Native American DNA
[Post-Mormon Mag.]
Let’s go tubing!
[Palmetto Post-Mor...]
Stampede Get Together!
[Calgary Post-Morm...]
We're going to Camp Quest!
[Switzerland Post-...]
BOSTON Meeting this Sunday at 3pm
[Boston, MA Post-M...]
Why I am a Better Mother
by aworkinprogress
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
exmoinaz
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
owned
The Mormon Mask
by Born Free
Las Vegas Meetup--Jazz in the Park Saturday May 10 6:30PM
onendagus
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Resignation Letter to My Family
Hbush1987
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
Sunday Morning Hangout at Container Park March 30th
onendagus
Second Wednesdays
Houston
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
dovahkiyn
February Meetup Sunday the 16th 2:00pm Grand Cafe at Sunset Station
onendagus
Visitors welcome !
priorvej12
Las Vegas meetup Sun Jan 12th 1pm at Milos in Boulder City
onendagus
January 5th- Southern Utah PostMormon Lecture Series
gypsyrose
Book of Mormon Tories
by Tom Donofrio
Book of Mormon Tories
by Nogginus Skepticalus
Native American DNA
by GTM
Ongoing Monthly Gatherings!
Reuben
Ongoing Monthly Gatherings!
Virginia Steve
CALM meet up for June
4bagel
  It gets better! Resources to help with coping
  House Rules for posting on this website
  Why is there sometimes anger here?
  Glossary of Post-Mormon Terms
  Frequently Asked Questions
 
   
3 of 4
3
Atheist or Agnostic?
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-05-28

thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Why are you a Pepsi person?

 Signature 

The Book of Mormon is Christian “Fan Fiction”.... I am not a fan smile

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-01-08

thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-09-16

Born Free:

 

I strongly disagree with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, and dislike those atheists who seem to me to parrots them as faithfully as if they were religious leaders 

 

plus

 

I reserve my right to find Dawkins a terrible historian, Harris a leader of Islamphobia, and Hitchens a political Neanderthal who supported the Iraq war despite the fact it was based on lies -- which is still a Bad Thing even when atheists do it

 

I find it interesting that you see others as slavishly or religiously following and parroting these three prominent 'athiests'.

 

In the next breath, you appear to illustrate your ability to reject everything out of their mouths, upon a quite narrow selection of their beliefs or statements. 

Let me select now departed Hitch to explore. You are far from alone in being more than a little confused by his position on Iraq. I too have not managed to grasp his logic on that matter, but also confess I have not invested huge energy in his reasoning.

THat said, I cannot think of a single other issue, that I can fault him on. To my mind, that still leaves his opinions strongly worth consideration. In fact I can think of few other human beings whose passing I have grieved in the same way. To my thinking, a serious light went out with his passing.

 

You however, seem very comfortable to dispense with every other argument he has presented, on that single disagreement. You appear to baulk at the relatively mild hostility some athiests direct at 'believers', and while claiming a deep commitment to historical accuracy, appear to have little difficulty with the protracted and violent history of most religions and their treatment of non-believers of all varieties.

Prior to the French Revolution, royalty and religion formed an unholy alliance to dominate the masses and willingly used force, including of the most brutal, and fiendishly slow, and deadly kind, to that end. Progress towards notions of human rights hardly emerged from religion. When realy progress came we got those developments compliments of philosophers and writers.

 

If your criticism was restricted to the observation that athiests could enhance their debate, I'd agree. Haidt has been keen, in his books, to point out that the sloppy, self-indulgent thinking of the 'righteous mind' is not the monoploy of conservatives, and I'd have to agree.

But that concession hardly places religion on the side of progess in human history. The vast majority of time, religion has aligned itself with conservative, controlling and regressive forces, expending huge resources to resist progress in the human condition for the vast majority of humanity.

I'll be impressed when you can muster as much vigour in your criticisms of the conservative voices as you can for a few high profile liberal ones. The Gang of Three do not have syndicated radio and television programs that are used to spew their message nationwide.

Your criticism also fails to acknowledge the long period during which many 'new athiests' have felt they had no room to speak up without having their heads taken off. Only recently have 'new athiests' found their voice, and I suspect their is a fair backup of frustration and anger after just a few millenia of suppression.

Does that make some all of their charges correct? I am sure not.

But religious forces have had more than their day in the sun, and their behaviour has hardly been exemplary. For the most part, both the logic of their position, and it's abusive foisting, were grossly deficient, IMO.

 

Daryl 

 

 

 

I have no idea how -- or why -- I seem to you. But you are making assumptions about me -- and about history that can be disproved.

 

As for the assumptions about me, don't.

 

As for the assumptions about history, these is exactly the sort of urban legends that the AAs have -- well -- let's go with "foisted" on us. Historians are losing their tempers with this stuff and spending too much time countering these assumptions with facts that are not all that hard to uncover.

 

* Urban legend -- religion is responsible for most wars.

No. It accounts for less than 10% of wars.

 

* Urban legend -- religion is opposed to science.

 

“Is Religion a Science Stopper?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-a-science-stopper_b_3283004.html?utm_hp_ref=religion-science

No. "The idea that religion has historically been opposed to science is simply an erroneous and unsupported construct that was created in the late 19th century, primarily as an anti-Catholic polemic. And it is an idea that all (yes, all) knowledgeable historians categorically reject. "

* Religion is  against progress and against human rights.

It is incredibly easy to disprove this, and I don't know why it has become painful for some to simply admit that Christianity, just for example, is a vast multi-faceted tradition with a great deal of historic push and push on these issues. Why it must now be regarded as the purest, blackest evil is beyond me. Just to take a few examples from many, let's think of slavery and women's rights in America.

First, when some Baptists found justification for slavery in the Bible and Christian tradition, the Baptist Church of America found that repellant and the two factions broke -- that is how we got the Southern Baptists, a sect apart.  Then, within the Southern Baptists Church, a huge faction of slaves and free African Americans found -- in the same Bible and tradition -- liberating messages and affirmations of their humanity and rights. They identified with the story of Jewish enslavement and the Exodus to freedom and with Jesus' many messages about love, equality, kindness, and brotherhood -- which by the way -- are hardly a subtle subtext for which sensitive readers must dig deep. It's right there, for all to see. Whatever you might find in the Bible, it is rather difficult to scoff at the reading that African Americans came up with. It is -- among other readings -- quite provably in the text.

I might add, please do not come up with Biblical quotes about slavery to "show" me. The point isn't how I see the Bible, anyway, it is how African Americans viewed it, which is a matter of the record. 

These are historic  facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Now let's just concentrate on the Quakers, women, GLBT rights, and rights in general. Indeed, the Quakers have not made one misstep on human rights in 350 years.

"We spend so much time complaining about religions that persecute us that we sometimes forget about the religions that support the cause of human rights for LGBT people. The Quakers certainly should be recognized for being probably the first religion to stick their necks out on our behalf. This happened during the 1970s when the battle lines began to be drawn between the church establishment and the emerging gay rights movement. Indeed, the Religious Society of Friends played a key part in establishment of free speech and freedom of thought here in the United States. "

"... They maintained that people should follow their own conscience and and listen to their own inner voice..."

"Worst of all, Quakers flouted the Bible teaching that women should be silent. Quaker women claimed a hefty degree of equality with men -- they spoke up at meetings, preached openly, and traveled around to speak out politically. They even dared to publish, at a time when women just didn't put their thoughts in print. Pioneering author Margaret Fell inked her historic essay "Women's Speaking Justified" in 1666, thereby launching a tradition of female radical liberationist writing that still continues today. "

 http://www.bilerico.com/2008/03/quaker_women_she_hangs_there_as_a_flag.php

Okay. So the obviously Christianity is not unrelieved oppression and backwardness. Let's compare the Quakers to -- say -- your idol, Christopher Hitchens. From Katha Pollitt:

"So far, most of the eulogies of Christopher have come from men, and there’s a reason for that. He moved in a masculine world, and for someone who prided himself on his wide-ranging interests, he had virtually no interest in women’s writing or women’s lives or perspectives. I never got the impression from anything he wrote about women that he had bothered to do the most basic kinds of reading and thinking, let alone interviewing or reporting—the sort of workup he would do before writing about, say, G.K. Chesterton, or Scientology or Kurdistan. It all came off the top of his head, or the depths of his id. Women aren’t funny. Women shouldn’t need to/want to/get to have a job. The Dixie Chicks were “####### fat slags” (not “sluts,” as he misremembered later). And then of course there was his 1989 column in which he attacked legal abortion and his cartoon version of feminism as “possessive individualism.” I don’t suppose I ever really forgave Christopher for that."


Read more: Regarding Christopher | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher#ixzz2WS1CPTul
Follow us: @thenation on Twitter | TheNationMagazine on Facebook

 

So who do you choose as "progressive" and an articulate spokesperson for human rights? Hitchens calling the Dixie Chicks -- well -- there is no need to repeat it -- in the frigging 21st century or the Quakers publishing women's writings in frigging 1666? You decide.

 Signature 

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.Oscar Wilde

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-04-17

finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 Signature 

“I’m having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!”—Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

“I don’t object to the concept of a deity, but I’m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.”—Amy Farrah Fowler, The Big Bang Theory

“For the record, I do have genitals. They’re functional and aesthetically pleasing.”—Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

All comments, statements, opinions, suggestions, and information expressed, or quotes cited, represent the exclusive viewpoint of Aleut at that point in time and are NOT meant to compel or represent agreement by the reader. Aleut will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-01-08

Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

 

Well said!  That's how I've felt about other topics on here which I won't bring up again.  People are just not that entitled to never being offended.

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

 I might have missed it, but where did TWW demand that the picture be censored?  Yes, she criticized it, but that's a far cry from demanding it be removed.  For the record, no one reported the picture to the mods and asked to have it removed from the thread.

 

Personally, I think the term "offensive" isnt very helpful.  The term is so broad, it's hard interpret in individual cases.  I'm more interested in whether someone is being hurt and why. 

 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-04-17

finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 Signature 

“I’m having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!”—Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

“I don’t object to the concept of a deity, but I’m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.”—Amy Farrah Fowler, The Big Bang Theory

“For the record, I do have genitals. They’re functional and aesthetically pleasing.”—Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

All comments, statements, opinions, suggestions, and information expressed, or quotes cited, represent the exclusive viewpoint of Aleut at that point in time and are NOT meant to compel or represent agreement by the reader. Aleut will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 TWW, would you mind unpacking that a little.  From my perspective, "offense" is a human emotion and not an intrinsic property of a picture or of words.  Plus the term "offense" is so broad it's had to interpret.

 

Here's what I think would help advance the discussion:  rephrase "this is offensive" as "When I see the picture, I feel X"   I'm guessing X=angry, but it's probably more complicated than that.  Do you feel hurt?  Do you feel angry because you are being mistreated?  Do  you feel angry because others are being mistreated?

 

When I look at the picture in the context of Kori's post, I see it simply illustrate his view that, regardless of the words we use or the pictures we create, everyone is talking about the same thing.  I don't see his post as ridiculing theists.  

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

Brad (ZeeZrom):
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist." 

That's not nearly as offensive as the Book of Mormon Musical's main song,  Hasa Diga Eebowai (Translated: F#ck you God in the ass, mouth, and cunt, F#ck you in the eye).

 

For that they were awarded 9 Tony Awards, including Best Musical.

 

Honestly I find the simplistic concept of a supernatural Sky Daddy, who rewards the nice children and punishes the naughty ones, like Santa Claus, offensive and naive, which is what I'm ridiculing.

 

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." Einstein

 

"Do you believe in God?" — "Yes, I do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws that govern the universe." Stephen Hawking

 

 

 

 Signature 

“Not sure about a higher power but I definitely believe in re-sizing my images to not be so freaking wide.” Dark Chocolate

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-01-08

Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:   

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

I see it this way. People claiming to be offended because of something someone else did or said are in fact expressing their wish that the someone would not do it again and that they would pull back on what they did or said. To me that's the very definition of imposing censorship on others. Sure they're not saying it directly but are trying to manipulate others indirectly more or less indicating that they think the someone should actually apologize and correct their behavior according to their standards. Being offended is subtle and indirect way of expressing ones own intolerance and expectations that others should adopt self cersorship.

 

It's ok to dislike something or even someone as IMHO expressing dislike does not carry the baggage of a wish that the others should change their behavior. That would leave the question regarding the morality of the act open for the doers and sayers rather than declaring their actions improper or immoral. 

And yes, as you mentioned in the later post I fully agree that "being offended" is too vague of an expression and usually does not come with much definitive information why the offended actually is offended. In that sense the note that Mr. Fry makes: "It's just a whine." hits the mark on the spot.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

finex:
Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:   

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

I see it this way. People claiming to be offended because of something someone else did or said are in fact expressing their wish that the someone would not do it again and that they would pull back on what they did or said. To me that's the very definition of imposing censorship on others. Sure they're not saying it directly but are trying to manipulate others indirectly more or less indicating that they think the someone should actually apologize and correct their behavior according to their standards. Being offended is subtle and indirect way of expressing ones own intolerance and expectations that others should adopt self cersorship.

 

It's ok to dislike something or even someone as IMHO expressing dislike does not carry the baggage of a wish that the others should change their behavior. That would leave the question regarding the morality of the act open for the doers and sayers rather than declaring their actions improper or immoral. 

And yes, as you mentioned in the later post I fully agree that "being offended" is too vague of an expression and usually does not come with much definitive information why the offended actually is offended. In that sense the note that Mr. Fry makes: "It's just a whine." hits the mark on the spot.

 

My sentiments exactly.  People like what you describe are actually trying to impose their anger and control over others.  F*ck that!
 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-04-26

We're putting WAY too much thought into this. Just accept Superman into your hearts and you will know peace. Superman loves you.
 Signature 

“Superman is cooler than God”-Bryan Hitch

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

smithandthewestons:
We're putting WAY too much thought into this. Just accept Superman into your hearts and you will know peace. Superman loves you.

 

 

 Signature 

“Not sure about a higher power but I definitely believe in re-sizing my images to not be so freaking wide.” Dark Chocolate

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-01-08

Kori:
smithandthewestons:
We're putting WAY too much thought into this. Just accept Superman into your hearts and you will know peace. Superman loves you.

 

 

 That picture ought to have a text accompanying it: "Kolobis that way!"

 

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

 Thanks for the rephrase.    I do think it helps to talk about harm rather than "offense."  That gives us something to actually talk about.  So, do you feel you were harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive"?

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-03-19

I tend to draw no distinction between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic".  To me, you either choose to live your life as if there is a god or you don't.  I think people use the term "agnostic" because they're more comfortable with it than they are with "atheist".  Especially in America, people view Atheists as being very aggressive and hostile.  Instead of inventing a new term that seems less hostile, I would prefer to broaden my definition of an atheist.  Just as there are religious people who are less "sure" about the existence of god, there are atheists who are less "sure".    
 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

finex:
Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:   

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

I see it this way. People claiming to be offended because of something someone else did or said are in fact expressing their wish that the someone would not do it again and that they would pull back on what they did or said. To me that's the very definition of imposing censorship on others. Sure they're not saying it directly but are trying to manipulate others indirectly more or less indicating that they think the someone should actually apologize and correct their behavior according to their standards. Being offended is subtle and indirect way of expressing ones own intolerance and expectations that others should adopt self cersorship.

 

It's ok to dislike something or even someone as IMHO expressing dislike does not carry the baggage of a wish that the others should change their behavior. That would leave the question regarding the morality of the act open for the doers and sayers rather than declaring their actions improper or immoral. 

And yes, as you mentioned in the later post I fully agree that "being offended" is too vague of an expression and usually does not come with much definitive information why the offended actually is offended. In that sense the note that Mr. Fry makes: "It's just a whine." hits the mark on the spot.

I'm puzzled by your response for a couple of reasons.

 

First, if you agree that "offense" is vague, why choose to make such detailed suppositions about what someone else means when they use the term?  Why choose to repond by saying "your censoring me!"  as opposed to "what do you mean by offend"?

 

Second, it seems to me that we communicate judgment about others speech and action all the time.  Why is use of the term "offence" some kind of special case?

 

Also, one other question:  in your opinion, is it ever appropriate to say "X is offensive?"?  For example, when Kori used the term upthread, was he censoring religious expression? 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

Brad (ZeeZrom): I'm puzzled by your response for a couple of reasons.

 

First, if you agree that "offense" is vague, why choose to make such detailed suppositions about what someone else means when they use the term?  Why choose to repond by saying "your censoring me!"  as opposed to "what do you mean by offend"?

 

Second, it seems to me that we communicate judgment about others speech and action all the time.  Why is use of the term "offence" some kind of special case?

 

Also, one other question:  in your opinion, is it ever appropriate to say "X is offensive?"?  For example, when Kori used the term upthread, was he censoring religious expression? 

I believe this,

 

"Honestly I find the simplistic concept of a supernatural Sky Daddy, who rewards the nice children and punishes the naughty ones, like Santa Claus, offensive and naive, which is what I'm ridiculing.

 

is the quote in question.

 

 

 

 

 

 Signature 

“Not sure about a higher power but I definitely believe in re-sizing my images to not be so freaking wide.” Dark Chocolate

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-01-08

Brad (ZeeZrom):


I'm puzzled by your response for a couple of reasons.

 

First, if you agree that "offense" is vague, why choose to make such detailed suppositions about what someone else means when they use the term?  Why choose to repond by saying "your censoring me!"  as opposed to "what do you mean by offend"?

 

Second, it seems to me that we communicate judgment about others speech and action all the time.  Why is use of the term "offence" some kind of special case?

 

Also, one other question:  in your opinion, is it ever appropriate to say "X is offensive?"?  For example, when Kori used the term upthread, was he censoring religious expression? 

 

 Yes, there is also a place for "X is offensive", one fine example that comes to mind is when someone uses character assassination in discussions. That's offensive and very much out of the line. When expressing ones views honestly and openly and avoiding attacks against other persons character then there should be no reason for anyone to feel offended. 

 

Unfortunately religions in many occasions have managed to sneak in their own group identity into a persons mind and thus replaced pieces of one own normal identity. This results often as quite hostile reactions from such persons as they feel like someone insulted them when the criticism actually is directed at the religion rather than the persona of the member.

 

Just as a thought exercise lets say that I would come up with a new religion of my own. In my religion I would define that the use of a letter "e" is sacred and should be restricted only to the revelations from the god of my religion. All other texts using the letter "e" must be destroyed as it would be offensive toward my religious beliefs and my god. Now every time I would see someone use the letter "e" I would declare that offensive and thus everyone should take my feelings into account and restrain themselves from using the letter "e" in such offensive ways.

 

I created the example as absurd as I could think of to make the point. Anyone can make up whatever claims on feeling offended. The situation is no different when already established religions and believers make whatever claims themselves and demand that outsiders respect their faith and restrain from "offending" them for whatever reason.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-09-16

Brad (ZeeZrom):
finex:

 

I see it this way. People claiming to be offended because of something someone else did or said are in fact expressing their wish that the someone would not do it again and that they would pull back on what they did or said. To me that's the very definition of imposing censorship on others. Sure they're not saying it directly but are trying to manipulate others indirectly more or less indicating that they think the someone should actually apologize and correct their behavior according to their standards. Being offended is subtle and indirect way of expressing ones own intolerance and expectations that others should adopt self cersorship.

 

It's ok to dislike something or even someone as IMHO expressing dislike does not carry the baggage of a wish that the others should change their behavior. That would leave the question regarding the morality of the act open for the doers and sayers rather than declaring their actions improper or immoral. 

And yes, as you mentioned in the later post I fully agree that "being offended" is too vague of an expression and usually does not come with much definitive information why the offended actually is offended. In that sense the note that Mr. Fry makes: "It's just a whine." hits the mark on the spot.

I'm puzzled by your response for a couple of reasons.

 

First, if you agree that "offense" is vague, why choose to make such detailed suppositions about what someone else means when they use the term?  Why choose to repond by saying "your censoring me!"  as opposed to "what do you mean by offend"?

 

Second, it seems to me that we communicate judgment about others speech and action all the time.  Why is use of the term "offence" some kind of special case?

 

Also, one other question:  in your opinion, is it ever appropriate to say "X is offensive?"?  For example, when Kori used the term upthread, was he censoring religious expression? 

Hmm -- interesting question here. Who is trying to control whom? Is finex saying that people have no right to feel offended? Or no right to say they are offended? Which is it? And how can that not come down to -- I won't let you feel what you feel -- or at the very least I won't let you say what you feel? Furthermore, I am the victim! You are trying to control me (which is the best hiding place for me to control you).

 

This might cut quite seriously into atheist expression, a great deal of which comes down to "I am offended when you teach children beliefs that are not true." Or "I am offended when people use Christ as an excuse for naked aggression."

 

So is this yet another case of a raw double standard -- one for believers, especially Christian believers, and another for atheists?

 

Here are some other images I would find offensive:

 

Botticelli's Nascita di Venere with a meatball for a head and flowing spaghetti noodles for hair because that would -- like -- you know "show" me there is no goddess of love

The Buddha statue with Santa Claus as Buddha holding a can of Coke because that would -- like -- you know "show" me that there is no reincarnation, man!

Anasazi rock art figures translated to look like a Christian idea of the devil with horns because that would -- like -- you know "show" me that religious traditions outside of Christianity are just devil worship

Rapunzel with flowing spaghetti hair she lets down to a meatball because that would like -- you know -- "show" me that fairytales are wicked because they use fantastic imagery (as does modern art, by the way) and are the source of stereotypes about women and romance (feminist scholars disagree, by the way)

The Dalai Lama portrayed with a goofy idiot grin, a knocked out tooth, and a black eye because that would show me -- well -- that would just "show" me

Maybe it is just me, but I find all these projects childish. I don't have trouble honoring what others find sacred -- and that is across the board and applies to the Christian tradition, too. Also the whole "it isn't literally true!" is not only clichéd and overdone, it isn't all that deep, usually misses the point, and now induces hysteria in the contemporary atheist community.

And I think a poster who used to use as a sign-off line, "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness" might spend a little time considering the kindness of his posts.

And the atheist community as a whole might spend a little more time considering to whom they are trying to "show" what -- and to what end.

 Signature 

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.Oscar Wilde

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-04-17

Brad (ZeeZrom):
Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

 Thanks for the rephrase.    I do think it helps to talk about harm rather than "offense."  That gives us something to actually talk about.  So, do you feel you were harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive"?

[  ] No, I do not feel harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive".

 

The comment by TWW that I highlighted in yellow might be, in my estimation, a barb directed at, as TWW wrote, "Angry Atheists,".  If it was meant as a barb, as I assumed it to be, I was asking if that statement helps the conversation.  By helps or helpful, I mean does the comment promote or hinder amicable discourse.

 

If I assumed incorrectly, and the comment wasn't meant as a barb, I apologize to TWW. 

 Signature 

“I’m having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!”—Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

“I don’t object to the concept of a deity, but I’m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.”—Amy Farrah Fowler, The Big Bang Theory

“For the record, I do have genitals. They’re functional and aesthetically pleasing.”—Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

All comments, statements, opinions, suggestions, and information expressed, or quotes cited, represent the exclusive viewpoint of Aleut at that point in time and are NOT meant to compel or represent agreement by the reader. Aleut will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-04-26

Kori:
smithandthewestons:
We're putting WAY too much thought into this. Just accept Superman into your hearts and you will know peace. Superman loves you.

 

 

 

 Well, I know who I'M going to be this Halloween. Happy birthday, Satan.

 Signature 

“Superman is cooler than God”-Bryan Hitch

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-09-16

Aleut:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

 Thanks for the rephrase.    I do think it helps to talk about harm rather than "offense."  That gives us something to actually talk about.  So, do you feel you were harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive"?

[  ] No, I do not feel harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive".

 

The comment by TWW that I highlighted in yellow might be, in my estimation, a barb directed at, as TWW wrote, "Angry Atheists,".  If it was meant as a barb, as I assumed it to be, I was asking if that statement helps the conversation.  By helps or helpful, I mean does the comment promote or hinder amicable discourse.

 

If I assumed incorrectly, and the comment wasn't meant as a barb, I apologize to TWW. 

Color me amused. Is it helpful to mar world-class art? Is it helpful to sneer at rather beautiful creation myths of others? Good god. I don't need to point out the current atheist community holds a double standard -- one to which believers, especially Christian believers, are held -- and a completely different standard for themselves -- because so many posters here are hell-bent on showing us that is true.

 

Unfortunately, what goes around comes around, as street-wise Jesus sagely noted. And those who mock and disfigure Michelangelo's vision might find the world happily willing to graffiti their world with the 'a' word. Why not? Excuse me, but how is that worse? I thought it rather fit right in with the spirit here. So let me get this straight -- one of the great creations of this civilization can be distorted and twisted ugly but the current atheist movement is sacrosanct and no one had better call them the 'a' word that has seven letter and is not 'atheist' because -- well -- just because! Is nothing sacred!?!?!?!

 

Here is my first objection to the current atheist movement:

If there is no god, we can safely conclude that you are not He.

 Signature 

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.Oscar Wilde

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

thewriterwithin:
Aleut:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

 Thanks for the rephrase.    I do think it helps to talk about harm rather than "offense."  That gives us something to actually talk about.  So, do you feel you were harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive"?

[  ] No, I do not feel harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive".

 

The comment by TWW that I highlighted in yellow might be, in my estimation, a barb directed at, as TWW wrote, "Angry Atheists,".  If it was meant as a barb, as I assumed it to be, I was asking if that statement helps the conversation.  By helps or helpful, I mean does the comment promote or hinder amicable discourse.

 

If I assumed incorrectly, and the comment wasn't meant as a barb, I apologize to TWW. 

Color me amused. Is it helpful to mar world-class art? Is it helpful to sneer at rather beautiful creation myths of others? Good god. I don't need to point out the current atheist community holds a double standard -- one to which believers, especially Christian believers, are held -- and a completely different standard for themselves -- because so many posters here are hell-bent on showing us that is true.

 

Unfortunately, what goes around comes around, as street-wise Jesus sagely noted. And those who mock and disfigure Michelangelo's vision might find the world happily willing to graffiti their world with the 'a' word. Why not? Excuse me, but how is that worse? I thought it rather fit right in with the spirit here. So let me get this straight -- one of the great creations of this civilization can be distorted and twisted ugly but the current atheist movement is sacrosanct and no one had better call them the 'a' word that has seven letter and is not 'atheist' because -- well -- just because! Is nothing sacred!?!?!?!

 

Here is my first objection to the current atheist movement:

If there is no god, we can safely conclude that you are not He.

 

 TWW,

 

The tu quoque fallacy doesn't rescue you here.  The answer to Aleut's question is:  "No, it doesn't help to indirectly call Kori an "asshole" in a convoluted way that avoids using the term.

 

Under our rules, calling Kori an asshole is worse than posting a photoshopped picture a piece of art.  If there's any question about that, I'd be happy to elaborate.

 

What you really haven't addressed is whether you feel harmed by the photoshopped picture and, if so, what the nature of that harm is.  Has anyone actually marred the artwork?  It isn't like Kori spray painted grafitti on the original.  Is posting a photoshopped image that includes a piece of art in and of itself harm?  Or are you really objecting to the content of what the picture is intending to communicate?

 

Also, can you articluate for me exactly what this double standard is?  Is it something like:  it's okay for atheists to "offend" beleivers but not the other way around?  If it's that, I understand what you're saying and we can talk about it.  But I'd like to be clear on what you mean.

 

Also, when Aluet asked you if calling someone an asshole is "helpful," do you really interpret that as "atheism is sacred?"  If so, how do you get from one to the other?   

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

finex:

Brad (ZeeZrom):


I'm puzzled by your response for a couple of reasons.

 

First, if you agree that "offense" is vague, why choose to make such detailed suppositions about what someone else means when they use the term?  Why choose to repond by saying "your censoring me!"  as opposed to "what do you mean by offend"?

 

Second, it seems to me that we communicate judgment about others speech and action all the time.  Why is use of the term "offence" some kind of special case?

 

Also, one other question:  in your opinion, is it ever appropriate to say "X is offensive?"?  For example, when Kori used the term upthread, was he censoring religious expression? 

 

 Yes, there is also a place for "X is offensive", one fine example that comes to mind is when someone uses character assassination in discussions. That's offensive and very much out of the line. When expressing ones views honestly and openly and avoiding attacks against other persons character then there should be no reason for anyone to feel offended. 

 

Unfortunately religions in many occasions have managed to sneak in their own group identity into a persons mind and thus replaced pieces of one own normal identity. This results often as quite hostile reactions from such persons as they feel like someone insulted them when the criticism actually is directed at the religion rather than the persona of the member.

 

Just as a thought exercise lets say that I would come up with a new religion of my own. In my religion I would define that the use of a letter "e" is sacred and should be restricted only to the revelations from the god of my religion. All other texts using the letter "e" must be destroyed as it would be offensive toward my religious beliefs and my god. Now every time I would see someone use the letter "e" I would declare that offensive and thus everyone should take my feelings into account and restrain themselves from using the letter "e" in such offensive ways.

 

I created the example as absurd as I could think of to make the point. Anyone can make up whatever claims on feeling offended. The situation is no different when already established religions and believers make whatever claims themselves and demand that outsiders respect their faith and restrain from "offending" them for whatever reason.

 

 OK, but here is where this discussion gets very tricky for me.  Why is it somehow invalid for a person to consider an attribute of a group part of their individual identity?  What is the "individual identity" and where does it come from?  Is it composed of anything other than what we think and believe?

 

The more I get involved in this type of discussion, the less confidence I have about the ability to distinguish between criticism of a person and criticism of that person's beliefs.  Just to pick on Kori, when he describes a certain idea of god "naive," is it possible to do that without calling someone who has adopted that belief as "naive?"

 

I like your example of legitimate offense.  But here's my problem:  in my time as moderator here, I've found no general agreement on what constitututes an attack on a person.  What you may think of as an offensive personal attack may be a legitimate argument to someone else.  In other words, it's just like your point that what constitutes an offense picture to someone may be humorous to someone else.

 

Once we say there are some legitimate reasons for "offense," then expressing offense in and of itself isn't a bad thing.  Indeed, I think by your own argument, trying to censor or control someone else's behavior isn't in and of itself a bad thing.  The trick is distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate offense.  If we are to do that in a principled way, then we can't just react to an expression of offense by saying "stop censoring me."  We have to examine and understand the reason that the other person feels offended and then try to figure out which side of the line we're on. 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-04-17

thewriterwithin:
Aleut:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

 Thanks for the rephrase.    I do think it helps to talk about harm rather than "offense."  That gives us something to actually talk about.  So, do you feel you were harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive"?

[  ] No, I do not feel harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive".

 

The comment by TWW that I highlighted in yellow might be, in my estimation, a barb directed at, as TWW wrote, "Angry Atheists,".  If it was meant as a barb, as I assumed it to be, I was asking if that statement helps the conversation.  By helps or helpful, I mean does the comment promote or hinder amicable discourse.

 

If I assumed incorrectly, and the comment wasn't meant as a barb, I apologize to TWW. 

Color me amused. Is it helpful to mar world-class art? Is it helpful to sneer at rather beautiful creation myths of others? Good god. I don't need to point out the current atheist community holds a double standard -- one to which believers, especially Christian believers, are held -- and a completely different standard for themselves -- because so many posters here are hell-bent on showing us that is true.

 

Unfortunately, what goes around comes around, as street-wise Jesus sagely noted. And those who mock and disfigure Michelangelo's vision might find the world happily willing to graffiti their world with the 'a' word. Why not? Excuse me, but how is that worse? I thought it rather fit right in with the spirit here. So let me get this straight -- one of the great creations of this civilization can be distorted and twisted ugly but the current atheist movement is sacrosanct and no one had better call them the 'a' word that has seven letter and is not 'atheist' because -- well -- just because! Is nothing sacred!?!?!?!

 

Here is my first objection to the current atheist movement:

If there is no god, we can safely conclude that you are not He.

[  ] No, I don't believe it is helpful.

 

Do I think Kori is promoting amicable discourse when he writes, "I agree with Nietzsche, the word, 'god' has become an egoic cliche, which conjures up images of the big guy upstairs," and then illustrates this statement with a crudely altered picture of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam?  No, I do not.

 

But neither does, as Brad wrote, ‘to indirectly call Kori an "asshole" in a convoluted way that avoids using the term‘ promote a civil discussion, in my opinion. 

 

So to be fair, I’ll ask Kori the same question.  Kori is your use of the picture in question helpful and/or does it promote amicable discourse?

 

I just wish these discussions could occur without inflammatory rhetoric [ETA] or images.

 Signature 

“I’m having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!”—Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

“I don’t object to the concept of a deity, but I’m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.”—Amy Farrah Fowler, The Big Bang Theory

“For the record, I do have genitals. They’re functional and aesthetically pleasing.”—Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

All comments, statements, opinions, suggestions, and information expressed, or quotes cited, represent the exclusive viewpoint of Aleut at that point in time and are NOT meant to compel or represent agreement by the reader. Aleut will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-07-30

Brad offered his observation that...

 

The more I get involved in this type of discussion, the less confidence I have about the ability to distinguish between criticism of a person and criticism of that person's beliefs.  

 

It is my BYU Communications 201 opinion that even if it is possible, the system that would insure this would be too cumbersome to be useful.

 

We learned in Communication 201 that the popular notion that when I say a word, I fill that word-vessel with my 'meaning' and hand it to my listener/reader, who looks into the vessel and knows all that I meant to communicate when I said the word.

 

Alas, that's not what happens.  I pull the word-vessel off my extremely well stock vocabulary shelves and offer it to my listener/reader.  But rather than take the offered word-vessel, my listener/reader turns to his/her vocabulary shelves and takes that word-vessel off his/her shelf, looks into it and sees what that word means to him.  It works the same way for visual cues.  What I'm thinking when I look at a painting may not be what you're thinking when you're standing there next to me, and to assume so invites miscommunication.

 

The supposed cure for this communication malady is for the speaker/writer to say his/her word and follow it up with, "...and by that I mean..."  Or the listener can put off judgment for a second to ask, "...when you say ____, do you mean ______?"  In other words, the art of paraphrasing is practiced as the two try to what the word means to each of them.  It can become very cumbersome, which makes firing from the hip such a pleasure.

 

There are two classics from my old text book:

 

1.  a mother tells her 16 year old daughter, "I think you and your boyfriend should cool it."  The mother meant she wanted her daughter to reduce the frequency and duration of the daughter's interaction with the boyfriend.  The daughter thought 'cool it' meant quit it!  So that night she and her boyfriend kidnapped the mother, took her out to the desert, decapitated her, and buried the remains.  When they got caught and the boyfriend flipped on the girl in a plea deal, and said it was because the mother had told her to break up with him, the girl's father told the cops that all the mom meant was 'slow down.'  When the girl was told this, her response was, "Oops, my bad..."

 

2.  Years ago, a guy stops on the highway to raise his convertible top, a manual job.  But the car won't start and he determines he has a dead battery.  A two ladies in a pick up truck stop to see if he needs help.  He explains his problem.  The driver of the pick up offers to push start him, an offer he accepts with alacrity.  But he explains to her, "I have an automatic transmission, so you're going to have to get up to at least 35 miles per hour."  She nods her head and then makes a U-turn to get behind him.  The guy then busies himself getting ready and thanking his lucky stars.  Then he looks in his rearview mirror and sees her driving away from him.  But then about a half mile from him she flips another U-ie.  He is puzzled, wondering why she went so far back.  But then, too late, it becomes too clear, and she rear-ends him at 35 mph.  True story....

 

Communication via words is fraught with danger.  What works best to save us is a good attitude and taking pains to make sure that you get across what the contents of your words are.  Most of the time we just don't care because it's such hard work.  That and we assume like mo/fos.

 

On this board it gets more and more unlikely that the intent of a writer is to offend.  So it's almost axiomatic that if the use of a word, concept, photo, etc., offends you it's because of the power/content you give to the word, concept or photo.  We are really pretty good about not trying to assault one another.

 

See you all again next year for this same discourse... 

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-09-16

Brad (ZeeZrom):
thewriterwithin:
Aleut:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
Aleut:
finex:
Aleut:
finex:
thewriterwithin:
Kori:

 

 

This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist."

 

 Well this might help in your axiety.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.com/2013/02/07/censorship-on-being-offended-stephen-fry/

IMO, Stephen Fry's quote, linked to above, is exceedingly insolent.  He is dismissive of the legitimate feelings of another person.  Granted the offended party could bolster their position if they had added the reason for feeling offended.  Nevertheless, IMO Mr. Fry is wrong to disregard the feelings of others and label them as a whiner for expressing offense.

 

Of course maybe I’ve misjudged the quote if it was meant to be humorous.

 

 

TWW, Are these barbs really helpful?

 

 I think that the point Mr. Fry is making is actually the fact that, yes people can get offended and that they have every right to do so if they feel like it, but it does not give them the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others for the sake that they wouldn't feel offended. One thing that is funny to one is offending the other and hence demanding censorship on on basis what offends you is the same as imposing your standards on everyone else. Now what is more arrogant if not just that? And yes, IMHO religions are extremely arrogant, insolent and very intolerant on that regard.

IMO it is difficult to infer from the Fry quote that he feels someone has the right to express offense but doesn't have the right to demand or impose censorship.

--Edited to add-- Fry says in the quote, "As if that gives them certain rights."  By this statement alone, I find it hard to conclude that he meant, "the right to demand, suggest or impose censorship on others..."  To me, his quote was just being flippantly dismissive of another person's opinion.

 

I want to make it clear, I am (--edited to rephrase to clarify for Brad  --) *harmed because I have my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness impeded* when religious standards are imposed upon me for no other reason than the religious believer(s) think that everyone should conform to their life-style.

 

 Thanks for the rephrase.    I do think it helps to talk about harm rather than "offense."  That gives us something to actually talk about.  So, do you feel you were harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive"?

[  ] No, I do not feel harmed by TWW's labeling of the picture "offensive".

 

The comment by TWW that I highlighted in yellow might be, in my estimation, a barb directed at, as TWW wrote, "Angry Atheists,".  If it was meant as a barb, as I assumed it to be, I was asking if that statement helps the conversation.  By helps or helpful, I mean does the comment promote or hinder amicable discourse.

 

If I assumed incorrectly, and the comment wasn't meant as a barb, I apologize to TWW. 

Color me amused. Is it helpful to mar world-class art? Is it helpful to sneer at rather beautiful creation myths of others? Good god. I don't need to point out the current atheist community holds a double standard -- one to which believers, especially Christian believers, are held -- and a completely different standard for themselves -- because so many posters here are hell-bent on showing us that is true.

 

Unfortunately, what goes around comes around, as street-wise Jesus sagely noted. And those who mock and disfigure Michelangelo's vision might find the world happily willing to graffiti their world with the 'a' word. Why not? Excuse me, but how is that worse? I thought it rather fit right in with the spirit here. So let me get this straight -- one of the great creations of this civilization can be distorted and twisted ugly but the current atheist movement is sacrosanct and no one had better call them the 'a' word that has seven letter and is not 'atheist' because -- well -- just because! Is nothing sacred!?!?!?!

 

Here is my first objection to the current atheist movement:

If there is no god, we can safely conclude that you are not He.

 

 TWW,

 

The tu quoque fallacy doesn't rescue you here.  The answer to Aleut's question is:  "No, it doesn't help to indirectly call Kori an "asshole" in a convoluted way that avoids using the term.

 

Under our rules, calling Kori an asshole is worse than posting a photoshopped picture a piece of art.  If there's any question about that, I'd be happy to elaborate.

 

What you really haven't addressed is whether you feel harmed by the photoshopped picture and, if so, what the nature of that harm is.  Has anyone actually marred the artwork?  It isn't like Kori spray painted grafitti on the original.  Is posting a photoshopped image that includes a piece of art in and of itself harm?  Or are you really objecting to the content of what the picture is intending to communicate?

 

Also, can you articluate for me exactly what this double standard is?  Is it something like:  it's okay for atheists to "offend" beleivers but not the other way around?  If it's that, I understand what you're saying and we can talk about it.  But I'd like to be clear on what you mean.

 

Also, when Aluet asked you if calling someone an asshole is "helpful," do you really interpret that as "atheism is sacred?"  If so, how do you get from one to the other?   

Are you telling me how I MUST answer a question, Brad? Because you might live to regret that... 

 

I try to write my sentences with some -- but obviously not perfect -- care.

 

This is what I wrote: "This is offensive. It is behavior like this that makes me angry at the AAs. This is usually decoded as "Angry Atheists," but I can think of a another word, starts with an 'a' and is seven letters. It is not "atheist.""

 

This is something I have thought for some now. I did not dream it up to describe Kori or posters on this board -- only as far as this is part of a larger movement of misbehavior. It is not a phrase I regret. It is working for me. Furthermore, it describes "behavior," not people. If I publish, will it wound the sensitive feelings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the intellectual heirs of Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett?

 

Jesus frigging Christ on a raft! We can only HOPE so! But I doubt we will ever get that lucky!

 

And if we can't call them those guys that phrase, yet they can call the Dixie Chicks "####### fat slags" and misrepresent and mock everyone else's inner life, if that isn't making atheism sacrosanct, what would that be like?

 

I am sooooooooooo glad the discussion went this way. Whew. For a minute there I was worried everyone was avoiding my post rather proving with "evidence," which is (supposedly) sacred around here, that sometimes religions represent fairness, equality, and progress, and sometimes atheists represent privilege for upper-class white male atheists, childishness, self-indulgence, and hypocrisy. I see I've gotten a lot of appropriate responses to that.

 

Why don't ya'll post some more mangled Michelangelo pictures because that will "show" me and "put me in my place"?

 

Meanwhile, I will share with you the thoughts of a few others on the Angry -- er -- "Atheists:"

 

“Richard Dawkins and the Unbearable Smugness of Tweeting”

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/23/3743221.htm

 

"Is Richard Dawkins Really the World's Leading Intellectual?"

 "...Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-david-wolpe/is-richard-dawkins-really-the-worlds-leading-intellectual_b_3226638.html

(No. I don't feel harmed. It is insulting to great art and a rather beautiful myth. I would never let anyone mock the Corn Goddess or Coyote this way, so I am trying for some semblance of consistency rather than the "outrageous partisanship" I see so often modeled. I would like to point out that it is used here often in a perfectly Mormon argument -- I have the only "true" values, words, stories, and images for my thoughts and everyone else's values, words, stories, and images are inferior to mine -- I think I will mock them as the old temple ceremony used to do. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.)

 

 

 

 

 

 Signature 

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.Oscar Wilde

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-05-28

thewriterwithin:

 

Jesus frigging Christ on a raft! 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Is nothing Sacred?

 

Using the name of the Christians Lord and Savior in such a manner is highly offensive to Christiandom.

 

So you might try using the alternative...

 

"Jesse frigging Chrisy on a raft" or "James rigging Chris on a ship"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Signature 

The Book of Mormon is Christian “Fan Fiction”.... I am not a fan :)

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-01-08

Brad (ZeeZrom):   

 

 OK, but here is where this discussion gets very tricky for me.  Why is it somehow invalid for a person to consider an attribute of a group part of their individual identity?  What is the "individual identity" and where does it come from?  Is it composed of anything other than what we think and believe?

 

The more I get involved in this type of discussion, the less confidence I have about the ability to distinguish between criticism of a person and criticism of that person's beliefs.  Just to pick on Kori, when he describes a certain idea of god "naive," is it possible to do that without calling someone who has adopted that belief as "naive?"

 

I like your example of legitimate offense.  But here's my problem:  in my time as moderator here, I've found no general agreement on what constitututes an attack on a person.  What you may think of as an offensive personal attack may be a legitimate argument to someone else.  In other words, it's just like your point that what constitutes an offense picture to someone may be humorous to someone else.

 

Once we say there are some legitimate reasons for "offense," then expressing offense in and of itself isn't a bad thing.  Indeed, I think by your own argument, trying to censor or control someone else's behavior isn't in and of itself a bad thing.  The trick is distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate offense.  If we are to do that in a principled way, then we can't just react to an expression of offense by saying "stop censoring me."  We have to examine and understand the reason that the other person feels offended and then try to figure out which side of the line we're on. 

 

Very good and valid question. I am a bowler, I'm even a captain of a team so that hobby is obviously part of my identity. However when someone criticizes or ridicules the sport or my bowling team I don't get upset or feel offended, I might even laugh with them if I get the jokes. How is a hobby like bowling different from a religion? Being a practicing member of the sport does not define me, but rather a thing I like and enjoy and this is the way I see a "healthy" identity should be. Now I don't mean to say that is the only way it should be  since I'm not a psychiatrist , but this just my opinion in this particular case. In many cases religious people they define themselves through their religion firstly being Christian, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness etc. thus instead of just associating themselves with the group they actually have substituted their own identity with that of the group. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the religious identity in many cases has become embedded one or more levels too deep within the mind of a believer and has become a defining factor of a persona and thus resulting that leaving the religion will be all the more painful and difficult.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

It seems to me that some people are not really happy unless they are offended.  It's a bit oxymoronic. isn't it?
 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

Aleut:[  ] No, I don't believe it is helpful.

 

Do I think Kori is promoting amicable discourse when he writes, "I agree with Nietzsche, the word, 'god' has become an egoic cliche, which conjures up images of the big guy upstairs," and then illustrates this statement with a crudely altered picture of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam?  No, I do not.

 

But neither does, as Brad wrote, to indirectly call Kori an "asshole" in a convoluted way that avoids using the term promote a civil discussion, in my opinion.

That's clearly an ad hominem attack, but 'asshole' and 'unkind' are far from the worst things I've been called. My X inlaws are pretty sure I'm Satan. 

So to be fair, I’ll ask Kori the same question.  Kori is your use of the picture in question helpful and/or does it promote amicable discourse?

 

I just wish these discussions could occur without inflammatory rhetoric [ETA] or images.

Who ever said discourse had to be amicable?

Amicable is: Having a spirit of friendliness; without serious disagreement or rancor

I'm all for friendliness, but I think usually a discourse without disagreement is pretty boring honestly. 

Did the picture promote discourse, obviously, and it was amicable right up until thewriterwithin  made it personal by attacking my character, rather than the idea I was presenting, that Neitzsche was right, "God is dead" And as long as He's dead, we might as well point out the absurdity of that appocalyptic myth in order to debunk it, before it wipes out the human race. 

Did Neitzsche care about promoting amicable discourse when he wrote "God is dead" in "Thus Spake Zarathustra"?

Did Parker and Stone care about promoting amicable discourse when they wrote the lines,  "F*ck you, God, in the ass, mouth and cunt!" in the Book of Mormon Musical?

They used inflamatory rhetoric and images to provoke discourse, which worked, obviously. Which is not always amicable, but I don't necessarily think amicable is neccessary when you're attempting to debunk barbaric, tribal, appocalyptic bogus myths, which really don't deserve respect, they deserve to be debunked.

I'm offended that over 60% of my fellow citizens subscribe to barbaric, tribal, appocalyptic myths and I do my best to introduce them to my old friend, Cod Dis, which will either drive them insane or drive them sane.

thewriterwithin, I suggest you avoid reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, Night by Ellie Weisel, seeing The Book of Mormon Musical or watching South Park, (or anything else on Comedy Central for that matter) if you're ego is so tied to these bogus appocalyptic myths that you get offended every time you witness your sacred cows get skewered, which is a great American tradition in which I'm a participant. 

 Signature 

“Not sure about a higher power but I definitely believe in re-sizing my images to not be so freaking wide.” Dark Chocolate

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

PJ:
It seems to me that some people (thewriterwithinare not really happy unless they are offended.  It's a bit oxymoronic. isn't it?

 

 absurd egoism of feeble souls, more like. 

 

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." Einstein

 

 "More the knowledge lesser the Ego, lesser the knowledge, more the Ego"  Einstein 

 Signature 

“Not sure about a higher power but I definitely believe in re-sizing my images to not be so freaking wide.” Dark Chocolate

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-01-25

Kori:
PJ:
It seems to me that some people (thewriterwithinare not really happy unless they are offended.  It's a bit oxymoronic. isn't it?

 

 absurd egoism of feeble souls, more like. 

 

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." Einstein

 

 "More the knowledge lesser the Ego, lesser the knowledge, more the Ego"  Einstein 

 

Kori, thewriterwithin is a quality and well read student of God, what's your point?

 

And try and remember, she probably recalls that most Mormons became brainwashed into thinking wrongly that, they might become a God, right?

 

 

 Signature 

-Nothing beats a failure like a try 
_______________________________________________________________________
When you believe in things that you don’t understand, Then you suffer…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekkkD8HU944
          Stevie Wonder - Superstition Live

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

josephs myth:

Kori, thewriterwithin is a quality and well read student of God, what's your point?

 

And try and remember, she probably recalls that most Mormons became brainwashed into thinking wrongly that, they might become a God, right?

 

When somebody is easily offended by some percieved criticism of their beliefs, they've typically made the mistake of attaching their own individual ego (personal narrative) to the herd's super ego (meta narrative, i.e., religion or politics).

 

Someone once asked Albert Einstein, “What is the most important principle in scientific investigation?” Einstein replied, “The absence of egoism.”

 

-
If you do not consider the truth worthy enough to be lived, then it is improper of you to consider it worthy of being honored. For the acquisition of perfect knowledge nothing is more essential than a mind that is humble and free. But as a rule the mind is neither humble nor free. It is usually afflicted with egoistic pride and tightly hemmed in by obsessions and feelings of prejudice. Egoism constricts it from within and obsessions and prejudices restrict it from without. And imprisoned thusly, the human intellect gradually loses its capacity to rip open the seal that covers truth.
-
Someone once asked Albert Einstein, “What is the most important principle in scientific investigation?” Do you know what Einstein replied? Even in his wildest dreams the questioner could never have imagined the reply he was given. Einstein said, “The absence of egoism.”
-
Without a doubt, the key to perfect knowledge is the absence of egoism. Egoism is ignorance. The mind that is filled with the notion of “I” has almost no room left to welcome truth as its guest. If it were free from this-I-ness there would be lots of room for truth. The house of the heart is too small for two to obtain adequate accommodation. Kabir was not at all wrong when he said the path to God was narrow.
-
The ego is an avid collector of obsessions and prejudices. Can you think of an easier way to appear wise in one’s ignorance? The ego gathers bits and pieces of knowledge for its own growth, for its own further development. It steadfastly holds on to its own notions and pet ideas as a way to protect itself. You will notice that any intellectual discussion very quickly evolves into a battle of egos. It doesn’t take very long before it’s my truth, my religion, my scriptures, my God, and not just truth, religion, scriptures, God.
-
The ego thrives on this kind of thing; its whole existence is centered in these kinds of notions. How can truth be present when “I” asserts itself? How can there be any religion there.
-
How can perfect knowledge find any room? To the extent “I” is present, truth is absent. In this sort of situation the ego simply accepts the precepts and words of the scripture as truth and remains quite content with itself." OSHO
-

 

 Signature 

“Not sure about a higher power but I definitely believe in re-sizing my images to not be so freaking wide.” Dark Chocolate

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

Thread closed for moderator review.  
 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

We've reviewed this thread and will be addressing the rules violations on an individual basis.

 

Please remember, postmormon.org is a support board with a defined mission.  We try to give folks as much leeway as possible in terms of subject matter, as long as they aren't working against our mission.  Every time someone posts a personal attack on another community member, they send a message to new folks that discourages them from expressing themselves.  Personal insults and passive aggressive potshots are not welcome here.

 

 If you feel someone has violated house rules, your rememdy is to click on the "support" link that appears above each post.  We consider engaging in "self help" by retaliating in kind as more serious than the original infraction.

 

We have reopened the thread, as we think the discussion about how we treat each other here is important.  Please don't see this as an invitation to continue the personal attacks that have occurred to this point.

 

 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-06-26

Fascinating to see where my thread went. I have never commented on it except to make the original post. I came back to see why my thread had been locked and hidden and to see if I was in trouble with the moderators for my original post. (I couldn't figure out how anything I said could be an actionable offense.)

I remember sitting in an etiquette class at an LDS youth conference once. The teacher said that in polite dinner table conversation, you should never discuss religion or politics. (I guess it was rather remarkable to hear an LDS woman say this. She was a really classy lady, always dressed immaculately.)

Religion is a really offensive topic and there is no way to discuss it without offending people. People should not visit this site or others like it unless they are ready to be offended. Sites like this are full of angry mean people who love to argue and ridicule and talk trash. That is just the nature of the beast. If a person can't swim, then he or she should stay out of the swimming pool.

Allow me to illustrate how offensive it is to talk about religion. I will make some sample statements and list some of the people the statements offend:

"Joseph Smith was a true prophet." Offends ex-Mormons.

"Joseph Smith was a pedophile, rapist, power-abusing liar." Offends Mormons and open minded non-Mormons not well informed on the subject.

"God is a myth." Offends ex-Mormons who are still Christians.

"I believe in God, but He is different than the Mormons taught me that He is." Offends atheists, offends Mormons.

"Mormons aren't Christians." Offends Mormons. Offends linguists. Offends logicians.

"We need to win the war in Afghanistan." Offends Muslims. Offends Christian pacifists. Offends a lot of realists of various political perspectives.

"Joseph's Myth is a false profit of the LD$ Church" Offends Mormons. Offends people who think that name calling is an unacceptable and childish debating tactic.

"I think I am going to go back to being a Mormon." Offends ex-Mormons.

"There are things I miss about being a Mormon." Offends ex-Mormons.

"Coffee is good for you." Offends Mormons. Offends people who have read studies that say coffee is bad for you."

"Coffee is bad for you." Offends ex-Mormons who drink it and people who have read studies that say coffee is good for you.

"Jesus never existed." Offends Christians. Offends mainstream historians.

"Jesus did exist." Offends certain historians and their followers.

"Jesus existed but never performed any miracles." Offends Christians.

"The LDS Church is just a big corporation trying to bring in as much tithing money as possible." Offends Mormons. Offends ex-Mormons who think that it is about power and control, not about money.

"The LDS Church does lots of charity work with the tithing money it collects." Offends people involved in certain other charities. Offends ex-Mormons and non-Mormons who have analyzed the numbers.


A person could just go on and on offending everyone in sight. How could a person possibly talk about religion without offending people?

And any little thing you say implies other things. Suppose I say that I am an Agnostic. That is a fairly innocent statement. But somewhere on Earth there might be someone who has thoughts like this triggered:

"He is an agnostic."
"He is not a Muslim."
"He rejects the prophet!"
"He is wicked and sinful!"
"He is evil!"
"He hates Muslims!"
"He supports the war against Islam!"
"He is an infidel and must be killed in righteous Jihad! Allah Akbar!"

Now wait a minute. I said I was an agnostic, and now all of a sudden someone is out to kill me? My example is a bit extreme, but I am just saying that one thought leads to another, and the smallest statement that you make can be construed as a deadly insult.

I think most people who come to this site are spoiling for a fight. Often people direct all their invective against the Mormon Church which is a pretty safe, because few believing Mormons would want to hang out at this site. But then when ex-Mormons start doing anything besides talking trash about the church, then they start fighting each other with all the passion they had built up for railing against the church with.

Maybe an unwritten rule on this site is that you can insult Mormons all you want, but insulting ex-Mormons is strictly prohibited.
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-04-17

Kori:
Aleut:[  ] No, I don't believe it is helpful.

 

Do I think Kori is promoting amicable discourse when he writes, "I agree with Nietzsche, the word, 'god' has become an egoic cliche, which conjures up images of the big guy upstairs," and then illustrates this statement with a crudely altered picture of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam?  No, I do not.

 

But neither does, as Brad wrote, to indirectly call Kori an "asshole" in a convoluted way that avoids using the term promote a civil discussion, in my opinion.

That's clearly an ad hominem attack, but 'asshole' and 'unkind' are far from the worst things I've been called. My X inlaws are pretty sure I'm Satan. 

So to be fair, I’ll ask Kori the same question.  Kori is your use of the picture in question helpful and/or does it promote amicable discourse?

 

I just wish these discussions could occur without inflammatory rhetoric [ETA] or images.

Who ever said discourse had to be amicable?

Amicable is: Having a spirit of friendliness; without serious disagreement or rancor

I'm all for friendliness, but I think usually a discourse without disagreement is pretty boring honestly. 

Did the picture promote discourse, obviously, and it was amicable right up until thewriterwithin  made it personal by attacking my character, rather than the idea I was presenting, that Neitzsche was right, "God is dead" And as long as He's dead, we might as well point out the absurdity of that appocalyptic myth in order to debunk it, before it wipes out the human race. 

Did Neitzsche care about promoting amicable discourse when he wrote "God is dead" in "Thus Spake Zarathustra"?

Did Parker and Stone care about promoting amicable discourse when they wrote the lines,  "F*ck you, God, in the ass, mouth and cunt!" in the Book of Mormon Musical?

They used inflamatory rhetoric and images to provoke discourse, which worked, obviously. Which is not always amicable, but I don't necessarily think amicable is neccessary when you're attempting to debunk barbaric, tribal, appocalyptic bogus myths, which really don't deserve respect, they deserve to be debunked.

I'm offended that over 60% of my fellow citizens subscribe to barbaric, tribal, appocalyptic myths and I do my best to introduce them to my old friend, Cod Dis, which will either drive them insane or drive them sane.

thewriterwithin, I suggest you avoid reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, Night by Ellie Weisel, seeing The Book of Mormon Musical or watching South Park, (or anything else on Comedy Central for that matter) if you're ego is so tied to these bogus appocalyptic myths that you get offended every time you witness your sacred cows get skewered, which is a great American tradition in which I'm a participant. 

[  ] Kori, I have no problem with disagreements.  And I understand that no matter what we write or display here, it is likely that someone may be offended or feel harmed.

 

After reading the definition you cited for the word amicable, I see I could have used a better adjective.  I should have used the word tactful, and by that I mean: showing skill and sensitivity in dealing with people in an effort to avoid being inconsiderate.

 

Reading the debates and disagreements here at PostMo have challenged and expanded my understanding on many topics.  I don't want these types of discussions to stop.  I just wish the arguments and counterarguments could remain tactful and not degenerate into petulant bickering or personal attacks.

 Signature 

“I’m having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!”—Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

“I don’t object to the concept of a deity, but I’m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.”—Amy Farrah Fowler, The Big Bang Theory

“For the record, I do have genitals. They’re functional and aesthetically pleasing.”—Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory

All comments, statements, opinions, suggestions, and information expressed, or quotes cited, represent the exclusive viewpoint of Aleut at that point in time and are NOT meant to compel or represent agreement by the reader. Aleut will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

 
3 of 4
3
     
 


Our next project
will be announced soon.

Tax exempt status.
All_no-ing
Guy
Hi, Kolob
Hopi Bon!
kkellycpa

Logged in: 6
Not logged in: 70
Logged in anonymous: 1
(Joined in last 24 hours)
 
maynardg
The 1Guy2

Total members: 9607
LDS and Virginia connection?
by WestBerkeleyFlats
KATE KELLY'S APPEAL
by Sleight of Hand
TBM Tinder Date
by Dark Chocolate
Joesph Smiths Wives
by Swearing Elder
resignation screwups in SLC
by John E. Baker, III [was GraciesDaddy]