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.
No.
That someone's ideas are cherished does not place those ideas beyond criticism, even if that criticism is ridicule. You are mistaking ridicule of a person, of who they are, for ridicule of what they think, their ideas.
On the contrary, I've shown you that it can be beneficial, using the example above. The ridicule in that example serves to expose the ridiculousness of Trump's policy in a memorable way. It's short, clever, and effective in a way that simply saying "That's ridiculous" is not.
It can also encourage further reflection, as the tweet above shows. Someone inclined to agree with Trump's policy might see it as somewhat ridiculous having read that tweet. Or it might encourage them to respond and defend Trump, thereby entering into a dialogue. Ridicule can start conversations, rather than bringing them to an end.
How are they not ridiculing? It seems very clear that those verses are expressing contempt for nonbelievers, calling them lawless fools with darkened hearts.
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.
There's a difference for ridiculing a belief and ridiculing the person for holding that belief. For example, I find the idea of believing in Scientology ridiculous, but I have sympathy for many believers in it - they're not ridiculous because they have ridiculous beliefs, and they don't deserve ridicule - but the beliefs do; I think ridicule is an effective means of countering dangerous or damaging beliefs.
Ridiculing a person's ideas, particularly their bad ideas, is not the same as ridiculing the person, or who they are. In saying that someone's ideas about evolution, for example, are ridiculous, I am not thereby deriding who they are as a person. Your mistake is to conflate the two, such that no criticism of someone's ideas can ever be anything other than a criticism of them as a person. If that is truly the case, then this entire discussion doesn't merely criticise the claims you've made in this thread, but it also criticises you on a personal level. If that's your approach to these discussions, then you'll find yourself offended very easily because every attack on your ideas is immediately misconstrued as a personal attack.
And ridicule is one of those ways. I never suggested that it is the only way, nor even that it should be the predominant way. But it is one way of stimulating conversation and encouraging reflection. But it needs to be done well and should address the claims being made rather than focusing on the person making those claims.
You'll need to elaborate further. How does the context change the ridiculing nature of those verses?
Some ideas are deserving of ridicule, so we ridicule them, rather simply saying "I think that's ridiculous." Ridicule is not necessarily incompatible with honest criticism; it depends on how the ridicule is exercised, which is why it does have a place in civil discourse.
Yes, I have ridiculed some ideas about evolution, particularly the caricatures of creationists. I don't apologise for that, because their ideas were deserving of ridicule. As I said before, and which you ignored: Your mistake is to conflate the two, such that no criticism of someone's ideas can ever be anything other than a criticism of them as a person. If that is truly the case, then this entire discussion doesn't merely criticise the claims you've made in this thread, but it also criticises you on a personal level. If that's your approach to these discussions, then you'll find yourself offended very easily because every attack on your ideas is immediately misconstrued as a personal attack.
