Attitudes and behaviour.

[jeremyp]

Incidentally, this is the forum he was talking about.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1961050-christianity-forum-update.html

[Enki]

I'm off.  I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.

Not really in my case. I find your posts on this thread to be both confused and confusing.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Bashers,

How you doing old son, how's the new dog, is he developing  his own personality.

Anyway, my tuppence worth on the decryers of Christianity on this Forum, well, I would say that the Christians only have themselves to blame, they kneejerk to the same old boring questions.

Oh!! By the way, I have you heard the latest. your old sparring partner is now a pagan.

Gonnagle.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

Actually, telling somebody to go away in a forceful manner is not a personal attack. In fact I have used it here without moderation at least twice - both against BA, in fact.

You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse, when debating with someone. You have certainly told me to f-off on more than one occasion, and others with impunity.  But, I guess, that kind of language defines you pretty accurately, and your "debating" standards.

[BashfulAnthony]

Incidentally, this is the forum he was talking about.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1961050-christianity-forum-update.html

Flattering of you to take the time to research:  then, you are on Google most of the time, anyway.

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm off.  I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.

Not really in my case. I find your posts on this thread to be both confused and confusing.

That doesn't surprise me.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Bashers,

How you doing old son, how's the new dog, is he developing  his own personality.

Anyway, my tuppence worth on the decryers of Christianity on this Forum, well, I would say that the Christians only have themselves to blame, they kneejerk to the same old boring questions.

Oh!! By the way, I have you heard the latest. your old sparring partner is now a pagan.

Gonnagle.

Hi, Gonners,

Hope you are well, too.  Meg has grown a lot recently:  I've been feeding her up.  She is very clingy and still desperately short of confidence.  I've no idea what she had been through, but it has left her with issues.  But she is lovely, and very people-oriented.

If you mean the delightful and shy Shaker, then I hope he's ready for a bit of his own back_  Not from me, of course!

[BashfulAnthony]

We don't allow speculation about the mental health of posters, if it comes to our attention we mod it out.

I must say, then, you seem to have collectively missed the number of instances when Sassy, for example, has had her mental status questioned.

[BashfulAnthony]

So ... basically, after weeks and weeks away, not posting here but posting somewhere you regard as better, you've fetched up here again just to bleat and whine about this place.

Why didn't you stay with your 'sensible' people?

They probably banned him. After all he was completely unable to live up to the standards that his new friends required while he was here.

That's probably the reason you are unable to leave here, after all the years:  no other reasonable forum would tolerate your guttersnipe language.

[BashfulAnthony]

No, he's gone.

Or so he claims.

I merely left for tea.  Some people actually manage to tear them selves away from this fun place.  Besides, I've developed a little interest in paganism.  More later.

[BashfulAnthony]

Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made  -  the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.  I experience this here:  the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace.  Others come in for similar treatment.  Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs?  The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.

Several things:
1. I nod in agreement with the rational responses to your OP.
2. If you do not like your beliefs being robustly challenged, then why post here? As was said above, if you cannot stand the heat in the kitchen, then stay away from it. Those who are so prone to infer direct insults, ridicule etc from posts need only produce one fact to end any, well almost all, disagreement.
3. You might like to have a look at my topic on Ship of Fools on what top theologians know, really know, about God!
4. Your OP does go on rather, doesn't it?   Was there anything cheerful or positive about it?
I did not notice, but will now go back and re-read and edit here if necessary.

1. Which responses, in particular?  Most of them missed the point pretty glaringly.

2.  I do not run away from the half-brains who challenge my beliefs, and thus, me, without responding.

3.  I have my own views and do not need to be instructed at this time of my life, by someone who knows no more than I do.

4.  The OP was a direct quote in full, from the forum I was visiting, and was well worth quoting in full.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

You totally miss the point.  I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them.  Do you not understand?  I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.

Wrong BA:

In response to me saying:

'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.'

You replied:

'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.

Bump for BA.

Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.

Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'

[BashfulAnthony]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

You totally miss the point.  I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them.  Do you not understand?  I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.

Wrong BA:

In response to me saying:

'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.'

You replied:

'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.

Bump for BA.

Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.

Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'

I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

1. Which responses, in particular?  Most of them missed the point pretty glaringly.

Actually it was your OP that "missed the point": critiquing the belief is fine; attacking the person with the belief is not. That the believer may find the criticism hurtful or offensive says nothing to whether or not is should happen.   

2.  I do not run away from the half-brains who challenge my beliefs, and thus, me, without responding.

Oh the hypocrisy! "Half-brains" is exactly the kind of ad hominem that isn't acceptable, and that you were attempting to complain about in your OP.

3.  I have my own views and do not need to be instructed at this time of my life, by someone who knows no more than I do.

What makes you think that people who "instruct" you know no more than you do? Clearly many here do know more than you, and closing your mind to them does you no favours. 

4.  The OP was a direct quote in full, from the forum I was visiting, and was well worth quoting in full.

No doubt you think so. Now though you've had your error explained to you - ie, that being offended by criticism of a belief is neither here nor there - perhaps the "food for thought" you referred you is for you rather than for others to consume.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

1. Which responses, in particular?  Most of them missed the point pretty glaringly.

Actually it was your OP that "missed the point": critiquing the belief is fine; attacking the person with the belief is not. That the believer may find the criticism hurtful or offensive says nothing to whether or not is should happen.   

2.  I do not run away from the half-brains who challenge my beliefs, and thus, me, without responding.

Oh the hypocrisy! "Half-brains" is exactly the kind of ad hominem that isn't acceptable, and that you were attempting to complain about in your OP.

3.  I have my own views and do not need to be instructed at this time of my life, by someone who knows no more than I do.

What makes you think that people who "instruct" you know no more than you do? Clearly many here do know more than you, and closing your mind to them does you no favours. 

4.  The OP was a direct quote in full, from the forum I was visiting, and was well worth quoting in full.

No doubt you think so. Now though you've had your error explained to you - ie, that being offended by criticism of a belief is neither here nor there - perhaps the "food for thought" you referred you is for you rather than for others to consume.

    I find you so pedantic, not to mention grotesquely wide of the mark in all your above comments.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

You totally miss the point.  I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them.  Do you not understand?  I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.

Wrong BA:

In response to me saying:

'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.'

You replied:

'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.

Bump for BA.

Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.

Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'

I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.

'any who do are an abhorrence' clearly refers to the people as an abhorrence not the views. If you meant the views you'd have said something like 'the vows of these people are an abhorrence' but you didn't - you referred to any who do (ie people) as the object of your abhorrence adjective.

So stop trying to reinvent history, to try to imply you didn't write something that you clearly did.

So the bottom line is that you are unable to live up to the standards you claim in your OP should apply universally on this MB.

[BashfulAnthony]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

You totally miss the point.  I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them.  Do you not understand?  I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.

Wrong BA:

In response to me saying:

'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.'

You replied:

'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.

Bump for BA.

Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.

Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'

I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.

'any who do are an abhorrence' clearly refers to the people as an abhorrence not the views. If you meant the views you'd have said something like 'the vows of these people are an abhorrence' but you didn't - you referred to any who do (ie people) as the object of your abhorrence adjective.

So stop trying to reinvent history, to try to imply you didn't write something that you clearly did.

So the bottom line is that you are unable to live up to the standards you claim in your OP should apply universally on this MB.

All down to semantics; plus you trying to make gain a brownie point at my expense.  Pretty childish post, really.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I find you so pedantic, not to mention grotesquely wide of the mark in all your above comments.

No doubt you do, but the fact remains that your OP was wrong for reasons that have been explained to you. If you don't want to try a counter-argument to those reasons that's fine, but they stand nonetheless.

Incidentally, here's Brendan O'Neill at the Oxford Union explaining why the right to offend is not only acceptable but essential:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA 

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I find you so pedantic, not to mention grotesquely wide of the mark in all your above comments.

No doubt you do, but the fact remains that your OP was wrong for reasons that have been explained to you. If you don't want to try a counter-argument to those reasons that's fine, but they stand nonetheless.

Incidentally, here's Brendan O'Neill at the Oxford Union explaining why the right to offend is not only acceptable but essential:

https://www.youtube...

The OP was a direct quote from another forum, which laid out its forum rules.  It is not a question of them being right or wrong; it is a question of whether they are appropriate to mature and acceptable debate.  I think they are:  you seem to think otherwise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

The OP was a direct quote from another forum, which laid out its forum rules.  It is not a question of them being right or wrong; it is a question of whether they are appropriate to mature and acceptable debate.  I think they are:  you seem to think otherwise.

Yes I do, for reasons I've explained. Watch the video I linked to to find out why.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

The OP was a direct quote from another forum, which laid out its forum rules.  It is not a question of them being right or wrong; it is a question of whether they are appropriate to mature and acceptable debate.  I think they are:  you seem to think otherwise.

Yes I do, for reasons I've explained. Watch the video I linked to to find out why.

I've just watched it and I find it a despicable and arrogant perversion of what is acceptable.  To quote just one line:  "The poisonous notion that humans are fragile."  Some may not be , but many are, in many ways, especially when their most precious views or opinions are concerned.  To suggest otherwise shows a frightening lack of human empathy.  If you subscribe to the views expressed, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I've just watched it and I find it a despicable and arrogant perversion of what is acceptable.  To quote just one line:  "The poisonous notion that humans are fragile."  Some may not be , but many are, in many ways, especially when their most precious views or opinions are concerned.  To suggest otherwise shows a frightening lack of human empathy.  If you subscribe to the views expressed, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

You've missed the point. Pretty much every human right you enjoy has been obtained because someone somewhere challenged the orthodoxy of the time and offended those who guarded it. What makes them "fragile" is precisely the censorship you support - "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" - and what makes them robust is free and open debate and challenge regardless of any offence that may cause.

In other words, the only one who should be "ashamed" here is you.   

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I've just watched it and I find it a despicable and arrogant perversion of what is acceptable.  To quote just one line:  "The poisonous notion that humans are fragile."  Some may not be , but many are, in many ways, especially when their most precious views or opinions are concerned.  To suggest otherwise shows a frightening lack of human empathy.  If you subscribe to the views expressed, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

You've missed the point. Pretty much every human right you enjoy has been obtained because someone somewhere challenged the orthodoxy of the time and offended those who guarded it. What makes them "fragile" is precisely the censorship you support - "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" - and what makes them robust is free and open debate and challenge regardless of any offence that may cause.

In other words, the only one who should be "ashamed" here is you.   

You are pretty adept at turning truth on its head.  It is not acceptable to simply say that you should offend.  We are not at the Oxford Union of privileged "toffs;" but in the real world of "ordinary" humans, who can be easily and hugely hurt by such an attitude.  You lack any human sensitivity whatsoever, not to mention your lack of understanding of human nature.  I am not ashamed to stand up for the sensitivities of others, who perhaps cannot cope with adverse attacks.  If that is indeed shameful, in your view, then you are an idiot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

You are pretty adept at turning truth on its head.

Your truth BA, not the truth - and that seems to me to be pretty much what you do in any case. Let's see though...

It is not acceptable to simply say that you should offend.  We are not at the Oxford Union of privileged "toffs;" but in the real world of "ordinary" humans, who can be easily and hugely hurt by such an attitude.

This is fundamentally wrongheaded in my view. The right to offend is by magnitudes more important than the right not to be offended. Why? Because the moment someone says, "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" is the moment ideas atrophy, progress in human affairs stops and any manner of wickedness is given room to breathe. 

Moreover, if you really believed something to be true would you not welcome rather than be offended by criticism of it? If you could rebut the critique your belief would be strengthened, and if not then you'd be given good reason to revisit and reconsider your opinion. What possible role can being offended have to play in that?

You lack any human sensitivity whatsoever, not to mention your lack of understanding of human nature.  I am not ashamed to stand up for the sensitivities of others, who perhaps cannot cope with adverse attacks.

On the contrary, I'm full of the milk of human kindness thanks. I'm also intelligent and aware enough though to understand that "offence" is too often used by people who would do bad things to hide behind. It's precisely for fear of "offending" for example that so much abuse in the RC church was allowed to carry on for so long - "hush now, you can't say that of the Father - it's offensive to my faith" etc.

If freedom of speech is to mean anything, its precisely the defence of "I'm offended" that deserves least respect of all.   

If that is indeed shameful, in your view, then you are an idiot.

How's that not insulting posters here plan of yours going BA?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

You are pretty adept at turning truth on its head.

Your truth BA, not the truth - and that seems to me to be pretty much what you do in any case. Let's see though...

It is not acceptable to simply say that you should offend.  We are not at the Oxford Union of privileged "toffs;" but in the real world of "ordinary" humans, who can be easily and hugely hurt by such an attitude.

This is fundamentally wrongheaded in my view. The right to offend is by magnitudes more important than the right not to be offended. Why? Because the moment someone says, "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" is the moment ideas atrophy, progress in human affairs stops and any manner of wickedness is given room to breathe. 

Moreover, if you really believed something to be true would you not welcome rather than be offended by criticism of it? If you could rebut the critique your belief would be strengthened, and if not then you'd be given good reason to revisit and reconsider your opinion. What possible role can being offended have to play in that?

You lack any human sensitivity whatsoever, not to mention your lack of understanding of human nature.  I am not ashamed to stand up for the sensitivities of others, who perhaps cannot cope with adverse attacks.

On the contrary, I'm full of the milk of human kindness thanks. I'm also intelligent and aware enough though to understand that "offence" is too often used by people who would do bad things to hide behind. It's precisely for fear of "offending" for example that so much abuse in the RC church was allowed to carry on of so long - "hush now, you can't say that of the Father - it's offensive to my faith" etc.

If freedom of speech is to mean anything, its precisely the defence of "I'm offended" that deserves least respect of all.   

If that is indeed shameful, in your view, then you are an idiot.

How's that not insulting posters here plan of yours going BA?

You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense.  All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties.  Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected.  You can talk all you like about the right to offend, but it does not fit in with a humane and concerned view of life and of others.

It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact.  If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.