|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. But I have lived in a variety of places. Arkansas, California, New Mexico, North Dakota, England, and Pennsylvania. With extended stays in Texas, Iraq (where admittedly I didn't go outside the wire), Kuwait, and France. Know what I have found? The people of any one area of the world are not really any better of any worse than those from another area. Morally, intellectually, or in any other measurable way. When some fool from the North assumes I must be an inbred, uneducated bit of trailer trash because I'm from the South, all he does is expose his own bigotry, ignorance, and extremely ill-deserved superiority complex.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because some people have the ability to Focus. With a capital F. You, most likely, don't. They block out the outside world and let themselves be completely absorbed into something, like a movie, a book, or whatever.People I don't get:
Folks who're watching something on TV, reading a book or are just in general so out of it that they have no idea what the heck you're saying because they're on planet 'huh?'. How can ANYTHING preoccupy you to the point you have no idea what's going on around you? I mean, I get if you're being attacked by a crazy axe murderer perhaps taking your laptop off the charger so it doesn't overcharge wouldn't occur to you, but for God's sake when the movie/show isn't even in an exciting part (two characters would just be chatting, no mind boggling revelations or anything), you can take two seconds to reply to a question.
Again, they're not preoccupied with anything exciting happening, like an exciting football game or fight scene, just some mind numbing material.
So very much this. I don't get why, when people try and talk to me, they assume their words managed to reach my brain through whatever else I was concentrating on at the time :) I don't mind it that much, except when they then get mad about the fact I "wasn't listening to them" If I was listening to them, I would have been looking at them and not at whatever else I was doing at the time, so why are they even saying anything until they've got my attention?
"But that's rude, I was talking to you!"
No. You were talking at me. To me would imply I was actually aware of it and was listening.
When i watch something, or read something, i focus on it. The rest of the world stops existing for all i care. I tend to dissuade people from talking to me by wearing headphones.
Yes, headphones are the universal "bugger off, I'm busy" signal that everyone should know.
And this too! I've been known to wear headphones that aren't even connected to anything for this reason :D
Yes. But I have lived in a variety of places. Arkansas, California, New Mexico, North Dakota, England, and Pennsylvania. With extended stays in Texas, Iraq (where admittedly I didn't go outside the wire), Kuwait, and France. Know what I have found? The people of any one area of the world are not really any better of any worse than those from another area. Morally, intellectually, or in any other measurable way. When some fool from the North assumes I must be an inbred, uneducated bit of trailer trash because I'm from the South, all he does is expose his own bigotry, ignorance, and extremely ill-deserved superiority complex.
I'm not American, but I have a friend who lives in Texas.
He doesn't fit the stereotype you've mentioned here, though.
Faith. Claims it is needed in any way, that it deserves respect just because it is faith.
Faith requires believing in something greater than yourself. Accepting that it's not all about you and you're not center of things. Which is the opposite of today's "Look at me" and "I can do whatever I want" culture.
I think he meant faith in that whole "religious zeal justifies the means" kind of way.
Why all bigotry is condemned. Except bigotry against the Southern US. Which is notable in several posts on this very thread.
Looking back, I actually responded in a joking manner to one of those posts. At the time, I was reading it (the post relating to education in the southern US) as meaning there were known issues in educational policy decisions by government, not that it reflected on the actual educational state of the people there (and could well have applied to any part of the world for all I know of foreign educational systems, it certainly applies to my own)
So if it came across as a reflection on the people rather than a knock against the government, I apologize.
Yes, headphones are the universal "bugger off, I'm busy" signal that everyone should know.Very much this.
Also: Why do people who can't afford the one child they have, continue to have children?
Because they're fun to make.
People that think a party political system means the voters are at fault if the country isn't being run properly.
When you only get the choice between corrupt group of politicians A, and corrupt group of politicians B (and in some cases corrupt group of politicians C), it isn't the voters that are at fault.
Why all bigotry is condemned. Except bigotry against the Southern US. Which is notable in several posts on this very thread.Looking back, I actually responded in a joking manner to one of those posts. At the time, I was reading it (the post relating to education in the southern US) as meaning there were known issues in educational policy decisions by government, not that it reflected on the actual educational state of the people there (and could well have applied to any part of the world for all I know of foreign educational systems, it certainly applies to my own)
So if it came across as a reflection on the people rather than a knock against the government, I apologize.
Don't apologize to Kthulhu, he's a hillbilly and a jerk ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People that think a party political system means the voters are at fault if the country isn't being run properly.
When you only get the choice between corrupt group of politicians A, and corrupt group of politicians B (and in some cases corrupt group of politicians C), it isn't the voters that are at fault.
Especially when the one thing that both corrupt groups of politicians agree on is not changing the voting system which could allow some more sensible people into the mix.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Faith. Claims it is needed in any way, that it deserves respect just because it is faith.
Faith may or may not deserve respect itself. But faith is always attached to a human being, who does deserve respect.
Faith. Claims it is needed in any way, that it deserves respect just because it is faith.Faith requires believing in something greater than yourself. Accepting that it's not all about you and you're not center of things. Which is the opposite of today's "Look at me" and "I can do whatever I want" culture.
Eh, missed my point completely. I question the internal process of unfounded belief itself - I question the ultimate egocentrism of expecting the universe to adhere to one's own internal whims and wants.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, of that, however, one can disrespect a person's ideas while not disrespecting the person itself.
Don't confuse "disrespect" with "disagree".
If I disagree with your faith (or any belief; doesn't have to be religious, it could be about how a game rule works), it means that I either have a different set of evidence than you or that I interpret the evidence differently, either way causing me to come to a different conclusion than you did.
That's disagreement, and I can do that without disrespecting you.
If I disrespect your faith/belief, then I'm labeling that belief as being unfit for consideration; it goes beyond being the product of what I think is incomplete evidence or erroneous interpretation, to the point of putting it so far out in left field that a rational person couldn't believe that (the Rules forums are once again a good example of this).
When I disagree with your idea, I believe that a competent person could arrive at that conclusion, but based on different facts/interpretations I've arrived at a different one. When I disrespect your idea, I believe your idea is beyond contempt, and by doing so I imply that you're unintelligent, dishonest, or deluded. You cannot label an idea as being so incredible that those who believe it must be lacking in some way, and not in the process disrespect the person(s) who believe it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I question the ultimate egocentrism of expecting the universe to adhere to one's own internal whims and wants.
Which religion is that? I'm aware of several which involve believing that XYZ was already true before you arrived on the scene; I'm not aware of any that involve believing that the nature of the universe was one way but needs to adjust itself to the strictures of said religion. Then again, I don't know all of the world's religions, so I'm curious which one(s) you're referring to. Sounds maybe kinda eastern, with a "power of the will" kind of vibe?
|
Regardless, of that, however, one can disrespect a person's ideas while not disrespecting the person itself.Don't confuse "disrespect" with "disagree".
If I disagree with your faith (or any belief; doesn't have to be religious, it could be about how a game rule works), it means that I either have a different set of evidence than you or that I interpret the evidence differently, either way causing me to come to a different conclusion than you did.
That's disagreement, and I can do that without disrespecting you.
If I disrespect your faith/belief, then I'm labeling that belief as being unfit for consideration; it goes beyond being the product of what I think is incomplete evidence or erroneous interpretation, to the point of putting it so far out in left field that a rational person couldn't believe that (the Rules forums are once again a good example of this).
When I disagree with your idea, I believe that a competent person could arrive at that conclusion, but based on different facts/interpretations I've arrived at a different one. When I disrespect your idea, I believe your idea is beyond contempt, and by doing so I imply that you're unintelligent, dishonest, or deluded. You cannot label an idea as being so incredible that those who believe it must be lacking in some way, and not in the process disrespect the person(s) who believe it.
Except that human beings are complex, and you can certainly disrespect some aspects of what they are while appreciating others, and not disrespecting the human as a whole.
I, for one, can easily respect a religious person while completely disrespecting and disregarding their faith. I just accept that there's a part in them which doesn't seem to fit the rest (from my perspective), and that I will never understand, and still respect them. Even though they live their lives according to something that to me seems really foolish.
Human beings are a collection of many different things, and you can have separate opinions on separate aspects of each human.
I question the ultimate egocentrism of expecting the universe to adhere to one's own internal whims and wants.Which religion is that? I'm aware of several which involve believing that XYZ was already true before you arrived on the scene; I'm not aware of any that involve believing that the nature of the universe was one way but needs to adjust itself to the strictures of said religion. Then again, I don't know all of the world's religions, so I'm curious which one(s) you're referring to. Sounds maybe kinda eastern, with a "power of the will" kind of vibe?
I do not speak about particular religion - I speak of the very concept of belief itself - equating one's belief with truth: "I believe in god therefore it must be true", "because people have idea of god therefore god must exist", "I have idea of a perfect being so it must exist because it would not be perfect otherwise".
(note that I used examples of belief in god but I question any belief in itself, not only faith in higher being)
|
|
Don't apologize to Kthulhu, he's a hillbilly and a jerk ;PWhy all bigotry is condemned. Except bigotry against the Southern US. Which is notable in several posts on this very thread.Looking back, I actually responded in a joking manner to one of those posts. At the time, I was reading it (the post relating to education in the southern US) as meaning there were known issues in educational policy decisions by government, not that it reflected on the actual educational state of the people there (and could well have applied to any part of the world for all I know of foreign educational systems, it certainly applies to my own)
So if it came across as a reflection on the people rather than a knock against the government, I apologize.
I'm no hillbilly!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I question the ultimate egocentrism of expecting the universe to adhere to one's own internal whims and wants.Which religion is that? I'm aware of several which involve believing that XYZ was already true before you arrived on the scene; I'm not aware of any that involve believing that the nature of the universe was one way but needs to adjust itself to the strictures of said religion. Then again, I don't know all of the world's religions, so I'm curious which one(s) you're referring to. Sounds maybe kinda eastern, with a "power of the will" kind of vibe?I do not speak about particular religion - I speak of the very concept of belief itself - equating one's belief with truth: "I believe in god therefore it must be true", "because people have idea of god therefore god must exist", "I have idea of a perfect being so it must exist because it would not be perfect otherwise".
(note that I used examples of belief in god but I question any belief in itself, not only faith in higher being)
If you're not speaking about a particular religion, who is it who's believing your examples? Like I was saying, I'm not aware of any religions who, as you put it, believe that god (or a pantheon, or whatever else) exists as a result of their faith. I'm aware of plenty of faith systems which hold that god (or whatever) existed all along and they're now aware of him/her/it/them. I've never encountered anyone who claimed that their belief caused god to exist, as you say. So who are you talking about? If claiming that something/someone exists because you believe in it is inherent to the nature of belief in the first place, then how is it possible for me to have met so many people who have belief but who don't fit the model you describe? If it's inherent, then being without it shouldn't be possible.
In short, you lost me: you appear to be claiming as universal something I've never seen any evidence of.
I'm no hillbilly!Don't apologize to Kthulhu, he's a hillbilly and a jerk ;PWhy all bigotry is condemned. Except bigotry against the Southern US. Which is notable in several posts on this very thread.Looking back, I actually responded in a joking manner to one of those posts. At the time, I was reading it (the post relating to education in the southern US) as meaning there were known issues in educational policy decisions by government, not that it reflected on the actual educational state of the people there (and could well have applied to any part of the world for all I know of foreign educational systems, it certainly applies to my own)
So if it came across as a reflection on the people rather than a knock against the government, I apologize.
indeed. I know and love at least one hillbilly very much.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I originally come from a hillbilly town (well, to some degree). I mostly hated it, though in retrospect, the "little old lady" segment of the hillbilly population is awesome. "Would you like to come over and have roast beef, mashed potatoes, homemade rolls, corn, pie, cake and everything else that I love making and handing out to people just because I'm a sweet fluffy old lady?"
Yes, yes I would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, you lost me: you appear to be claiming as universal something I've never seen any evidence of. ...
At no point I stated anything about believing that one's faith creates the deity - I was all the times referring to equating belief with fact, with proof of truth, not the cosmological cause of the deity's existence.
Various Christian theologians tried to use belief to be proof of monotheistic god's existence.
2. God would not be perfect (or greatest) if he hadn't existed.
3. Because God has to be perfect (or greatest) being he has to exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not. I have absolutely no reason to respect a belief that says I deserve to be tortured for all eternity. That does not, however, mean I'm disrespecting the people who hold that belief.Regardless, of that, however, one can disrespect a person's ideas while not disrespecting the person itself.Don't confuse "disrespect" with "disagree".
This. No idea, or faith, deserves ANY kind of respect just because it exists, or because someone holds it. None. Religious people typically try to suggest that because it is a matter of faith, everyone must a) respect that faith, and b) respect that someone holds that faith. This is a lazy and dishonest view. Every idea needs to be evaluated and compared with other ideas to be of any consequence whatsoever.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At no point I stated anything about believing that one's faith creates the deity
"I believe in god therefore it must be true"
Hopefully you can see why I took it that way, yes?
Various Christian theologians tried to use belief to be proof of monotheistic god's existence.
** spoiler omitted **
Hadn't heard of that particular "argument" before. Interesting. I wonder if that thought process has any significant following, or if it was just some guy who wrote a book. After spending my youth in several different churches and my wife having attended seminary for a year, I'd never encountered that train of thought.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Religious people typically try to suggest...
Statements that start like this cost you some credibility. If someone said "Atheists typically try to suggest..." (or "optimizers", or "non-optimizers", or "rich people", or "uneducated people", or "Americans", or whoever) and finished the sentence with anything other than the definition of atheism, would you feel like the speaker was representing that population fairly?
Every idea needs to be evaluated and compared with other ideas to be of any consequence whatsoever.
Tell it to the Rules forum. :/ (Though I do agree with this statement.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're being so tolerant of everybody's beliefs, a little somethin' somethin' for when me and Madame Sissyl finally hook up.
Hadn't heard of that particular "argument" before. Interesting. I wonder if that thought process has any significant following, or if it was just some guy who wrote a book. After spending my youth in several different churches and my wife having attended seminary for a year, I'd never encountered that train of thought.Various Christian theologians tried to use belief to be proof of monotheistic god's existence.
** spoiler omitted **
Saint Anzelm was the most prominent theologian that proposed that argument. It was dimissed by St. Thomas Aquinas but it resurfaced from time to time.
Ah, should have known it would only be a matter of time until another thread got sucked down into one of these particular black holes.
Adios.
I don't get how someone can really, truly believe that humans are basically good by nature. Left to their own devices, humans are vile, narcissistic gits (self included). I say we exterminate them all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Central Arkansas here. Only we can talk badly about ourselves. The rest of you yankees and carpet baggers go stuff yourselves.
:)
Yanqui go home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Central Arkansas here. Only we can talk badly about ourselves. The rest of you yankees and carpet baggers go stuff yourselves.
:)
interestingly enough, the hillbilly I love hails from there.
Religious people typically try to suggest...Statements that start like this cost you some credibility. If someone said "Atheists typically try to suggest..." (or "optimizers", or "non-optimizers", or "rich people", or "uneducated people", or "Americans", or whoever) and finished the sentence with anything other than the definition of atheism, would you feel like the speaker was representing that population fairly?
Every idea needs to be evaluated and compared with other ideas to be of any consequence whatsoever.Tell it to the Rules forum. :/ (Though I do agree with this statement.)
Credibility? Not really. Every/almost every religious person I have discussed this with has come down on the side of "if someone has faith, that in itself should be respected, and tenets of that faith should not be questioned or criticized, especially not by people not of that faith". It's not just that they don't want their own faith questioned, they also want to extend that protection to other people who have faith in a higher power. This is so common that I feel comfortable stating it the way I did. For more on this, see what has been done in, say, the UN, where resolution after resolution has pushed for adding the right not to have their faith questioned to the list of human rights. If that is implemented, there really is no way to limit religious influence over a society. It... is a pretty serious problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why all bigotry is condemned. Except bigotry against the Southern US. Which is notable in several posts on this very thread.
...The people of any one area of the world are not really any better of any worse than those from another area. Morally, intellectually, or in any other measurable way. When some fool from the North assumes I must be an inbred, uneducated bit of trailer trash because I'm from the South, all he does is expose his own bigotry, ignorance, and extremely ill-deserved superiority complex.
As a life-long Southerner, I'd have no problem with someone who makes "bigoted comments" about the South -- the South has plenty to be ashamed of -- except the commenter always seems to overlook, or be ignorant, of the shameful parts of where he or she is from. Don't tell me my home is shitty when you've got turds matted to your own butt.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Sissyl - I guess I'm just not comfortable categorizing millions (billions?) of people based on a sample size of less than 1/100th of a percent. Seems way too close to how racism works. "Everyone in this category whom I've either met or seen on the news has had quality X, therefore I'm comfortable applying it to millions of other people as well" seems firmly in contradiction to the value of "Every idea needs to be evaluated and compared with other ideas to be of any consequence whatsoever".
Why all bigotry is condemned. Except bigotry against the Southern US. Which is notable in several posts on this very thread....The people of any one area of the world are not really any better of any worse than those from another area. Morally, intellectually, or in any other measurable way. When some fool from the North assumes I must be an inbred, uneducated bit of trailer trash because I'm from the South, all he does is expose his own bigotry, ignorance, and extremely ill-deserved superiority complex.As a life-long Southerner, I'd have no problem with someone who makes "bigoted comments" about the South -- the South has plenty to be ashamed of -- except the commenter always seems to overlook, or be ignorant, of the shameful parts of where he or she is from. Don't tell me my home is s#$#ty when you've got turds matted to your own butt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sissyl - I guess I'm just not comfortable categorizing millions (billions?) of people based on a sample size of less than 1/100th of a percent. Seems way too close to how racism works. "Everyone in this category whom I've either met or seen on the news has had quality X, therefore I'm comfortable applying it to millions of other people as well" seems firmly in contradiction to the value of "Every idea needs to be evaluated and compared with other ideas to be of any consequence whatsoever".
First, I don't understand why you play the racist card in this. We are talking about ideas that people have, not something they are born with and cannot change. If religious tenets are murky enough (muslim punishment for apostasy, Jehova's witnesses insistence on not giving their children blood transfusions etc etc etc), the people can choose to distance themselves from the meme complex. It might cost them, sure. Still, calling people racists usually doesn't do any discussion any favours. Fact remains, more or less every religious person I have discussed this with has expressed the view above: Faith should be respected simply because someone has it. And I have no real reason to suspect that the sample I am talking from is a result of bias, so I do feel comfortable saying that "religious people typically..." This does not make me a racist. And no, there is no contradiction. Every IDEA needs to be evaluated. This does not mean that the SAME idea from millions of different people must be evaluated on its own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fact remains, more or less every religious person I have discussed this with has expressed the view above: Faith should be respected simply because someone has it.
I can go with respecting the fact they have beliefs. I can't automatically respect the things those beliefs are in. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that a concept should be forced into acceptance simply because it's defined in a particular religion. Religious beliefs should not get a free pass through the "right or wrong" doors.
I can respect someone, but still think their choice of religion has some pretty awful ideas in its holy texts.
Just to put two cents in here, I have one parent (with relatives) from the North (Chicago) and one (with even more relatives) from the South (Austin TX). No name-calling was ever allowed, so I just didn't grow up with it. The cooking was from both areas, I have an odd speech pattern, and I can adapt easily to both cultural milieus. For me, it was never either/or; it was both/and.
Yeah, the worst thing a religious man has told me is that faith is above scrutiny and religion can never be suspect. Yeah right.
Oh no. It is FAR from the worst thing a religious person has told me. Sadly. My worst is when they talk about how love is so central, how letting Jesus into their lives truly changes them, and then in the next breath say something like "homosexuals should all be killed/will burn in hell for eternity/<insert other disgusting example of hatred here>". This is not a rare thing, either, sadly. This is not generalizable, though. There are many christians who do understand the message they devote their lives to. Even these tend not to distance themselves from the above-mentioned hatemongers, though, which I find deeply odd. They explain that people make different interpretations of the Bible, and that this should be respected. Sound familiar?