Rian wrote:So am I! I mean, I am SOOO there with you! But I'm starting to see more and more problems with the whole insult thing, where one person strongly feels like it is insulting, and the other strongly feels that it isn't, and vice-versa, and I just don't know what to do about it. Maybe the best thing is to just pick those people that you work better with, for whatever reason, and talk with them.
I have no problem with that except that I generally don't like to put people on ignore. I post my comments for all to read and respond to and that is the best way to learn new things, by putting it out there and listening to the feedback of others. If I start excluding people, then I may as well just join a forum where everyone agrees with me and that isn't a learning experience at all. All I'm asking is that people use some restraint in their responses, that they filter their comments for such screed. I haven't seen Moon post anything so disruptive. Why is it that he seems to have self-control but Mitch does not?
But I welcome the "some" thing, Gary, and so do others here. There are some (hey, that was unintentional, but funny - I just used "some"!) anyway, there are some people here who definitely agree that using modifiers like "some" is a good thing not a bad. However, your explanation made me realize how some people can take it wrong (I disagree that "everyone" will) because I've seen it in real life: when people give this big emphasis to the word "some" so that everyone knows they're meaning "all". But that's not how I used it, Gary - I used it because I saw some with the problem, and some not with the problem. I think this issue is totally a function of typed communication and how we perceive people on the "other side". And again, I don't know how to solve it. I can try to word it more carefully, but it starts to get ridiculous when every sentence is hedged 'round with all sorts of other sentences so that no one takes it wrong. Again, I'm thinking that maybe the answer is to just talk with people that don't tend to take you the wrong way.
I think you've gotten too concerned with the use of the word "some", Rian, and you've missed my point entirely. The point is that you were definitely describing a group of people in a pejorative way; you were being offensive, calling their behavior "strange" and "obsessive", and particularly so when it had nothing to do with the topic. What has the passion and determination of someone defending a particular topic to do with the concept of validating our existence with testable claims? Nothing at all. So, my point is that you make this offensive statement, then put the cute little word "some" in front so as to make the claim that, no I wasn't talking about anyone in particular. My point is SO WHAT? What you are calling strange behavior is in fact, not strange at all, but rather intelligent and reasonable. And this same behavior is repeated over and over on nearly every topic by somebody on every topic. So, for your assertion to be correct, it really should apply to everyone here on some topic or another, because everyone, including you, has defended a topic passionately.
And I'm fine with people using it, although I hope they don't use it "against" me - I hope they use it the way that I use it - to express what they mean! that what you're saying doesn't apply to the whole group. I think the opposite problem is worse, so we might just never agree here.
And here you are applying such vague qualifiers that there's no hope anyone else can satisfy your expectations. Just avoid calling people strange and obsessive and you will see a marked improvement in your likability quotient.
I didn't want to insult you. And yes, it IS a way to insult everyone, but it doesn't HAVE to be a way to do that - it can also be a perfectly valid and necessary thing to say. So I guess we'll just have to differ here, although I hope you can understand what I'm saying.
Please tell me what is valid about saying that it is "strange" that someone defends a scientific position in a debate? Particularly as it relates to the topic of testability. No, I don't understand what you are saying here. I reject it in its entirety as being 100% wrong. It is nothing but an ad-hominem.
Because as I said, I thought it added useful information to the conversation.
Please tell me what that "useful information" was? By calling me or anyone else "strange" for defending a position, you are employing an ad-hominem, a personal defamation. What is valid about that? Even if I am a strange person, what has that got to do with the point I'm making? If my logic and facts are sound, should the fact that I'm black also be relevant?
I didn't say that, Gary. You're just projecting into it. I don't see every atheist having this problem, but I see some that do. And it is SO volatile a thought that I don't want to name names. All I want to do is raise awareness of it, even to those that aren't posting, and hope that they can see the mistake someday. And yet I see your point, too - but all it will make me do is be more careful with my wording.
Rian, the bottom line here is that you don't get to jab someone with a stick, then argue with them whether or not it hurt them? Get it? Now, I fully acknowledge misunderstandings, but when this occurs, the customary path toward reconciliation is to take ownership of the offensive statement, state that it was unintended to be offensive and then perhaps restate in a way that is more clear or to clarify why it is offensive in the first place. I've never seen you or Mitch do such a thing. In fact, all you ever do is defend your language and insist that the offended person shouldn't have been offended. And yet, YOU are the quickest person on this forum to get offended by something. We'll see if you do become more careful. In my estimation, your comment in question here was not unintended; it appeared to me to be nothing but an intentional blow in order to demean the very people who were taking an opposing view to that of Mitch.
Mitch is quote the master at qualifying his insults and rants with the adage that it should only offend you if you actually resemble his insult. What a total and complete cop-out! That's tantamount to saying that you should be allowed to walk around calling blacks "niggers" or Jews "Kikes" or women "cunts" and when they take offense, just saying that its only offensive if you feel that it resembles you. That's completely shitty reasoning.
If it's so volatile a thing to say, Rian, then why say it at all? I invite you to say these things to a real person who isn't of like mind with you and listen to their response. I think you will be astonished at the results.
Let's see - no, please don't let's use "let's see" - don't you think that's sarcastic?
No sarcasm intended on my part. Just pointing out that there were only a handful of people involved with this topic, and I was certainly taking up most of the space, so it's difficult to see how you weren't including me in your comment.
Anyway, I said "the more outspoken of these"
Yeah, that would be me.
in addition to "some", and in a post to Dr. M, I said " Actually, the person that I think is the best example of this is on another forum". So it's no charade - I think it's you over-reacting.
OK, fine, I over-reacted. Perhaps my response should have been. "Rian, that's bullshit" and moved on. Would you have liked that response better?
But again, what's the point of such a useless comment in the first place? It says absolutely nothing about the topic and does nothing but attack the person, not the commentary.
I think the atheist side was very defensive from Mitch's posts (and I wish he would back off a bit and find a better way to communicate
) and you just took that feeling and put it all on me, because I agreed with a modified version of what he said. I can understand that, but I also think that you should see better by now and apologize.
I have nothing to apologize for, Rian. You are severely confused if you think that I do. Do you understand what a debate is? Or a discussion? It's when people talk about something and point out different sides to an issue. If these people sincerely and passionately believe in them, then the discussion could get lengthy and powerful. I wasn't throwing any punches at Mitch, no personal attacks whatsoever. What you call "defensive" is merely me making a good point. But if you are talking about another member, then I can't comment. I really have no way of knowing because you are so vague.
But it doesn't fit what I was talking about. Nor does passionate mean strange. Nor does a passionate person necessarily personify science. I mean what I said, exactly that.
Then you were being an insulting bitch. And I don't mean that in an insulting, personal attack kind of way; I'm just describing the situation, you know.
Gary, here we are again - how the different sides see insults. I continually see the atheist side drag up the tooth fairy and the FSM, when to me, those examples are both insulting and ridiculous. Yet "your side" keeps doing it.
I don't play for an Atheist Team, Rian. What someone else says is not my responsibility. You don't hear me charging you will comments made by Mitch. I am only condemning you for your comments. So don't judge me for what someone else says.
I thought what I said was WELL within the bounds of what I see going on here, and I thought it was a valuable observation that I hope will help someone someday. So yes, it was slightly insulting, but in the sense of "I think you're doing something wrong", not a personal insult. One could say that ANYTIME you disagree with someone, it's "insulting", but I think most of us here have a general feeling of what crosses the line. But it was NOT directed at the whole group here, and IMO it was FAR below what I see over and over from the atheist side.
You are stretching and parsing the meaning of insult here to epic proportions. You just admitted that it was slightly insulting, then go on to say it wasn't a "personal" insult. What is an insult it if isn't personal? If you say that men everywhere are asses, then I will be insulted. I am a man, therefore you must believe me to be an ass. I'm going to say you are wrong, that I am an exception to your rule and then I suppose you are going to say it was nothing personal. What a laugh! (as in ridiculous) And again, again, again, you can't pin on me what someone else said just because you see them as on "my side". If I didn't say it; I don't own it.
It's no apology, Gary - I don't think I did anything wrong - I thought I was WELL within what the atheist side constantly puts out, and I still think so. What I was saying is that I don't do the personal insult rant thing. So I will not retract the staement, unless you will retract everything that insults me. But then we can't talk about things we disagree on.
Then you clearly don't understand my point. And how on earth would I retract everything that insults you? I will retract only what I say that is insulting and nothing more.
Also, it wasn't an ignorant nor was it a generalization - I was basing my statement on things that I've seen on various discussion boards - this makes it a fact - and it wasn't a generalization - I said it only applied to a certain group within atheists. You're just wrong here, and I hope you can see it, because I certainly won't stop.
So, I suggest a new thread to dig into this obsessive, odd and strange idea of yours. And be prepared to bar no holds.
I suggest that we just try to start over - it's clear to me that you mean well, and I hope it's clear to you that I mean well.
No, it is not. With every statement, you defend your position that you should be able to insult people. You also have a tendency to lump all non-believers into a group and hold each one accountable for what the others say and do, which I reject as silly. And I know from past experience that you will be the first person to cry "foul" when anyone says something you find offensive. You simply cannot have it both ways. So far nothing you have said suggests to me that you do mean well in this regard. All you say is that you have defensible offensive statements. I reject that as nonsense.
I don't think it was off-topic, and certainly people go WAY more off-topic and derail conversations all the time, so please stop with that. Also, it wasn't an insult, unless you want to say the fairy tale thing is an insult, too, and stop saying it. We just disagree on what an insult is, but I still think that we have a general agreement on good behavior.
There you go again, justifying your actions because someone else has done it before. Why does that make it ok? I don't remember making any "fairy tale" comment, and I am not responsible for what others say. And as to what an insult is; good behavior is all about intent, Rian. Anyone can make a mistake.
I didn't "pile on", Gary. I think you're just projecting here. I think if you go back and read with an open mind, you'll see a huge difference. But also, I think you've done plenty of "piling on". It's just a matter of POV.
Again, what I saw was you tacking on a "yeah, Mitch, I agree!" (with his offensive statements) and then making offensive statements to boot. That's my definition of "piling on". So, I did re-read it and no, I don't see a huge difference. You were piling on.
Well, actually I think what you said about me here was more insulting than what you said about Mitch!
Sounds to me like you're saying I'm a coward and a bully that hides behind a keyboard. But then I could be wrong. And you were wrong about me.
I don't believe I am wrong, Rian. Your behavior is speaking much more loudly than your words.
1. Do you at least agree with me that your comment was off topic?
Only a little bit, but still WELL within the norm of discussion style here. And actually, it irritates me when a person designates themselves as the topic police - I think what should be done is to ask the person to put it on another thread, and then leave it alone and let group consensus decide.
I'm not trying to police the thread, Rian. I'm nearly positive that if you felt insulted by a comment, you would do the same; point out the issue. That's all I'm doing here. And if a conversation is going well, I see no point in derailing it with useless ad-hominems.
2. Do you agree that to move forward in a conversation, avoiding derailments of this nature is a important?
Insults, yes, but we all draw different lines, so I'm not sure how to solve it. OT comments - I rather like them, and I keep well within what goes on here.
In this case you did not.
3. Do you agree that Mitch's comments were inappropriate, unproductive and off-topic?
Many of them, yes. Also a lot of them insightful and considerate. But I think it's been escalating, unfortunately, and I hate that because I think he has a lot of interesting things to say.
No need for your further analysis, Rian. I already acknowledged that I was enjoying the conversation before Mitch switched to "rant and deflect" mode and before you jumped in with your trite insults. I have the preoperative to challenge someone's insulting, which some might define as "escalating". To me it's important to make this point clear. I would be happy to return to useful discourse.
Rian, if you do not agree with all three of these precepts, then I'm afraid we have no common ground on which to stand and it might be best if you simply ignored my posts from now on because if not, this cycle will only repeat itself. But its your decision; I only suggest one possible solution.
It's certainly my decision. I mean, why suggest something for me to do? Why not YOU think of something for YOU to do? Why not say YOU will ignore my posts? That was kinda odd.
Again, you and Mitch made the offending statements that derailed the thread, not me. And I AM
doing something here. I'm challenging you on your behavior. If you don't like my comments, then you are free to ignore them. I won't be offended by that.
I've bent over backwards trying to discuss things with you, and I hope this post helps. If it doesn't, I'll have to ignore your posts. But it just stinks how this board has changed
I hope we can reset here and try again one more time.
Well, Rian, you need look no further than your own reflection in the mirror if you dislike this forum. I could point to numerous examples of behavior of yours that you complain about all the time of others.