| RicodJour 2005-12-26, 10:21 pm |
| gruhn wrote:
>
> Not that "someone outclassed" and "resort" aren't a form of name calling?
> But my point is moot because you weren't in the argument.
Exactly. I'm an unbiased witness to the antics.
> But anyway... No.
>
> Now I'm refraining from replying to cegan because he was offended (why? It's
> stupid but it's human. Why doesn't really matter.) and he did say "please".
> He did say "please," didn't he?
Manners show respect, not weakness.
> But he left himself open to have his buttons pushed. "Hey, I find that
> really offensive. Would you please not do that?" Simple request from a
> fellow human. Great, we can go with that. (He did say "please," didn't he?)
>
> But when the basis of the request is "don't offend me" it would be better
> said to not start off by being offensive. Sure, he does the "some of my best
> friends are gay Jewish negroes." But all too often (like, always) that is a
> fair sign of a weak argument; a declarator "what follows is bullshit."
>
> And he cuts right in on the name calling. Dissin' our smarts. Questioning
> our maturity. In the end, trying to make us behave his way by... pressure of
> insult. But HE doesn't want to be insulted.
Dissing your smarts...? Questioning your maturity...? Let me see if I
have this straight. You believe that _that_ attempt at a joke was an
example of your smarts and maturity? Wow. Listen, you have to put a
smiley or something to make it clear that you're being humorous or
ironic. Otherwise it looks like you're just talking out your XXX.
> It gets worse.
>
> "Don't hurt my beliefs." What about the belief that there is no god, there
> is no immortal soul; that all of this religion noise is a dispicable
> sidetrack? There may be those who hold that belief quite strongly; who find
> pandering to Christians a horrible waste of human time and potential; who
> find appeals to hurtle metaphysics back some two thousand years a worse
> crime than dissin' their momma; who think the continued existance an mind
> crushing power of religion the most offensive thing humanity has
> perpetrated. Did he consider the feelings of these people? Does he show any
> sign of caring about their beliefs? No, none. Just because Atheism is wrong
> doesn't make it any less fervently held a belief than any of the thousands
> of god options.
Correct. I'm not a lawyer for religion or anything else, don't expect
me to defend them.
> He attacks maturity and intelligence (and you complain about other people
> not having an argument to stand on. I presume that wasn't your sense of
> biting irony kicking in.). Could he have had in mind that anti-Christians
> tend to be all la dee da about their keen objective intellects? Could he
> have made that specific set of insults more pointedly than you might think?
> Was he TRYING to be an XXXXXXX? He's not stupid. He's considered the best
> writer regularly in the group... It would be insulting to assume that he
> didn't write what he wrote on purpose.
A very wise teacher once said that respect is simply giving someone the
benefit of the doubt. Until cegan gives me reason to question it, I'll
assume he is a reasonable human being, regardless of whether all of his
beliefs coincide with mine or not.
Humor is, and always has been, a two-edged sword. There should be no
surprise that some don't find your humor funny. Is that cause to be
offended?
> In short:
>
> "I love you all. You all suck. Do what I say." He asked for it. For what?
> I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader since you clearly missed it on
> the first go.
Not quite sure how it fits in with your theory that cegan left himself
open to having his button's pushed, but I don't see the chronolgy
working in your favor - the button was pushed before the reaction - you
started the thread. Maybe there's a history I'm unaware of, but it
seems the one who overreacted was Ken. The schema was: sophmoric joke,
request to refrain, wholesale abuse. That about sums it up, right?
Maybe cegan was oversensitive (assuming he's not a flaming *, he can
decide that for himself and I for one won't object) and possibly would
have done better to just let it slide, but Ken obviously had his
buttons pushed big time. The abuse doesn't help convince anyone -
ever. To couch the abuse in a diatribe extolling the human race's
emapthy and wisdom is downright laughable.
R
|