Why moralizing sucks!

[Statikk HDM]

I really think that all the topics on creation and blah blah blah gotta stop! All that really comes out of it is arguing and a fat lot of nothng. If all these "conversations" lead to insults like saying I'm a brainwashed zealot, a hypocrite and an idiot,along with a whole bunch of accusations, we should just can it. I mean, what's the point? We will probably never change our beliefs, and making people out to be jackasses if their minds arn't carbon copies of yours is just going to piss peopleoff. I would just like to end with a saying i've been thinking a lot of"Polite conversation is usualy neither" You could argue that i just have to stay away from time bomb topics, but i know people will still go to them and nothing good can come out of it If topics vaguely sexual and the f word are banned lets just go the next logical step.Topics about lorne are closed because of arguing and petty squables, how much more topics of the religious variety. P.s., no insults if you come to this topic, only point counter point

[Danny]

Originally posted by Statikk HDM:
I really think that all the topics on creation and blah blah blah gotta stop! All that really comes out of it is arguing and a fat lot of nothng.(1) If all these "conversations" lead to insults like saying I'm a brainwashed zealot, a hypocrite and an idiot,along with a whole bunch of accusations, we should just can it.(2) I mean, what's the point?(3) We will probably never change our beliefs, and making people out to be jackasses if their minds arn't carbon copies of yours is just going to piss peopleoff.(4) I would just like to end with a saying i've been thinking a lot of"Polite conversation is usualy neither"(5) You could argue that i just have to stay away from time bomb topics, but i know people will still go to them and nothing good can come out of it(6) If topics vaguely sexual and the f word are banned lets just go the next logical step.(7)Topics about lorne are closed because of arguing and petty squables, how much more topics of the religious variety.(8) P.s., no insults if you come to this topic, only point counter point(9)

1. I disagree. I think we learn more about each other, and we learn about other ways of thinking. I can't speak for you, but I think that learning about what other people believe is a valuable experience.

2. As one of the people who is usually on the recieving end of the insults, I can bear testament to the fact that it's not exactly enjoyable, but I think that the conversation is worth occasionally getting flamed.

3. See 1.

4. Tell that to Pinky. For that matter, tell that to yourself.

5. I disagree.

6. See 1.

7. I fail to see what's logical about excluding contentious debates from conversation. Sexual topics are banned because of the presence of children, but surely you are not suggesting that children should be 'shielded' from religious debates? Being exposed to these debates can only broaden their mind, and teach them the value of tolerance. Besides, Controversial topics are always infinitely more interesting than topics in which everybody agrees. Case Study: The Animal Rights Forums. Practically everybody there agrees on all the issues discueed, and as a result there is no discussion there. If nobody disagreed, then there could be no discussion, since posts 2 onwards would be of the form "I agree." "So do I." etc.

8. I don't agree that religious debates are "petty squabbles". Unlike topics about Lorne Lanning, Religion is an important issue that must be discussed [no offense to the great man himself, but he isn't really a significant discussion topic, is he?].

9. How's this for Point-Counterpoint?

One more thing: In what way is arguing about the origins of life "moralising"?

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: Rettick ]

[Gluk Schmuck]

Originally posted by Rettick:
Sexual topics are banned because of the presence of children, but surely you are not suggesting that children should be 'shielded' from religious debates?

I thought sexual-based topics were banned because Sydney's ISP says so.

[Sl'askia]

I'm finding this rather fun to be honest. All this has brought out a side of me that hasn't appeared on the forums yet. Can't think of the word for it though, but I do know this side of me can be a bit 'dangerous' if you get my drift *evil, mischievous grin*

[Danny]

Originally posted by Gluk Schmuck:
I thought sexual-based topics were banned because Sydney's ISP says so.

Well, yes, but Sydney's ISP says so because of children.

[abe22]

I find these topics very interesting actually you can learn more about other persons beliefs and about them which is actually quite fun.

[Sydney]

Originally posted by Statikk HDM:
If all these "conversations" lead to insults like saying I'm a brainwashed zealot, a hypocrite and an idiot ... we should just can it.

Just for the record, if you were directing that at me - I only called you a zealot. But you are a zealot. Whether or not that is a bad thing I'll let you decide. You are fanatically committed to your beliefs. You said so yourself that you would ignore anything not of the Goodbook.

As others have said, I also find these discussions interesting. There's a lot to be learned from listening to other people's beliefs, I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

[Steve]

and again he is not a zealot, zealots were jewish warriors who faught roman rule and fought to the death and actually assinated several romans this continued until the fall of jerusulam and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he wasn't alive almost 2000 years ago.

[Danny]

zealot \Zeal"ot\, n. [F. z['e]lote, L. zelotes, Gr. ?. See Zeal.]
One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.

I think you knew what we meant, Steve...

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Rettick ]