Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:17:40 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
> spake, saying:

> >   Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
> > respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
> > strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.

> Would you respect a footballer's conviction that he needs to tie his laces  
> in a certain way before a match?

  I'm talking about respecting people, not about respecting their opinions.
I would not go and laugh at that person and make fun of him, especially not
publicly.

> How about an OCD's need to flick every  
> light switch in the room on and off (or off and on) before he can do  
> anything else? What about some person's conviction that he had to kill 12  
> rabbits a day.

  Nothing of this would make me mock those people publicly.

> So at what level would you place religion - footballer, OCD, killer, or  
> none? What happens if the footballer decides he *has* to tie his laces  
> this way and no other, the OCD gets violent if anyone interupts their  
> ritual (and I don't use that term lightly), or the killer moves up to dogs?

  What does this have to do with making fun of people?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:58:36 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:17:40 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  
>> did
>> spake, saying:
>
>> >   Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
>> > respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
>> > strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.
>
>> Would you respect a footballer's conviction that he needs to tie his  
>> laces
>> in a certain way before a match?
>
>   I'm talking about respecting people, not about respecting their  
> opinions.
> I would not go and laugh at that person and make fun of him, especially  
> not publicly.

So you can respect a person who has opinions counter to evidence and logic  
and will not change those opinions in the face of such?

>> How about an OCD's need to flick every
>> light switch in the room on and off (or off and on) before he can do
>> anything else? What about some person's conviction that he had to kill  
>> 12
>> rabbits a day.
>
>   Nothing of this would make me mock those people publicly.

What if they thought their actions were the only possible actions, the  
footballer starts a campaign for everyone to tie their laces just like  
him, the OCD claims the world would be a better place if everyone flicked  
switches on and off, if they were all completely immune to talk of logic  
and evidence and convinced that their way was the right and only way.  
Should we just let them be? see below for more.

>> So at what level would you place religion - footballer, OCD, killer, or
>> none? What happens if the footballer decides he *has* to tie his laces
>> this way and no other, the OCD gets violent if anyone interupts their
>> ritual (and I don't use that term lightly), or the killer moves up to  
>> dogs?
>
>   What does this have to do with making fun of people?

Because we've now moved on to respect. Should I hold the same level of  
respect for the people who believe the world was created in seven days as  
for the footballer tying his shoes, or the OCD or the killer. With the  
last two we'd treat their 'convictions' as things to remedy not respect,  
so why treat the first two any differently?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
>>> respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
>>> strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.
>>>
>> My guess is that it is the way you express that opinion.
> 
>   And my guess that part of the problem is that people want to read
> more than there is. In this case they wanted to see me defending young
> earth creationism only because I opposed page which sole purpose seemed
> to be to mock some museum dedicated to that, even though I made quite
> clear that I opposed only the mockery, the making fun of other people,
> nothing else.
> 
>   In other cases, however, I just can't understand it. For example if
> I say that we should not make fun of the head of state of another country,
> people opposed me like mad. No rational explanation for that came up in
> the lengthy flamewar. I still can't understand this.
> 
In most cases it is because you seem to be able to phrase your arguments 
in such a way that you annoy people. You also seem totally unaware that 
if you offend someone it is civil to apologize. In stead you fall back 
on "I did not mean to offend, so I don't have to apologize" which 
degenerates in a few posts to calling the offended stupid because he 
does not understand you did not mean it, or something that amounts to 
the same. You probably disagree, but IMHO your ability to understand 
other peoples feeling is below average. That in itself should not have 
to be a problem. If I take an on-line test to see if I am autistic I am 
on the wrong side of the line too. And so will be a large proportion of 
the people here. But there is no problem as long as you know it for 
yourself. If you had backed off in these discussions after a few 
iterations thinking "oops I did it again" *) it would have never 
deteriorated into a flamewar. The sad thing of course is that many 
people agree with you, but don't want to step into your flamewars for no 
good reason. Hence you feel frustrated that nobody else sees the 
obvious. Which enrages you even more ...

Disclaimer: this is based on a variety of observations over many years, 
I won't give any specific examples because you will then show that in 
your opinion I am wrong in that specific case. ;)
Ok, you talked me into it, one small recent one. At the end of a lengthy 
discussion on evolution and if there are other possibilities, you came 
up with nothing better than that every theory may in the end turn out to 
be false. What on earth were you thinking? That we are a bunch of 
uneducated stupid morons? Have you never contemplated that we all know 
that and that when you start a flamewar using only that as ammunition 
it'll take us a lot of iterations to understand that you really mean 
just that? Not because we disagree, but because it is so basic that it 
is incredible offensive to use it as a trump card. Surely Warp with his 
level of intelligence knows better than that... 5 levels deeper: oops he 
didn't. I still can't really believe it and the evidence suggests that 
you managed to annoy even Gilles with that one.

If you feel offended by this one: I am sorry, I did not mean it that way.

*) totally aside, I have never been able to find the 'reflective spears 
on a checkered plane' again. Somebody once did that, years ago. I think 
it was around the time of the 'checkered spear on a reflective plane' 
(the wood implement) and other silly RSOCP variants.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> you your
> you You
> you you
> you
> You your
> you
> yourself you
> you
> you
> you

> you
> your
> you
> you
> you
> you
> you
> Warp
> you

> you

  You don't seriously expect such a lengthy personal attack to have any
effect, do you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:473def28@news.povray.org...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > In article <473cde43@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> > > Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > > > Why the #@$@$@ is it flawed.
> > >
> > >   You sound like a religious fanatic.
> > >
> > Why? Because I got a bit annoyed and dared to ask a question?
>
>   Because you used symbolized expletives where none was really needed,
> and your overall tone was quite strong. Fanatics tend to shout and use
> expletives when having a "discussion" with someone they disagree with.
>
> -- 
>                                                           - Warp


For shame. Now you're just mocking him for the sake of mocking.

Post a reply to this message

Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet> wrote:
> For shame. Now you're just mocking him for the sake of mocking.

  How unimaginative to reuse the same old joke someone else already used.

  What next? Some incomprehensive allusion to rabbits?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> you your
>> you You
>> you you
>> you
>> You your
>> you
>> yourself you
>> you
>> you
>> you
> 
>> you
>> your
>> you
>> you
>> you
>> you
>> you
>> Warp
>> you
> 
>> you
> 
>   You don't seriously expect such a lengthy personal attack to have any
> effect, do you?
> 

No, because I was addressing you. (That is meant as a matter of fact, 
not as another personal attack, but you won't believe that either, I 
guess).

BTW it was absolutely not a personal attack, can't see what makes you 
think so. It was just an explanation why people react the way they do. 
Mainly because you asked for that explanation. I am sorry that you 
didn't like the answer.

D*mn there are another 6 you's in this. ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4740d849@news.povray.org...
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > >   Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
> > > respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
> > > strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.
> > >
> > My guess is that it is the way you express that opinion.
>
>   And my guess that part of the problem is that people want to read
> more than there is. In this case they wanted to see me defending young
> earth creationism only because I opposed page which sole purpose seemed
> to be to mock some museum dedicated to that, even though I made quite
> clear that I opposed only the mockery, the making fun of other people,
> nothing else.
>
>   In other cases, however, I just can't understand it. For example if
> I say that we should not make fun of the head of state of another country,
> people opposed me like mad. No rational explanation for that came up in
> the lengthy flamewar. I still can't understand this.
>

Are you the authority on rational explanations? As a participant of the
argument, I don't think you are suited to be that judge.

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:473d776e$1@news.povray.org...
> layed out by Claude Bernard in 1865. Here are some quotes:
>
> "When we meet a fact which contradicts a prevailing theory, we must accept
> the fact and abandon the theory, even when the theory is supported by
great
> names and generally accepted"
>
> "Theories are only verified hypotheses, verified by more or less numerous
> facts. Those verified by the most facts are the best, but even then they
are
> never final, never to be absolutely believed."
>
> If you haven't read his book "An introduction to the study of experimental
> medicine" you should, it's a fantastic read.
>
> G.
>
>

So we should stop talking of Creationism as a Theory, right? Are there any
facts supporting it's Hypothesis? If not, we should begin calling it the
Hypothesis of Creationism.

They have stolen our words and weakened them.

Post a reply to this message

Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet> wrote:
> Are you the authority on rational explanations? As a participant of the
> argument, I don't think you are suited to be that judge.

  Perhaps you didn't see words like "my guess is that" in my text?
Does that kind of wording sound like I'm stating a fact or does it sound
like I'm simply speculating?

  Well, this just confirms that people only see what they want to see,
not what it's written.

  I suppose it's Murphy's law applied to internet forums: If a message can
be interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the worst
possible way. (Which is especially true if they *want* to interpret it in
the worst possible way because of who is writing.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message