(June 11, 2012 at 10:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: If we were truly interested in a fight appeals to the perceived high ground would be meaningless. In a conflict there are only winners and losers. Even so, if someone can explain why it should bother me that I'm intolerant of intolerance, or malicious towards those who harbor malice, I'd be greatly obliged. Before we invoke the hypothetical "decent" christian, their decency and their christianity are decidely different subjects. One might be decent, but one could not be decently christian, at least not by my count. My count, of course, being my own business and in no way indicative of reality in and of itself.

I have no respect for religion, but I am able to respect people that are religious, and that's my whole point. The fact that I don't believe in gods shouldn't give me pause in offering a person the minimum respect I would expect of them. Perhaps 'stooping to their level' gives perception that I'm appealing to a higher ground or a perceived one, but I for one don't feel the need to constantly bash people on the slightest sign of religiousness.

---

(June 11, 2012 at 10:14 am)Brian37 Wrote:

---

BULLSHIT, not liking my word choice does not make me intolerant.

Here is how you are childishly reacting.

NFL FAN X "The chargers won the Super Bowl this year"

NFL FAN Y "Bullshit, the Giants did"

Otherwise Einstein in his last letter before he died was being intolerant by calling the Hebrew faith "noble but childish".

GO BACK and read my OP.

Intolerant would be demanding the arrest of people who make absurd claims. If you can show me where I claimed that, then you could claim I was being intolerant. Merely saying you have no right to be free from being offended, does not make me intolerant.

THE church of Galileo's time that put him under house arrest was intolerant. Iran is intolerant to dissent. Merely saying you have no right to set up taboos and prevent me from questioning any claim is hardly intolerant.

The 9/11 hijackers were intolerant. Stalin was intolerant. Merely saying "you are full of shit" does not mean I will kill you or have you arrested.

---

Sorry, it might be me, but that doesn't make any sense to me?!?!?!?! I'm not familiar with the NFL (European). Either way, call it 'word choice', I don't care, If you aren't intolerant whats the point of this thread?

Quote:I have no respect for religion, but I am able to respect people that are religious, and that's my whole point

I hate the word "respect", it has too much of a history of the insecure baggage(NO MATTER THE SUBJECT MATTER)"Don't bruise my ego".

"Respect authority" Hitler had authority?
"Respect your parents" Even if they abuse you?
"Respect tradition" Slavery was a tradition?

I use the word VALUE. I value human rights. But the ability to put words in ANY SENTENCE only deserves the value of the ability to make any claim you want. But that does not mean the claim itself should be valued, otherwise the once popular belief that the sun was a god would still be valued. I am glad it is not. I am glad people have stopped valuing that claim.

I value the right to make any claim you want, but without the ability to kick the shit out of any claim, ON ANY SUBJECT, the childish specter of "respect" far to often sets taboos and monopolies of power.

We are all, strictly from a human rights perspective, entitled to our own opinions, but none of us are entitled to our own facts.

One's personal rights will never be my issue. The ability to demonstrate the credibility of any GIVEN claim is my issue. If someone is offended by questioning the first word they childishly throw up is "respect".

No human deserves taboo status, not you, not me, not the Pope, not Romney, not Obama. That is not to say any individual should always be a dick just because they can, just that no human deserves a pedestal.

It depends on context how I interact with people. But to slap "never" as a blanket solution to avoid conflict is childish and dangerous, especially if one is trying to help others out of horrible treatment based on the "respect" that culture may demand. Women in Afghanistan are forced to "respect"men, and western reporters come back constantly and report that their women don't want the west to leave.

That is why I hate the word respect. I value the rights of those women and as such I cannot value the men who force their power over them.

So the bottom line is if you want to claim a label any label, political or religious, I VALUE that strictly from a human rights view. But that does not mean, because I may like you as a person, I am going to like everything you claim.

What you hate is irrelevant. You are choosing your words wrong again.

(June 11, 2012 at 10:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: If someone is offended by questioning the first word they childishly throw up is "respect".

I think you're confusing two separate things here, nobody has a problem with questions being asked, it's the manner in which they are asked, that's where "respect" comes into it. It's a mutual way of behaving towards each other which allows people to get on, regardless of views. If I say "I don't agree with that, can you explain your position" it's different to saying "You're wrong you fucking moron, explain how eating dead zombies is a good idea! nyer nyer nyer, you twat" that shows a lack of respect and creates tension and confrontational attitudes. You may say some Christians are far worse, but two wrongs don't make a right, right?

(June 11, 2012 at 10:49 am)StatCrux Wrote: "You're wrong you fucking moron, explain how eating dead zombies is a good idea! nyer nyer nyer, you twat"

Seems fair.

So somebody doesn't respect a person who proposes consuming the flesh of zombies? And? I don't respect those people either. Why would I ask such a person to explain their position, I don't give a shit how they've rationalized that particular bit of idiocy.

If you want to blather on about respect howsabout we show just a smidgeon of respect for the intelligence of the person to whom the zombie proposal is leveled at..eh? I'm probably not the only person in the world that gets offended when people try to piss on my back and tell me it's raining, but you don't hear me bitching about how those assholes don't respect me or my comments enough, do you? I'm certainly not in the habit of attempting to control how someone responds to any given thing I say. Your beliefs do not deserve respect, I am not required to respond to your beliefs in any particular way, your requests that any given person censor their responses so as to avoid offending your sense of entitlement with regards to respect for your positions is mystifying.

(June 11, 2012 at 10:49 am)StatCrux Wrote: I think you're confusing two separate things here, nobody has a problem with questions being asked, it's the manner in which they are asked, that's where "respect" comes into it. It's a mutual way of behaving towards each other which allows people to get on, regardless of views. If I say "I don't agree with that, can you explain your position" it's different to saying "You're wrong you fucking moron, explain how eating dead zombies is a good idea! nyer nyer nyer, you twat" that shows a lack of respect and creates tension and confrontational attitudes. You may say some Christians are far worse, but two wrongs don't make a right, right?

Oh, fuck you StatCrux. The majority of your correligionists would be utterly offended by my first phrase on this post. A big load of them would be ofended just for the fact that I don't believe in their particular view of god or anyone else's. And you have a history of doing the same with regarding atheists.

(June 11, 2012 at 10:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: So somebody doesn't respect a person who proposes consuming the flesh of zombies? And? I don't respect those people either. Why would I ask such a person to explain their position, I don't give a shit how they've rationalized that particular bit of idiocy.

Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Rather than approach the subject with the mindset of trying to understand something, you simply accept your own understanding of an issue and conclude it is idiocy. It's essentially saying "I don't agree so it's stupid" that is very childish. Apart from that, it achieves nothing in terms of atheists being accepted more as "nice" people, it has the exact opposite effect. In another thread on this site someone was complaining about the perception of atheists in society, it doesn't help much if most peoples experience of atheists is one of rude, arrogant, condescending and abusive language being used..

No, it is essentially saying, "that's idiotic therefore I don't agree". Get your shit straight. Stat, people don't have to like me, I'm not some galactic emissary of global atheism. Even those people who wish to set themselves up as emissaries of this or that particular notion have a pretty shitty track record of presenting the world with a reliable positive example. People will dislike you in the absence of any negative input provided from your end as well, let's not forget that.

Lets take a moment, if it pleases you, to consider whether or not the zombie proposal deserve rudeness, arrogance, and condescension. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it absolutely does. If you don't want to be criticized for holding such a notion, or you don't want the notion itself to be subject to criticism, (even vitriolic criticism) you can drop the notion, or keep it to yourself, couldn't you? That's not very satisfying though is it?

(June 11, 2012 at 10:56 am)LastPoet Wrote: Oh, fuck you StatCrux. The majority of your correligionists would be utterly offended by my first phrase on this post. A big load of them would be ofended just for the fact that I don't believe in their particular view of god or anyone else's. And you have a history of doing the same with regarding atheists.

Nice, I have a history of what exactly? Being offended by being told to fuck off etc? I now accept atheists are quite rude and abusive for no particular reason, your "fuck you" being a perfect example..