Frank and Open Discussion ~ The Value of Civility

[Sea of red]

Tassman had this to say about shadowmaster





Here's one by you in that same thread.



Are you condemning this type of behavior are you condoning it jaecp? is this ok? answer the question and don't try to dismiss it by pointing to other examples.

So Jamie and Justin are supposed to just let SM walk all over them, call them retarded, post retarded smilies, and basically trash them? Sorry, but civility cuts both ways and when you act like an arrogant ass to people and throw verbal bombs at them you'll get the same in return. SM is just that. Read the thread again and you'll see SM has been bashing them for weeks now. Really, they went easy on him. If it had been me I would have been not so gentle.

If you're civil, I'll be civil.
If you're not civil, I won't be either.

[Jaecp]

Yeah, seriously,

If unsubstantiated drivel is the worst you can find of me :-/

Its not even an insult :-/

[TheologicalDisc]

So Jamie and Justin are supposed to just let SM walk all over them, call them retarded, post retarded smilies, and basically trash them? Sorry, but civility cuts both ways and when you act like an arrogant ass to people and throw verbal bombs at them you'll get the same in return. SM is just that. Read the thread again and you'll see SM has been bashing them for weeks now. Really, they went easy on him. If it had been me I would have been not so gentle.

If you're civil, I'll be civil.
If you're not civil, I won't be either.

I've read the thread and I agree it goes both ways but that's the point. Jaecp has not been calling it like it is on BOTH SIDES and jaecp is making excuses for the atheists. It's about that simple. Either its ok for both sides or its not ok for any side. Jaecp has been making excuses for atheists this entire thread.

[TheologicalDisc]

Yeah, seriously,

If unsubstantiated drivel is the worst you can find of me :-/

Its not even an insult :-/

I believed I asked you the question not SOR. Don't hide behind SOR. Answer the questions.

Tassman had this to say about shadowmaster

You are locked into your delusional world and nothing will shake it. Pathetic!

You are totally outrageous and a fool.

Here's one by you in that same thread.

The only parrot here is the one who is repeatedly speaking unsubstantiated drivel.

Are you condemning this type of behavior are you condoning it jaecp? is this ok? answer the question and don't try to dismiss it by pointing to other examples.

Moreover I see you're already making excuses for your own insults by simply declaring them to not be an insult.

[Jaecp]

SoR's answer is good enough for me.

Do you really not get the difference between 40 page of insults and my use of unsubstantiated drivel? Its not an insult, its calling him out on making unsubstantiated drivel. Doing what you do and repeating idiot over and over again is an example of insults. Made worse by being superfluous.

[TheologicalDisc]

SoR's answer is good enough for me.

Do you really not get the difference between 40 page of insults and my use of unsubstantiated drivel? Its not an insult, its calling him out on making unsubstantiated drivel. Doing what you do and repeating idiot over and over again is an example of insults. Made worse by being superfluous.

Jaecp the half wit I'd like to introduce you to the term hypocrisy. You two will be spending a lot of time together.

[Jaecp]

See, now that is the kind of thing that would count as a riposte, not you calling people idiots over and over.

Why can't you try and be more like that?

Not that you're right, of course, but at least you're trying. Your point would be made more without the smiley, imho, it doesn't really do what you think it does.

[TheologicalDisc]

See, now that is the kind of thing that would count as a riposte, not you calling people idiots over and over.

tomato tomhato you stupid half wit.

Not that you're right, of course, but at least you're trying. Your point would be made more without the smiley, imho, it doesn't really do what you think it does.

no I am right, you're being a hypocrite. It's ok for tassman and you to insult and not be civil but it's not ok when lpot or me or jp holding do it. When I say idiot moron coward etc it's an insult yet when you call SM a parrot and describe what he writes as unsubstantiated drivel it's not an insult it's just 'calling him out.'. When tassman calls SM pathetic and a fool it's ok. Like I said you've been making excuses for atheists this whole thread. You're a hypocrite.

[Jaecp]

See,

Now those are examples of a lack of civility and needless insult.

Me saying that the 40+ pages of SM evading answering a point he brought up is not.

Do you even know why I used the word parrot?

[TheologicalDisc]

See,

Now those are examples of a lack of civility and needless insult.

Me saying that the 40+ pages of SM evading answering a point he brought up is not.

Do you even know why I used the word parrot?

More excuses to justify your hypocrisy. What a joke. Do I know why you used the word parrot? No tell me.

[Jaecp]

Cool.

That would be abject proof; you didn't read the thread first.

Pages 57 through 60 should suffice to get a proper context.

I can wait.

[TheologicalDisc]

Cool.

That would be abject proof; you didn't read the thread first.

Pages 57 through 60 should suffice to get a proper context.

I can wait.

I read the thread. I was an active participate in it. Explain how the context in pages 57-60 provides a reason why you called SM a parrot. Oh and I did read the thread first you half wit so according to your logic it's not 'abject proof'

[Jaecp]

...

If you read the thread, then my word choice should be self apparent. What are you getting at?

That me saying "the only only parrot is the one saying unsubstantiated drivel" is somehow bad in the first place? Let alone enough to show me a hypocrite?

Read the thread man.

[Steve007]

I'm saying take issue with the content not with the title.

What's wrong with taking issue with a title if the title is offensive, and if the title is not misleading? Remember that I said this earlier:

"The same thing could be said about books written by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (obviously, this does not excuse insults from theists). I really do think these guys deserve some of the blame for a lot of the insults on the internet. They constantly promote the idea that it's irrational to be religious, that religious people are stupid, and that it's a good thing when an atheist insults a religious person."

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...1&postcount=79

In these circumstances, I don't see why the titles of some of those books should be off-limits.

Do you imagine that someone finding something offensive means that it was an insult?

Think of it like the difference between the "riposte" that some people were advocating instead of base insults that actually happen.

You defined an insult this way:

"Also, something being offensive or insulting does not make it an insult, "an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark" is the way I am using this, and have been, for the thread."

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=88

If this is the definition of an insult, then I think the titles of a couple of the atheist books should be considered insults.

Originally posted by steve
Who cares if they are the same from his perspective or not? It's either okay for him to advocate in favor of mocking and insulting religious people or it isn't. It shouldn't matter if he simply thinks the views of religious people are silly or irrational. Using that type of logic, theists who think atheists hold irrational views might be doing nothing wrong when they mock and insult atheists.

Then do so if you feel that actually helps on a forum discussion.

To me this reply from you looks evasive. What Sam Harris did was either okay or it wasn't okay. If he did nothing wrong, then it should also be true that if a theist mocks and insults atheists for similar reasons, that the theist does nothing wrong. On the other hand, if you want to criticize a theist in that situation, then at the very least you shouldn't be defending Sam Harris when he insults people.

edit: Heh,

Best example yet of the value of civility, posts 97 and 98, 97 is an insult filled rant that doesn't accomplish much, while 98 actually has a point and has amens.

This is the point of the whole thread. Steve, thank you. Honestly.

To be honest, I thought my reply may have been too harsh.

[Steve007]

Element,

We talked about this via PM a bit. Yes, there exist things outside of the forum which aren't super nice.

My point, and the reason for the thread, is that in this setting the insults are often separate from the points themselves and do not work to enhance conversation. I can't exactly change what has been written by people (on both sides, as Steve was kind enough to mention that he felt Vox Days book was on the same level as TNA's).

I can't change whats already been written, done, whatever. None of us can. What we can do is focus on improving current interaction.

I don't mean to derail the thread here, but I don't feel that's an accurate representation of what I said. I said his book isn't more offensive than the books by the new atheists, and I also said that he used insults. That doesn't mean I think the book is on the same level as books like The God Delusion. I did say that I only read the first 200 pages, but I do plan on finishing the book soon. So it's not like I gave up on the book or anything like that.

Also, you seemed to agree with this post from Sea of Red:

So Jamie and Justin are supposed to just let SM walk all over them, call them retarded, post retarded smilies, and basically trash them? Sorry, but civility cuts both ways and when you act like an arrogant ass to people and throw verbal bombs at them you'll get the same in return. SM is just that. Read the thread again and you'll see SM has been bashing them for weeks now. Really, they went easy on him. If it had been me I would have been not so gentle.

If you're civil, I'll be civil.
If you're not civil, I won't be either.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=106

You said this about that post:

SoR's answer is good enough for me.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=110

Why do I bring this up? I mention this because in his book The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day is responding to atheists that aren't civil. One exception is Daniel Dennett. Vox Day isn't nearly as nasy to Dennett as he is to people like Hitchens ans Harris, and he even has some very good things to say about Dennett. In short, what Vox Day does in his book is similar to how Sea of Red claims to treat other people.

I think you're being inconsistent when you criticize Vox Day. He doesn't do anything that's worse than what Sea of Red, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or other atheists do.