ok I mean to address this post, but didn't want to take all the space up by quoting all of it haha.
quote: Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
yeah, you are correct. But, i didn't feel any "need" to jest or anything,
....
but i really do think that what i was talking about was ignorant and bigotting because i have such strong feelings about outcasting homosexuals.
You make a lot of excellent points. When I was posting my original statement, I did realize how my statement doesn't totally jive with my actions as we're known to be fairly caustic on the forums, moreover my statement wasn't meant to silence your claims or opinions, I think they're totally valid too, even though we may not see eye to eye on all issues.
The only reason I had posted in reply to your jest was because it seemed to me to be unfounded. Yes, I can now see how you intended it to be thought-provoking to one who may not know much about either side of the issue, but at the time of posting it, no one was defending religion, just stating opinions, and your comment seemed to come out of nowhere (not to the extent that I would be surprised that you said it, but that you said it in this thread specifically) I understand now that you intended to provoke thoughts, but I just didn't see that at the time.
As much as we are sarcastic to prove a point, in this instance I thought your explanations had already been well-articulated. Also, since the jest was isolated and wasn't all that different from your earlier statements, it came off differently, more negatively I would say.
By saying "need" I do realize there's no necessity for you to say this, nor would there ever be, it was just semantics, and I didn't feel like using a synonym for it at the time. As I have stated, your post appeared to me to just be sort of bashing. If it had extra explanation or raised a direct question, I don't think it really would have (not saying that isolating is bad, it definitely came across stronger and would probably "provoke thought" more, yet with other words, aside from this is a joke, the blow would be cushioned. I don't mean this as a cop-out or anything, your statement's most effective the way it is, and me saying this doesn't really prove anything, ahhhh) The things you view as fallacies noted in your earlier posts could easily have been extended to issues of sinning and repentance, and like I said, this post came off differently.
Additionally, by me posting in response to your jest, It was not my intent to put religion itself on a high horse. I think issues of spirituality/beliefs/non-beliefs are pressing issues, and something people hold dearly to themselves ( a generalization, could be false), and I think since you had already posted, this just seemed to "add insult to injury" (for lack of a better phrase, not to connotate that your posts were insulting or negative.) I think if someone had attacked athiesm then I think you would have been more justified in your jest (not justifying it anyways, but it would have been easier for me to rationalize). I am truly sorry that ignorant people jest like that to you for no reason, they are fuckers. I don't think you have to tolerate that at all. Although this issue didn't matter to me, I still felt compelled to post to defend my beliefs (yeah, subjectivity again), but I would expect the same from you if someone had jested about athiesm. You could counter with another jest I suppse, but I didn't consider that when I read and contemplated your response, because this is a different type of issue than most.
Your capitalism example, while making sense, i think differs from the scenario in this thread. Sure, it's a belief, but I think it's a different type of belief, and being subjective, there are no devout capitalists on this forum, yes they may get offended but that's not the case here. I agree jesting can be an excellent way to prove a point, but when it's isolated it just comes off as bitter (I don't think you were, but I could understand why you may feel that way if you do).
I understand your statement now more, since you explained what people have said to you about sinning and repentance. I think you're right in your view about that. Repentance does have to be pure, and "asking for forgiveness" shouldn't be false apologetics. I sincerely hope I haven't come off that way, in the past or even in my posts, because that's not how I want to practice my faith. I'll admit that I do "sin", but I think "sinning" to some extent is inescapable for someone who is religious, and that's why I try to live my left to the best I can, although it can be improved in many aspects. I am by far not the best person, and I don't try hard enough to be better. But I like to think I am not really that bad, whether I am or not. I have been tempted by some bad things before, and I think I have been able to avoid most of them, I've become a better person though that, I think... (sorry for the tangent)
I never had really realized that some people actually viewed repentance in that light, and I thank you for that statement, your disgust over that is not unfounded.
In your intent to challenge beliefs, and spark debate, I think you've done a good job so far, although it may not have been what you intended. Yeah you don't have to wait for someone to make a claim that you can respond to, but in this instance you seemed rather ill-mannered, despite your jocose nature. The disclaimer didn't really change that, I'm glad you realized at least to put it in. Sure, this is the debate forum, but that doesn't mean we have to be borderline offensive. What you said could be considered offensive (just as what others have said could be offensive too, I know, this isn't a good argument). It just seems to me that since we're discussing an issue like this we could be a bit more delicate at first, and then if things "get more intense" then mock away (This is lame too, sorry). I guess your statement wouldn't be as efficacious.
I think the jesting nature connotates a lot more, than asking a direct question, even if you had put both in, I think that would have been better. Some of the discrepenceis you have with my statement are semantical issues, and this not all that far-removed from that type of issue. The way you came off wasn't very appealing or that enlightening to me, and I felt necessary to respond.
About things being "right." This is a semantical issue. I don't entail to create a distinction between what's right and wrong and what you should and shouldn't do. I just wanted that statement to be more considerate to others, just due to this specific situation. By saying that I didn't think it was right, I don't think you were wrong in doing it, I'm saying I didn't agree with it. I don't hold that much importance to just the word "right" but I can understand why you would have qualms over it. I'm not trying to tack on any moral weight to my claim, just using a synonym, you can just ignore it but I will still try to defend it since I said it.
You acknowledge the subjectivity of "being right and being wrong" yet i don't grasp why you hold so much importance to it, that's just me talking though. When it's so subjective I don't care about using such language. To me, it's not that strong of a word ( I really don't care about most of this type of language), niether is "good" or "bad," I'm a bit careless so I use them as synonyms. I agree you should be able to say what you want to, and so should anyone else. By saying it wasn't right, I don't entail most of the things that you percieved. I should have said not optimal or something, haha, but no matter what we're still going to clash on the issue. No abuse is intended. Anyways, punish the word not me, haha .
Yeah yeah, I agree with you on the purpose of debate, but in debate we at least try to be respectful to a point, and we still try to prove our points. You don't have to be respectful to anyone, I would just expect you to respect others as much as they do and your beliefs, and when you had already proved your point, this argument was unnecessary.
As far as you and I attacking others' character, that wasn't fair of us either to be ill-mannered towards others, sure, but pretty much every time we've at least justified our rhetoric, whether it was earlier, and I do think we've only stated things to prove a point, not to reiterate that point to a different degree, without being "provoked". Again, about being right and wrong I don't percieve that to be the same thing that you do. You're not advocating this stuff,and neither am I, so yeah, it's not that important anyways. My recollection isn't great about this, it really has become all a wash haha, has there been that much, I'm sure you can find a counter-example to what I'm saying, but...
... CONTINUED in next post
__________________
word is bond
|