Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But if that person misconstrues every attack on their ideas as an attack on them, then that would seem to change the way the dialogue works altogether. Not only is ridicule off the table, but all criticism becomes personal: it's never about the ideas we are discussing, but about the persons who hold those ideas. That's not likely to be an edifying discussion.Yes, I understand, which is why we must deal graciously with one another and be sure that the person we are dialoguing with understands our criticisms and objections.
I'm not sure where you elaborated on the "why" exactly, except to say that some ideas are cherished by individuals. I don't see why that would make a difference. That some ideas are cherished does not place those ideas "out of bounds." Someone's fondness for a particular way of thinking doesn't immunise it from criticism.There is no need to repeat yourself. I did not "ignore" what you said, I responded and said I don't agree with you, and why.
But if that person misconstrues every attack on their ideas as an attack on them, then that would seem to change the way the dialogue works altogether. Not only is ridicule off the table, but all criticism becomes personal: it's never about the ideas we are discussing, but about the persons who hold those ideas. That's not likely to be an edifying discussing.
I agreeStating that certain beliefs are "ridiculous" and why you think so is one thing. Engaging in open and continued ridicule of a person's beliefs or of them personally, is another. Honest criticism is far better. Ridicule is not constructive, it is condescending and mocking by nature.
Look...if you cannot process the fact that the evidence is not of this world, but exists in those who have given witness to it throughout all of recorded history - then you are not up to receiving it - which is your problem, not ours. We have no need or obligation to "prove" anything. Our only obligation is to give witness - which we have. We are done. Anything else...is on you. To help you with that, we have (many times) explained just how it works - just as I did in my last post to you. It's on you.Again, these are merely the claims of other men, like you.
Claims are not evidence. Where is the EVIDENCE that a spiritual world exists?
Not the claims by men that it exists....the EVIDENCE that it does!
But ridicule is a form of criticism. And if ridicule of your ideas is the same as ridicule of you as a person, then why wouldn't criticism of your ideas also be the same as criticism of you as a person? Why is it that, if I am criticising your ideas you readily accept that I am not criticising you, but if I am ridiculing your ideas you say that I am ridiculing you?If someone is ridiculing me (as has happened) I'm not very inclined to have an honest discussion with them.
However, I do not consider honest criticism an "attack." I can tell the difference between criticism and ridicule.
I agreeI don't think there has been any intent to ridicule people in this thread, and compared with other threads here, little worthy of the label from either side (unlike some other threads!). When interpretations can differ, people can take offence where none is intended.
But ridicule is a form of criticism. And if ridicule of your ideas is the same as ridicule of you as a person, then why wouldn't criticism of your ideas also be the same as criticism of you as a person? Why is it that, if I am criticising your ideas you readily accept that I am not criticising you, but if I am ridiculing your ideas you say that I am ridiculing you?
So if I ridicule the KKK's ideology, I am not thereby criticising that ideology?Criticism and ridicule are not the same. Again, agree to disagree. Now can we move on?
So if I ridicule the KKK's ideology, I am not thereby criticising that ideology?
That answers a different question though (Is mockery effective in producing lasting and positive change?) That's not the question I asked.Criticize it all you want. Do you think mocking it actually helps? No lasting and positive change is brought about by mockery and contempt. It is far better to do and say something constructive.
This is triply fallacious; switching the burden of proof via special pleading and elitism - claiming a special kind of evidence that only people who are 'up to it' can receive. 'The Emperor's New Clothes' springs to mind...Look...if you cannot process the fact that the evidence is not of this world, but exists in those who have given witness to it throughout all of recorded history - then you are not up to receiving it - which is your problem, not ours. ...
That answers a different question though (Is mockery effective in producing lasting and positive change?) That's not the question I asked.
It doesn't. But it does explain what seekers and critics have not understood for 2000 years, about the process of us witnessing: He that has an ear, let him hear.How does that answer the question of whether spirituality concept is a valid one?
If you don't have those things...they are indeed "beyond" - until or unless, YOU acquire them. No one proves them or provides evidence, and the option of participation and benefit - is totally up to you.None of these require burden of proof, because these are not things "from beyond". No proof necessary.
Apparently it takes "philosophy" for some to understand that there is no burden of proof for things you yourself may want and may have to go after all by yourself, that no one is going to deliver to you because you stomp your feet.This is triply fallacious; switching the burden of proof via special pleading and elitism - claiming a special kind of evidence that only people who are 'up to it' can receive. 'The Emperor's New Clothes' springs to mind...
This isn't philosophy.
Exactly. There is no "burden of proof." ...Just something beyond the horizon that we have told you about. Take it or leave it. It's a choice.What has the burden of proof to do with those?
Are you saying you don't agree with the principle? I can see why it's tempting, but without it philosophical argument would be reduced to a series of unsupported assertions.
If you don't have those things...they are indeed "beyond" - until or unless, YOU acquire them. No one proves them or provides evidence, and the option of participation and benefit - is totally up to you.
Yet another great example that you should easily understand, but don't. This is not that difficult.
Apparently it takes "philosophy" for some to understand that there is no burden of proof for things you yourself may want and may have to go after all by yourself, that no one is going to deliver to you because you stomp your feet.
What if they explicitly tell you that they are doing it for religious reasons? Also, that still leaves the other two posts unaddressed, along with the lingering question of how exactly I have misrepresented you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?