Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:23 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Litmus test
#1
Litmus test
Hello folks
I have been kicking around this forum a couple of days and mostly like what I see. I would like to test the waters more actively by bringing up an issue I've been having with a couple of other forums and see how it plays out here.

I am against abuse.
I see abuse as being binary, in that if someone intends their actions or comments to cause harm for which the recipient can receive no benefit, that action or comment is unnecessary. Therefore, an action is either abusive or it is not, based on the person's awareness of the possible outcomes and their intent with respect to that information. Abuse spans a wide spectrum, from spiteful words to murder, but the scale of the harm is orthogonal to whether or not harm was intended. I've had people attempt to abuse me and it was as water to a duck's back, but that doesn't mean that they weren't being abusive assholes.

The problem I have with people failing to treat abuse as binary is that they often try to make their own arbitrary point along the scale of harm and defend it as not being abusive because doing X would be so much worse. This thinking offers anyone except the worst person in all history examples they can turn to in order to show that their own actions are not abusive.

Because many atheists have not thought through what constitutes abuse thoroughly, they make abusive remarks on forums such as this that religious person X should be tortured for having done Y, or that David Mabus deserves to get raped in prison, when that style of vengeance thinking is ethically unsupportable. To decry the abuses of religions while promoting abuse in turn is hypocritical and destroys any ethical footing you might also be trying to use to defend your own rights on other fronts.

An abusive act doesn't make a person abusive in all aspects of their life for all time, but the things we write to each other on the internet will likely last longer than we do, so I figure it pays to think hard before blithely making an asshole out of yourself by advocating the same impositions on the lives of the people we disagree with that we are attempting to combat by reducing the influence of religion on our lives.

This is not to say that the ideas of the religious should be treated with kid gloves. Attack those ideas with vigour, but you don't need to attack the person at the same time. Tell them to fuck off and leave you alone (my main goal in my activism) but don't tell them they deserve to be fucked and burned and eaten by fire ants. That would be the rhetoric of an asshole, and if you want to call for equal treatment, that's a precedent you probably don't want made equal.

I look forward to the local atheist members' responses.
Theists can fuck off and leave me alone.
Reply
#2
RE: Litmus test
I admit that I sometimes, under certain circumstances lose my temper.

But these circumstance will probably make alot of people lose their temper.

Not being answered, constant repeating of the same phrase, absolut complete lack of inteligence, sterotypical jokes and especialy trolling - just makes me fucking furious.
Reply
#3
RE: Litmus test
(December 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I admit that I sometimes, under certain circumstances lose my temper.

But these circumstance will probably make alot of people lose their temper.

Not being answered, constant repeating of the same phrase, absolut complete lack of inteligence, sterotypical jokes and especialy trolling - just makes me fucking furious.

I get that, and see nothing wrong with applying appropriate taxonomy. Calling someone a liar because they are lying to you is apt. Calling someone bad at argument because they can't form a syllogism because their feet are in their mouth is similarly accurate. If someone lacks the courage to do the right thing, they are a coward.
Arbitrary labels, liking fucking retard cum bucket, have no place in such discourse because their arbitrary nature makes them indefensible. I can defend calling LiorIRC a coward because I have evidence of his cowardice.

Anger is not inherently bad and has wound up the clockwork of some amazing humitarian people and causes. Don't let anyone tell you anger is a failing, but don't allow anger to make you an asshole.
Reply
#4
RE: Litmus test
There is a cultural aspect to this which should be taken into account. I am of a British working class culture. Being in that culture I have learnt we will often insult a person to see where they stand, as being able to take an element of abuse, without reacting overly, or being just a door mat, is thought of quite highly. And the individual can also feel more comfortable, knowing the other parties are not going to react to an odd misplaced word. This is so deep in british working class culture that we often don't realise we are doing it.
This can confuse people from other cultures. I am not saying this to plead for a special case for brits as I know this way of expressing oneself is present in other cultures. However a blanket ban on abuse will reduce a forum to a politically correct place with only one sort of voice. Yes there will be confusion as it is often hard to work out what is meant by a statement, but surly that is the fun of being here.
Reply
#5
RE: Litmus test
Welcome, douchebag!
Reply
#6
RE: Litmus test
Id rather someone offend me and speak their mind than hide their true thoughts to be liked. Also, sometimes being a tad rude can be a quality in someone's personality, to do this around new people can often show you are comfortable around them.
Reply
#7
RE: Litmus test
(December 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm)Shell B Wrote: Welcome, douchebag!

Shell B a rose by another name

[Image: 4415481-the-man-in-a-gas-mask-with-flowers.jpg]
Reply
#8
RE: Litmus test
Also to ban abuse would single handedly destroy the economy, think of all those fans of S&M porn....abuse, a matter of preference
Reply
#9
RE: Litmus test
(December 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: ...I can defend calling LionIRC a coward because I have evidence of his cowardice....

Nice.

Attack me from the comfort of a thread which says...
(December 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: ...Theists can fuck off and leave me alone.


Is that your new M.O.?
...leave me alone so I can whine about you from behind a bullet-proof screen


Call me a coward? Hypocrite!
There's nothing about you I fear. ROFLOL

So you're gonna sit and make gratuitous snipes at me and....

WAIT!

Now I get it.

...if someone intends their comments to cause harm for which the recipient can receive no benefit, that comment is unnecessary.

Yep. Unnecessary. You flunked your own litmus test PAL!
Reply
#10
RE: Litmus test
(December 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: I see abuse as being binary, in that if someone intends their actions or comments to cause harm for which the recipient can receive no benefit, that action or comment is unnecessary.
1. Read this.
2. When can I expect George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Barak Obama, Leon Panetta and dozens of other CIA and Guantanamo Bay staff and let's not forget Politicians to be arrested, put on trial for torture, convicted, and incarcerated?
3. Does the wording in the treaty allow for any other course of action? (No)
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Theist Litmus Test eric209 0 963 June 13, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Last Post: eric209



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)