Attitudes and behaviour.

[ProfessorDavey]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

[BashfulAnthony]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

I totally agree.

[Gordon]

Funny how with your first contribution following your hiatus, BA, you've stirred up more vitriol than we've seen of late.

I think there are several points worth making.

1. This place is for adults, and in my view that means that they are free to act like adults: that includes the expectation that they can both 'dish it out' and 'suck it up' within reasonable limits.

2. If they can't, or if they disapprove of what happens here, then attendance isn't compulsory.

3. It isn't required that members conduct themselves as if they were members of a nursery.

4. Ridicule is an acceptable aspect of debate provided that it stops short of overt personal abuse.

5. The sensitivities of some in taking offense does not indicate that what they are taking offense at is in itself unreasonable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...

..."So fucking what?"

Of all the reasons not to say something, causing offence to the proponent is the weakest. Why? Because the moment you close down questioning and criticism all manner of evil can thrive behind the wall of silence.   

While ad hominem is wrong (and pointless), that someone might take offence at having their beliefs dismantled is their problem alone.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you read my OP?  I have spent the last two months away from this forum, and not encountered any kind of personal attack:  it is only here, it seems, that the posters deal in that kind of posting.  I re-appear her, just to find the same old, same old.

Well I have no idea what other forum you have been on, but from your description is sounds as if it is basically aimed specifically at christians only. Note:

'The moderators are aware of the fact that there are aspects of Christianity that not every member accepts'

Well guess what in a forum of this nature, which welcomes posters of all religions and none there is no suggestion that posters accept any aspect of christianity.

So sure if you are posting with a bunch of fellow christians they aren't likely to have a pop at the fundamentals of christian belief. But expose yourself to a wider range of opinions and guess what, we don't all accept your beliefs nor that they should be placed on a special pedestal.

If you want only to engage with people who agree with you on the broad issues (albeit not the minuscule details) then this isn't the place for you. If on the other hand you want to expose yourself to the widest range of opinions, and have your opinions challenged just as you can challenge others, then you are very welcome here. But remember we are all equal and none of us have the right to expect our views are beyond robust challenge.

[ProfessorDavey]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

I totally agree.

But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.

[Shaker]

BA,
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...

..."So fucking what?"

... and then there's Christopher Hitchens's take on it: "Whenever somebody says to me 'I'm offended by that' I always reply 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is'."

[BashfulAnthony]

Funny how with your first contribution following your hiatus, BA, you've stirred up more vitriol than we've seen of late.

I think there are several points worth making.

1. This place is for adults, and in my view that means that they are free to act like adults: that includes the expectation that they can both 'dish it out' and 'suck it up' within reasonable limits.

2. If they can't, or if they disapprove of what happens here, then attendance isn't compulsory.

3. It isn't required that members conduct themselves as if they were members of a nursery.

4. Ridicule is an acceptable aspect of debate provided that it stops short of overt personal abuse.

5. The sensitivities of some in taking offense does not indicate that what they are taking offense at is in itself unreasonable.

Well, free to act as adults here seems to include vitriol and expletives at will.  Very adult.


Moderation hardly exists when, in effect, people say what they like in any manner they choose. 

Adult debate requires some constraint and consideration for the feelings of others.

[BashfulAnthony]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

I totally agree.

But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.

I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.

[Shaker]

That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...

..."So fucking what?"

... and then there's Christopher Hitchens's take on it: "Whenever somebody says to me 'I'm offended by that' I always reply 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is'."

Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!

[BashfulAnthony]

That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.

As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.

[BeRational]

BA,
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...

..."So fucking what?"

... and then there's Christopher Hitchens's take on it: "Whenever somebody says to me 'I'm offended by that' I always reply 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is'."

Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!

I am offended that you disrespect Christopher Hitchens

[ProfessorDavey]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

I totally agree.

But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.

I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.

Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.

[Shaker]

That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.

As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.

Sometimes you can't have one without the other.

Especially with the delicate little lilies who take any form of challenge or criticism as personal attack.

Being made to feel uncomfortable because your beliefs are being challenged isn't "harm." It's character building , something normal healthy people are, or should be, exposed to early. You clearly missed out on it.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...

..."So fucking what?"

Of all the reasons not to say something, causing offence to the proponent is the weakest. Why? Because the moment you close down questioning and criticism all manner of evil can thrive behind the wall of silence.   

While ad hominem is wrong (and pointless), that someone might take offence at having their beliefs dismantled is their problem alone.

I'll say it again:  I am not objecting to beliefs being criticised, but to personal attacks associated with one's beliefs:  such as suggesting theists have psychological issues, or need counselling, etc.  If you consider that reasonable debate, then you need to re-assess.

[BeRational]

That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.

As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.

If you have beliefs that some find to be nonsense, don't be surprised to be told so.

[ProfessorDavey]

That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.

As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.

But the problem is that there are people who passionately believe in freedom of speech and are deeply offended by any suggestion that it should be curtailed to prevent offence.

So where to go there - an impossible conundrum. Allow the right to offend, or cause offence through curtailing the right to offend.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!

Why would you think that? Apart from one infamous spat with George Galloway (not about religion), I can't think of one occasion when he indulged in personal abuse to make his point.

That's the thing about having reason on your side - you don't need to.

Incidentally, do you have any examples of Sassy or other christians being attacked here personally? I have plenty the other way around, but none that I recall directed toward christians. 

[BashfulAnthony]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

I totally agree.

But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.

I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.

Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.

Okay, to say again, I 100% disassociate myself from such people.. But, that was not what the OP with about.   Start another thread to make that point. 

[BashfulAnthony]

That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.

As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.

If you have beliefs that some find to be nonsense, don't be surprised to be told so.

Being told what you believe is nonsense is somewhat removed from suggestions of mental aberration, etc.

[Gordon]

Well, free to act as adults here seems to include vitriol and expletives at will.  Very adult.

Yep - that is how adults can behave if they want to provided they stop short of overt personal abuse; put simply they can say 'fuck' if they want to.

Moderation hardly exists when, in effect, people say what they like in any manner they choose.

Nope - and putting the Mod hat on for just a second, some members do get pulled up/suspended if they go too far - but, as I said, this isn't a nursery. 

Adult debate requires some constraint and consideration for the feelings of others.

Indeed - but not to excess, and not to the extent of avoiding what is reasonable to discuss. If someone doesn't feel comfortable then they know where the door is.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!

Why would you think that? Apart from one infamous spat with George Galloway (not about religion), I can't think of one occasion when he indulged in personal abuse to make his point.

That's the thing about having reason on your side - you don't need to.

Incidentally, do you have any examples of Sassy or other christians being attacked here personally? I have plenty the other way around, but none that I recall directed toward christians.

If I had time to trawl through the years of posts on here, I'd find them.  If you are asserting that such personal attacks are not made, then you are either naive, or somewhat wrong!

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I'll say it again:  I am not objecting to beliefs being criticised, but to personal attacks associated with one's beliefs:  such as suggesting theists have psychological issues, or need counselling, etc.  If you consider that reasonable debate, then you need to re-assess.

You're shifting ground now. So it seems that criticising beliefs is fine regardless of how much offence people who hold those beliefs may feel when it's done?

Good. I agree.

Oh, and suggesting that I think telling people they need counselling etc is fine is a straw man (though in some cases the obtuseness here is so bleedin' exasperating that I do wonder...)

[BeRational]

BA,

Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!

Why would you think that? Apart from one infamous spat with George Galloway (not about religion), I can't think of one occasion when he indulged in personal abuse to make his point.

That's the thing about having reason on your side - you don't need to.

Incidentally, do you have any examples of Sassy or other christians being attacked here personally? I have plenty the other way around, but none that I recall directed toward christians.

If I had time to trawl through the years of posts on here, I'd find them.  If you are asserting that such personal attacks are not made, then you are either naive, or somewhat wrong!

Of course you made the claim, so you need to provide the evidence.
If you cannot we should ignore your assertion.