Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart
Actually I don't think this is off tangent. It is still within the curve, considering the topic we are discussing.
The war of words between them look very similar to those who believe that "religious tolerance = religious harmony" versus "tolerating religion will let them f*** us one day".
In short, it is play-nice versus being-evilly-direct.
One thing - the sarcasm comes naturally with the heavy load of facts in conversational ways. It's original use is to piss off "factose intolerant" people (people who refuse to take facts in their face), but apparently well-meaning nice people get dissed off too.
It is just like the ID argument years ago. The "factose intolerant" people at the top of the religious organisations use the sarcasm, filter away heavy load of the facts, and presented it as a direct offense to their beliefs to their followers. Dirty way, however it is practically found in every political argument.
The real disrespect is not presenting your argument in full with details. "Gentlemen" trading insults in a "professional" way is double the insult; politically correct or culturally sensitive*, it is still rude not to acknowledge your opponent's ability to take the stress of being hammered in-the-face.
Besides, once one enters an argument, he/she is already not showing respect for the other person's beliefs, nor is he/she showing respect for the peace of the environment. Then again, if we all show respect with that rainbow-unicorn view of each other , society will never improve because ideas are never challenged.
Finally, in any argument, it is always wise to expect anything - you are not the only one trying to bring your beliefs across, the other party is too. And everyone has their own pride to maintain and nobody likes to question their own handmade beliefs, nor be forced to accept someone else's.  |
1. Well I'm not too sure of how it is you guys talk to each other but here, sarcasm is best reserved for dense people. That said I think the prudent speaker knows that sarcasm has its place and time of use, and clearly not everyone deserves such a manner of speech. As such, nothing of the original exchange in question warranted such sarcasm.
2. I'd say it's much, much more insulting to presume to know the person's limits in tolerating straight and low blows in discussion. In the first place, if both sides stayed civil and properly informed, you wouldn't even need to resort to such tactics.
Think about it this way: I disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'm not on the midnight flight over there to come to your house and asphyxiate you.
3. I was speaking about civil discourse and not an actual argument. If by argument we're talking about hostilities then it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Respect suggests tolerance than outright acceptance. You can still discuss and challenge issues without fisticuffs, at least the ones I had in college with atheists anyway.
4. Pride... bleh. Pride is often blinding. I prefer to learn how to throw away my pride, even temporarily, because there are things in life that Pride just gets in the way of
Quote:
The penultimate cause of all the crapsack stuff in this world is the lack of control over personal fears. There is nothing more painful than suffering, and the pain generates a "fear of suffering", thus the cycle. Selfishness is bred out of such.
Only if the second parameter of "if you are willing to share a little of yours, I will share a little of mine, then we can all ride the unicorn over the rainbow" doesn't exist within the philosophy. Soliphism is something as you have said, but it includes the second parameter.
The real path towards enlightenment is balance in everything we do.
|
A very Aristotelian view I suppose, which makes me want to point out how such views again share a lot in common with Jesus and Buddha.