Verbal terms causing personal offense
- Thread starter Hook686
- Start date
- Status
odysseus
Member
I certainly don't subscribe to that line of operation, or perhaps this was not communicated correctly. I myself am pretty right of center... but I would not want to always be discussing issues with people who all say the same thing. Challenging our assumptions and beliefs is the part of our duty, and that duty for all of us is to be a critical thinker. Something I think unfortunetly is also being lost in many of our public schools.
My assumption with THR is if I participate in it, I DO have to tolerate other peoples believes and opinions. It doesn't mean that I have to agree, and it also means I can debate and expect that my opinion can be tolerated (of course within a reasonable person context
).Sure you have a right not to agree and also to disagree... I am not sure what not tolerating means... so he should not be able to have a voice? Shouldn't he, if he is being respectful in its delivery, be able to sound his voice without being heckled?
This discussion also brings up another issue I have been talking to people about. A study was released not long ago (sorry no reference here) I heard on the radio, whereby a startling conclusion was being formed. It should be no surprise to most, but that:
1) People are now only listening, watching, and reading from news sources that seem to only validate their own beliefs.
2) Media sources have realized this, so now they are reporting/showing/discussing events and news that is tailored to the percieved political slant of this audience (be it right/left).
3) This of course now is so they can advertise accordingly and now derive a higher profit by having a "tuned" audience for the product.
"God" and "Liberal" do not have equal standing. The comparison doesn't hold. There are some things that are quite offensive and need consideration, but that doesn't mean that everything else needs to have that equal amount of consideration.
Edited to add: in a Legal and Political forum, Liberal and Conservative are appropriate topics, God is not. imo
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
Hook:
Nope. That is not what you said. What you said, in your original post, is that you wanted that same standard applied to "Liberals". Note that my response is not an ad hominem attack against you. It is an attack against the fact that you are now changing your original argument. It is also an attack against the absolutely unconvincing equivalence of "God" and "Liberal".
Nope. That is not what you said. What you said, in your original post, is that you wanted that same standard applied to "Liberals". Note that my response is not an ad hominem attack against you. It is an attack against the fact that you are now changing your original argument. It is also an attack against the absolutely unconvincing equivalence of "God" and "Liberal".
TonkinTwentyMil
Member
Go to today's RealClearPolitics...
...for a very good analysis of this same issue/debate.
I couldn't have said it any better than (the despised-by-Liberals) Karl Rove... who ALSO apparently believes that, If The Shoe Fits...
-->> realclearpolitics.com
...for a very good analysis of this same issue/debate.
I couldn't have said it any better than (the despised-by-Liberals) Karl Rove... who ALSO apparently believes that, If The Shoe Fits...
-->> realclearpolitics.com
CentralTexas
Member
hey SLZY, Not anymore than
"gun owner" is a code word for wife beating, inbred, knuckle dragging, child molesting hillbilly.
So I guess the answer is "no".
CT
"gun owner" is a code word for wife beating, inbred, knuckle dragging, child molesting hillbilly.
So I guess the answer is "no".
CT
Last edited:
cuchulainn
Member
I'm quite bemused that Preacherman's request (request, mind you) has generated so much consternation in that thread and in this one.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
turnabouts fair play. how about we all go to the DU and complain because their comments are offensive to us?
see how long that lasts.
i have yet to see anyone who calls themselves 'progressive' behave in a truely 'progressive' manner. i have also not been privy to witnessing the much described 'peace, love and understanding' that the left lays claims to.
see how long that lasts.
i have yet to see anyone who calls themselves 'progressive' behave in a truely 'progressive' manner. i have also not been privy to witnessing the much described 'peace, love and understanding' that the left lays claims to.
Just so we're clear
If that's so, I'm ok with it, but I'd like to know what the rules are. I just don't see why it's alright for some people to be thin-skinned but not others. Personally, I'm with the "Get over it" POV on *ALL* issues, as long as we are debating ideas and not attacking people.
So there's a sliding scale when it comes to tolerance, and religious tolerance is part of the vision of taking the High Road, but diversity of political opinions is not?
If that's so, I'm ok with it, but I'd like to know what the rules are. I just don't see why it's alright for some people to be thin-skinned but not others. Personally, I'm with the "Get over it" POV on *ALL* issues, as long as we are debating ideas and not attacking people.
Where'd I put that "Grease" DVD?
Wow first fight of the Summer, and it ain't even hot yet. Makes me want to throw "Grease" in the DVD player and order a pizza. That'll put me in the mood to cruise to the maltshop in my 57 Chevy. PC my butt. This is one of few places I can talk about guns and not be treated like I have leprosy. Now, when the word "liberal" comes up, I'll have to excuse myself, and go read a gun magazine or something.
Wow first fight of the Summer, and it ain't even hot yet. Makes me want to throw "Grease" in the DVD player and order a pizza. That'll put me in the mood to cruise to the maltshop in my 57 Chevy. PC my butt. This is one of few places I can talk about guns and not be treated like I have leprosy. Now, when the word "liberal" comes up, I'll have to excuse myself, and go read a gun magazine or something.
Andrew Rothman
Member
Which THR are you reading? I find intelligent discussion, new ideas, food for thought, information and amusement here every day.
Oh, and by the way, I'm wholly unconvinced by your contention that the alleged ly low quality of threads explains your low post count.
After all, if you have something "quality" to add, wouldn't that raise the bar?
dmallind
Member
You are absolutely right. God and Liberalism are not equal!
Any god to deserve the name must surely be so far above the need for protection from disrespect that it is downright blasphemy to suggest that reference to said deity be universally positive. A five year old child is much more sensitive to insult and putdowns than a grownup - and a divine entity must be by orders of magnitude much less sensitive than the adult human surely?
If gods can create universes how can they care if I use their various names as epithets? If their followers care are they not imputing their own human weakness and frailty onto their object of worship, and as such far more disrespectful than I am?
It's the same in political discussions. God is "kept out" of the classroom. The same deity who cast out Satan and by whose power Christ raised the dead has to kowtow to the SCOTUS in Abingdon? Christianity is "under attack" even though every single president and 90%+ of nationally powerful politicos are overtly Christian, and the language, culture and sociology of the nation is strongly infused at all levels with Christianity with no opposing voice in any position of influence? (quick - name a nationally elected or appointed atheist!)
So absolutely divine postulates and political postulates deserve different levels of protection and courtesy. The trouble is THR has it the wrong way round on which deserves the most.
Any god to deserve the name must surely be so far above the need for protection from disrespect that it is downright blasphemy to suggest that reference to said deity be universally positive. A five year old child is much more sensitive to insult and putdowns than a grownup - and a divine entity must be by orders of magnitude much less sensitive than the adult human surely?
If gods can create universes how can they care if I use their various names as epithets? If their followers care are they not imputing their own human weakness and frailty onto their object of worship, and as such far more disrespectful than I am?
It's the same in political discussions. God is "kept out" of the classroom. The same deity who cast out Satan and by whose power Christ raised the dead has to kowtow to the SCOTUS in Abingdon? Christianity is "under attack" even though every single president and 90%+ of nationally powerful politicos are overtly Christian, and the language, culture and sociology of the nation is strongly infused at all levels with Christianity with no opposing voice in any position of influence? (quick - name a nationally elected or appointed atheist!)
So absolutely divine postulates and political postulates deserve different levels of protection and courtesy. The trouble is THR has it the wrong way round on which deserves the most.
dmallind
Member
Both devnull,
I think the rule is there because people get emotional and think that their deity needs protection from insult, when that to me is a far greater insult than any other.
It's like my stepdaughter thinking I need to be protected from the opinions of her middle school friends, when I am, like almost all parents, completely indifferent to such juvenalia. How much more so would a god be indifferent to my opinions of him, regardless of how much it annoyed his acolytes?
I think the rule is there because people get emotional and think that their deity needs protection from insult, when that to me is a far greater insult than any other.
It's like my stepdaughter thinking I need to be protected from the opinions of her middle school friends, when I am, like almost all parents, completely indifferent to such juvenalia. How much more so would a god be indifferent to my opinions of him, regardless of how much it annoyed his acolytes?
CentralTexas
Member
"(quick - name a nationally elected or appointed atheist!)"
1- With Bush senior and many other prominent folks saying Atheists aren't Americans, why would one announce it?
2- I hate to broad brush here but I didn't start this, I find many Christians can be very hateful about this despite the love/forgive everyone statements.
3- It's ok, fat people and atheists are still fair game since you can't bash gays and blacks anymore!
4- Last unabashed one in office I know of recently was Jesse Ventura. My try looking up Robert Green Ingersoll, he was almost president in the 1800's and wouldn't hide his atheism.
It really doesn't prove anything much other than we aren't very electable due to prejudice on "someones" part
Plenty of non-elected company though from Lance Armstrong, Rodney Dangerfield,Isaac Asimov,Kinky Friedman, Penn Jillette to Bill Gates etc etc etc
CT
1- With Bush senior and many other prominent folks saying Atheists aren't Americans, why would one announce it?
2- I hate to broad brush here but I didn't start this, I find many Christians can be very hateful about this despite the love/forgive everyone statements.
3- It's ok, fat people and atheists are still fair game since you can't bash gays and blacks anymore!
4- Last unabashed one in office I know of recently was Jesse Ventura. My try looking up Robert Green Ingersoll, he was almost president in the 1800's and wouldn't hide his atheism.
It really doesn't prove anything much other than we aren't very electable due to prejudice on "someones" part
Plenty of non-elected company though from Lance Armstrong, Rodney Dangerfield,Isaac Asimov,Kinky Friedman, Penn Jillette to Bill Gates etc etc etc
CT
dmallind
Member
I commend you on your knowledge of atheism and atheists Central Texas, as well as your perspicuity in naming atheists as one of the last minorities who are fair game to slander and establish prejudice against.
My only minor quibble with your post is that despite his public antipathy for organized religion, Jesse was not an atheist himself. We have a friend in common who I specifically requested to confirm this for me when the brouhaha over the "crutch" comment broke out. The best I could understand second hand of his beliefs I would peg him as a Deist, in which company he is joined by a goodly number of the Founding Fathers.
Also worth noting for those who equate lack of overt Xianity with extreme leftism and anti-freedom that he was and remains an ardent proponent of gun rights.
But really you seem to be agreeing with me more than not - in that Christians tend to be defensive and sensitive when it is the nonbelievers who are marginalized and attacked by society, not the believers.
Either way I find it impossible to take seriously the idea that an omnipotent Creator could worry too much what I as a rather pedestrian example of humanity think of him, which is why the whole concept of salvation by faith makes no sense to me. Especially since a Creator both omnipotent and omniscient would, at the exact time of his creating my soul, have been fully aware of its eventual belief stance and hence eternal destination.
My only minor quibble with your post is that despite his public antipathy for organized religion, Jesse was not an atheist himself. We have a friend in common who I specifically requested to confirm this for me when the brouhaha over the "crutch" comment broke out. The best I could understand second hand of his beliefs I would peg him as a Deist, in which company he is joined by a goodly number of the Founding Fathers.
Also worth noting for those who equate lack of overt Xianity with extreme leftism and anti-freedom that he was and remains an ardent proponent of gun rights.
But really you seem to be agreeing with me more than not - in that Christians tend to be defensive and sensitive when it is the nonbelievers who are marginalized and attacked by society, not the believers.
Either way I find it impossible to take seriously the idea that an omnipotent Creator could worry too much what I as a rather pedestrian example of humanity think of him, which is why the whole concept of salvation by faith makes no sense to me. Especially since a Creator both omnipotent and omniscient would, at the exact time of his creating my soul, have been fully aware of its eventual belief stance and hence eternal destination.
Ha..not only am I a liberal, I'm a man-hating feminazi (tm). Talk about guaranteed popularity on this forum! But basically, I think if someone doesn't like it, I don't much care. I don't base my beliefs on other people's hangups. I work my tush off for the 2nd Amendment and various other rights, and I do it because I believe in it, not because I care if someone thinks happy thoughts about me.
What it boils down to is, that if you believe in something, believe it in and quit caring what other people think of you. If your beliefs aren't strong enough to withstand criticism, then they're probably wrong. Or else you're a big old wimpy liberal.
But basically, I think if someone doesn't like it, I don't much care. I don't base my beliefs on other people's hangups. I work my tush off for the 2nd Amendment and various other rights, and I do it because I believe in it, not because I care if someone thinks happy thoughts about me. What it boils down to is, that if you believe in something, believe it in and quit caring what other people think of you. If your beliefs aren't strong enough to withstand criticism, then they're probably wrong. Or else you're a big old wimpy liberal.
Last edited:
thereisnospoon
Member
How the crap did this discussion disgress into an argument over wether a Diety needs "protected" from our inane comments or insults?
I thought the question was wether or not we were allowed to label each other...the following labels would apply quite nicely to me, ifn y'all need any help:
Fat
Three steps to the right of Attilah the Hun
Obnoxious
Overbearing
Short
Ugly
Narrow Minded
Jesus Freak
Very Poor Spellar
Even Poorer typist
Please feel free to add to the list, if you have read any of my posts and find something else you think may be appropriate...
I thought the question was wether or not we were allowed to label each other...the following labels would apply quite nicely to me, ifn y'all need any help:
Fat
Three steps to the right of Attilah the Hun
Obnoxious
Overbearing
Short
Ugly
Narrow Minded
Jesus Freak
Very Poor Spellar
Even Poorer typist
Please feel free to add to the list, if you have read any of my posts and find something else you think may be appropriate...
Interesting to see comments about how hateful Christians are from atheists who are acting arrogant and smug. That is the typical attitude I see from atheists elsewhere. "we are better than you because we do not believe in your religion." And you wonder why you get a hostile response sometimes.
Which is exactly the reason for the rule. Not protection of religion, but to avoid pointless religious arguments. If you have questions about why Christians believe the way they do or some other question, go somewhere else to ask them or send PM's. I don't care if you are atheist or not. Hold your own beliefs and keep them to youself, especially on a THR. I will also.
Which is exactly the reason for the rule. Not protection of religion, but to avoid pointless religious arguments. If you have questions about why Christians believe the way they do or some other question, go somewhere else to ask them or send PM's. I don't care if you are atheist or not. Hold your own beliefs and keep them to youself, especially on a THR. I will also.
On the original post, I have learned that liberal can mean a lot of things. I think of the idiots people in Washington, but a lot of people consider themselves liberal that don't fit that. I think if you went issue by issue, you would find a lot of confusion over what a liberal is vs other labels.
That being said, if you think you are getting offended, GOOD! Suck it up and move on. You are probably too sensitive anyway and need to grow some thicker skin.
If you can't handle a confrontation on the internet, do you really think you would be able to handle a gun in a real confrontation? Somthing to consider.
That being said, if you think you are getting offended, GOOD! Suck it up and move on. You are probably too sensitive anyway and need to grow some thicker skin.
If you can't handle a confrontation on the internet, do you really think you would be able to handle a gun in a real confrontation? Somthing to consider.
Sir Aardvark
Member
To get back to Hook's original query.......
I'm not going to take sides here - but you are SO wrong!!
THR is really tame compared to the other gun sites on the web. If you want to be party to cussing, bashing, flaming cretins, try Glocktalk - at least here at THR we have a strong semblance of manners and civility.
I'm not going to take sides here - but you are SO wrong!!
THR is really tame compared to the other gun sites on the web. If you want to be party to cussing, bashing, flaming cretins, try Glocktalk - at least here at THR we have a strong semblance of manners and civility.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
