Jump to content

Religious material in caches


Geognome57
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

There aren't a whole lot of options available. 1) No God(s) or 2) God(s) -- with a subset of 3) One God or 4) multiple God's. It MUST be one of those options...

 

Once its broken down in those categories, one can debate each subset...

What leads you to presume that you have thought of ALL the possibilities to explain Ultimate Truth?

 

Every major leap forward in science has produced concepts which would have been inconceivable to previous, uninformed generations. Do you think prehistoric man ever seriously pondered the possibility that the Earth might be a sphere? Do you think ancient Greek doctors knew to debate the existence of viruses, cells or DNA? Do you think medieval scientists argued back and forth about electron shells and atomic bonds?

 

I believe that it might be possible for Man to someday determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, the ultimate reason for the existence of the universe. We are likely a VERY long way from that answer right now. Sorry, but in the meantime I don’t share your confidence when it comes to assuming you already know ALL the possible explanations from which to choose.

Link to comment
There was nothing I said that was offensive. When you get serious let me know...

I am quite serious.

 

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, TG. You don't get to decide what is offensive to me. *I* decide what is offensive to me.

 

Suppose you posted your objection to the pope comment and someone responded to you by telling you: "There was nothing there that was offensive. When you get serious let me know..." Would that have been acceptable to you?

 

Like Mushtang, I think I am ready to give up on you, and I will no longer waste my time worrying about what might or might not offend you. Why should I care? You certainly don't seem interested in reciprocating.

 

Hey Mushtang, did you find that book of Pope jokes?

KBI, don't worry about TrailGators. He's probably following his religious beliefs and has no choice but to defend his beliefs while at the same time not being concerned if he's offending you or not. He's already shown me that he expects me to refrain from offending him but he's free to do and say anything even if he knows it's offensive to me. Perhaps there's a "One Way Street" aspect to his religion?

 

I believe there was a tract once that said to the believers that it's okay to behave how you want to anyone that doesn't believe in the invisible dude because nothing you say could possibly be offensive to them. And since your beliefs and values don't matter to TG he doesn't have to respect them. The tract also said that as a non-believer you're only allowed to be offended if the believers say it's okay.

 

On the back was a yummy recipe for cherry Kool-Aid.

Link to comment
I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

 

And with that nugget from KBI we conclude the exciting topic of whether or not people should put religious tracts in caches.... :laughing: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

kbi, you're right. you shouldn't wish me a happy birthday.

 

i am ambivalent about the anniversary of my birth for a lot of reasons.

 

if you'd like to celebrate an anniversary with me that brings me joy, you might try the anniversary of the day i was born again.

 

crazy dude, that jesus. always with the projects, that one. and God the creator? now, there's a funny guy.

 

http://furthermoreflask.blogspot.com/2008/...dered-mind.html

 

meanwhile, i have other, sadder anniversaries to mark. i'm not bearing up well under the stress.

Link to comment

I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

And those that don't matter are ignored and out of mind, just like the tracts one might find in a cache if they bother you. :laughing:

Link to comment
I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

And those that don't matter are ignored and out of mind...

Good advise about a pair of brothers, too.

Link to comment
I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

And those that don't matter are ignored and out of mind...

Good advise about a pair of brothers, too.

I don't mind your post CR. Does that mean that I matter? :laughing: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

And those that don't matter are ignored and out of mind...

Good advise about a pair of brothers, too.

 

Holding back, and not posting what you really think is just mind over matter.. :laughing:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

-- Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment

 

I have been watching this on the sidelines for a while now, but I feel my 2 cents (and I would love for one of them to be one of THOSE pennies) getting ready to come out.

 

Traildad. I agree with flask wholeheartedly and share most of the same philosophies. So it would be same to assume that you would say that I was brought up in the same atmosphere of religious intolerance. Nothing could be further from the truth. My parents, grandparents and sisters are devout Roman Catholics. Just not me. I even studied theology and did a thesis on the effects of religion and faith on true believers.

I just have my own thoughts and beliefs and do not wish to have someone else try to change them (which is what I believe to be the purpose of those religious tracts). I do not put my belief (or lack of) out there and try to change anyone's way of thinking.

 

'Nuf said.

To start with I said "immersed" not bought up in. You can be bought up in any fashion and right now be immersed in a culture that is entirely different. Some people might say they have no wish to have someone change them if they believe "fill in the blank... hate gays, hate men, women, blacks, whites, browns. etc. etc. It seems to me, from what you say you feel it is somehow wrong to try to change someone's way of thinking. Do you think it was wrong for people to try to change someone's thinking about the Vietnam war, abortion, civil rights etc etc. It seems it this modern world it is ok to try to change someone to be more liberal, but wrong wrong wrong to suggest a more conservative point of view.

 

As far as your wish to not have someone try to change you thought and beliefs... If you were going to write a word on your forehead would it be "open" or "closed"?

Link to comment

The most important thing to me in my life is my son. It seems like an analogy would be if you made a reference to a joke that poked fun at little kids.

Just guessing here, it wouldn't be a joke about little kids, but rather a joke about your son. It might feel something like if your son had some "issue" that he was VERY sensitive about, and someone made the worst possible joke that YOU could ever imagine. Now compare that joke to someone making a joke about micro spew. Not the same is it?

Link to comment
calling jesus a "dude" just doesn't cut it as an attack, i don't think.

It's disrespectful and its degrading. It would be like the president of your company showing up for an annual meeting and you high-fiving him and calling him "Dude"...

 

It shows absolutely no respect and is on the verge of demeaning.

 

Respect is in the intention, not the action.

I say wrong! If you hang with a bunch of rappers and you all call women b****** and wh**** would it be respectful to greet a nun that way? How about your mom or my mom. I can tell you right here and now that I would not consider it respectful for you to greet my mom that way no matter what your intention was. If you intention was to BE respectful you would know better that to use that language. You can be disrespectful simply by not being respectful.

If you normally greet people with a Dude and a high five, then why should someone assume you're disrespecting someone when you do it?

If you are greeting your buddy they shouldn't assume that. If you are greeting the Pope is can only be disrespect or lack of respect.

 

Burning the American flag in protest is very disrespectful to the flag and to the country. Burning the flag to destroy it after it's old and tattered is the accepted, respectful, way to get rid of it.

 

You wouldn't give your sweet old mother the middle finger, but if you had a splinter in it and you held up your finger to show her and maybe get her to assist in removing it, there's no disrespect.

This is false reasoning. It is not simply the intent that is different. If I throw trash on the ground it is littering. If I throw trash in the trash can it is not. If in both cases my "intent" was to throw it in the trash can but I missed, does that mean it was not littering?

In the case of the earlier poster referring to "some dude named Jesus", I believe he was suggesting that his belief was that Jesus was not a deity, but was just another guy that lived a long time ago. It didn't seem disrespectful to me in the way he used it.

 

You have used the word Dude in these forums to address people. Were you being disrespectful to them? I wouldn't have thought so.

If he had written "I don't think Jesus is a deity" that would be respectful discussion. Writing "some dude named Jesus" is disrespectful.

Link to comment
...Respect is in the intention, not the action....
Yes and no. Your flag burning example is a good one, but it falls short on one key point.

There is a perception as well. While you may mean no disrespect, if you are aware that the other person can percieve your statement/action as such and do it anyway, you are at a minimum disrespecting the person, and in so doing actually disrespecting their faith as well. Maybe it is in the intention after all.

 

I see this a lot in the larger debate that this thread is only one piece of.

I can't agree. If I burn a flag in a respectful way but TrailGators gets his shorts in a wad over it, you're suggesting that I've disrespected TrailGators?

 

I'd suggest that his incorrect assumptions are the cause of the problem, and not my actions.

There are rules for burning flags. More false logic. TrailGators wouldn't get his shorts in a wad if you did it in a respectful way. It think it is called passive aggressive. Act like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth while all the while... well you know what I mean.

Link to comment
KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes he was equating the two. Besides, trying to excuse bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior is never right.

Link to comment
KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry.

No apology necessary. No offense taken. :laughing:

 

(See below)

 

I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch ...

I didn’t equate film canisters with someone’s god.

 

I equated your deeply held convictions with my deeply held convictions.

 

I see no such stretch. The fact that you DO see it as “an incredibly huge stretch” tells me that maybe you STILL don’t respect my deeply held convictions, even as you apologize for making fun of me in the past.

 

If someone simply doesn't see it as you do, "they don't respect your deeply held convictions". When it is anti religion, then anything goes, and as long as no disrespect is "intended" no problem.

Link to comment
KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?
He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes I do see the difference. Disrespect of a game is completely different than disrespect of someone's religion.
How is it completely different? Disrespect is disrespect. The target is irrelevant.

 

However, if someone worships a game then they would be equally disrespectful.
I don't understand why somebody has to worship something for disrespect to become something that should be avoided.

 

Unlike you, I already apologized.
Apology accepted. What do I need to apologize for?

 

You really don't see any difference in severity of the infraction? If some kid at school disrespected your son's deepest beliefs versus your son's marble collection then you would see those as completely equal? If that is the case, then there is no point in even talking to you.

You're stuck on looking at the severity of the infraction. I'm trying to tell you that you can't run around disrespecting the way someone believes the game is fun and then demand that nobody disrespects something you feel is important, but they don't give two shakes about. The severity of the infraction is only lopsided in that direction to you. Someone else that feels concepts of fairness, personal responsibility, and respect for others’ rights is more important than some invisible friend you claim to have might feel you're the one going overboard.

 

It's like someone telling me I shouldn't ride my motorcycle because it's too dangerous while they're holding a lit cigarette in their mouth.

 

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Well who exactly was it that threw the first stone in the lame micro spew vs wonderful real geocaches debate? :laughing:

Link to comment

 

I also believe that you enjoy arguing and enjoy a good debate...

 

A good debate involves making good points that are meaningful to the discussion. Some people have a gift of saying so much that they hope others will get lost in the circular reasoning. That is not a good debate in my opinion.

Link to comment

The most important thing to me in my life is my son. It seems like an analogy would be if you made a reference to a joke that poked fun at little kids.

Just guessing here, it wouldn't be a joke about little kids, but rather a joke about your son. It might feel something like if your son had some "issue" that he was VERY sensitive about, and someone made the worst possible joke that YOU could ever imagine. Now compare that joke to someone making a joke about micro spew. Not the same is it?

You're right, it's not the same.

 

Wow, for someone that just posted so many replies you really don't seem to have followed a lot of the conversation.

 

That point was made to explain to someone that I made a reference to a joke ("Hey, was that the one about the woods"?) and I didn't actually TELL the joke to show any disrespect.

 

So if my son had an issue, and someone made the worst possible joke... then it wouldn't be the same AT ALL, because I didn't actually make the joke about the Pope.

 

Someone around here really got his shorts in a wad about that reference, even though HE is well known for disrespecting other people's beliefs left and right when they don't match his. When pressed to actually discuss the joke he apparently realized he couldn't defend his attitude about it and gloriously announced he was "past all that".

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment
Respect is in the intention, not the action.
I say wrong! If you hang with a bunch of rappers and you all call women b****** and wh**** would it be respectful to greet a nun that way? How about your mom or my mom. I can tell you right here and now that I would not consider it respectful for you to greet my mom that way no matter what your intention was. If you intention was to BE respectful you would know better that to use that language. You can be disrespectful simply by not being respectful.
I would say that rappers are not intending to show respect at all by calling them names, and therefore if they greeted a nun that way they would also not be showing respect.

 

If you normally greet people with a Dude and a high five, then why should someone assume you're disrespecting someone when you do it?
If you are greeting your buddy they shouldn't assume that. If you are greeting the Pope is can only be disrespect or lack of respect.
If you imagine a stoner surfer dude that greets EVERYONE with "dude" and a high 5, would you think he's disrespecting the pope if he greeted him the same way? I'm not asking if it would seem disrespectful to you, I'm asking if you think he's actually showing disrespect to the pope?

 

In some cultures people don't shake hands with their left hand because it's the unclean hand. If you were visiting and were left handed, you might just stick your left hand out and say hello upon meeting someone. Regardless of how twisted they get about it I'd believe that you weren't being disrespectful, you were just greeting them the way you normally do.

 

Burning the American flag in protest is very disrespectful to the flag and to the country. Burning the flag to destroy it after it's old and tattered is the accepted, respectful, way to get rid of it.

 

You wouldn't give your sweet old mother the middle finger, but if you had a splinter in it and you held up your finger to show her and maybe get her to assist in removing it, there's no disrespect.

This is false reasoning. It is not simply the intent that is different. If I throw trash on the ground it is littering. If I throw trash in the trash can it is not. If in both cases my "intent" was to throw it in the trash can but I missed, does that mean it was not littering?
Maybe I don't follow your example, but I don't see that your intention is to disrespect anything by getting rid of your trash. If you're trying to change the argument to the definition of littering and then argue that, I believe that is a straw man.

 

In the case of the earlier poster referring to "some dude named Jesus", I believe he was suggesting that his belief was that Jesus was not a deity, but was just another guy that lived a long time ago. It didn't seem disrespectful to me in the way he used it.

 

You have used the word Dude in these forums to address people. Were you being disrespectful to them? I wouldn't have thought so.

If he had written "I don't think Jesus is a deity" that would be respectful discussion. Writing "some dude named Jesus" is disrespectful.

And I say it wasn't. Maybe I'm just more tolerant than, or not as judgmental as, other people. But to me the intent is what makes something disrespectful.

Link to comment
...Respect is in the intention, not the action....
Yes and no. Your flag burning example is a good one, but it falls short on one key point.

There is a perception as well. While you may mean no disrespect, if you are aware that the other person can percieve your statement/action as such and do it anyway, you are at a minimum disrespecting the person, and in so doing actually disrespecting their faith as well. Maybe it is in the intention after all.

 

I see this a lot in the larger debate that this thread is only one piece of.

I can't agree. If I burn a flag in a respectful way but TrailGators gets his shorts in a wad over it, you're suggesting that I've disrespected TrailGators?

 

I'd suggest that his incorrect assumptions are the cause of the problem, and not my actions.

There are rules for burning flags. More false logic. TrailGators wouldn't get his shorts in a wad if you did it in a respectful way. It think it is called passive aggressive. Act like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth while all the while... well you know what I mean.

My whole premise was to say that if I did it in a respectful way and someone gets upset regardless, I'm still not being disrespectful. Someone's reaction doesn't change what I'm doing. For you to come along and say that if I was being respectful they wouldn't get upset changes the whole premise.

 

You can't change the premise and then argue that I've used false logic. :laughing:

Link to comment
KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?
He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes he was equating the two. Besides, trying to excuse bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior is never right.

No, he wasn't. He was equating two forms of disrespect.

Link to comment
KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?
He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes I do see the difference. Disrespect of a game is completely different than disrespect of someone's religion.
How is it completely different? Disrespect is disrespect. The target is irrelevant.
However, if someone worships a game then they would be equally disrespectful.
I don't understand why somebody has to worship something for disrespect to become something that should be avoided.

 

Unlike you, I already apologized.
Apology accepted. What do I need to apologize for?
You really don't see any difference in severity of the infraction? If some kid at school disrespected your son's deepest beliefs versus your son's marble collection then you would see those as completely equal? If that is the case, then there is no point in even talking to you.
You're stuck on looking at the severity of the infraction. I'm trying to tell you that you can't run around disrespecting the way someone believes the game is fun and then demand that nobody disrespects something you feel is important, but they don't give two shakes about. The severity of the infraction is only lopsided in that direction to you. Someone else that feels concepts of fairness, personal responsibility, and respect for others’ rights is more important than some invisible friend you claim to have might feel you're the one going overboard.

 

It's like someone telling me I shouldn't ride my motorcycle because it's too dangerous while they're holding a lit cigarette in their mouth.

 

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Well who exactly was it that threw the first stone in the lame micro spew vs wonderful real geocaches debate? :laughing:

I'd have to say it was someone that called the micros lame for the first time. Why do you ask? :)

Link to comment
I also believe that you enjoy arguing and enjoy a good debate...
A good debate involves making good points that are meaningful to the discussion.

Such as asking about lame micros during a discussion about respecting religions in a thread about religious materials? That's a good example I guess.

 

Some people have a gift of saying so much that they hope others will get lost in the circular reasoning. That is not a good debate in my opinion.
And some people have a gift of creating straw man arguments, posting off topic questions, and ignoring the premise to try and obfuscate the discussion. That is not a good debate in my opinion.
Link to comment
I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

And those that don't matter are ignored and out of mind...

Good advise about a pair of brothers, too.

I find it interesting that you feel the need to actively tell me that you are actively ignoring me. There is a contradiction in there somewhere ...

 

When you can't persuade via reason, at least attack via rudeness, eh? Feel better? :laughing:

Link to comment

Why do you believe I am insincere?

uh,,, because you sound insincere!

If you believe I am nothing but an insincere forum troll, then you are always welcome NOT to respond to my posts.

 

If NOT responding to posts is your goal, it would appear your are experiencing a bit of trouble today.

Link to comment

I just stumbled across this awesome quote in another cachers forum sig line:

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

- Dr. Seuss

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

-- Abraham Lincoln

FIZZY! You've been away from the forums for a long time. What made you decide to break the silence?

Link to comment
KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes he was equating the two. Besides, trying to excuse bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior is never right.

These guys seem to think that there aren't ways to really insult people versus ways to annoy them a little. It's black and white thinking.
Link to comment
...And some people have a gift of creating straw man arguments, posting off topic questions, and ignoring the premise to try and obfuscate the discussion. That is not a good debate in my opinion.
Calling an argument a straw man is just another way to dismiss an argument without logic.

 

Unless it actually is a straw man.

Link to comment
...And some people have a gift of creating straw man arguments, posting off topic questions, and ignoring the premise to try and obfuscate the discussion. That is not a good debate in my opinion.
Calling an argument a straw man is just another way to dismiss an argument without logic.

 

Unless it actually is a straw man.

True, except the simple fact that you say it is, and they say it isn't isn't enough. You either need to debate the merit of the straw man argument as a separate argument, or have the International Straw Man Arbitratrion Board Settle the matter. Mostly it's a cheap tactic in the bag of tricks we all use.

Link to comment

What leads you to presume that you have thought of ALL the possibilities to explain Ultimate Truth?

 

You serious? If we were debating the states of a lightbulb, the options would be 1) ON and 2) OFF... There may be varying degrees within the 1) ON state, such as 1a) LOW 1b) MEDIUM and 1c) HIGH..

 

The options are:

 

1) NO GOD(s)

2) GOD(s)

 

There are NO other options.. Its either ON or OFF.. If you believe we were put here by aliens, the aliens are not GOD, therefore they fall into category 1. There may be more categories within either 1 or 2, but there are not any more base categories besides those 2.

 

What would you suggest adding for options 3? 4,5,6?

 

Just another example of you arguing clear logic just for the sake of arguing.

Link to comment
...And some people have a gift of creating straw man arguments, posting off topic questions, and ignoring the premise to try and obfuscate the discussion. That is not a good debate in my opinion.
Calling an argument a straw man is just another way to dismiss an argument without logic.
Unless it actually is a straw man.
True, except the simple fact that you say it is, and they say it isn't isn't enough. You either need to debate the merit of the straw man argument as a separate argument, or have the International Straw Man Arbitratrion Board Settle the matter. Mostly it's a cheap tactic in the bag of tricks we all use.

In the case above, where I called a straw man, would it have helped if after he suggested intent in disrespect was the same as intent on throwing away trash, and then tried to argue the definition of litter, that I explain to him that it was a straw man to argue what is and isn't litter? Or is the fact that I didn't want to argue what is or isn't called litter a cheap tactic no matter what?

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment
Just another example of you arguing clear logic just for the sake of arguing.

Back to the personal attack? Fine. Your choice.

 

The question you discuss in your post – the Big Question, the one that has haunted philosophers, scientists, dreamers, songwriters and thinkers of all kinds for as long as thinking has been around – is one that is very important to me.

 

The question you asked me right before re-accusing me of trolling is one for which I DO have an answer. It’s an answer in which I believe you might be very interested, and possibly not at all what you would expect.

 

If, however, you are going to toss lame accusations at me instead of taking this conversation seriously, then, as I explained before, I see no reason to waste my time explaining anything to you.

 

I’m happy for you that you are so completely convinced of the correctness of your point of view. Certainty beyond doubt is a state I hope to attain myself someday, assuming such a thing is ever justified.

 

I truly pity you that you cannot fathom more than one honest perspective. Your belief that nobody could possibly be serious and sincere while simultaneously differing with your viewpoint is not a logically valid one – but as long as you are unable to grasp that, I guess you’ll be happy.

Link to comment

...In the case above, where I called a straw man, would it have helped if after he suggested intent in disrespect was the same as intent on throwing away trash, and then tried to argue the definition of litter, that I explain to him that it was a straw man to argue what is and isn't litter? Or is the fact that I didn't want to argue what is or isn't called litter a cheap tactic no matter what?

I was commenting on the straw man dismissal in general. When I tried to find the orginal comment again to see your specific use I couldn't find it. Now I'm distracted by the Fox and the Hound post when he talked about using the word retarded in it's correct meaning and someone incorrectly deciding to be offended.

 

It reminded me of a couple of other things I've seen.

A politican who in correclty using the word niggardly to describe responding to a matter, was forced to resign by the following uproar. Then sport teams like 'The Braves' who use names they feel are strong and give them pride (and thus no offence intended) are being increasingly forced to change their names to boring anemic names because Indians are rising to battle this self inflicted offence.

 

There is merit to what Fox and the Hound was saying. It's hard to paint a sharp line between the two sides of the insult/offence debate. Each situation has it's own unique considerations.

Link to comment
Knowing your style, you are just blowing smoke. ;)

Are you suggesting that TrailGator's post does NOT offend me?

Heck yes. Given that in my own mind I picture you writing that whole bit about offence with a twinke in your eye and not a tear. You enjoy a good debate. That's what the evidence tells me. :(

Who are you to decide what does and what does not offend me? Would you put up with that attitude if someone appointed themselves to determine that for you?

 

Just because you might disagree with my worldview; just because my reason for taking offense is not religion-based – does that make my pain any less painful than his? Does that automatically make my victimhood a second-class victimhood, something lesser than if I had instead taken offense to the pope reference alongside TG?

 

You might assume I am inventing a false reaction purely to make a point. I can see how a shallow, skimming pass at the relevant series of posts might lead one to make that initial conclusion – but your assumption would be wrong.

 

From my point of view TrailGators, by rudely ignoring my feelings while simultaneously demanding consideration for his own, is stomping all over a principle I happen to hold very dear: The Golden Rule.

 

He has beliefs; I have beliefs. If his sensibilities demand respect for no other reason than because he says they do, then so do mine. Anything less than that minimum-acceptable level of fairness is something I find truly offensive.

 

He is saying, by clear implication, that his beliefs regarding religion are somehow superior to mine, and that my beliefs are therefore less worthy of polite regard. I cannot abide such faith-based double standards.

 

Adding your own accusation of insincerity on top of the existing insult is not offensive, however; it is merely entertaining. You are not the first to bypass an attempt to persuade via reason in favor of a lame personal attack, and I doubt you’ll be the last.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

...In the case above, where I called a straw man, would it have helped if after he suggested intent in disrespect was the same as intent on throwing away trash, and then tried to argue the definition of litter, that I explain to him that it was a straw man to argue what is and isn't litter? Or is the fact that I didn't want to argue what is or isn't called litter a cheap tactic no matter what?

I was commenting on the straw man dismissal in general. When I tried to find the orginal comment again to see your specific use I couldn't find it. Now I'm distracted by the Fox and the Hound post when he talked about using the word retarded in it's correct meaning and someone incorrectly deciding to be offended.

 

It reminded me of a couple of other things I've seen.

A politican who in correclty using the word niggardly to describe responding to a matter, was forced to resign by the following uproar. Then sport teams like 'The Braves' who use names they feel are strong and give them pride (and thus no offence intended) are being increasingly forced to change their names to boring anemic names because Indians are rising to battle this self inflicted offence.

 

There is merit to what Fox and the Hound was saying. It's hard to paint a sharp line between the two sides of the insult/offence debate. Each situation has it's own unique considerations.

I'm not yet convinced you truly understand what a "straw man" is.

 

In fact if I were, I might think you were intentionally demonstrating the straw man fallacy with that very post: Mushtang asked you a valid question, yet you produced a rambling response to some other, different, unasked question.

Link to comment
Knowing your style, you are just blowing smoke. ;)

Are you suggesting that TrailGator's post does NOT offend me?

Heck yes. Given that in my own mind I picture you writing that whole bit about offence with a twinke in your eye and not a tear. You enjoy a good debate. That's what the evidence tells me. :(

Who are you to decide what does and what does not offend me?...

 

I'm the person talking to you via a forum. Like it or not we have to decide if we have offended the person we are talking too, we have to decide what to do with that information and react as we see fit. It's how it works. Some people are better at it than others.

 

Perhaps you really and truly are offended. I don't make that decision for you. Instead I decide if you are bluffing, telling the truth, making a point in a debate and react accordintly. That's how communications works.

 

Personally, I think you are enjoying building on that angle to the debate. That's how I have chosen to react. I can be wrong. It's the nature of things that we never truly know since we are never truly privy to another persons true thoughts.

Link to comment

...I'm not yet convinced you truly understand what a "straw man" is.

 

In fact if I were, I might think you were intentionally demonstrating the straw man fallacy with that very post: Mushtang asked you a valid question, yet you produced a rambling response to some other, different, unasked question.

 

As I understand it a straw man is a tactic to misdirect the argument a direction that will cause the other person to waste time and effort and get them away from the real debate. I mostly see it used by some folks to dismiss valid arguments by calling them a straw man.

 

Oh and since what I said was true I couldn't go back and find the post to re-read it, and instead posted on another angle to this larger debate and you cried foul you are illistrating the point I made about the straw man to begin with.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
I can be wrong. It's the nature of things that we never truly know since we are never truly privy to another persons true thoughts.

Fair enough. If you want to leave it at that, then I have no objection.

 

I can only trust you to take me at my word when I tell you that your impression of my reaction is incorrect. Whether you believe me is up to you – but as long as you are allowing for other logical possibilities beyond what your emotional instinct tells you, I believe you are being plenty fair with me.

 

Hmm ... allowing for other logical possibilities beyond what emotional instinct would indicate ... what a refreshing thought in a religious debate, eh?

Link to comment

...I'm not yet convinced you truly understand what a "straw man" is.

 

In fact if I were, I might think you were intentionally demonstrating the straw man fallacy with that very post: Mushtang asked you a valid question, yet you produced a rambling response to some other, different, unasked question.

As I understand it a straw man is a tactic to misdirect the argument a direction that will cause the other person to waste time and effort and get them away from the real debate. I mostly see it used by some folks to dismiss valid arguments by calling them a straw man.

That’s close ... but not really close enough. I’m STILL not convinced you understand the term "straw man" as it is used to describe a specific fallacy that sometimes appears in debate.

 

You described the effect of the fallacy, but not the fallacy itself.

 

What you just described is something more general, called "obfuscation." A straw man is one form of obfuscation.

Link to comment
Knowing your style, you are just blowing smoke. ;)

Are you suggesting that TrailGator's post does NOT offend me?

Heck yes. Given that in my own mind I picture you writing that whole bit about offence with a twinke in your eye and not a tear. You enjoy a good debate. That's what the evidence tells me. :(

Who are you to decide what does and what does not offend me? Would you put up with that attitude if someone appointed themselves to determine that for you?

 

Just because you might disagree with my worldview; just because my reason for taking offense is not religion-based – does that make my pain any less painful than his? Does that automatically make my victimhood a second-class victimhood, something lesser than if I had instead taken offense to the pope reference alongside TG?

 

You might assume I am inventing a false reaction purely to make a point. I can see how a shallow, skimming pass at the relevant series of posts might lead one to make that initial conclusion – but your assumption would be wrong.

 

From my point of view TrailGators, by rudely ignoring my feelings while simultaneously demanding consideration for his own, is stomping all over a principle I happen to hold very dear: The Golden Rule.

 

He has beliefs; I have beliefs. If his sensibilities demand respect for no other reason than because he says they do, then so do mine. Anything less than that minimum-acceptable level of fairness is something I find truly offensive.

 

He is saying, by clear implication, that his beliefs regarding religion are somehow superior to mine, and that my beliefs are therefore less worthy of polite regard. I cannot abide such faith-based double standards.

 

Adding your own accusation of insincerity on top of the existing insult is not offensive, however; it is merely entertaining. You are not the first to bypass an attempt to persuade via reason in favor of a lame personal attack, and I doubt you'll be the last.

KBI why do you think that nobody can understand what was possibly offensive about asking you a question as to why you keep bringing things that I asked you to stop bringing up? Communication is very important to getting along. Why don't you just spit it out and quit being ambiguous? I can't help you if I don't understand what the problem is. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
KBI why do you think that nobody can understand what was possibly offensive about asking you a question as to why you keep bringing things that I asked you to stop bringing up?

I dunno. You tell me.

 

I've done my best to explain myself, and I think my posts have been crystal clear.

 

Communication is very important to getting along. Why don't you just spit it out and quit being ambiguous? I can't help you if I don't understand what the problem is.

:D:(;)

 

Thanks for the laugh. I enjoyed that.

 

(Let me know if you ever decide to go back and actually read all those unambiguous words of mine you just quoted.)

Link to comment
What leads you to presume that you have thought of ALL the possibilities to explain Ultimate Truth?
You serious? If we were debating the states of a lightbulb, the options would be 1) ON and 2) OFF... There may be varying degrees within the 1) ON state, such as 1a) LOW 1b) MEDIUM and 1c) HIGH..

 

The options are:

 

1) NO GOD(s)

2) GOD(s)

 

There are NO other options.. Its either ON or OFF.. If you believe we were put here by aliens, the aliens are not GOD, therefore they fall into category 1. There may be more categories within either 1 or 2, but there are not any more base categories besides those 2.

 

What would you suggest adding for options 3? 4,5,6?

 

Just another example of you arguing clear logic just for the sake of arguing.

 

I think it would help if you realized you're talking in absolutes about something that you don't fully understand. You admit that you don't know for a fact what the Ultimate Truth is. You admit this by allowing that there is a possibility for either choice listed above.

 

A long time ago sailors talked about what would happen if they sailed too far away, and their ONLY two options, which they knew with every ounce of their intelligence, was to either 1) sail too far and fall of the edge, or 2) stay near the land and not fall off the edge. There was no other possibility as to what could happen.

 

If you can admit to yourself that there is a possibility that we may not yet know everything there is to know about everything, then you've got to also admit there could be another option. I believe that was KBIs point, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...