Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Keeping R&S Civil
177 Answers
Afternoon.
We've noticed it's got a bit "rough" in here recently.
We'd like this section to be accessible to all without fear of being "ambushed" by members who simply disagree with them.
Please remember calling someone an idiot (or similar) is very unlikely to aid the changing of their perspective.
We're not asking you to change what you say - we're asking you to change the way you say it.
In other news: we now have a small "welcome box" between the "enter a question" box and the questions below. Suggestions welcome for things we could pop in there.
All the best,
Ed
We've noticed it's got a bit "rough" in here recently.
We'd like this section to be accessible to all without fear of being "ambushed" by members who simply disagree with them.
Please remember calling someone an idiot (or similar) is very unlikely to aid the changing of their perspective.
We're not asking you to change what you say - we're asking you to change the way you say it.
In other news: we now have a small "welcome box" between the "enter a question" box and the questions below. Suggestions welcome for things we could pop in there.
All the best,
Ed
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
"I wholly agree with Birdie's sentiments, it is not for the Editor to cast aspersions re. contributors. At least we now know from where he is coming. "
An interesting comment, because, rather ironically, you seem to have made a classic contribution to the sort of thing I think the AB editor is on about. Someone posted a question about Islamic eschatology, to which I replied with a wikipedia link.
However you have sought fit to chip in with:
"They must have , they are doing their best to bring it about as soon as possible, at least for everyone else if not themselves."
One reason I suspect why many of us largely give this area of the side a wide berth.
An interesting comment, because, rather ironically, you seem to have made a classic contribution to the sort of thing I think the AB editor is on about. Someone posted a question about Islamic eschatology, to which I replied with a wikipedia link.
However you have sought fit to chip in with:
"They must have , they are doing their best to bring it about as soon as possible, at least for everyone else if not themselves."
One reason I suspect why many of us largely give this area of the side a wide berth.
Afternoon.
Birdie. I can't quite remember the user, but do you remember the old dear who posted a (trite, sickenly sweet and mawkish) religious poem a month or so back?
That user didn't need to be taken to task quite so harshly.
"More to the point, why have you never pulled me up about this before if you think that is what I am doing?"
Because I felt that a hands-off approach was previous required. We have decided to ask all to be civil as of now.
"That is the nature of debate – someone makes a claim and others attempt to refute it"
I take your point, if someone is making a claim. When someone is not however - and you attack with belittlement it's just not much fun for anyone.
"and yet have never said a single word about another AB poster who has tacitly threatened me with physical harm on a number of occasions."
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Please use the report button is someone has threatened you.
"At least we now know from where he is coming."
I'm not sure what you mean by that?
ichkeria, I don't think Jom's comment is much of a problem, unless I am missing a hefty serving of context?
Birdie. I can't quite remember the user, but do you remember the old dear who posted a (trite, sickenly sweet and mawkish) religious poem a month or so back?
That user didn't need to be taken to task quite so harshly.
"More to the point, why have you never pulled me up about this before if you think that is what I am doing?"
Because I felt that a hands-off approach was previous required. We have decided to ask all to be civil as of now.
"That is the nature of debate – someone makes a claim and others attempt to refute it"
I take your point, if someone is making a claim. When someone is not however - and you attack with belittlement it's just not much fun for anyone.
"and yet have never said a single word about another AB poster who has tacitly threatened me with physical harm on a number of occasions."
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Please use the report button is someone has threatened you.
"At least we now know from where he is coming."
I'm not sure what you mean by that?
ichkeria, I don't think Jom's comment is much of a problem, unless I am missing a hefty serving of context?
Naomi:
"Actually, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think it’s a genuine opinion. When wooden sticks are cast upon the ground and become live snakes, and people walk on water, and clay models of birds are transformed into living creatures by blowing upon them, looking at it rationally, I consider all of that to be as a result of nothing more than magic tricks."
Are you suggesting that calling someone's "Good Book" a "magic book" isn't dismissive and likely to cause friction?
It's not particularly useful in debate.
Hi Vascorp,
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant your actions here is "having a natter" and as such needn't be a proper bludgeoning of those who hold faith. Naturally I do not know what you do offline to further your cause.
"Actually, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think it’s a genuine opinion. When wooden sticks are cast upon the ground and become live snakes, and people walk on water, and clay models of birds are transformed into living creatures by blowing upon them, looking at it rationally, I consider all of that to be as a result of nothing more than magic tricks."
Are you suggesting that calling someone's "Good Book" a "magic book" isn't dismissive and likely to cause friction?
It's not particularly useful in debate.
Hi Vascorp,
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant your actions here is "having a natter" and as such needn't be a proper bludgeoning of those who hold faith. Naturally I do not know what you do offline to further your cause.
Ed. from my almost certainly biased viewpoint it seems that the 'sensitivities' of believers get more consideration than those of non-believers. I know that non-believers do mock believers on the odd occasion but believers do leave themselves open to mockery because of the things that they believe in. If the whole idea of religion had just been invented one could be forgiven for doubting the sanity of it's proponents. It has however been going on for a long time so it demands 'respect'. It is a pity that the same 'respect' isn't afforded to reasonableness and rational thinking.
"ichkeria, I don't think Jom's comment is much of a problem, unless I am missing a hefty serving of context? "
Well, not a crime against humanity, nor even one of civilility necessarily, and I apologise for "picking" on someone (!) but it's a case of a simple query pointed in the right direction, nonetheless dusted over with a needless sideswipe. I note also, however, that the OP has not as yet deigned to respond with a "thank you"
So I'm now off to sulk :-)
Well, not a crime against humanity, nor even one of civilility necessarily, and I apologise for "picking" on someone (!) but it's a case of a simple query pointed in the right direction, nonetheless dusted over with a needless sideswipe. I note also, however, that the OP has not as yet deigned to respond with a "thank you"
So I'm now off to sulk :-)
apologies, jomifl, I thought I was reading your last post correctly - what bit have I got wrong? Are you saying that you won't mock believers, you'll just point out that they deserve to be mocked? (Which is what you have just done.) That looks like a distinction without a difference, at least to me.
// I am asking to have minimal respect the people, not the beliefs. It's just a case of not belittling, berating or abusing someone while making your arguments. //
I suppose the difficulty is that criticism or mockery of the belief or the particular church is also an implicit criticism/mockery of the person holding those beliefs. It has to be really.
It's hard for atheists not to mock religion. For them it's like trying to have a grown up debate about what type of cheese the moon is made of. It almost inevitably descends into mockery.
Having said that I have no problem with the ed's request for civility. It's a reasonable request, and I for one am happy to comply or face the consequences.
I suppose the difficulty is that criticism or mockery of the belief or the particular church is also an implicit criticism/mockery of the person holding those beliefs. It has to be really.
It's hard for atheists not to mock religion. For them it's like trying to have a grown up debate about what type of cheese the moon is made of. It almost inevitably descends into mockery.
Having said that I have no problem with the ed's request for civility. It's a reasonable request, and I for one am happy to comply or face the consequences.
"ich, Ed is the OP"
Sure, here he is, but I was referring to:
http://
Sure, here he is, but I was referring to:
http://
// Perhaps there should be a 'believers corner', I for one would be happy not to post there and just keep my thoughts to myself. :-) //
You'd probably have to have one for each religion jom, otherwise it could get as nasty as the normal R&S. Hang on, you'd have to split it even further - each denomination of each religion.
You'd probably have to have one for each religion jom, otherwise it could get as nasty as the normal R&S. Hang on, you'd have to split it even further - each denomination of each religion.
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog4 mins ago
Society & Culture7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
