Are we incapable of basic human kindness?

[Poetic_Justice]

I have just come to this delightful place from a much more irrational and inane site. However, though I was impressed by the other groups, such as politics and science to a large degree, in this group I find the intolerance and closemindedness that seemingly stalks me wherever I go.

Could you answer me why a thread called "Buddhism is a friggin dumb religion" is allowed to exist? Yes I know they have a debate going on, but truly, what sort of light does it cast us in to have a title like that?

Also, instead of talking to eachother about philosophy and religion, it seems that many people would prefer to just badmouth other religions. I am a Christian, but I don't call Buddhists idiots or atheists uneducated. I give everyone respect, though I might not agree with them. Maybe I'm falling into my idealist tendencies, but I really don't think that its impossible for us to speak civilly to one another, and not attack each other's religions.

What kind of debate is elft open when the beginning part of a thread says that Christians don't want you to hear some aprts of their Bible? How hard is it to phrase it more politely? Say by asking, "here are some quotes, some contradictions I find in the Bible, can any Christians explain them in relation to the Christian faith?"

Religion is an area where a lot of lee-way has to be given to biases. It is also a place where we have to be especially caring of one another. Sure we should not be shy to use things like the dark bible to bring up points of debate, but in the end, when you ask what a Christian actually beleives shouldn't you go to the Christian source, not the violently anti-christian?

If you want to learn about communism, its theories, its basic ideals, and whether or not it could work, do you first go to a capitalist, or a communist? Yes you go to the capitalist to find out possible flaws that the communist may be hiding from you or may have just never known, but first you see the communist to get a basic grounding. Anything else is somewhat nonsensical I trust yo uwould all agree.

And so it is with religion, to understand any religion, with both its flaws and strengths, one must first go to the source, the proponents of the religion. Then one should go to its detractors, between the two extremes one should be able to pick up a remarkable amonut aout the religion. To only have one side of the debate, is to be intellectually lazy.

So am I being overly idealistic? Are my ways of studying religion inept or illogical? Have I misunderstood you all?

Dave

[Impenitent]

basic human kindness will never be found in religion or politics, they both are systems of hierarchy and power...

[Packratt]

Might as well ask if there is such a thing as sociopathy...

Well, actually, you are in essence asking if there is nothing but sociopathy.

Sociopathy is basically the lack of empathy, the inability to consider other humans as anything but objects to be used for one's own gratification without guilt.

To this degree I might admit that there seems to be many people today who are sociopathic, but that there are also many people who do feel empathy and understand intrinsicly that other people have inate value and that their emotions are valid and should be respected. That despite the sociopaths, there are still people who understand the nature and reason for morality in a very innate way.

Whether it is simply their emotions that tell them that there are such things as right and wrong, or whether they understand the nature of such as social creatures bound by biological social necessity.

[Anniee]

Quote: "What kind of debate is elft open when the beginning part of a thread says that Christians don't want you to hear some aprts of their Bible? How hard is it to phrase it more politely? Say by asking, "here are some quotes, some contradictions I find in the Bible, can any Christians explain them in relation to the Christian faith?"

For what it's worth, as a Christian, if people frame a question like that I find it reasonable and worth answering and discussing. It isn't often that the question is put that way, but that's beside the point. When it is, go for it. Also, I wouldn't try to hide any parts of the bible from people. It is what it is. I have recently seen a site called "religionisbullshit" that puts together a lot of bible references (without the actual quotes) and actually lies about what they say (some are just taken out of context or misunderstood, others are direct lies about the content of the reference) in order to convince people Christianity is not only a lie, but an evil one. Christians are subject to as much hatred and badmouthing as any other group, if not more so.

Edited to add: I haven't looked at the threads in question, and I'm not especially eager to do so. That site was kind of enough hatred/Christian-bashing for the moment as I need I think generally I stay out of religious topics on boards unless something really strikes my interest and I see people are talking respectfully. Another problem is, frankly, that people think it's "hateful" or "intolerant" to actually believe something (of this nature) is objectively true - to point to the difference between true/false, right/wrong. Which is kind of ridiculous given the nature of what you're talking about, you know? If I don't think (with good reason) it's TRUE why would I ascribe to it? lol For example I don't go around saying, "Oh he/she is going to hell!" as a rule, but if the topic of hell comes up legitimately, I'm not going to shrink from speaking the truth about it. People don't care for that, even when it's completely in context.

[Leopard]

first of all...

Could you answer me why a thread called "Buddhism is a friggin dumb religion" is allowed to exist? Yes I know they have a debate going on, but truly, what sort of light does it cast us in to have a title like that?

...the title of any particular thread does not 'cast us' in any way, it soley reflects upon the author. The fact that there are a variety of threads and titles does suggest that there is some sort of 'open-mindedness' of the moderators - which I personally approve of. I would not venture into a forum where strict censor of topic titles is excersized<sp?> because it would indicate an open bias over-reaching all the posts therein...

in addition...

Maybe I'm falling into my idealist tendencies, but I really don't think that its impossible for us to speak civilly to one another, and not attack each other's religions.

you must realize that when participating in an online forum you are rubbing elbows with all kinds of folks, including the young and immature. By definition, these folks have not yet learned the benefits of speaking or acting in a civil manner yet... and they will suffer until that lesson is (1) taught to them by persons they respect (hopefully parents/teachers), or, (2) taught to them by experience when dealing with others... either way, I make it my policy to strictly avoid these young 'uns as they do not lend much to my personal desire of seeking actual knowledge...

welcome!

with liberty for all,
michael

[Poetic_Justice]

Mike,

I would say that it does cast US in a certain light, simply because any casual observer of the site would equate the content of the site, with the users of the site. If one frequents a site with anti-semitic propagandaa, one is going to be equated as an anti-semite by anyone who sees that site on your favourites list, even if you only used that site to research the history of the middle east.

Also, I fail to see how it would be TOO strict to simply not allow titles which are openly insulting to a person or group of people... For example, a title line which read "Michael is a faggot" I would assume would be deleted, on two counts, seeing as it is demeaning to you, and demeaning to homosexuals. Such a title line is hardly different than "Buddhism is the stupidest friggin religion".

But I am only saying that because it does say in their etiquette to not insult other people, if it did not say that, then such titles would be fair game, but since it does, consistency would require that such a title be dealt with.

As to the second point, I'll agree with you...

And liberty to you too brother!

Dave

[Leopard]

Dearest Poetic,
Ya tried to do the old 'switch-a-roo' on me there!

having a single (or a few) titles which are 'immature' or 'anti-semetic' or 'bigoted' does not disparage the entire forum.

If a multitude of titles (posted by different authors) dominated the site, then that site could be construed as being of that mind, and it would be an accurate description... having a few does no harm...

secondly, who do you want to carry on dialogue with... the person who makes an uneducated assumption about a site and 'casts it in a detremental light' or one who evaluates the overall content before making his/her decision?

I prefer the latter, if someone comes to this forum and leaves because of a few posts by immature people - I have nothing of value to learn from them and they would not even provide entertainment for me...

still your friend in freedom,
michael

[Poetic_Justice]

True enough, but wouldnt it be better to be without bigoted topics altogether?

Perhaps that is impossible, but isn't it a worthy goal?

Also, saying having a few bigoted titles does no harm, is like saying a little government(read: theft and slavery) does no harm. Perhaps it does LITTLE harm, but it does, necessarily, do harm.

Liberty forever
Dave

[Anniee]

I do actually think Michael's correct in that I know when I first open a forum I see a variety of titles - one forum I opened recently had a religion title much worse than the one about Buddhism. In any case I would never decide the forum is awful until I open those threads and see how the members reacted to the topic.

Many times it turns out those threads are just being started by one or two gadflies and the members simply roll their eyes in response and move on, or they end up using the thread to discuss among themselves some things about the issue but definitely not in the same vein as the author. So that, IMO, reflects well on the forum. As does the fact that the forum is not being micromanaged or dominated - there are few things worse than a forum being micromanaged by bullying obnoxious moderators with big heads. Better a dozen threads with awful names than THAT. The cure is much worse than the disease.

Anyway, like Mike mentioned, better to have the person aboard who takes the time to find out what the forum is about and doesn't make snap judgments based on a couple headlines.

Upcoming thread..."Mike is a Big Blubbering Vagina"

[Leopard]

dang it!

well, if I am going to be a blubbering anything, it might as well be that!


Dearest Dave,
True enough, but wouldnt it be better to be without bigoted topics altogether?

only if the lack of bigoted topics came from the lack of bigoted people in society, otherwise, no - without the topics to discuss these views then the bigots run freely and unapposed in their own minds (as small as a playground as it may be...)

Perhaps that is impossible, but isn't it a worthy goal?

the goal 'should' be the changing of society, NOT changing into rose-colored glasses in viewing that society... strike the root not the symptom

Also, saying having a few bigoted titles does no harm, is like saying a little government(read: theft and slavery) does no harm. Perhaps it does LITTLE harm, but it does, necessarily, do harm.
no. government and internet forum titles are completely different monsters and to compare the to like this to justify a position is being dishonest (not saying this was intentional on your part, i just don't think very well thought out).

With Freedom smashing like waves against the irrational bastion of the statists,
michael

[tusaki]

My good friends of the volconvo forum,

after long and exhausting thinking and research I have come to share with my fellow debaters a glimmer of the truth I have uncovered.

I hope you will not judge too harshly and allow my obviously simple mind to exchange thoughts with my betters.

That said, (and I would like to add that I really appreciate the amount of wisdom which you all are showing, I'm totally undeserving of such generosity) when I read about it I came to the conclusion that this was what you were always pointing out to me. I was so foolish and I am so ashamed I irritated you with my endless ignorance.

Therefore I hope my thick headedness has not led to offense and I bow my head in respectful silence.

Kind regards and yours forever,
- Vincent Vollers



PS) This is an flawed attempt at humour and in no way any animals or one-celled organisms were harmed during the creation of this document.

[antayla]

Hmmm... I think basic human kindness is merely another "survival" trait passed down from generation to generation via evolution. HOWEVER. We ARE reasoning beings, so you would think we could conciously decide to be kind, right? Well... maybe those of us who decide to use reason will decide to be kind...

I think that the problem here is that people won't recognize that there is any awareness beyond their own; it actually takes as much faith to totally accept that as it does to accept a god(s). You can't really prove it, but... there are always results to go by.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
True enough, but wouldnt it be better to be without bigoted topics altogether?

Perhaps that is impossible, but isn't it a worthy goal?

Also, saying having a few bigoted titles does no harm, is like saying a little government(read: theft and slavery) does no harm. Perhaps it does LITTLE harm, but it does, necessarily, do harm.

Liberty forever
Dave<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The title was designed to attract attention, it could also represent the maturity and mental status of the poster so why edit it?

[Poetic_Justice]

I guess.
For me I'm more concerned about the sensibilities of people who adhere to that religion. Even if they know most people are defending them against such ignorance, it can't be nice to see something like that every time they enter a group.

I guess I overstepped my bounds in criticising the moderators, this was more meant to maybe wake up the people who write such titles. I suppose it is a bit of "poetic justice" to allow their titles to remain as a testament to their own "maturity and mental status" as you said.

Sorry again for criticising the mods, I didn't totally see it from your guys/girls perspective. Now I see a bit better...

[Pooeypants]

Oh lookie, we're actually hardwired to feel pain.
"Humans are hardwired to feel empathy, suggests a new imaging study showing that certain pain-processing regions of the brain light up when a loved-one is hurt."

Full article from newscientist.

I guess someone of us don't have it.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
I guess.
For me I'm more concerned about the sensibilities of people who adhere to that religion. Even if they know most people are defending them against such ignorance, it can't be nice to see something like that every time they enter a group.

I guess I overstepped my bounds in criticising the moderators, this was more meant to maybe wake up the people who write such titles. I suppose it is a bit of "poetic justice" to allow their titles to remain as a testament to their own "maturity and mental status" as you said.

Sorry again for criticising the mods, I didn't totally see it from your guys/girls perspective. Now I see a bit better...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

being 'nice' is very subjective and hard to make guesses at what others might construe as 'nice' - for instance, it wouldn't bother me one bit to see 50 titles with my name in bold followed by a derrogatory comment - I like seeing my name typed by others!

on that note - I also don't feel you need to apologize whatsoever to anyone for stating your view... you stated your position, others took up opposing positions and we civily discussed the matter... it was simply beautiful - no matter 'who was right' - I appreciate discussing these subjects with you and I am sure we agree on quite alot...

michael

[Samildanach]

I agree I would rather be in a forum where anything can be discussed regardless of how inappropriate or taboo it may be regarded as.
If it gets alittle heated along the way well thats just the way of it. Besides if you are going to participate in these places a thin skin is definitely not an asset.

Leopard hits on an important point when he noted what is considered "nice" is subjective, particularly when discussing emotion based issues such as religion. I recall from many philosophy classes students who would refuse to even consider the question of the existence of A god entity. They would walk out and fail that section of the class rather than address the issue rationally.

There is also a point being overlooked here. The rational person does not get the same leeway as the religious. While others are to walk on eggshells around religious people and their feelings, those who rely on reason and objectivity are treated with contempt and are immediately labeled as unworthy of existence. We are told that we are evil. That we are the source of all problems in the world etc. And we are repeatedly subjected to the martyr syndrom that appears so very often in Xns who tell us constantly that they are abused, they are persecuted, they have no power, they are the victims of oppression etc, despite the fact that in the western world they are the most priviledge class of people.

For myself tolerance and civility extend as far as is possible. Until that point where someone else is trying to employ force upon me I will remain civil. However remaining civil does not mean pretending that illusions are real, that false statements are true, nor does it mean that one must simply accept all of the proclamations of any other as "god's truth."

[zkreso]

I think he used that title to get attention and to spark a conversation. And besides, when I see that sort of title I just get excited to click the topic because I expect to see that person's opinion ripped to shreds by the more "educated" members.

[Mia]

Me too. On the "nice" thing. I think civil would be a better word. If discussion is the goal, civility is crucial. Otherwise, the conversation degenerates into name-calling and personal attacks instead of the issue.