Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^ That or you are feeding peoples behaviors into a narrative that allow you to decry what people say without actually addressing a single thing they say. After all, if you can merely pretend they are being mean and nasty, then you do not have to engage intellectually with a single word. You can just dismiss it and run.
^ And beyond that, even IF for the sake of argument they are being mean and nasty, does not change that no intellectual engagement is happening, but rather "dismiss and run".
Sometimes people are less than kind or gentle in this space, on both sides of the topics under discussion. But that is really irrelevant to the veracity of the actual points being made. A thing is true or untrue, substantiated or not, whether presented sweetly or bluntly.
I am not much swayed by the tone of arguments, but by their validity. Now invalid arguments with a bad tone, do become tiresome much more quickly than good arguments with a nice tone. But tone changes nothing whatsoever about the argument itself, it only influences the amount of effort that sometimes has to go into separating personalities from principles under discussion. And in all honesty, where the thin skin generally is to be found is on the side of the argument without a leg to stand on.
if you can merely pretend they are being mean and nasty, then you do not have to engage intellectually with a single word. You can just dismiss it and run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
^ And beyond that, even IF for the sake of argument they are being mean and nasty, does not change that no intellectual engagement is happening, but rather "dismiss and run".
No intellectual engagement occurs, and people walk away, because by definition it is impossible to have a conversation that is "intellectual" in any sense of the word with someone who engages in the toxic offensive behaviors of name calling, sarcasm, insults, condescension, belittling, berating, mocking, deriding, and hostility. That is the point Victorian was trying to make on the other thread: no one is going to listen to or take seriously what someone says if their behavior is toxic and offensive.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-20-2016 at 02:32 PM..
No intellectual engagement occurs, and people walk away, because by definition it is impossible to have a conversation that is "intellectual" in any sense of the word with someone who engages in the toxic offensive behaviors of name calling, sarcasm, insults, condescension, belittling, berating, mocking, deriding, and hostility.
And yet I repeat, there are many, myself included, who are not engaging in that behavior. But you ignore what they say anyway in order to feed and play this narrative of which you speak.
If someone is being toxic, that is one thing. But pretending they are being toxic in order to dodge replying to what they actually say or ask.... is entirely another.
These are toxic, offensive behaviors: insulting, name calling, sarcasm, condescension, belittling, mocking, berating
the problem is not what he is expressing, it is how he is expressing it
the problem is not what he believes, it is how he behaves
he (and others who engage in these behaviors regularly on this forum) justify, defend, and rationalize the toxic behavior, rather than seeking to address it. That is not a "desire for progress." It is a willing deliberate intention to continue engaging in toxic offensive behavior.
Hypocrisy? I would think it is toxic too.
I agree, name calling, empty insults, useless sarcasm, needless condescension, belittling, mocking, and berating are all part of anger or comedy to entertain. Even if sometimes it does educate, it isn't often. Especially not in rote writing to an open and varied audience.
When I see him insulting, name calling, etc. I will call it out.
But stoping all sarcasm and belittling is probably going to be too sensitive and controlling to be possible. I've seen sarcasm and belittling used by the Abrahamic monotheists, and the atheists in question weren't as sensitive as that in order to be offended so as to wish censure.
But stoping all sarcasm and belittling is probably going to be too sensitive and controlling to be possible. I've seen sarcasm and belittling used by the Abrahamic monotheists, and the atheists in question weren't as sensitive as that in order to be offended so as to wish censure.
Yes I think it is pretty clear which side is far more thin-skinned, and why.
I also do not believe in actual incivility other than as a measured rebuke to incivility or obtuseness. Where I draw the line, others are certainly free to disagree with. But it has no bearing on the actual points being made. And it seems to me rather telling that when there's an opportunity to demonstrate civility that you claim to believe in by not taking things personally and responding to actual points in a substantive and honest manner, the tendency instead is to whine about the tenor of the discourse rather than to advance it.
In my experience when someone is really bent on being abusive, nothing you say is going to change that. But when that is not truly their focus, their animus will fade away in the face of it not being fed. I try to give people a minimum reason to get off on interpersonal drama on the one hand, and fight fire with fire on the other. Doubtless there have been times when I failed in striking that balance. But there is no basis to characterize me (and most of my compatriots here) as bad actors who are out to hurt others. That is simply over-determined and a deflection.
Again: each of us are not our beliefs. We as persons should be judged by our actions rather than by our beliefs. But our beliefs themselves stand or fall on their merits or lack thereof. Being ego-invested in your beliefs is on each individual (including me). Ideas (including mine) do not get a free pass in the marketplace of idea.
So ... if my ideas are something you disagree with, offer me evidence or logical argument that I'm not aware of and let us discuss it. And afford me that same dignity without finding ways to take it personally that I don't see it your way.
We as persons should be judged by our actions rather than by our beliefs.
But our beliefs themselves stand or fall on their merits or lack thereof.
So ... if my ideas are something you disagree with, offer me evidence or logical argument that I'm not aware of and let us discuss it. And afford me that same dignity without finding ways to take it personally that I don't see it your way.
that is my point exactly
it is a person's actions and behavior that determine whether conversation can happen, regardless of the topic. I am happy to discuss ideas if it is a topic of interest to me, and if the person's behavior allows it.
For me these behaviors do not allow it (this is my own personal bar for interactions) and are an effective "off switch" that ends conversation: name calling, insults, mocking, condescension, derision, belittling, berating, sarcasm. Ending a conversation for those reasons is entirely based on a person's behavior.
I very much like your phrase "afford me the same dignity." you've been very accurate and correct in calling people on offensive behavior in other posts (including me) when we are condescending towards you. my clumsy response to you in a recent thread was "so you can dish it out but you can't take it." your phrase is much more elegant but says the same thing. "afford me the same dignity."
And I enjoy discussing topics with you, even though we disagree on many things. we've had excellent discussions in my view.
regarding your statement "our beliefs stand or fall on their merits or lack," in a "theoretical" sense they do. in a practical sense if we don't even get to have the conversation due to behavior then the beliefs are not discussed. since actions speak louder than words, even if no discussion occurs, our behaviors vividly and clearly demonstrate our beliefs.
on the topic of "religion and spirituality" for me beliefs and behavior are inseparable and intertwined. others want to argue only about beliefs and see behavior as irrelevant. our different views and beliefs affect how we approach the forum and our posts with each other.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-23-2016 at 12:38 PM..
that is my point exactly it is a person's actions and behavior that determine whether conversation can happen
And that is my point exactly. If someone starts or enters a conversation making a claim.... and someone else inquires as to the basis of that claim..... but person 1 refuses to answer, starts trotting out narratives about hostility and offence, and ignores and dodges all post content..... then it is person 1s behavior that determines that conversation can NOT happen. Only one sides soap-boxing.
It is your refusal to answer questions and challenges, your soap boxing this hostility narrative, and your dodges that are destroying conversation here. No one else.
And you get to self-feed that narrative too because your behavior does then illicit hostility in others.... at which point you get to point at that and go "see, told you so!" when in fact the causality of the situation is entirely opposite to how you would present it.
And that is my point exactly. If someone starts or enters a conversation making a claim.... and someone else inquires as to the basis of that claim..... but person 1 refuses to answer, starts trotting out narratives about hostility and offence, and ignores and dodges all post content..... then it is person 1s behavior that determines that conversation can NOT happen. Only one sides soap-boxing.
It is your refusal to answer questions and challenges, your soap boxing this hostility narrative, and your dodges that are destroying conversation here. No one else.
And you get to self-feed that narrative too because your behavior does then illicit hostility in others.... at which point you get to point at that and go "see, told you so!" when in fact the causality of the situation is entirely opposite to how you would present it.
No Nozz...you should listen to Tzaph.
It is what I call the "Hitchens/Dawkins Wannabe Syndrome" that causes the problem.
You can't revile and mock the traditions, culture, and theological concepts people hold...and not expcet to be looked at negatively.
All this "Sky Daddy", "Buy Bull", "Zombie Jesus" type stuff....thread after bashing thread.
Wording things in the most condescending way possible, and calling the Religious "delusional", while saying they should be cited and jailed for child abuse for teaching their Religious culture to their kids....is WHY the Atheists are viewed as "The Most Hated & Least Trusted".
And the "Pepe La Pew" technique of saying "Me?!, No Meeeeeee!" is not gonna cut it.
^ Take it up with people who use those phrases. As I do not use them, it has nothing to do with me. Like most of your replies to me actually.
Oh com'on Nozz...you are responding to Mr. Wiseguy that tells everyone, "they need to get hip to what I just said to gain greater knowledge and understanding".
I am fully familiar with the deal. Though I am one of the very few to cop to it. And probably the only one to cop to it in no uncertain terms.
When you CONSTANTLY refer to Theist concepts as "nonsense" (one of your favorite terms), refer to a supposed lack as "zip, nada, zilch, etc", and add "least of all you" to most everyone you debate...your "Pepe La Pew" claim that the smell has "nothing to do with you" has no merit whatsoever.
Just cop to what you do and admit it, Mr. Condescension...it is very liberating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
