Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[Road Warrior]

Dude, I can agree with you about dictionaries being terse, but derision is in the definition. What you are saying isn't nuance, it's 180 degrees out from what the dictionary is saying.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I once had a "wardrobe malfunction" on stage where two very specific parts of my body were revealed to an entire audience, and I was in a position in character where I was to remain still.

That performance was mocked because not only was my malfunction distracting, but so was my facial expression. It has since been as memorable in my long repertoire of performance art as when I had received national awards, tv spots, harsh critiques in local publications (that went so far to accuse my personal character), and radio reviews.

The absurdity in that performance was obvious. Some went so far to either judge my subcutaneous fatty bits on how attractive they were or how unattractive they were. And with colorful language to boot.

It's a waste of time to put myself out there for all to see, and then preach that the only acceptable responses are various levels of applause or a quiet and nearly apologetic critique.

I prefer honesty.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dude, I can agree with you about dictionaries being terse, but derision is in the definition. What you are saying isn't nuance, it's 180 degrees out from what the dictionary is saying.

Obviously, I'm right & you're wrong!
Whew....that's now settled.

Btw, dictionary.com gives a choice....
"to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision"
For friendly mocking, I choose the "ridicule" option only.

They list synonyms for "ridicule".....
mockery, raillery, sarcasm, satire, irony. 2. banter, chaff, rally, twit, burlesque, satirize, lampoon. Ridicule, deride, mock, taunt imply
making game of a person, usually in an unkind, jeering way. To ridicule is to make fun of, either sportively and good-humoredly, or.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

LOL. Thank you. Yes, we all have experiences where we loved to be mocked and were persuaded from our paradigm because someone ridiculed and mocked us.

If only that were true. Obviously some people don't get it.

If you really do disagree with him and don't think that mockery is persuasive, then why did you just employ mockery in your argument?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If you really do disagree with him and don't think that mockery is persuasive, then why did you just employ mockery in your argument?

Because, Penguin, he would never stoop so low as to employ the same tactics that we pathetic sorry excuses of human beings would use. We're horrible people, and he's a really really nice person who's just here to show us how bad we are.

I, for one, am eternally grateful he's here to show me the error of my character traits.

Maybe we should all be saying, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?!?"

Oops, I did it again...that mockery thing ...I'm such a bad bad girl.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oops, I did it again...that mockery thing ...I'm such a bad bad girl.

You are a meta-meta-mocker!

 

[Orias]

So all the complaints by atheists about being bullied by Christians is just "soft skinned" individuals lacking a strong will?

The complaint is the issue.

Do something about it.

When one leaves room for complaint, they are subjecting themselves to the torment of others.

Sorry, but I disagree. Yes, people should stand up to bullying, but to deny bullying exists isn't realistic.

I agree that there is more to it than black and white, but you are either broken or a breaker (depending on circumstance).

Are gay kids in high school who complain of being bullied or commit suicide due to excessive bullying really just weak sissies who need to "man up"?

I wouldn't say man up, but it comes to a point where if you can't help you, then nor will anyone else want to. Unless they are overly sympathetic or feel the need to justify some sort of social disorder they have.

But I think you get the picture, if committing suicide is the only option then they are just that, a soft skinned pushover.

And don't think that us "normal" people haven't overcome any of the tendencies you mentioned.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Attacking a wall can be symbolic as much as it can be literal.

It's just a wall.

The symbolic walls are one's designed on our own flaws and values that are ascribed to us throughout our own remanifestation. In essence, these very walls are a part of us, simply because they are a manifestation/invocation that involves personal effort.

No, walls are not your arms and legs, they are walls.

It can also be much like a medieval siege, the castle wars are designed to protect the heart that lay within. The king of his own domain.

Castles are castles and people are people. Try not to mix them up.

 

[A Troubled Man]

It is my choice to discontinue discussion with a person who would rather engage in personal attacks and heated rhetoric than logic.

But, you have made it painfully obvious you don't understand the difference between attacking people and attacking their ideas and beliefs, which is why you dishonestly accuse of receiving personal attacks.

When you want to discuss things in a civil and logical manner, please let me know and I will be happy to accommodate you, sir.

In other words, you have no intention of gaining that understanding. Yeah, I get that.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Report buttons are for wusses.

Calling others wusses IS a personal attack. Or, did you already know that?

 

[Orias]

It's just a wall.

Ok?

Is this supposed to rebuke something?

No, walls are not your arms and legs, they are walls.

Thats not a good way to understand the proverb.

So I guess, whatever, thats not even what I said.

Castles are castles and people are people. Try not to mix them up.

Ok?

What prowess of intelligence lay behind this statement?

Dogs learn by association, so do we?

 

[A Troubled Man]

Ok?

Is this supposed to rebuke something?

The fact that attacking a wall is just attacking a wall and nothing else.

Thats not a good way to understand the proverb.

So I guess, whatever, thats not even what I said.

You said, "these very walls are a part of us" and I said walls are not arms and legs, they are not part of us.

Ok?

What prowess of intelligence lay behind this statement?

Dogs learn by association, so do we?

You appeared to be confusing castles with people like you were confusing walls with people in that if we attack one thing not associated with people, we somehow are still attacking people.

Does that help?

 

[Orias]

The fact that attacking a wall is just attacking a wall and nothing else.

A duck swimming in the water is a duck swimming in the water, what does this have to do with rebuking the analogy?

You said, "these very walls are a part of us" and I said walls are not arms and legs, they are not part of us.

So a loved one is not a part of us either?

You appeared to be confusing castles with people like you were confusing walls with people in that if we attack one thing not associated with people, we somehow are still attacking people.

Name one thing that is not associated with people.

You're not even close to being able to interpret what I said, and they were simple words.

Does that help?

I guess if it helped you thats all that matters.

 

[Orias]

But, you have made it painfully obvious you don't understand the difference between attacking people and attacking their ideas and beliefs, which is why you dishonestly accuse of receiving personal attacks.

This clears everything up, you seem to have no idea that beliefs are personal.

In other words, you have no intention of gaining that understanding. Yeah, I get that.

No, you don't.

And you be are being very contradictory to what you lay claim too.

 

[Road Warrior]

But, you have made it painfully obvious you don't understand the difference between attacking people and attacking their ideas and beliefs, which is why you dishonestly accuse of receiving personal attacks.

In other words, you have no intention of gaining that understanding. Yeah, I get that.

You forgot to add "IMO". BTW, your conclusions are incorrect, but I think I understand why you would want to believe of me as you assert. My humble advice is for you to avoid projecting your feelings on people and focus more upon how to better convey your thoughts to others. Making accusations is rarely an effective method of persuasion....IMO.

Calling others wusses IS a personal attack. Or, did you already know that?

It as meant as a joke. No harm meant. I apologize if harm was done since it was not intended.

 

[Road Warrior]

Tonight, while driving home from work I finished listening to Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's speech at [youtube]8vfOpZD4Sm8[/youtube]
TAM 6. While I can't say I agree with everything he said, I certainly can agree with much of what he said including his perspective on how to treat others of differing beliefs. It seems to me he doesn't believe mocking of one's beliefs is the smartest approach as exemplified by his remarks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Calling others wusses IS a personal attack. Or, did you already know that?

"Wuss" (aka "Wussy") is an inherently humorous substitute for "pu**y".
It didn't strike me as abusive in his post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tonight, while driving home from work I finished listening to Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's speech at [youtube]8vfOpZD4Sm8[/youtube]
TAM 6. While I can't say I agree with everything he said, I certainly can agree with much of what he said including his perspective on how to treat others of differing beliefs. It seems to me he doesn't believe mocking of one's beliefs is the smartest approach as exemplified by his remarks.

Then why do you do it?

I'm not sure if you're the RF member who uses mockery and ridicule the most, but if I had to guess, I'd say that you're in the top ten of currently active members. If you think it's such an unwise tactic, why do you use it so often?

 

[Road Warrior]

Then why do you do it?

I'm not sure if you're the RF member who uses mockery and ridicule the most, but if I had to guess, I'd say that you're in the top ten of currently active members. If you think it's such an unwise tactic, why do you use it so often?

Malice scorned, puts out itself; but argued, give a kind of credit to a false accusation. -- Philip Massinger

Now everyone is reminded why I've ceased to respond to your posts. They are full of false, unsubstantiated accusations, are rarely, if ever, on topic and often violate this rule:

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling (Please note that these apply to PMs, signature lines, frubal comments, and visitor messages as well, if they are reported):
1)posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
2)posts that Target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, repeated blatant misrepresentation or continual harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

Please stop the personal attacks and get back on topic. TIA

 

[Road Warrior]

You are making an assumption here that ridicule does not make use of logic. This is not necessarily true. Good quality mocking requires a sharp understanding of logic.

A good point, but I'd like to point out there is a difference between logic and smart.

Example. Corporate bean counters know the value of a penny and how to count paper clips but they often know very little about leadership or good morale since those are hard to quantify on a ledger. As such, corporate managers rarely employ good leadership or factor employee morale into their business decisions. Sure, the action may look "good on paper", but if it turns a group of employees who were willing to give 100% into a group of employees who only give 80% (just enough to avoid being fired), how much as the corporation really lost?

In this case, as I've posted several times and as links provided have substantiated, it is important to consider the goal. Is the goal to antagonize and one-up someone with whom we disagree? In that case, mocking and ridicule is a good way to go. But if the goal is to either persuade the person to a different point of view or simply persuade those listening to the discussion, then I submit that mocking and ridicule are poor leadership and not very persuasive. Observers or the person(s) with whom the discussion is taking place can too easily be side track by the bullying or verbal abuse, no matter how witty it is put forth, instead of actually paying attention to the argument. If you disagree, fine. Mock away, but we both lose and the Fundamentalists are allowed to push our government towards religion instead of keeping it secular.