Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 3:47 pm
(May 2, 2018 at 1:59 pm)johan Wrote: (May 2, 2018 at 12:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think "how to be civil" needs to be explained, to be honest. But Vulcan gave a great example a few posts ago of what would allowed vs disallowed. Let me go find it.
Here:
So where would the following response fall?
FU. It might not be your intention, but I think your statements make you sound like a homophobic dickwad. furthermore I find your position to be bigoted and ignorant.
Is that over the line or under the line? Who gets to decide? And if its over the line, how is that dealt with?
Do you think telling someone "FU" and calling them a "homophobic dickwad" is civil?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 3:55 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2018 at 3:55 pm by Amarok.)
Depends are they being a fucker or homophobic .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 3:59 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2018 at 4:00 pm by Shell B.)
While I'd love to have conversations where people were serious and were encouraged to stay on topic, I 1. don't think it's possible for some posters to focus that well, and 2. don't like the idea of enforced civility anywhere. It makes me want to behave worse just because. Ick.
I do enjoy the sentiment, though, CL.
Yeah, that does kind of beg the question of whether saying homosexuality is bad or atheists are going to hell is uncivil. I think so, but religious folks might not. Hmm.
Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Asking the volunteers who staff this place, to put even more time here, just takes them away from their real lives, outside of here. Unless admin is willing to put at least half a dozen additional greenies on board, I don't see making yet another subforum necessary.
This is in addition to my other thoughts about it.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 4:16 pm
I'd rather they take it out in mockery then other ways against believers. It's a defense mechanism from the truth.
Posts: 28461
Threads: 525
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 4:24 pm
(May 2, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (May 2, 2018 at 1:59 pm)johan Wrote: So where would the following response fall?
FU. It might not be your intention, but I think your statements make you sound like a homophobic dickwad. furthermore I find your position to be bigoted and ignorant.
Is that over the line or under the line? Who gets to decide? And if its over the line, how is that dealt with?
Do you think telling someone "FU" and calling them a "homophobic dickwad" is civil?
That might be completely civil for some people, and I know some of them. Most people do.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 35356
Threads: 205
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 4:25 pm
(May 2, 2018 at 4:16 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I'd rather they take it out in mockery then other ways against believers. It's a defense mechanism from the truth.
I would say the defence mechanism in Islam is the threat of death to apostates and/or non believers and tge fact that atheists, in particular, are persecuted, jailed, and killed in some of those countries.
And the Saudis, the country that provided many of the 911 terrorists came from, has labelled atheists "terrorists".
If that's the way your "truth" is defended, you can keep it.
Also, like Christianity, get back to me when all branches of Islam agree on the tenets of this "truth".
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 4:32 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2018 at 4:33 pm by Mystic.)
What you say is true and they sold the next world for this world, in their crimes against God's revelation and the leaders of guidance. Except your attitude on waiting for people receiving a revelation to get it all right before you look towards it, is a bad one.
Posts: 35356
Threads: 205
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 5:08 pm
(May 2, 2018 at 4:32 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What you say is true and they sold the next world for this world, in their crimes against God's revelation and the leaders of guidance. Except your attitude on waiting for people receiving a revelation to get it all right before you look towards it, is a bad one.
No, it's perfectly reasonable.
These people all claim to know the "truth" but often can't agree on even the most basic tenets if their beliefs and are often willing to kill others, even those of their own religion, who disagree or believe differently.
Why should we accept these beliefs in those circumstances?
And, meanwhile, you have believers, priests included, who are faking "miracles" to try to convince people of the "truth" of their beliefs.
If you have to lie for your beliefs, your beliefs are a lie.
And, surely, the real truth should be apparent and speak for itself without the need for interpretation?
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 2, 2018 at 5:13 pm
(May 2, 2018 at 5:08 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: (May 2, 2018 at 4:32 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What you say is true and they sold the next world for this world, in their crimes against God's revelation and the leaders of guidance. Except your attitude on waiting for people receiving a revelation to get it all right before you look towards it, is a bad one.
No, it's perfectly reasonable.
These people all claim to know the "truth" but often can't agree on even the most basic tenets if their beliefs and are often willing to kill others, even those of their own religion, who disagree or believe differently.
Why should we accept these beliefs in those circumstances?
And, meanwhile, you have believers, priests included, who are faking "miracles" to try to convince people of the "truth" of their beliefs.
If you have to lie for your beliefs, your beliefs are a lie.
And, surely, the real truth should be apparent and speak for itself without the need for interpretation?
You shouldn't accept them or their beliefs, doesn't mean a holy book or it's complimentary guides can't be given attention.
The "why" would be best explained by the book and it's representatives, not by people making a mess out of it.
And because the proof provided is best provided by those who are in the essence the proof itself by which all proofs point to, then you shouldn't not give them a chance, just because people took the religion as a pastime and game... and took manipulators and deceivers as leaders and equated their authority to God's authority vested in his names, images, and chosen words, the true Kings and guides.
|
