Sorry for the confusion, yes it was meant for him (I put you in on accident cause your post was fresh in my mind). Oh and I was being completely sarcastic That website has provided me much entertainment today.
No worries, I figured; and my response was obviously somewhat sarcastic as well. I come from an area where these comics and articles would be taken very seriously and as such this is not my first exposure to chick tracts, so Christian Fundamentalism is near and (not so) dear to me in a variety of ways.
Or perhaps people can quit worrying about what someone else might believe since other people's beliefs are their own business.
Back in college there were a couple of people in our gaming group who would start with us on Friday evening, game though much of Saturday, head to church on Sunday morning, then finish our session that afternoon. No one raised a fuss and no one cared.
Sure, people are free to believe what they want, but other people are equally free to comment when the beliefs are ridiculous or utterly contradictory to our current wealth of knowledge; and you posting here simply to say "you shouldn't care about the beliefs of others," while obviously caring enough about our beliefs on the subject to comment and suggest that we change our beliefs and/or cease our commenting on the beliefs of others, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
The entire point of a forum is the discussion of differing ideas, and I am still waiting for an explanation from one of these people that drops into a thread simply to say something along the lines of "this conversation is pointless" when their involvement is therefore automatically as pointless as (or more so than) the conversation itself.
Tolerance does not equal appeasement. I'm not legally or socially compelled to not comment about someone else's beliefs simply because I am socially and legally compelled to tolerate them. If you believe that your face is on fire, while I'm standing three feet from you and can clearly see that it's not, I reserve the right to inform you of this fact; and I will feel no desire to take seriously the passerby that approaches and says: "Hey, man, his beliefs are none of your business, what right do you have to talk negatively about them or convince him that they're wrong?" The answer, of course, is that I have every right to do so.
Or perhaps people can quit worrying about what someone else might believe since other people's beliefs are their own business.
You should tell that to religious people, for example to whomever it was that dropped 'the voice in the desert' from some pentacostal church into my mailbox yesterday afternoon.
It's something religious people have been doing since time immemorial: preaching, preaching, preaching. Perhaps they should quit worrying about what someone else might believe since other people's beliefs are their own business.
P.S.: finding it hard to stop ranting now, it's the reason I quit posting on religious fora, religion makes me far too angry.
Or perhaps people can quit worrying about what someone else might believe since other people's beliefs are their own business.
You should tell that to religious people, for example to whomever it was that dropped 'the voice in the desert' from some pentacostal church into my mailbox yesterday afternoon.
It's something religious people have been doing since time immemorial: preaching, preaching, preaching. Perhaps they should quit worrying about what someone else might believe since other people's beliefs are their own business.
P.S.: finding it hard to stop ranting now, it's the reason I quit posting on religious fora, religion makes me far too angry.
You should give yourself over to Jesus, man. Let go of the anger, for anger leads to hate; hate leads... to suffering. May the Holy Force be with you!
You should tell that to religious people, for example to whomever it was that dropped 'the voice in the desert' from some pentacostal church into my mailbox yesterday afternoon.
I do say that to religious people--if you have to "convert" people to your religion rather than inviting them to sample it and choose it for themselves then perhaps you might want to rethink your religious beliefs.
It may seem that I am "the epitome of hypocrisy" but only because I don't post here very often and so no one here has a clear picture of my views on things. *shrug* The fault is mine--I do all my posting on political or religious topics elsewhere. A sufficient sample of my posting style would, in time, make me easily identifiable if found on other boards (where I go by other names) but it isn't important enough for anyone to pursue.
Whenever I make an opinionated statement such as "people should do x" or "people should not do y" then it applies to all people, including me. I judge people based on their actions, not their looks or their beliefs. I say what I mean and I mean what I say, an outlook with which only very few people disagree.
I know that it's within my abilities to just ignore this thread, but it would still bug me to see it cluttering up the front page, and having something like this front and center on the forums reflects poorly on the community.
At the risk of being a backseat moderator, could we just close/move/let this thread die? It's off topic, and won't lead anywhere but a flame war.
It may seem that I am "the epitome of hypocrisy" but only because I don't post here very often and so no one here has a clear picture of my views on things. *shrug* The fault is mine--I do all my posting on political or religious topics elsewhere. A sufficient sample of my posting style would, in time, make me easily identifiable if found on other boards (where I go by other names) but it isn't important enough for anyone to pursue.
I should say that normally I would have simply stated that your decision was hypocritical, as opposed to referring to your action as the epitome of hypocrisy, and that I only chose the latter as a sort of half-formed joke/reference.
A sample of your postings from other forums, however, would not likely change the content of the post you made here (or my view of it). It is your stated opinion that people "shouldn't worry about" other people's beliefs, it is my opinion that discussing differing beliefs on a forum is perfectly acceptable, and you dropped in here to tell me and others that we should think differently (and implied that we should stop doing what we believe to be perfectly acceptable to do).
Whenever I make an opinionated statement such as "people should do x" or "people should not do y" then it applies to all people, including me. I judge people based on their actions, not their looks or their beliefs. I say what I mean and I mean what I say, an outlook with which only very few people disagree.
Well I am glad to hear that you understand the importance of consistency. Your statement about judging people concerns me, as you've created two categories of things: actions being the first, and beliefs and looks being the second. I can't imagine what these latter two have in common, and in fact I'd say a strong argument could be made for beliefs being grouped within the category of actions. I'm glad you don't judge people on their looks, as these are beyond their control. People's actions and beliefs, however, are within their control. I don't see why, when forming an opinion about a person, one would choose to turn a blind eye to their beliefs. The beliefs of a person define them as much as their other choices. Our beliefs motivate almost all of our actions, so ignoring a person's beliefs paints an incomplete picture of that person. If one is going to set up two categories of things which can be used to define a person may I suggest the following: things which a person has control over and things which they do not have control over; put another way, the choices of a person belong to one category while all things that they didn't choose belong to another.
Also, although this is an aside (so please don't single it out to respond to with a "nope" while disregarding the rest of my comments), I have a sneaking and unfortunate suspicion that when you use the word "beliefs," you are referring specifically to religious beliefs. I say unfortunate because, if this is true, then you are in fact failing to be consistent and endorsing certain beliefs over others. What say you to my (admittedly extreme) example of the man who believes his face to be on fire, was my hypothetical action of disagreeing with him wrong in your eyes, as you seem to suggest that it would be if the belief in question were religious.
I know that it's within my abilities to just ignore this thread, but it would still bug me to see it cluttering up the front page, and having something like this front and center on the forums reflects poorly on the community.
At the risk of being a backseat moderator, could we just close/move/let this thread die? It's off topic, and won't lead anywhere but a flame war.
What is the poor reflection exactly? The title of the thread? I agree that it's far from an encouraging title. Or is it the fact that a discussion of religion has formed here, which will undoubtedly offend people in some sort of vague way?
The discussion has been completely civil, and the only thing threatening to turn this thread into a "flame war" is the people like you dropping in and suggesting that such a thing is inevitable. Referring to this thread as "off-topic" amusingly puts it right on topic as it's now in the off-topic section of the forum. It's more than a little offensive that you have such a strong desire to police other people's abilities to have a rational conversation simply because the idea that such a conversation is ongoing somewhere bothers you slightly.
I have no great interest in discussing much more on the topic of this thread (Bhaal's relationship to Satan), but I am sure hoping that the discussion goes on now, if only to defy what I see as a dangerous attitude of attempting to stifle critical thought and rational discussion.
The discussion has been completely civil, and the only thing threatening to turn this thread into a "flame war" is the people like you dropping in and suggesting that such a thing is inevitable. Referring to this thread as "off-topic" amusingly puts it right on topic as it's now in the off-topic section of the forum. It's more than a little offensive that you have such a strong desire to police other people's abilities to have a rational conversation simply because the idea that such a conversation is ongoing somewhere bothers you slightly.
I referred to it as off-topic because it had nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate games. Now it's in the off-topic forum, as you observed, and I'm perfectly happy with that. If my flame war prediction was overly harsh/premature, then feel free to carry on.
I come to these forums to discuss and read about the Baldur's Gate games, because they're a hobby I enjoy. That means I don't want the main forum cluttered with non-BG-related discussion, especially on a highly volatile topic that could potentially alienate some members of the community.
If you think this makes me some kind of squeamish member of the PC police who's repressing your inalienable right to freedom of expression, then... well... I guess we can agree to disagree. Feel free to continue this discussion, and if anyone needs me, I'll be either in General Discussion or in my Flying Fortress of Despair, where I shall continue to oppress free thinkers and fight the enlightened exchange of opinions wherever it may rear its ugly head.
The discussion has been completely civil, and the only thing threatening to turn this thread into a "flame war" is the people like you dropping in and suggesting that such a thing is inevitable. Referring to this thread as "off-topic" amusingly puts it right on topic as it's now in the off-topic section of the forum. It's more than a little offensive that you have such a strong desire to police other people's abilities to have a rational conversation simply because the idea that such a conversation is ongoing somewhere bothers you slightly.
I referred to it as off-topic because it had nothing to do with the Baldur's Gate games. Now it's in the off-topic forum, as you observed, and I'm perfectly happy with that. If my flame war prediction was overly harsh/premature, then feel free to carry on.
I come to these forums to discuss and read about the Baldur's Gate games, because they're a hobby I enjoy. That means I don't want the main forum cluttered with non-BG-related discussion, especially on a highly volatile topic that could potentially alienate some members of the community.
If you think this makes me some kind of squeamish member of the PC police who's repressing your inalienable right to freedom of expression, then... well... I guess we can agree to disagree. Feel free to continue this discussion, and if anyone needs me, I'll be either in General Discussion or in my Flying Fortress of Despair, where I shall continue to oppress free thinkers and fight the enlightened exchange of opinions wherever it may rear its ugly head.
Hmmm, yeah, trying to find where I accused you of being a "member of the PC police" ... "oppress[ing] free thinkers and fight[ing] the enlightened exchange of opinions wherever it may rear its ugly head."
So, yeah, setting up an argument that isn't mine as if it were, and then responding to it in an attempt to ridicule my actual argument... I know there's a name for that, man of straw or some such. An amusing end to your post, but nonetheless an obvious attempt to belittle my argument by intentionally misrepresenting it and ridiculing it. I accused you of having a strong desire to police the actions of others, which is undeniably clear based on your original post here. I also said that having an attitude which motivates you to "[attempt] to stifle critical thought and rational discussion" is dangerous, and I believe that it is. I never say that you were actively oppressing anyone's rights, just that you seem to have a vague, undeveloped desire to do so, and that it is my belief that such a desire can be dangerous.
It is your stated opinion that people "shouldn't worry about" other people's beliefs, it is my opinion that discussing differing beliefs on a forum is perfectly acceptable, and you dropped in here to tell me and others that we should think differently (and implied that we should stop doing what we believe to be perfectly acceptable to do).
I don't tell other people what to do or how they should think.
Or perhaps people can quit worrying about what someone else might believe since other people's beliefs are their own business.
Hmm, well, I suppose we have a fundamental difference of opinion after all, as it seems to me that the second post I quoted is clearly telling myself and others here to stop worrying about the beliefs of others (with an implication that we should stop talking about it as well)... This is definitely telling us how to think ("quit worrying") and at least a possible implication of telling us what to do (stop expressing our opinions about the beliefs of others).
I hope you know that I'm not trying to insult you or disagree for the sake of disagreeing, it just seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.
Wow. I thought this topic had died down. Seems even a troll post is being taken seriously on this forum, so of course it needs to be over-discussed, right. It's a video game. Inbefore 'video games are evil and brainwash kids' arguments. I'm betting 10 bucks. Anyone?
Comments
The entire point of a forum is the discussion of differing ideas, and I am still waiting for an explanation from one of these people that drops into a thread simply to say something along the lines of "this conversation is pointless" when their involvement is therefore automatically as pointless as (or more so than) the conversation itself.
Tolerance does not equal appeasement. I'm not legally or socially compelled to not comment about someone else's beliefs simply because I am socially and legally compelled to tolerate them. If you believe that your face is on fire, while I'm standing three feet from you and can clearly see that it's not, I reserve the right to inform you of this fact; and I will feel no desire to take seriously the passerby that approaches and says: "Hey, man, his beliefs are none of your business, what right do you have to talk negatively about them or convince him that they're wrong?" The answer, of course, is that I have every right to do so.
It's something religious people have been doing since time immemorial: preaching, preaching, preaching. Perhaps they should quit worrying about what someone else might believe since other people's beliefs are their own business.
P.S.: finding it hard to stop ranting now, it's the reason I quit posting on religious fora, religion makes me far too angry.
Or so Winski Perorate told me.
Where's Angelo and Tazok when you need them?
It may seem that I am "the epitome of hypocrisy" but only because I don't post here very often and so no one here has a clear picture of my views on things. *shrug* The fault is mine--I do all my posting on political or religious topics elsewhere. A sufficient sample of my posting style would, in time, make me easily identifiable if found on other boards (where I go by other names) but it isn't important enough for anyone to pursue.
Whenever I make an opinionated statement such as "people should do x" or "people should not do y" then it applies to all people, including me. I judge people based on their actions, not their looks or their beliefs. I say what I mean and I mean what I say, an outlook with which only very few people disagree.
At the risk of being a backseat moderator, could we just close/move/let this thread die? It's off topic, and won't lead anywhere but a flame war.
A sample of your postings from other forums, however, would not likely change the content of the post you made here (or my view of it). It is your stated opinion that people "shouldn't worry about" other people's beliefs, it is my opinion that discussing differing beliefs on a forum is perfectly acceptable, and you dropped in here to tell me and others that we should think differently (and implied that we should stop doing what we believe to be perfectly acceptable to do). Well I am glad to hear that you understand the importance of consistency. Your statement about judging people concerns me, as you've created two categories of things: actions being the first, and beliefs and looks being the second. I can't imagine what these latter two have in common, and in fact I'd say a strong argument could be made for beliefs being grouped within the category of actions. I'm glad you don't judge people on their looks, as these are beyond their control. People's actions and beliefs, however, are within their control. I don't see why, when forming an opinion about a person, one would choose to turn a blind eye to their beliefs. The beliefs of a person define them as much as their other choices. Our beliefs motivate almost all of our actions, so ignoring a person's beliefs paints an incomplete picture of that person. If one is going to set up two categories of things which can be used to define a person may I suggest the following: things which a person has control over and things which they do not have control over; put another way, the choices of a person belong to one category while all things that they didn't choose belong to another.
Also, although this is an aside (so please don't single it out to respond to with a "nope" while disregarding the rest of my comments), I have a sneaking and unfortunate suspicion that when you use the word "beliefs," you are referring specifically to religious beliefs. I say unfortunate because, if this is true, then you are in fact failing to be consistent and endorsing certain beliefs over others. What say you to my (admittedly extreme) example of the man who believes his face to be on fire, was my hypothetical action of disagreeing with him wrong in your eyes, as you seem to suggest that it would be if the belief in question were religious. What is the poor reflection exactly? The title of the thread? I agree that it's far from an encouraging title. Or is it the fact that a discussion of religion has formed here, which will undoubtedly offend people in some sort of vague way?
The discussion has been completely civil, and the only thing threatening to turn this thread into a "flame war" is the people like you dropping in and suggesting that such a thing is inevitable. Referring to this thread as "off-topic" amusingly puts it right on topic as it's now in the off-topic section of the forum. It's more than a little offensive that you have such a strong desire to police other people's abilities to have a rational conversation simply because the idea that such a conversation is ongoing somewhere bothers you slightly.
I have no great interest in discussing much more on the topic of this thread (Bhaal's relationship to Satan), but I am sure hoping that the discussion goes on now, if only to defy what I see as a dangerous attitude of attempting to stifle critical thought and rational discussion.
Ha ha ha! Oh, wow!
I come to these forums to discuss and read about the Baldur's Gate games, because they're a hobby I enjoy. That means I don't want the main forum cluttered with non-BG-related discussion, especially on a highly volatile topic that could potentially alienate some members of the community.
If you think this makes me some kind of squeamish member of the PC police who's repressing your inalienable right to freedom of expression, then... well... I guess we can agree to disagree. Feel free to continue this discussion, and if anyone needs me, I'll be either in General Discussion or in my Flying Fortress of Despair, where I shall continue to oppress free thinkers and fight the enlightened exchange of opinions wherever it may rear its ugly head.
So, yeah, setting up an argument that isn't mine as if it were, and then responding to it in an attempt to ridicule my actual argument... I know there's a name for that, man of straw or some such. An amusing end to your post, but nonetheless an obvious attempt to belittle my argument by intentionally misrepresenting it and ridiculing it. I accused you of having a strong desire to police the actions of others, which is undeniably clear based on your original post here. I also said that having an attitude which motivates you to "[attempt] to stifle critical thought and rational discussion" is dangerous, and I believe that it is. I never say that you were actively oppressing anyone's rights, just that you seem to have a vague, undeveloped desire to do so, and that it is my belief that such a desire can be dangerous.
I hope you know that I'm not trying to insult you or disagree for the sake of disagreeing, it just seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.