Do you ever get sick of the toxic stuff on forums?

[Ironwolf85]

I just thought I'd see if anyone else is tired of encountering Toxic forums and hate because of your stance on an issue. I've been encountering a lot of bitter vitriol lately on the internet, with a lot of knee jerk reactions.
Especially on the topic of religion, which makes me kind of sad when I encounter people who refuse to even explore or think on the subject beyond proclaiming "religion is the opiate of the masses" or "it just holds man back". As if even thinking on it is somehow a threat to "science."

I think there's a lot of interesting topics discussing and thinking on this, and duzons of other topics too. but people are far too quick to resort to toxic language and old propaganda for any of the subjects to get off the ground.

So bring forth thy stories of stupid or bitter flamewars.

I want to see who else will join me in saying I'm not going to spread toxic hate, stereotypes, or flame war on the internet anymore.

[Ironwolf85]

A bit of clearing things up.
I had the idea of doing an RP set in the early roman empire setting, but the bitterness and vitrol of even the topic of Pagan cults and early Christians existing side by side and not killing each other (as it often was) coming up, was explosive.

It made me sad that it touched off a flamewar in which people just bashed the later roman church...

[alextaylor]

Yeah, I just walk away from those. A lot of people have very solid opinions. There's often more pride than fact on those opinions too, so the more you prove them wrong, the louder they yell.

Religion is the worst topic. I judge the quality of a forum based on how able it is to discuss religion without blowing up all over the place. So far, these forums are pretty good. But I do find some thin skinned people here jumping at the mention of evolution, even when not accused either way.

Politics are also another thing. Economy and social mobility seems to get on a lot of people's nerves. Rights, especially regarding minorities, race, feminism. It's impossible to politely say to someone "You're where you are because you're privileged", especially someone they've never met on some internet forums. Often this gets a response of "No, I am where I am because I work hard, unlike your kind."

[Valthazar]

Just avoid those topics and choose to write with people who share similar views as you.

It's just like dating.  I'm a more traditional sort of guy and my best relationships have been with more traditional women.  I was once on a date with this lady who was very passionate about feminism, and she took insult with my views.  I just respectfully acknowledged our differences.  There was no point for either of us to convince each other.

You'll always find people on forums who share your views, just takes some time.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Avoidance is the best way to handle it.  I've learned that even in places where I expect objectivity that is in very short supply.  Since people are usually incapable of discussing things and take every comment, even some that appear to agree with them, as an argument even reading their posts can be a waste of time.

Avoidance for the win!

[Oniya]

Also, there's a reason that we have this particular board set aside on Elliquiy.  We also have higher expectations of our members in this section, as the stickies here indicate. 

[Callie Del Noire]

I think the classic phrase 'Haters be hating' sums it up. Some folks will always take offense at something. I knew one guy who hated EVERYTHING in a game setting that didn't mesh with his 'view' of the game. (Typically any game setting, anything beyond '1st edition' whatever)

[Ironwolf85]

I think the classic phrase 'Haters be hating' sums it up. Some folks will always take offense at something. I knew one guy who hated EVERYTHING in a game setting that didn't mesh with his 'view' of the game. (Typically any game setting, anything beyond '1st edition' whatever)

Really? that seems so... counterintuitive...

[Lux12]

Especially on the topic of religion, which makes me kind of sad when I encounter people who refuse to even explore or think on the subject beyond proclaiming "religion is the opiate of the masses" or "it just holds man back". As if even thinking on it is somehow a threat to "science."

Oh this really grates my nerves. It gets really annoying when people seem to think that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are the only religions in the world.  I mean there are hundreds if not thousands of religious paths out there but people seem to fixate on these three and act like they're the source of all evil when things such as money, nationalism, wounded pride, resources, and ethnic strife have caused  many more disputes. Never mind that their reading tends to be just as literal as the evangelists they claim to dislike. They do not bother to examine the philosophy. There are all manners of angles they do not consider.  I mean I  can think of people who even believe their religious views are improved or confirmed by science. I can think of plenty of times I'll be reading and I'll think to myself "Hey, that sounds like a mundane reflection of x principle in my religion." I do not mean to sound as if I am just ragging on anybody or venting at them, but its something that grates on my nerves.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me 100% but it would be nice just to see people not be jerks about it. I'm not exactly standing on the proverbial street corner shouting at people about damnation. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem here but elsewhere.

[Callie Del Noire]

Really? that seems so... counterintuitive...

I have had a bit of experience in it. You get a lot of it in some areas. I admit it confuses the hell out of me.

[Ironwolf85]

I have had a bit of experience in it. You get a lot of it in some areas. I admit it confuses the hell out of me.

which is part of what annoys me about it.

[Sabby]

I agree that people can be overly aggressive when the topic of religion comes up. I'm actually guilty of that myself, but I've really improved on my self control over the last year. I've been extremely tentative in returning to the politics section of E, but I'm doing okay so far, so I'd like to ask you a question.

What is it exactly that frustrates you? Is it purely the instant and aggressive reactions you get? Or are there other elements mixed into it? Do you feel as if your beliefs are not being respected, and that they should be?

[Kythia]

You are doing way better, Sabby.  Grats.

Obviously I can't speak for Lux, but the aspect of it that annoys me the most is the sheer lack of understanding of religious topics shown by those who aggressively attack.  For example, in a discussion on a forum I used to be part of someone was criticising the section in John (19:33-36 should you care) about the prophecy of Jesus' bones not being broken, saying that referred to the Passover lamb.  Yeah, that's kinda the point.

In essence, imagine it was a discussion about cars.  It seems a lot of the time people who are not mechanics, even amateur ones, are screaming that the problem is there isn't enough coal in the engine and you are stupid, STUPID DO YOU HEAR ME, for not realising that.

[Sabby]

And the confusion on my side of the discussion is the insistence that someone know every word of a holy book in order to reject it as unimportant or even horrible. However, that doesn't mean someone can speak as if they knew about it when they don't. That's just being an idiot. So yes, it does frustrate me as well when people act like that, though probably for very different reasons. To me, it feels like they are trying too hard to legitimize their frustration with something, and in turn make themselves look like fools, which ends up hurting the reputation of everyone who shares their frustrations.

Correct, I don't know the Bible as well as you Kythia, and that is why I don't try and challenge your knowledge of it. I probably have in the past, and looked quite foolish for it. However, my knowledge of it, while not as deep as yours, is enough to justify my dislike of it.

I think a very common confusion in these discussions is mistaking what context the 'aggressors' are discussing. I tend to talk about Religion as a sociological/culture phenomena. Naturally, my opinions there would not help me when discussing the Bible as a literary work, so when the other side is under the impression that I'm speaking in that context, or asserts that I must speak in that context, it can be very confusing for both sides.

[Kythia]

None of that was aimed at you specifically, Sabby (or, for that matter, any single person specifically) and sorry if I gave the impression it was.

[Giantmutantcrab]

I think the problem is wanting to be "right".

We sadly live in a world of extremes; yes or no, black or white, left or right.  Those who chose a colored view of the world are considered weak, or frail, or dangerous.  People who want more choices then two extremes are cowards, who can't get off the "fence".

But see...  Most people ARE like that.  Most people are able to say that they want this from political party A, that from political party B, and some stuff from political parties C, D and E.  Some folks want to combine religion and science.  I'm...  Not sure how they'll be able to handle that, but good luck!  At least these religious folks aren't trying to kill me because I don't believe in what they're saying.  Which is a big step up from most of human civilization.

We're influenced since birth to fit into specific molds.  And when we can to see what's out of that mold, like THAT mold, over there...  Well we're suddenly a risk.  A wild thinker.  A loose cannon.

...Really?

For centuries, people have been typecast.  Because of the color of their skin, gender, age, wealth or lack thereof, etc.  And even today, when we can get pretty pictures from my cellphone with a signal that was bounced off a satellite in SPACE...  Some people look at me with a strange look when I walk around with my beautiful partner.  Who happens to be a damn sexy shade of hot cocoa brown.  And I happen to be as white as milk.  Or a sheet of printing paper, take your pick.

The internet brings anonymity.  Meaning you can act like an asshole, and there's a fair chance you won't get a consequence because of that.  These people forgot what it was to be a child.  When I was a kid and acted badly, I was punished.  And I learned not to act badly, because:
1- Aforementioned punishment, and
2- I don't like hurting people.

Religion, like politics, are usually vials of recently-shaken nitroglycerin.  Just...  waiting to explode.  I've had conversations about these things with friends in my real life.  And we've never called each other rude names because of it.  We call each other rude names on a daily basis, but that's a totally different story.  :)

But the internetz...  They allow everyone with a keyboard and a connection to express their views.  Even when they are imbeciles.

And it only takes one rotten apple to start and spread its disgusting, acidic juices all over the other apples, and thus ruining the whole basket.

[/rant]

Now if you'll excuse me, I suddenly want an apple.  And wash it thoroughly first.  :)

[Sabby]

But the internetz...  They allow everyone with a keyboard and a connection to express their views.  Even when they are imbeciles.

And it only takes one rotten apple to start and spread its disgusting, acidic juices all over the other apples, and thus ruining the whole basket.

Oh boy could I list some examples xD but I'd rather not make the thread mutate and divide.

[Lux12]

You are doing way better, Sabby.  Grats.

Obviously I can't speak for Lux, but the aspect of it that annoys me the most is the sheer lack of understanding of religious topics shown by those who aggressively attack.  For example, in a discussion on a forum I used to be part of someone was criticising the section in John (19:33-36 should you care) about the prophecy of Jesus' bones not being broken, saying that referred to the Passover lamb.  Yeah, that's kinda the point.

In essence, imagine it was a discussion about cars.  It seems a lot of the time people who are not mechanics, even amateur ones, are screaming that the problem is there isn't enough coal in the engine and you are stupid, STUPID DO YOU HEAR ME, for not realising that.

My sentiments exactly. That's what a ton of these attacks and arguments sound like and to be frank it's irritating. I am a religious man, an ordained minister, but not a Christian. However I have encountered such things before when discussing a variety of spiritual topics elsewhere.  It often seems that they have less understanding of such things than they think.

[Sabby]

My sentiments exactly. That's what a ton of these attacks and arguments sound like and to be frank it's irritating. I am a religious man, an ordained minister, but not a Christian. However I have encountered such things before when discussing a variety of spiritual topics elsewhere.  It often seems that they have less understanding of such things than they think.

See, what I try and do is ask that person to define what Spiritual means, and no matter how civil I am about, it almost always ends in claims of persecution. Can you at least understand how that may frustrate people of my mind set? It's no excuse for vitriolic behavior, of course.

[Ironwolf85]

See, what I try and do is ask that person to define what Spiritual means, and no matter how civil I am about, it almost always ends in claims of persecution. Can you at least understand how that may frustrate people of my mind set? It's no excuse for vitriolic behavior, of course.

Studied in spiritual topics, and from that study having experienced what is essentially a spiritual "Eureka Moment" like a scientist or math teacher gets when all the math falls into place.

Some are obviously more learned than others in that though

[Sabby]

I don't understand.

[Ironwolf85]

I don't understand.

It's a bit like describing "red" to someone colorblind, or trying to explain the concepts of "Buddhism" to a Classical Athenian or a Viking. You kind of lack a frame of reference, here so I hope I you are a gamer, these might help.

skipping over the lore, mechanics of religion, because that's easy to understand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRNhNHXbUmk

because of super-mega-ultra backlash they made another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs

Spirituality is a combination of faith, personal understanding, and attempts to understand the world from a faith based perspective.

[Sabby]

And this is what annoys so many people. Why do you get to give a nebulous, non specific answer that really means nothing?

You haven't defined Spiritual in any practical sense, and until you do, I am unable to discuss it with you.

Does that make sense?

Edit: I also find your explanation as to why I cannot grasp your definition to be extremely condescending.

[Ironwolf85]

And this is what annoys so many people. Why do you get to give a nebulous, non specific answer that really means nothing?

You haven't defined Spiritual in any practical sense, and until you do, I am unable to discuss it with you.

Does that make sense?

Edit: I also find your explanation as to why I cannot grasp your definition to be extremely condescending.

I'm sorry if it sounded condescending sabby. I think that's half the problem, this stuff is so heavy that men far more educated and articulate than either of us have a hard time dealing with it.

You don't have a frame of reference.
Using myself as an example, when people like my friend's son start talking about code (because he knows computer coding languages) I have no frame of reference and feel a bit stupid. I know about data packets, I know a kernel is a piece of code, but when he shows me a wall of text and starts talking in jargon my brain goes *Tllllpth* because I've got no frame of reference from my own life to compare.

I wonder if that's part of why there are so many flame wars...

For the record I'm only in my mid 20's... and this kid's 13... I just got highspeed last week, he grew up with it. Though I can recite lovecraft in a game, and he's never read it... so it can really spook him.

[Andy]

Having Followed the discussion a bit, its gone in circles for a while, can you just please define "What is Spirituality" in simple terms, cause i sure as hell cant figure it out >.<''

[Sabby]

See, you can't use a well understood and defined thing (coding) as a comparison for something undefined (Spirituality).

The fact you don't understand computer coding doesn't mean you can't read a basic description of it. You can comprehend the concept of computer code Iron.

I reject your definition of Spirituality not because I am unable to approach it, but because it is not a definition at all. Let's break down your definition.

Spirituality.
A combination of faith, personal understanding, and attempts to understand the world from a faith based perspective.

Faith is belief that is not supported by evidence.
Personal understanding is not a thing by itself. What do you claim to understand?
To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is'.

So really, the only tangible message I get from your description is 'Things are strange, but I believe, because the world is strange'.

Can you understand why that is an unusable definition?

[Ironwolf85]

Having Followed the discussion a bit, its gone in circles for a while, can you just please define "What is Spirituality" in simple terms, cause i sure as hell cant figure it out >.<''

See, you can't use a well understood and defined thing (coding) as a comparison for something undefined (Spirituality).

The fact you don't understand computer coding doesn't mean you can't read a basic description of it. You can comprehend the concept of computer code Iron.

I reject your definition of Spirituality not because I am unable to approach it, but because it is not a definition at all. Let's break down your definition.

Spirituality.
A combination of faith, personal understanding, and attempts to understand the world from a faith based perspective.

Faith is belief in phenomena that is not supported by evidence.
Personal understanding is not a thing by itself. What do you claim to understand?
To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is'.

So really, the only tangible message I get from your description is 'Things are strange, but I believe, because the world is strange'.

Can you understand why that is an unusable definition?

you have two points good points there
A. I didn't explain right *facepalm*

B: To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is' that is actually close to the foundations of Buddisim.

I suppose it's trying to understand the mysteries of the universe through that lens. Usually working towards a great personal, social, and religious truth.

[Kythia]

To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is'.

Could you expand on this please.  I don't see the leap.  You claim that "faith" means " a belief in something not supported by evidence" but that understanding the world through the lens of faith means seeing the world as it is.  For me, using that definition of faith would mean almost exactly the opposite.  So yeah, could you explain how you got to that line please.

[Andy]

The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition,[1][2] although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.[3]

Copypaste from Wikipedia..

Using Spirituality as a defined term is dumb >.<''

[Sabby]

I used poor wording there. Let me amend that.

To see the world with a faith based outlook would mean simply taking everything on face value. I doubt that's the definition you intended, but is the words you used. Faith is belief without evidence. To see a bird fly with a faith based outlook would be to simply accept that birds fly. It provides no answers or utility, it simply points to what is apparent.

A faith based outlook provides nothing.

[Kythia]

That makes more sense.  Thanks

[Sabby]

Your welcome. I have no desire to cause misconceptions, so don't allow me to get away with unclear wording xD

[Shjade]

To see the world with a faith based outlook would mean simply taking everything on face value. I doubt that's the definition you intended, but is the words you used. Faith is belief without evidence. To see a bird fly with a faith based outlook would be to simply accept that birds fly. It provides no answers or utility, it simply points to what is apparent.

A faith based outlook provides nothing.

Actually, you're...pretty much wrong in every respect there, at least when correlating faith perspective with face value.

If you see a bird fly, and based on that you accept that birds fly, you are making an assumption based on evidence. Specifically, the evidence that you actually saw a bird flying. You saw it. It is a thing that happened and, moreover, a thing that can be recreated consistently. That is seeing the world at face value.

A faith based perspective of that example would be believing that birds fly because someone told you that birds fly, but you haven't actually seen a bird flying yourself or been given any evidence of birds flying aside from having been told it's true. Believing that is accepting bird flight on faith.

Faith and "what is apparent" are rarely coincident given that, if something is apparent, you don't need faith to accept it. It's right in front of you.

Edit: *tilts head* Unless I'm misreading and you didn't mean literally seeing a bird fly.

[Sabby]

Hmmm. I have to agree with you. I was trying to create an example of a first hand experience being faith based, but now I'm not sure I can do that. Your description is far better then mine. Thank you.

See, part of the reason my attempt to describe a faith based outlook on life is that people don't really see life through faith :/ Yes, I did attempt to describe how someone applies faith to direct experience, but as Shjade pointed out, they really don't do that. They apply their reasoning when experiencing the world around them.

Until someone can actually give me a proper description of their spirituality or their faith, the only rational conclusion I can draw is that they attribute their thoughts to these concepts, instead of deriving conclusions from them.

[Shjade]

Benefits of working at a church. ;p

[Kythia]

Hmmm. I have to agree with you. I was trying to create an example of a first hand experience being faith based, but now I'm not sure I can do that. Your description is far better then mine. Thank you.

So you don't believe there are any first-hand, objective, experiences that can be viewed through faith, as you have described it? 

So, in essence - and assuming you are equating "I see the world through faith" with "I am willing to believe both things for which there is evidence and things for which there aren't" rather than the more ludicrous "I will solely believe things for which there is no evidence" - you don't think there is any difference between seeing the world through faith and not.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just making sure I understand your argument.

[Ironwolf85]

A faith based outlook provides nothing.

I'd argue it has it's merits, moreover having a faith based perspective, allows the questioning of said faith on it's own terms. "I have been told birds fly, I've never seen one, they do fly, why did (insert name of appropriate deity here per time period and culture) make them that way?"

It is part of how we developed the scientific method actually.


Holy crap we need to move this to another topic, we are getting more off topic my the moment.

[Sabby]

So you don't believe there are any first-hand, objective, experiences that can be viewed through faith, as you have described it? 

So, in essence - and assuming you are equating "I see the world through faith" with "I am willing to believe both things for which there is evidence and things for which there aren't" rather than the more ludicrous "I will solely believe things for which there is no evidence" - you don't think there is any difference between seeing the world through faith and not.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just making sure I understand your argument.

I did do a rather substantial edit just before your response, hoping to get it in quick enough, but I apparently didn't :/ Apologies for that.

You can reread if you like, but I'll try and respond.

To be honest Kythia, I only ever try and use words like spiritual and faith in this way for the sake of argument. I really don't think they have the utility people claim they do. When you say you have a 'faith based worldview', that really imparts nothing to me. I know the definition of faith, and when I try to run direct experiences through that filter, they seem incompatible.

And as Shjade pointed out, my attempt to place faith as a filter in a real world scenario failed.

[Shjade]

On topic: it's kind of an easy question, Iron. I'm pretty sure just about everyone dislikes toxicity on forums they frequent, with the main exception being the people who generate that toxicity. There's not really much of a debate to be had there. ;p

[Kythia]

To be honest Kythia, I only ever try and use words like spiritual and faith in this way for the sake of argument. I really don't think they have the utility people claim they do. When you say you have a 'faith based worldview', that really imparts nothing to me. I know the definition of faith, and when I try to run direct experiences through that filter, they seem incompatible.

Whilst that's fair enough as a life philosophy, it does cause us in the here and now some problems.

Ironwolf's position was that you lack the experience to understand what he means by faith.  I will stick with his red and colourblind example.  You, yourself, confirm that you do not understand what he means by faith.  Assuming Ironwolf is arguing in, well, good faith - which there is no reason to doubt - that causes a problem.  You do not understand what he means by the word, he says it is a lived thing that cannot be explained but - and here I'm putting words in his mouth a little - is recognised by those that have it.  You find that argument condescending and refuse to accept it.  Leaving aside the issue of whether an explanation being condescending makes it untrue, whilst you hold that position and ironwolf, for the sake of civility, tries to find other and necessarily inferior ways of explaining it, I don't think there can be a meeting of minds.

Why not shift the question to one which will allow you to form your own definitions - namely "What distinguishes a world seen through faith from one which is not", you can then jury-rig your own definition as something that causes that difference.

Shrug. Considerably more than two cents there but I'm pretty gobby.

[Ironwolf85]

that's... pretty damn insightful...

[Kythia]

Benefits of working at a cathedral ;p

[Sabby]

I asked for a definition of spirituality, not faith. Faith was part of Ironwolfs answer.

I'm not expecting to walk a mile in his shoes, I just want a definition that isn't word salad :P You can claim that the definition appears flimsy and nonsensical because I'm not equipped to receive it, but that doesn't help your side either. I can use that same reasoning to defend almost anything.

I was abducted by alien Geese. I can explain this through a combination of faith, personal experience and understanding the world through a faith based world view.

Do you accept my claim? Well, I guess your just not equipped to understand, and I'm incapable of describing how I am equipped to understand.

Isn't it convenient how that renders me unapproachable? I can't explain myself, and you can't get more information from me.

[Kythia]

Now you're being a little unreasonable.

Ironwolf claimed that an aspect of "spirituality" was a "faith based worldview".  You reject that.  His other two aspects have received far less of a challenge from you, so I assumed it was that one - the one you focused on - that was the major sticking point.  His attempt at explanation has not been successful and has been rejected by you.  But you claim you want a definition.  I have suggested a way of getting one which ironwolf, to judge by his comments, accepts.

You, for reasons which aren't clear, reject that route as well and continue to ask for an explanation of something you have already rejected.  Because, one would presume, you disagree with the saying about the definition of insanity. 

It was only a suggestion and I don't really care either way, but I really don't see your objection.

[Sabby]

I have rejected his explanation, correct. I also reject his continued attempts to clarify his definition, as they do not make it any clearer. The definitions presented are completely unusable to anyone who don't already accept the definitions, making them completely inert.

Why must I accept special pleading here? Is there any other definitions I must regard as unapproachable in the same way Irons definition of spirituality is unapproachable?

Name one please. If not, I must assume that I am expected to make an exception just for this instance, and I see no reason to.

[Kythia]

I must assume that I am expected to make an exception just for this instance, and I see no reason to.

Are you trying to understand what is meant by spirituality, faith and similar related terms or are you trying to score rhetorical points?  Because I'm only willing to help you with the first.  I am at an absolute loss to understand how "people who understand that term have said an exception must be made in order to understand it" isn't a reason if your goal here is, as you keep claiming, to actually understand the terms.  If your goal is to be dogmatic and refuse to engage, though, then I think you've pretty much succeeded.

I care little and think I'm done here.  I was, for the record, trying to help a conversation which had got stuck move to somewhere more productive.  I'm no longer sure that is what the participants wish, though, so I'm wasting my time.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I've encountered a great deal of toxicity over my time in various chats and forums. I'm a passionate woman. I feel deeply and some topics cause me  to get very emotional.  I try to identify those topics and react appropriately. Sometimes meaning that I steer clear or bow out of a conversation.

Political discussions can get heated very quickly. There are those that are so strong in their loyalty to a chosen party that they will agree simply because they are affiliated with that party. Sometimes these individuals will dislike or discount a candidate or political figure simply because they are affiliated with the opposing party. 

Religion can be much the same way. Some refuse to even entertain why a person would choose Faith over science. Others refuse to believe anything scientific and go solely on faith.

I myself am not affiliated with any political party. In fact I steer clear of that whole thing apart from occasionally discussing my own views or something political in nature from the news. That's just my personal choice. I also happen to be a Christian and lean heavily on my faith.

I think the most important point has already been made. But I wish to add to it. There can be civil discussions and even civil debates between two opposing viewpoints. But when it gets exhaustive for me is when it becomes an all out 'I'm right you're wrong' war. When there's no longer a mutual understanding and respect for both points of view. If this occurs, I feel that it's best to do as others have said and avoid getting into those types of discussions with certain people. I know people personally that politics and religion are off limits when we visit.

[Sabby]

Kythia, your response is far too jumbled. I have no idea how to begin to address it.

I simply asked Ironwolf to define spirituality, and I find his definition unusable.

If that was made unclear during the discussion, I apologize. I will simply lay it out there and back down.

[IStateYourName]

I tend not to bother trying to argue with religious fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslim, whatever.

It's not because I necessarily hate them.  As long as they do not try and force their beliefs onto me, they can go around thinking there's a big dude in the sky that hates us and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.  "It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg" so long as they respect my rights, and the fact America is an explicitly secular governed country.  It's just that there's no point in debating them. 

Debate and discussion are fine when they consist of two or more parties engaging in a rational co-examination of agreed-upon, verifiable facts.  It's even fine if facts are in some degree of dispute, as long as evidence introduced into the discussion is accepted.  It's even okay if interpretations of the facts differ.

But when one side says, "this unverified, unsourced Bronze Age book is the ultimate truth, our interpretation of it is the only valid interpretation, and we won't accept anything the contradicts said interpretation, no matter how repeatedly replicated or well-sourced," well then, there's not much point in continuing the discussion.  There's no common frame of reference.

[Ironwolf85]

Simply put the explanations I give are coming off as "Insane Troll Logic" because you have a totally different set of life experiences than I do Sabby. The more I try and explain, the weaker my argument becomes, because I'm no super genus, just a regular guy.

Can I make a suggestion, try reading the book of five rings by Miyamoto Musashi, it is combat and samurai from a Spiritual Shinto perspective.
It isn't perfect, but it might give you some insights man.

[Sabby]

Simply put the explanations I give are coming off as "Insane Troll Logic" because you have a totally different set of life experiences than I do Sabby.

It has nothing to do with that, it's the choice of words you use to define spirituality. They are all either very subjective or do not have any descriptive power. It is not a good definition.

It has nothing to do with conflicting values or an unwillingness to listen, I simply cannot accept a definition worded in this way.

[Ironwolf85]

But when one side says, "this unverified, unsourced Bronze Age book is the ultimate truth, our interpretation of it is the only valid interpretation, and we won't accept anything the contradicts said interpretation, no matter how repeatedly replicated or well-sourced," well then, there's not much point in continuing the discussion.  There's no common frame of reference.

I run into this viewpoint all the time with some of the older more fundie members of my church. This is kind of what I was trying to point to, not explain spirituality. One is trying to explain red, the other blue, both are slightly colorblind, and have no frame of reference, and thus begin the flame wars.

I try to see both, but it also means I can't explain well to either.

[Oniya]

I remember seeing a movie once (Mask) where a young man was explaining the concepts of colors to a girl who was blind since birth.  He ended up having to use other senses in sort of a synesthetic sort of way: an ice cube 'felt blue', a freshly baked potato 'felt red', newly mowed grass 'smelled green' (go bury your face in a tomato plant sometime), and freshly dug earth 'smelled brown'.  There are certain things that really can't be completely defined except clumsily - love is another one that comes to mind.  Unfortunately, sometimes the saying is true:

Human speech is a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make the music of the stars.

[Sabby]

There are certain things that really can't be completely defined except clumsily - love is another one that comes to mind.  Unfortunately, sometimes the saying is true:

love
noun
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?

[Blythe]

I just thought I'd see if anyone else is tired of encountering Toxic forums and hate because of your stance on an issue. I've been encountering a lot of bitter vitriol lately on the internet, with a lot of knee jerk reactions.

Most people that regularly frequent forums are probably familiar with this, strongly dislike it, and are probably tired of it (not going to say everyone--not everyone encounters this, but enough do to make it a passably common unfortunate phenomenon with forums). I'm just happy that E is not like that.

Especially on the topic of religion, which makes me kind of sad when I encounter people who refuse to even explore or think on the subject beyond proclaiming "religion is the opiate of the masses" or "it just holds man back". As if even thinking on it is somehow a threat to "science."

I think there's a lot of interesting topics discussing and thinking on this, and duzons of other topics too. but people are far too quick to resort to toxic language and old propaganda for any of the subjects to get off the ground.

I certainly wouldn't say religion is a threat to science. They are just very different breeds of creature--religion deals very much with unquantifiable subjective experiences, while science deals with objective quantifiable experiences. I'm an atheist, so it's probably an easy guess as to which one I'm more in favor of, but I've no particular issue with those who are religious or with religion in general. It just makes it a bit harder to debate when coming from such different frames of reference. I do enjoy learning about various religions, though; it's pretty interesting for me to learn about the history of various religious institutions. Lately I've been reading more about Islam and Shinto out of an academic interest in those faiths.  :-)

So bring forth thy stories of stupid or bitter flamewars.

I want to see who else will join me in saying I'm not going to spread toxic hate, stereotypes, or flame war on the internet anymore.

I think I can safely say, as a rational human being, that I don't intend to spread any toxic hate, stereotypes, or flame wars, although the "anymore" part doesn't apply to me, as I never participated in those in the first place (I tend to poof away when those things start happening!). ^^

Edit: Fixed a few typos!

[alextaylor]

For the most part, I love arguments. I used to debate against universities nationally. It's not so much about being right but more sticking up for one side and defending that side. I believe the best way to find the truth is to defend one side and have someone else defend another side. My favorite internet argument involved me defending the values of anarchy. Even though I wasn't even really an anarchist at that point, the argument itself really raised my respect and understanding of anarchy.

I think a lot of people don't appreciate that. They think that when I defend say... a rapist's rights, I'm actually agreeing with rape. And that I'd actually encourage it. And encouraging such a morally wrong thing would make a lot of people blow their top. And my love for debate makes a lot of people think that I'm trolling.

[Mnemaxa]

Part of the problem, Sabby, is that spirituality is an individually defined thing.  The basic definition of spirituality is a self defining concept, that comes back to the idea of 'spiritual belief'.

An approximation: Spirituality is the personal belief structure defining what is not explainable by the sciences or by objective reality to an individual.  That's why spirituality itself is a toxic subject on any forum that isn't dedicated to one sort of spirituality, and even then it can become extraordinarily toxic - after all, even 'objective reality' is something nearly impossible to define given that all opinions and viewpoints are subjective.

The other aspect of toxicity of such subjects as religion and politics and most other such subjects was very simply defined in an old quote.  "To those who do not believe, no amount of evidence will be enough; to those who do believe, no evidence is necessary."  That polarization seems nonsensical and at odds with the very idea of discussion, but it does define the tenets of the problem.

[Sabby]

An approximation: Spirituality is the personal belief structure defining what is not explainable by the sciences or by objective reality to an individual.

This is actually a good definition.

So far, every other attempt to define spirituality seems far too full of special pleading and vagueness. This was simple and clear. Thank you for providing a better definition.

[Mnemaxa]

This is actually a good definition.

So far, every other attempt to define spirituality seems far too full of special pleading and vagueness. This was simple and clear. Thank you for providing a better definition.

The problem with the definition is that 'personal belief' is really hard to define.  I didn't really define spirituality so much as explain what it seems to be, which can and has been the topic of much debate as well.

[alextaylor]

Could we move the whole spirituality discussion to some other thread? It's the kind of thing that you'd have a college course for, not something to be defined in one sentence. It's only vague because it's a word that covers a wide range of different things to different people.

Buddhism's definition of spirituality may be based on peace, away from luxury and distractions (the monk in the mountains). Islam's definition might be based on actions (the person who spends the whole night in prayer). Christianity might mix a bit of both (the hermit who spends all his time studying theology). I'm sure there are some religions where a spiritual person is noted by their sacrifice... like someone who builds large cathedrals from his own money and time is considered spiritual.

[Paladin101]

This is actually a good definition.

So far, every other attempt to define spirituality seems far too full of special pleading and vagueness. This was simple and clear. Thank you for providing a better definition.

I live a spiritual life, and defining spirituality is a difficult thing to do. For me, spirituality is living a life guided by beliefs based upon the concept of a higher power. A life spent in search of knowledge and enlightenment, where the mind remains open to new thoughts and beliefs. A life spent with the goal of making the lives of others better, and ensuring I leave behind a positive imprint of my existence when I shuffle off this mortal coil. Of course the problem with that is, this is the description of my personal beliefs. It's impossible to give a single definition of living spiritually, because it is different for everyone. Spirituality is for me best described as living your life viewing the world through the filter of your personal beliefs and faith. Which is for me at least, not incompatible with living a life viewing the world through a rational, and scientific filter as well. And now I'm done helping this topic go off topic. >.>

[Ironwolf85]

yay people smarter than me are discussing things!

Next topic... political extremes in forums...
I see it all the time, it's as if both sides. Often Republican and Democrat, rely on only data that supports their claim, and ignore the other side.

[Kythia]

yay people smarter than me are discussing things!

Next topic... political extremes in forums...
I see it all the time, it's as if both sides. Often Republican and Democrat, rely on only data that supports their claim, and ignore the other side.

Eh, there's nothing surprising there.  It's impossible to have a rational discussion on the topic because of the nature of humans.  The anonymity of the internet just exacerbates.

For the record re: Spirituality

Spoilering this as I don't want to reopen that off topic can o' worms, but I feel like - having been part of the discussion - I should show willing.

For me, and the reason I didn't immediately chime in with my own thoughts instead of just trying to facilitate, the basic premise of the question "Define spirituality" is mistaken.  We abandoned the idea of terms having single quantifiable definitions seventy or eighty years ago and its reasons like this that made it so.  I'm with Oniya that language is an imperfect tool for communication, particularly about matters that are so inherently personal.  No two people in the world will define spirituality the same way, even if they both had access to all the thesauruses (thesauri?  Spellcheck likes both) there are.  And that's fine.  We're happy with words having multiple meanings within multiple demographs; I'm not simply talking about sidewalks vs. pavements but also things like "nigger/-a" which have radically different meanings within different groups.  Defining spirituality/faith/etc falls very much into that trap, the best anyone can offer is "This is what the word means to me" which is very different to "This is what the words mean" 

Insisting on an objective truth behind words is misunderstanding the nature of language, claiming that its possible to establish universal axioms behind the meanings of words when - and, as I say, we've accepted this for almost a century - word usage is inherantly personal to a speaker and two people using the same word to mean two different things in no way results in one (or possibly both) of them using it incorrectly.

The closest I believe its possible to come to that definition - and the same problem occurs with non-religious words as well e.g. "happiness" - is to give an example or examples of how that word is actualised and allow the listener to draw their own conclusion as to what a workable definition for that case is.  Which is what I tried to suggest.

[consortium11]

I actually think the "off-topic" was a pretty good "on-topic" point.

I've no reason to assume that those who took part didn't do so in good faith or were ever trying to be anything but civil. Despite that we've had posters described as condescending, a quasi-accusation of trying to shut down discussion, of being unreasonable and some passive-aggressive "are you trying to understand or just score points?" dialogue. It may not quite yet be toxic... but there's hints it's going that way.

How appropriate...

On the off-topic point, in my view faith and spirituality (in this context) are essentially just metaphysics; an attempt to explain and understand the fundamental nature of existence and the world in areas that science either can't or hasn't yet given an accepted theory.

[Moondazed]

Simply put the explanations I give are coming off as "Insane Troll Logic" because you have a totally different set of life experiences than I do Sabby. The more I try and explain, the weaker my argument becomes, because I'm no super genus, just a regular guy.

Can I make a suggestion, try reading the book of five rings by Miyamoto Musashi, it is combat and samurai from a Spiritual Shinto perspective.
It isn't perfect, but it might give you some insights man.

As someone who's just read this thread from the beginning to this point, I wonder if you realize, IronWolf, how incredibly condescending it is to say, "You don't understand because you can't understand because only I can understand, or someone like Me (in the Us vs. Them sense of Me)."

I think toxicity on topics like religion and politics comes from the need to convince.  I find it much more productive to share one's own experience and answer questions from that standpoint, i.e., someone asks why you believe, you say you had a divine epiphany, they say that doesn't make sense to them, you say it makes sense to you because it feels right, without any assignation of either of you saying the other is wrong.  Reading this thread, it sounds like it went like this... some asks why you believe, you say you had a divine epiphany, they say that doesn't make sense to them, you say it can't make sense to you because you haven't had the experience, rather than trying to clarify the experience.  At the point that you take that approach it's no longer about sharing your experience, it's about passing a judgment that sounds suspiciously like the other party isn't part of your Us and won't be capable of comprehension until they are.

Just my two cents.  I've seen toxicity in so many settings, on so many topics, and I think part of the problem is the need to convince and part of the problem is often lack of awareness of one's own biases.  Everyone has them, they aren't evil or bad, but conversations on topics that involve things like faith, which can't be quantified in a tangible sense, can really benefit from recognizing when they're in play.

Again, just my two cents... *back to reading*

[Kythia]

I actually think the "off-topic" was a pretty good "on-topic" point.

I've no reason to assume that those who took part didn't do so in good faith or were ever trying to be anything but civil. Despite that we've had posters described as condescending, a quasi-accusation of trying to shut down discussion, of being unreasonable and some passive-aggressive "are you trying to understand or just score points?" dialogue. It may not quite yet be toxic... but there's hints it's going that way.

Yes, I was thinking that myself (and in no way am trying to minimise my part - for example if you felt it was a "quasi-accusation" then I misspoke, it was intended at the time as an "accusation").  Sadly, and this might be another issue that relates to the original question, the desire to have the last word is sometimes overwhelming.

[consortium11]

yay people smarter than me are discussing things!

Next topic... political extremes in forums...
I see it all the time, it's as if both sides. Often Republican and Democrat, rely on only data that supports their claim, and ignore the other side.

One of the key issues with political discussion (and politics... and politicians) is that it's essentially an unholy alliance of three different things. On one hand you have the more philosophical "battle of ideas" side of it. This views politics as opposing world views and a debate about which one is correct; is it right (morally? Economically?) to have a large welfare state, a small welfare state or none at all etc etc?

On the other hand you have the "game" aspect of it... it's not about having the best ideas it's about "winning". This is the part that takes in electoral dirty tricks, gerrymandering, smear campaigns, voting/campaigning for negative instead of positive reasons etc etc.

And then on the... I guess third hand... is the fact that in addition to the ideas and the dirty tricks, a politician is also presenting themselves as a sort of manager/ceo. They may have all the best policies... but if they're a "poor leader" (and I know that has become somewhat of a buzzword in recent years but there is some merit in discussing it) are they a good option; a policy is great but without people to implement it it's simply hot air. How do we judge someone who might be a brilliant thinker and have great policies... but is corrupt, an awful judge of character and doesn't command respect.

It's the way those three aspects link together. Politics is largely adversarial... you're presenting either people or ideas against each other... and so what seems to happen is that someone will discuss the "battle of ideas" aspect... and then to "win" the argument someone delves into the other two.

[Shjade]

Benefits of working at a cathedral ;p

*high-fives*

It's sorta funny, but this thread actually provides a nice demonstration of how things can quickly become toxic even when unintended, even when the participants are generally pleasant folks. Frustration very easily leads to saying and doing things we wouldn't under normal circumstances, and once that starts it tends to spark even worse behavior in people responding to those first signs of hostility. Things very quickly spiral out of control and you end up with a vitriolic mess only superficially related to the initial topic. It's just sort of a thing that happens if everyone involved isn't very careful. Sometimes even when they are.

[Kythia]

Yeah, I figured I could one up you there.  Climbing that ecclesiastical hierarchy. :P

Which kinda segues nicely in to my point.  I think its not so much "turning nasty" that is the issue as, given the lack of other cues, it's very easy to assume nastiness.  Talk a simple statement like "Oh, you work at a Church?  I work at a Cathedral."  That could easily be interpreted many different ways.  Am I showing off because I work at a bigger institution(leaving aside how pathetic that would be), am I teasing? am I inviting a conversation about presumed shared experiences?  Face to face it would be effortless to tell, online one simply has to take a wild stab and hope that its correct.

ETA:   That's why I think smilies might well be a brilliant invention.  Sure they can be kinda childish but they can serve, to some extent, as a partial stand-in for those body language cues.

[Shjade]

ETA:   That's why I think smilies might well be a brilliant invention.  Sure they can be kinda childish but they can serve, to some extent, as a partial stand-in for those body language cues.

Yeeeep. Maybe one out of ten people will assume I'm using smilies to be a dick, but 90% of the time I find people just don't get upset if I use smilies pretty much often enough to be replacement punctuation when in similar situations people HAVE gotten upset about my saying almost the same thing without the little faces around to indicate I'm not trying to be a jerk about it.

Regarding religious hierarchy: doesn't matter to me, my job is A/V, not preaching. ;p

[Kythia]

Regarding religious hierarchy: doesn't matter to me, my job is A/V, not preaching. ;p

Yeah, my job's exclusively secular as well.

[Paladin101]

The comedian Arj Barker made a good joke for texting or online forums, since people don't know what tone your using. That we should have a new set of fonts. Like Sans Sarcastica, so you know what someones intention is. lol

I agree though, alot of trouble on the internet is caused by people not knowing if someone is being sarcastic, literal, condescending, or otherwise emotional in theri reply.

[Oniya]

The comedian Arj Barker made a good joke for texting or online forums, since people don't know what tone your using. That we should have a new set of fonts. Like Sans Sarcastica, so you know what someones intention is. lol

It's already out there.

http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/

[Moondazed]

It's already out there.

http://glennmcanally.com/sarcastic/

That's awesome! :D

[alextaylor]

What's the point of sarcasm if you're going to be upfront about it? It's usually easy to call sarcasm, but sometimes you have to admit you've fallen to Poe's Law if people don't get it. I usually just stick a smiley at the end. But I stopped using it because I know a lot of people who use smileys as a way of being passive-aggressive. Like sometimes putting a smiley may turn out to be doubly insulting in certain situations.

Maybe we just have to use apologies more often? Even a brief "sorry" can disarm a conversation.

[Paladin101]

What's the point of sarcasm if you're going to be upfront about it? It's usually easy to call sarcasm, but sometimes you have to admit you've fallen to Poe's Law if people don't get it. I usually just stick a smiley at the end. But I stopped using it because I know a lot of people who use smileys as a way of being passive-aggressive. Like sometimes putting a smiley may turn out to be doubly insulting in certain situations.

Maybe we just have to use apologies more often? Even a brief "sorry" can disarm a conversation.

I would only say sorry in an online debate if I was using the sarcastic font.

>.>

[Lost Boy]

Yeah I do get sick of the toxicity on forums, I have rather conservative views politically, spiritually and socially. If I voice those views even in a way where I am neither directly responding to anyone else or attacking them I get flamed by some Leftist who despite claiming they preach tolerance is anything but, I find that is a common thing to happen.

The other thing I have noticed is people who when they can't counter an argument or comment start ranting "Nazi" or some other bile, once they do that the argument is over and they also forget historically that the Communists were far worse anyway.

[Valthazar]

Yeah I do get sick of the toxicity on forums, I have rather conservative views politically, spiritually and socially. If I voice those views even in a way where I am neither directly responding to anyone else or attacking them I get flamed by some Leftist who despite claiming they preach tolerance is anything but, I find that is a common thing to happen.

Don't worry, I hold several right-leaning views when it comes to the economy, and so long as you are able to efficiently articulate your perspectives, you will find nothing but respect from people here on this forum.

[Sabby]

Don't worry, I hold several right-leaning views when it comes to the economy, and so long as you are able to efficiently articulate your perspectives, you will find nothing but respect from people here on this forum.

This may just be me, but I've run into plenty of incidents where exactly the opposite is the case. The person is polite and well spoken, and seems like a completely rational and nice person, but the stance they are holding is just frankly disgusting. And they are completely aware of how it comes across to others, yet defend it as if it were a minor, inconsequential difference of opinion.

In those kinds of cases, I certainly do lose respect for the speaker, regardless of how well they spoke.

[Valthazar]

This may just be me, but I've run into plenty of incidents where exactly the opposite is the case. The person is polite and well spoken, and seems like a completely rational and nice person, but the stance they are holding is just frankly disgusting.

Their stance may be disgusting to you, but that does not make their stance invalid.  Unless you can demonstrate that there is a logical fallacy in their viewpoint, they are very much entitled to their perspective, and deserving of at least basic respect.

[Sabby]

Never said it invalidated their perspective. As you say, everyone is entitled to hold an opinion. But I must disagree with you that everyone's opinions are due respect. If we were to respect every position held by every person, there would be no value to holding an actually respectable opinion.

Do you give this basic respect to, say, White Supremacists, for example? We both agree that they are entitled to their opinions, but are they also entitled respect?

[Lost Boy]

It depends, would you flame or disrespect a Muslim radical or Black Panther or do you only disrespect people who you feel don't match your politics?

This is where the problem lies, when you make a personal judgement on someone which is hypocritical than things tend to start getting crazy.

I do agree though, I have read things written by people which totally disgust me, but then what disgusts me might make total sense to you. Another problem again.

[Valthazar]

Do you give this basic respect to, say, White Supremacists, for example? We both agree that they are entitled to their opinions, but are they also entitled respect?

I didn't mean that I respect their views, but I meant that they are deserving of respect when practicing their freedom of speech.  We can disagree with them and find them to be bigots, but that doesn't give us the right to make an attempt to mute their voices out from expression.

Not at all related to that issue (which we can all agree is incredibly biased), but Lost Boy makes a good point that on many forums, conservative-leaning views are subconsciously muted out from discussion.

[Sabby]

I'm afraid I don't understand the way your using the word 'respect' here. I've never heard it used this way before.

Of course I think that two people in a structured debate should be treated equally, regardless of what their saying. Is that what you mean by respecting their views? Sorry if that's not it, this is just a very strange phrasing I'm not aware of.

[Lost Boy]

"Respect" does not mean agreeing with someone or necessarily saying their view is valid, for example I disagree with vegetarianism, but I respect a person's right to be one. It doesn't mean I agree or think it is a good choice.

Essentially the use of the word Respect in this case (and it's a common use of the term) means to listen to someone's point of view without resorting to name calling, flaming, bullying or some other uncivil behaviour. It is possible to just agree to disagree with someone without making a song and dance about it.

This is where fights occur online, people start with the "Nazi" or some other stupid supposed insult and it just leads nowhere and is anything but mature.

[Valthazar]

I'm afraid I don't understand the way your using the word 'respect' here. I've never heard it used this way before.

Of course I think that two people in a structured debate should be treated equally, regardless of what their saying. Is that what you mean by respecting their views? Sorry if that's not it, this is just a very strange phrasing I'm not aware of.

I've seen situations on other forums where people immediately dismiss conservative perspectives, due to culturally-acceptable statements that lack any factual rebuttal.  For example, I hold legitimate economic perspectives regarding this frequently cited income wage gap between men and women, and I've had many liberal posters acknowledge my views, and respectfully disagree with my perspective of the issue.  However, this type of intelligent dialogue becomes impossible when people choose to sling monickers like, "you're being sexist," - when that couldn't be further from the truth.  Anyone who knows me can tell you that I treat women with the highest respect, and simply want them to be able to make life choices that maximize their happiness.

Of course, many conservatives throw monickers like this all the time, don't get me wrong.  But I notice it happening less often in the types of forums I visit (which tend to be considerably more liberal in nature, since I enjoy role-playing).

[Sabby]

May just be the nature of the internet, but that usage of the word seems like unnecessary complication >.< See, these last few posts of us talking about whether views are due respect, I literally just mean 'do you still respect X after hearing Y?'. So sorry if that's caused some confusion >.< I'll try and restate myself.

Regardless of my opinion of a person or their beliefs, I do try, like most sensible adults, to continue to interact with them fairly and politely, so long as they're still making that same effort. However, there are cases where I feel as though my only option is to say "I'm sorry, but what you just said is absolutely appalling, and I have lost respect for you as a person because of it"

Now to try my question again, do you feel that you can't voice that loss of respect for the person without disrespecting their right to fair debate?

[Valthazar]

I understand what you mean now.  I think it's perfectly okay to personally find someone's views appalling, and communicate that - that's your choice.  The problem comes when you let this initial reaction prevent you from hearing everything that they have to say, and making knee-jerk judgments and assumptions.  Doing this would prevent an intelligent discussion, since you are preventing yourself from hearing the full perspectives of all.

For example, I'm just giving a hypothetical example here that I just made up:  There might be some sort of an economic reason why someone thinks that gay marriage is not a good idea.  It would not be a civil debate if someone responding to that immediately assumes that person is a bigot against homosexuals, or a religious fanatic, and immediately dismisses their entire concept. 

With that being said, many conservatives make assumptions like this too.

[Sabby]

Okay, we understand each other then :) Damn English.

[meikle]

would you flame or disrespect a Muslim radical or Black Panther or do you only disrespect people who you feel don't match your politics?

I get flamed by some Leftist who despite claiming they preach tolerance is anything but, I find that is a common thing to happen.

Do you maybe find yourself the subject of disrepsect because you lace every post you make with a dig against people who are not politically aligned with you?

people start with the "Nazi" or some other stupid supposed insult

counter an argument or comment start ranting "Nazi" or some other bile, once they do that the argument is over and they also forget historically that the Communists were far worse anyway.

Or perhaps it is because you inexplicably come to the aid of Nazis in threads where they are otherwise not mentioned at all?

[Moondazed]

Lost Boy, perhaps a bit of research into Non-Violent Communication would help you not to be insulting when you don't mean to be (unless you mean to be, in which case you accomplish your goal)?

http://www.cnvc.org/about/what-is-nvc.html

[Neysha]

I dunno. I cant Quite find myself to be insulted by that language. When quoted by itself I guess it stands out more,  which is the point of quoting it by itself, but I'll be honest, without using word search it took me a few re-reads on my phone to find the offending passages since it didn't stick out to me initially. Maybe my reading comprehension isn't non-violent enough. ;)

[Moondazed]

Or you're so accustomed to online communication that's laced with emotive terms that you don't notice it ;)

[meikle]

I dunno. I cant Quite find myself to be insulted by that language. When quoted by itself I guess it stands out more,  which is the point of quoting it by itself, but I'll be honest, without using word search it took me a few re-reads on my phone to find the offending passages since it didn't stick out to me initially. Maybe my reading comprehension isn't non-violent enough. ;)

Well, they're not insults, they're just underhanded little barbs.  "Would you ... disrespect a Muslim radical or Black Panther or do you only disrespect people who you feel don't match your politics?"  That's a loaded question; brings to mind, "Do you still hit your wife?"  There's a suggestion in the phrasing: "Your political views align with those of Muslim radicals and the Black Panthers," subtle but present.  It's not strictly and insult, but it's certainly a dishonest way to communicate.

Bringing up the political party (or political leaning) of your detractors in what was otherwise a mostly apolitical thread is absolutely not the right way to behave if you want to keep things civil and polite, and "Leftist" is not language that you commonly see people use to describe themselves (it's one of those words, like "progressive", that you often hear right-wing talking heads say as if it's a curse word: Leftists.)  You can't on one hand suggest that you really wish the discussion environment was less toxic and on the other hand trying to cast blame nebulously on People Who Disagree With My Politics as the offenders.  It's dishonest, and it's certainly not polite.  Toxic, maybe, since that's the word people want to use.

Nobody else has spoken about Nazis, but on two occasions Lost Boy has lamented that people like to call him a Nazi (not that it's even an insult to be called a Nazi, see, "supposed insult", see "the Communists were far worse anyway," as if the crimes of the Soviet Union and other communist regimes somehow mitigate the atrocities committed by WW2 Germany, etc.) 

I'm not saying, "I'm insulted."  I'm not even saying, "These are especially insulting."  What I'm saying is, "If you want people to treat you and your arguments with respect, maybe you should behave respectfully yourself."

[Lost Boy]

Well, they're not insults, they're just underhanded little barbs.  "Would you ... disrespect a Muslim radical or Black Panther or do you only disrespect people who you feel don't match your politics?"  That's a loaded question; brings to mind, "Do you still hit your wife?"  There's a suggestion in the phrasing: "Your political views align with those of Muslim radicals and the Black Panthers," subtle but present.  It's not strictly and insult, but it's certainly a dishonest way to communicate.

Bringing up the political party of your detractors in what was otherwise a mostly apolitical thread is absolutely not the right way to behave if you want to keep things civil and polite, and "Leftist" is not language that you commonly see people use to describe themselves.  Stereotyping people / exposing your bias in a neutral forum is not a very good way to show that you want to be polite.

Nobody else has spoken about Nazis, but on two occasions Lost Boy has lamented that people like to call him a Nazi (not that it's even an insult to be called a Nazi, see, "supposed insult", see "the Communists were far worse anyway," as if the crimes of the Soviet Union and other communist regimes somehow mitigate the atrocities committed by WW2 Germany, etc.

I'm not saying, "I'm insulted."  I'm not even saying, "These are especially insulting."  What I'm saying is, "If you want people to treat you with respect, maybe behave respectfully."

I think you have misunderstood. I was referring to comments I have seen on other forums and sites and how some of these emotive terms and insults not only bring an end to intelligent discussion but also create arguments.

And once again you misunderstand me or perhaps want to misunderstand me, I really don't know. Another poster mentioned not wanting to respect the views of White Supremacists, ok fine, but my point was would he have the same view towards Black Panthers or Muslim radicals, it was simply a question asking if he picks and chooses which groups he respects or is he particularly against one group in particular, he brought up White Supremacists so I used Non White groups who also have a supremacy agenda of their own. It could have just as easily been a case of would you slam McDonalds for fatty food yet excuse KFC. That was the example he cited though, a race group was chosen so I cited two other examples.

I feel insulted that you would accuse me of dishonest communication, I was quite upfront about what I wrote and I feel you are choosing to make something of it that just isn't the case. In some ways I thank you as you are proving my point about how these arguments tend to blow up when they shouldn't.

Why did I bring up Leftists? Because that is the experience I have had, once again you choose to take insult where none existed.

Ok, the Nazi thing, how many times have you seen insults get thrown around? I saw another thread on this site where the term "reds" was used, also an insult, once again you choose to be insulted and I really don't know why. The term Nazi is the most over used insult there is, "Grammar Nazi" anyone? Quite often it is used in a way that defines someone as a perfectionist even, and yes it is also used in the same way as that other N word which is also used to try and put people in their places and silence debate.

Right now for example I feel quite attacked by you, I don't know why, I haven't attacked you and I was just voicing my opinion, but I have said things that have upset you even though they were never intended to be taken as such and instead of just asking me to clarify you accuse me of being insulting.

This is exactly what this thread is about, do you ever get sick of toxic stuff on forums. This is how it happens, someone gets offended and attacks rather than just discussing.

[Valthazar]

Lost Boy, with all due respect, it is conservatives who remarks like this, and have a vendetta against liberals, that give right-leaning ideologies a bad rap.  In the future, I think you are better off simply describing your views, and letting the discussion flow naturally.  If people happen to make insults towards you, respectfully respond to it when it happens.

There's no sense entering a discussion anticipating that people will view you in a biased manner.  I am not liberal on many issues, and so far on this forum, people have been very understanding of my political and economic views.

[meikle]

Quite often it is used in a way that defines someone as a perfectionist even, and yes it is also used in the same way as that other N word which is also used to try and put people in their places and silence debate.

What I did was examine the language you use and how it may relate to your experience of having people treat you in a manner that you find disrespectful.  If you "choose to take insult," well, those are your words, not mine.  Make a different choice?

Or simply address your peers with respect without regard to their political views when politics aren't relevant to the discussion.  Sorry; politics, religion, and money: those are the unsafe subjects.  Don't bring them up in every breath you take and you may find that people are more open to you.  Alternatively, bring them up in a respectful, clear manner, and at least people will do the same to you.

Or lament that "Leftists" are intolerant and worse than Nazis and then wonder why people take you to task for it, instead.

[Lost Boy]

What I did was examine the language you use and how it may relate to your experience of having people treat you in a manner that you find disrespectful.  If you "choose to take insult," well, those are your words, not mine.  Make a different choice?

And you examined it wrongly or wanted to feel a certain way. The funny thing is you then responded in the exact same way that you felt I was writing in except you really were attacking me. The point is you could have just asked.

Anyway, good day to you.

[Neysha]

I think this last page is a perfect example of toxicity on the forums.  :-)

[Paladin101]

Lost Boy, how exactly is it you think you're being attacked, when meikle was very calmly pointing out the fact that your choice in phrasing, and how you presented yourself, is likely partly to blame for you being attacked? You may not have noticed it, but your posts were phrased in such a way that it was an attack on others. The white supremacist/black panther/muslim radical comment? meikle is correct in the fact that your phrasing was, deliberately or not, highly suggestive that the person you were speaking to sympathized with black panthers and muslim radicals. How? Well I'm glad you asked.

Let's start by looking at exactly what you said.

would you flame or disrespect a Muslim radical or Black Panther or do you only disrespect people who you feel don't match your politics

Now if we examine this turn of phrase, we see that you begin it with asking if  they would disrespect a muslim radical or black panther. Then you ask if they would ONLY disrespect people who don't match THEIR politics. Therefor you have implied that radicals and black panthers are a group that they agree with, and that you are asking them if they would attack people whom they agree with. Maybe you aren't familiar with how a phrase can be turned, maybe you aren't familiar with debating, but I can tell you from experience, that HOW you say something is JUST as important as WHAT you say. It is very easy to slip in turns of phrase, and slide around emotions with tricky turns of a word, it's called manipulation and politicians and speakers do it all the time. The phrasing you used was an attack, whether you realize it or not.

So basically what I am saying is, meikle has a point. I noticed it when I read this thread before I even got to her post, your phrasing jumped out at me as an attack. You use inflammatory words and turns of phrase that could easily set someone off in a defensive attack. So if you want to avoid those evil leftists attacking your conservative views, than I would recommend that you learn to present your views without implanting barbs against those evil leftists in every other sentence. Go back and really read what you wrote mate. If you don't see that barbs and the inflammatory remarks, then I suggest you just not get into debates on an online forum, unless you want to end up in fights.

[Moondazed]

I think this thread is an example of reasonable people working through misunderstandings, which is a far cry from toxicity. :) 

It is, however, a great example of the mechanism that can lead to toxic stuff.  It took me a few months to figure out how to negotiate debating or discussing 'hot button' issues on forums because it's a lot different without inflection or body language and I found myself being easily offended and doing pretty much what's happening here.  The trick for me?  Stop.  Take a deep breath.  Now read the words and give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and read your own making a genuine effort to see the other party's viewpoint, and if you still disagree, respond respectfully.

Well said, Paladin101.

[Oniya]

I would also like to direct all newcomers (and old-comers, if they haven't already read them) to the stickies at the top of this forum.  Unlike many politics sections on forums, we do value reasoned debate over fallacious arguments.

[Sabby]

Lost Boy, I think what many are trying to convey is that if you come to a discussion already on the defensive, it tends to make you look like your there expecting a fight. Which means you're making a lot of assumptions about the people your speaking to, and speaking personally, I tend to not appreciate being devalued right out the gate as 'just a potential attacker'. That's like dismissing any potential contribution on my part before I've even opened my mouth.

I guarantee you that if you began your discussions with no preconceptions of the others involved, you'll have a better and more productive time.

[Lost Boy]

Oh Please!!! I would like to point out that I NEVER attacked anyone and I EVEN clarified every point for Miekle.

Now given that and some of you guys are still going on about it I would say I have ample grounds to feel harassed.

As far I am concerned all I did was challenge some people's thought process a little and instead of actually thinking about what I said in a calm manner they decided to do exactly what they accused me of doing which was to become emotional and defensive.

I'm not going to explain myself any further on this topic and I thank the people who posted with common sense and could see that I was being objective with my statements and speaking from a personal experience point of view.

Anyone who wants to take offence where there was no attack intended can go right ahead.

I can't help what you want to feel.

[Beguile's Mistress]

This might a good place to agree to disagree and move on without further comment.

[Lost Boy]

Anyway if this is the sort of thing I can expect from this site than I withdraw my interest.

[Paladin101]

Lost Boy, for someone accusing others of being defensive and emotional...well your response has been nothing but that. My post was in no way emotional, and in no way harassing. I pointed out how what you said was able to be taken in the manner you denied having made it in, showing you how the pattern formed by the presentation of your statements gave the impressions that most people here seem to have walked away with. A debate or discussion are both places meant to be ruled by rational thought and reason, not emotional outbursts or inflammatory wordplay. Accusing us of harassing you and becoming emotional and defensive...well it just doesn't hold water if you look at the content of the posts, so I'll thank you not to level such an accusation my way.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I said we'll agree to disagree and move on.

[Neysha]

Soooo how about that forum toxicity stuff...

[Kythia]

Soooo how about that forum toxicity stuff...

Yeah, I have no idea what is meant by that...

[Valthazar]

Yeah, I have no idea what is meant by that...

It is when one debates too much online, and toxicity builds in the mind.

[Kythia]

Ah that sounds like a rubbish ailment.  Why would people want to do that?  Down with the sickness, I say, down with it.

[Beguile's Mistress]

And it was such a good opportunity to show a newbie the best of Elliquiy.

[Moondazed]

You can lead a horse to water and all of that... Some people aren't capable of seeing the reality of their own flaws through their biases.

[Kythia]

I made a horse drink once.  But, then, it wasn't me who led it to the water.  Maybe those two are mutually exclusive - you can lead a horse to water or you can make it drink.  But lord help you if you try both.

[Beguile's Mistress]

*nods*  Tis why horse herders always work in pairs. :-)

[Blythe]

You an lead a house to water and all of that... Some people aren't capable of seeing the reality of their own flaws through their biases.

I fully support leading houses to water. I've always wondered if my little two bedroom house could use a refreshing beverage.  ;)

*coughs, a little embarrassed, and flees!*

[Beguile's Mistress]

*snickers*

[Neysha]

Yeah, I have no idea what is meant by that...

It's the topic of the thread.  :-)

It is when one debates too much online, and toxicity builds in the mind.

Yeah I went over the Intro thread of our departed applicant and he stated from experience that political discussions were a waste of time. Clearly he must've taken a gander at the OP about how he could share his 'war stories' of flame fests and spoke a bit too candidly. Maybe it was a case of too much debating online. Though I have to compliment you VE, you were disgustingly inoffensive in this thread... just like all of the other ones in PROC despite your often contrary viewpoints.  ;)

[Valthazar]

Though I have to compliment you VE, you were disgustingly inoffensive in this thread... just like all of the other ones in PROC despite your often contrary viewpoints.  ;)

Only because I fear the potential wrath of all of you guys - as evidenced by this thread.  Nah, I'm just kidding, I think.  ;)

[Moondazed]

I fully support leading houses to water. I've always wondered if my little two bedroom house could use a refreshing beverage.  ;)

*coughs, a little embarrassed, and flees!*

F'ing auto-correct!  That's teach me to try to use that stupid little touchpad. :)

[Moondazed]

Only because I fear the potential wrath of all of you guys - as evidenced by this thread.  Nah, I'm just kidding, I think.  ;)

You have nothing to fear as long as you understand how to present factual information and do a bit of self-examination, which you clearly do. :)  It also helps that you only tell us what you think, not what we do. ;)

[meikle]

Now given that and some of you guys are still going on about it I would say I have ample grounds to feel harassed.

There is a staggering amount of hypocrisy in the post that this quote is taken from, isn't there?  I mean, I can't help how you choose to feel, but if you don't like feeling harassed maybe you should just choose to disable that feeling.

[Neysha]

There is a staggering amount of hypocrisy in the post that this quote is taken from, isn't there?  I mean, I can't help how you choose to feel, but if you don't like feeling harassed maybe you should just choose to disable that feeling.

Seriously?  :-(

[meikle]

Seriously?  :-(

Well, I could have gotten in on the horse thing, but I don't really care about horses and they're not really on-topic.  I just think it's funny that our newbie complains that people are harassing him in the same breath that he complains about people choosing to feel offended.  Well, if he believes it's a choice, isn't is his choice to be offended by my posts, not something I've done?  It can't be both; it doesn't really make sense that it's my choice to be offended (I'm not offended, but whatever), but when he's upset, it's not a choice.  How's that work?  We have a sticky about fallacious reasoning, right?

In my case, I mean, I think my posts in this thread have been for the most part pretty reasonable.  I addressed one person in particular because I noticed a kind of weird common thread throughout his posts.  I do agree with the OP that some topic matters aren't given a fair share (elsewhere, I guess, but it's certainly true here as well at times) and there are definitely some people who don't seem to have any intention of arguing (or even discussing) in earnest here in PROC (and I guess the rest of the internet, too).  A lot of the religious threads come to mind; a lot of those tend to look like people with superiority complexes trying to browbeat people who disagree with them.  That's not good for debate.

Neither is storming out of the room and telling people that they should choose to feel less offended when they ask "Why do you want to keep talking about how Nazis weren't so bad?"  Toxicity, right?

[Beguile's Mistress]

Toxicity is also ragging on about something that is over and done.  Like I said we'll do the adult thing and agree to disagree before moving on.  It takes more than one person to create a toxic atmosphere. 

[meikle]

Toxicity is also ragging on about something that is over and done.  Like I said we'll do the adult thing and agree to disagree before moving on.  It takes more than one person to create a toxic atmosphere.

"Ragging on"?

I feel like I need to make another point about the way our word choice contributes to the atmosphere of the discussion.

[Neysha]

"Ragging on"?

I feel like I need to make another point about the way our word choice contributes to the atmosphere of the discussion.

Hence your ragging on...

You feel a need to make another point on the same issue that is fairly similar to every other point you've made in this discussion, including after your adversary departed the discussion,  after he left the website in general and after the moderator stated the discussion is over on that tangent.

After each of those stages, you felt a need to continue pursuing the conversation on essentially the same line of argument and in lieu of any actual foil. Considering his defensiveness and inexperience and departure, it coukd be construed as being intentionally provocative or at the very least uncivil by still begging the question/ pursuing the argument.

[Valthazar]

So, how 'bout them Broncos?

[Iniquitous]

So, how 'bout them Broncos?

Oh... now I have to take a stance opposite you. Seahawks babeh!

[Valthazar]

Oh... now I have to take a stance opposite you. Seahawks babeh!

I'm more of a baseball guy, myself.  I just saw something about horses in this thread, which is why I said the Broncos. :P

[Sabby]

Forgive my Burgers, but isn't it time someone actually defined what they mean by toxicity? The word is being used for too many things at the moment. The OP seemed to be using it to refer to instant hostility over certain topics, or an unwillingness to discuss them, so why is Meikle being called toxic for pursuing an unwanted discussion out of frustration?

These are different things.

[Oniya]

I'd think that wise-cracking about someone after they've left a conversation would fall under the category of 'toxic'.  It certainly does in middle-school.

[Neysha]

So, how 'bout them Broncos?

You mean the Pot Bowl?  Its clearly going to be the worst excess of Leftist behavior in NFL history.

Stop baiting me!!!

With that said,  I hope the Denver Broncos win. I have a lower opinion of select Seahawk players and personnel then I do of the Broncos. And that's not due to Shermans toxic remarks following the last game, which I find perfectly excusable in context.

[Sabby]

I'd think that wise-cracking about someone after they've left a conversation would fall under the category of 'toxic'.  It certainly does in middle-school.

Your not using the word 'immature' or 'rude', your using a totally different word in a way that it's not usually used, so just pointing to examples and saying 'it's that' doesn't help anyone understand you.

[meikle]

I'd think that wise-cracking about someone after they've left a conversation would fall under the category of 'toxic'.  It certainly does in middle-school.

Well, there's two possibilities.  He comes back, or he doesn't.  In one case, I'll have a reply waiting for him.  If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter.

I'm not sure that calling someone a hypocrite is "wise-cracking", though.

[Kythia]

Your not using the word 'immature' or 'rude', your using a totally different word in a way that it's not usually used, so just pointing to examples and saying 'it's that' doesn't help anyone understand you.

Pointing to examples and saying "it's that" is how words are explained.  Several dictionaries, even, use that method for showing what a word means.

Anyway.

I watch the superbowl every year and arbitrarily pick a team to support.  This year it's Seattle.  So, yeah, go Seahawks.

[Sabby]

Pointing to examples and saying "it's that" is how words are explained.  Several dictionaries, even, use that method for showing what a word means.

It can go a certain way, yes, but I can point to examples where people are arguing and say "That's what anger is" That doesn't help me in identifying anger outside of that situation.

Also, I fail to see how Meikle was 'wisecracking'. Since no one has actually explained what toxicity is, am I free to just say that inaccurate and dismissive assertions of other people is toxic as well?

This is why I asked what toxic means, to avoid things like that. But the OP is the only one who can really clarify that, so I'll just wait for them.

[Neysha]

I watch the superbowl every year and arbitrarily pick a team to support.  This year it's Seattle.  So, yeah, go Seahawks.

I find your arbitrariness (if that's even a word) to be morally and ideologically bankrupt.

Why you may ask?

Uhhh I'll figure that one out later.

[Kythia]

Arbitraritude.  Or possibly arbitrariosity.

The temptation to say I find your face to be morally and ideologically bankrupt is overwhelming, but I won't for fear of being thought toxic.

I like to watch the superbowl, its more fun if you pick a team.  Shrug.

[Paladin101]

I always root for the ref's. One day a ref will steal the ball and just run for it!

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm liking that idea.  I heard on TV last night that the refs have a combined 110 years of experience.  I think it was on Leno but I'm not sure.  Anyway the joke was that they gave all that time to the job so they could go out on the field and listen to 80,000 people scream "You suck!"

[IStateYourName]

I vote for...the marching band!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

[Oniya]

The players tried to take the field.
The marching band refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed?

[Torterrable]

The players tried to take the field.
The marching band refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed?

...the day the muuuuusic died.
And they were singing....

[Beguile's Mistress]

Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee
But the levee was dry.

[IStateYourName]

And good ol' boys were drinking whiskey and rye...
...singing, 'this will be the day that I die..."

Classic.

[Neysha]

The temptation to say I find your face to be morally and ideologically bankrupt is overwhelming, but I won't for fear of being thought toxic.

Well I can guarantee that you'd be engaging in a fabrication of the truth then because if you knew my face, you'd rapidly develop some strong ideas about it... guaranteed!

Thus I must assume you speak of my avatar, in which case with her being the sketch of a music popstar, being morally and ideologically bankrupt is practically standard.

So fear not, your toxic personality won't be revealed.

I always root for the ref's. One day a ref will steal the ball and just run for it!

Again I must... strongly disagree.

If anything the referees should recluse themselves from the game itself. No Bronco nor Seahawk answers to a referee in the wild, and there should be no more refereeing of the Superbowl then there should be refereeing of the duel between Hector and Achilles.  Granted some may be maimed and others perish, but it is the way the a true contest of champions should unfold.

*nods*

[Valthazar]

Someone should just turn this into the official Superbowl thread to turn a depressing thread positive.

[Gadifriald]

Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee
But the levee was dry.

Them good ol' boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing...
This'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die

[Neysha]

Someone should just turn this into the official Superbowl thread to turn a depressing thread positive.

No if you do that, then the discussion will immediately derail into some toxic discussion about concussions.

[IStateYourName]

"You're all worthless and weak!  Now drop and give me 20!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dy2fo6E_pI

[IStateYourName]

Those of you who have contributed toxicity to this thread...you know who you are.  And as of right now, you're all on...double secret probation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tfK_3XK4CI

[IStateYourName]

You can make a difference, even in these toxic times...but first, you've got to get mad!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE

[Shjade]

It can go a certain way, yes, but I can point to examples where people are arguing and say "That's what anger is" That doesn't help me in identifying anger outside of that situation.

Also, I fail to see how Meikle was 'wisecracking'. Since no one has actually explained what toxicity is, am I free to just say that inaccurate and dismissive assertions of other people is toxic as well?

This is why I asked what toxic means, to avoid things like that. But the OP is the only one who can really clarify that, so I'll just wait for them.

Well, since it appears this thread is otherwise permanently derailed, I guess I'll take a stab at this.

Sabby, toxicity, in the context of forum activity, is a term describing behavior that leads to damaging the health of the forum by way of hostility, exclusivity, and general dickishness. How does toxicity differ from trolling, since that could very well be a description of trolling also, you ask? Well, trolling more often tends to just piss people off, derail topics and generally make a nuisance of itself. Toxicity is more lethal. It's posting patterns that kill topics outright by making people afraid to respond, or even broach the subject at all if it's one that resembles an earlier thread that went down in horrible flames. It's a brand of offensiveness that leaves no room for counterplay other than an equal and opposite hostile reaction that ends with everyone having a bitter taste in their mouth and a nulled interest in returning to the forum.

In some ways it's a newer version of what used to be referred to as cancer on some sites, as in "X is the cancer that is killing Y." Cancer, in that context, can be any number of things, however, where toxicity is more strictly related to hostile/noninclusive behavior that kills the healthy growth of a site.

Does that help at all?

[Sabby]

Does that help at all?

Yes, thank you.

[Love And Submission]

Oh this really grates my nerves. It gets really annoying when people seem to think that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are the only religions in the world.  I mean there are hundreds if not thousands of religious paths out there but people seem to fixate on these three and act like they're the source of all evil when things such as money, nationalism, wounded pride, resources, and ethnic strife have caused  many more disputes. Never mind that their reading tends to be just as literal as the evangelists they claim to dislike. They do not bother to examine the philosophy. There are all manners of angles they do not consider.  I mean I  can think of people who even believe their religious views are improved or confirmed by science. I can think of plenty of times I'll be reading and I'll think to myself "Hey, that sounds like a mundane reflection of x principle in my religion." I do not mean to sound as if I am just ragging on anybody or venting at them, but its something that grates on my nerves.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me 100% but it would be nice just to see people not be jerks about it. I'm not exactly standing on the proverbial street corner shouting at people about damnation. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem here but elsewhere.

+1


I can't fully convert to atheism until someone manages to debunk Discordianism.  Say what you want about Jesus Christ but the minute you start question the existence of Jehovah 1  is the moment I walk out of the room.

J.R. "Bob" Dobbs would never lie to me.