person who doesn't fit my beliefs, values, or what have you.
Rock on, Marg.
I fear I missed the boat on a topic, so I must revive it just this little bit as I have some thoughts ready to go. This is about atheists and the perception that they want to get rid of religion. I'll keep it short and sweet. You guys need not worry about atheists wanting to destroy religion, even though some of us might say it's a bunch of fairy tales. I observe, and I wonder if the other atheists here observe, that atheists don't need to lift one single pinky finger. Religion is either eating itself to death from the inside due to corruption, otherwise it is just very slowly falling out of favor because it is unwilling to adapt to modern times and modern society.
Religions are like roaches: very hard to kill off.
as Ryan so accurately said, if anyone feels they're personally being attacked here, it's their own fault.
if I wanted to personally attack people, I know how to do so; it's far from what some are claiming it is here.
next, Raven said it best. as someone who cares about society's betterment, when someone has warped views, I'll most certainly tell them.
sure I could leave them hanging, but why would I, if I have the knowledge and compassion to try to encourage them to think differently?
I will give people just enough rope to hang themselves. If people want to follow the teachings of what I can only describe as bedtime stories, then so be it.
I certainly hope noone reads stories from the old testament to their small children at bedtime. Talk about nightmare fuel.
Devil, big bad wolf, boogie-man, they're all the same, right? LOL!
All joking aside, perhaps they are all the same. "If you're bad, this will happen."
You have to remember the reason people are here. Most people are here because they have no real lives and say things behind a computer that they would not say in person. Don't take it so personally. They are a bunch of sheltered blind people sitting at home wishing they were real adults.
Some are, but that is not necessarily true for everyone. There are many working zoners that I know of, and there are also some of us, including myself, who are going to college. There are even others that were working and are currently unemployed because of reasons that may be beyond their control. However, that goes for any community as well, outside of the blind community.
Trust me, in this case I don't think being blind has much to do with the rediculousness that runs rampent on these boards. I've seen far too many message boards on a wide variety of websites. They're no better most of the time.
Yeah, that's definitely true. Email lists can be really bad, too. You have drama magnets everywhere you go, people who just like to provoke others for no reason. And, I agree, it's not stricly a blind thing. There are plenty of sighted people who are just as guilty.
The fact is, it's everywhere. All we can do is laugh our asses off at it.