Oooh. Looky here. So much to talk about. Though right now the meta-discussion about the discussion interests me.
I am bugged by the low tolerance of heat in debates like this. In the big one we had in 2010 I was consistently amazed by the claims that it had gotten out of hand or had otherwise become rude and unpleasant. I could see nothing of the sort from anyone. There were points being pursued vigorously and passionately, but at no point did it become something I would not want to be party to, and that is the same for most discussions of the sort that I've seen.
Perhaps "civility" is a subjective term, and some people find even disagreement uncomfortable. For me it seems mostly unrelated to language and name-calling. Name-calling is for the most part unconstructive but I think that there are times when it is both justified and necessary, such as the demonstration by the insultee that they are in fact a fleshy incarnation of the insult. I've not known anyone on this particular forum to profess the degree of stupidity required to draw such terminology from my fingers, but elsewhere it has indeed happened. Which brings me to my other point: civility is not all about presentation. The argument itself can be in support of a motion that is itself uncivilised, at which point the discussion has ceased to be civil before any names have been called. Which happened to me recently on another forum. When you'd rather see a nine-year old rape victim die by slowly exploding than let her abort the twins she was made to conceive, you are not a civilised person, your argument is uncivil and so is the discussion.
Then there is "respect" and "offense". I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: I do not respect ideas and beliefs that I do not agree with. If they cannot convince me that they are true, then I don't think they are true. As far as I'm concerned, such a belief lacks the only important attribute an idea about reality can have: being true. What is there to respect about a belief fails this fundamental test? If I respected a belief, I would hold it myself! Offense is irrelevant. People are bound to be offended by something or other in a discussion like this. Whether it's because the beliefs being criticised are dear to your heart (which is your own fucking fault, mot mine) or in my case, because the beliefs themselves are stupid or degrading or disgusting (such offense is already agreed by all to be irrelevant as evidenced by the way no one anywhere ever takes any care or notice of it). It's rather common to hear people say "I'm offended by that" as if that gives them certain rights. It's nothing more than a whine, and it isn't interesting. You have the right to be offended, but no one has the right to not be offended. If you're lucky, you're only offended by the discussion, your participation in which is entirely at your own discretion. If you're unlucky, it's something in the world that is quite relevant and impossible to escape from, and possibly a constant danger. There's a certain degree of perspective lacking in those who whine "that's offensive".
By all means, say it. I want to know. I don't set out to offend anyone, but I won't stop if I do. I know I will. Daring to discuss this is offensive to some, the breath in my body to others. It can't be helped, and I would not if it could.
__________________
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
|
