Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You're very blunt and zealous about it.

Blunt. Everyone tells me I'm just so blunt.

Well, what's wrong with being blunt? If you have a message to deliver than you should just deliver it and stop beating around the bush. No reason to play games when there is a task to fulfill.

When I had my volunteer job my "boss" told me I was being too "to the point" with customers. I asked him what exactly he wanted me to do when they asked me a question if not answer it. He couldn't give me an answer, so he just kind of stumbled over his words, gave me my next task for the day, and walked off.

As for zealous, this is a discussion forum. The objective is to discuss, so there's no reason not to be completely forward with one's opinions. Things are somewhat different in meatspace.

... I really don't want to get into this with you, as I've clashed with you before on the subject and it's trying...

Alright.

[kaijyuu]

Hey, nothing wrong with being blunt. Just being courteous would be nice; I see no reason you need to act any differently discussing this than, say, discussing what TV shows you like best. Maybe a good reason to throw off respectfully speaking to someone is if morality came into play and you felt they were personally guilty of harming someone, I suppose.

And I see no reason to act differently here than in meatspace. Unless you're afraid of getting punched in meatspace or something.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hey, nothing wrong with being blunt. Just being courteous would be nice; I see no reason you need to act any differently discussing this than, say, discussing what TV shows you like best. Maybe a good reason to throw off respectfully speaking to someone is if morality came into play and you felt they were personally guilty of harming someone, I suppose.

I'm not discussing this any differently. You might perceive it as being, but that is because whether Firefly should have been revived as a series instead of a film is not as controversial as religion and faith.

And I see no reason to act differently here than in meatspace. Unless you're afraid of getting punched in meatspace or something.

The difference is that I'm not around constant topic discussion in meatspace. It is not so much that I act different as that debates don't come up as much.

[kaijyuu]

Ah, okay. All cleared up then~

[Descan]

i am so fucking sorry for starting this

[SalmonGod]

There are times when blunt is appropriate.  There are also times when it's unnecessary, and gives the impression that you are seeking conflict.  My wife has the same attitude regarding bluntness, and trouble grasping just how much easier her life would be if she learned to moderate it.  I've run so much social damage control for her.  She literally cannot keep friends without my help because of it, though I don't think she fully realizes or appreciates this.

I think maybe the thing that's difficult for some people to understand is that communication isn't just about efficiency.  It may seem to you like adding some buffer material to soften your bluntness is just inefficient, but it also demonstrates to your audience that you have some concern for how they'll receive the message.  This goes a long way, and makes them more willing to try and be open to that message, without taking it as personal insult.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are times when blunt is appropriate.  There are also times when it's unnecessary, and gives the impression that you are seeking conflict.  My wife has the same attitude regarding bluntness, and trouble grasping just how much easier her life would be if she learned to moderate it.  I've run so much social damage control for her.  She literally cannot keep friends without my help because of it, though I don't think she fully realizes or appreciates this.

So what you're telling me is....I'm your wife? Woah there, slow down a bit. I'm already very busy being me, past/future MZ, and Pathos, I don't know if I can take on four identities.

I think maybe the thing that's difficult for some people to understand is that communication isn't just about efficiency.  It may seem to you like adding some buffer material to soften your bluntness is just inefficient, but it also demonstrates to your audience that you have some concern for how they'll receive the message.  This goes a long way, and makes them more willing to try and be open to that message, without taking it as personal insult.

Then I say the audience should just deal with it. It's a harsh world out there and nobody is going to protect your opinions for you.

Anyway, it isn't like there was any buffer material to add. I was going through the mental process of what makes faith what it is as a demonstration.

The only thing I could think to put as a buffer there is some forewarning about how much I respect and admire people with great faith...but then I would be lying.

[SalmonGod]

Then I say the audience should just deal with it. It's a harsh world out there and nobody is going to protect your opinions for you.

Oh, but they do.  That's why your approach is impractical.  People deal with it by putting up defenses, making them unreceptive to your ideas.  If you take some care to express that you wish to share your perspective to reach better mutual understanding, instead of directly expressing your distaste for something another person identifies with, you'll find it actually easier to communicate with people.  It's completely understandable for people to assume that you're just tearing others down so you can pat yourself on the back for not being like them, based on the form of your presentation.

Anyway, it isn't like there was any buffer material to add. I was going through the mental process of what makes faith what it is as a demonstration.

Maybe some acknowledgement that you're jumping straight to the most negative possible connotations of the idea without any nod to the possibility of others?  Just because you don't approve of something doesn't mean you have to utterly demonize it.

[lordcooper]

Yeah, I'm sure there are some positive aspects to paedophilia that most of us are simply unaware of!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Maybe some acknowledgement that you're jumping straight to the most negative possible connotations of the idea without any nod to the possibility of others?  Just because you don't approve of something doesn't mean you have to utterly demonize it.

I didn't demonize it. I think I just presented it honestly, and presented honestly it is a concept that most people in the modern day and age disapprove of, even if they practice it. It is contrary to modernity to deny evidence in favor of a personal belief, and that is why everyone sees me as demonizing it.

I am curious though, so how about this: Here's the offending post. Edit it as to how you would have written this out, if you were me (since we differ on opinions of what faith is).

Virtue doesn't factor into it. Faith is, and has always been, an intentional ignorance of evidence as to fit a narrative. You need no more than simple observation to see that.

Why do people deny evolution despite all modern biology being reliant upon and evidence of it? Because it violates their religious narrative, so it needs to not be true.

Why do people believe that prayer can fix their actual, physical problems? The narrative says so. Therefore it is true no matter how many times it fails.

Why do people believe in gods they've never seen? The narrative says they're there. If their senses don't then their senses must be wrong.

[Blargityblarg]

I was blunt like this until I realised that curt and courteous were different words.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, I'm sure there are some positive aspects to paedophilia that most of us are simply unaware of!

You think pedophilia is wrong?  That means you want those who engage in pedophilia to stop doing so, right?  Or to prevent those with some predisposition towards that behavior from engaging in it, right?  Would I be wrong to point out that the only ways to object to another person's behavior are by persuasion or force?  Would I be wrong to point out that persuasion is the better method wherever possible?  So let's say you become engaged in a dialogue with a pedophile.  It's a genuine opportunity to influence their behavior.  Would you rather squander that opportunity by bluntly expressing your convictions?  I'm sure doing so would make you feel great, but self-aggrandizement isn't your goal is it?  If you really cared about preventing pedophilic acts and had an opportunity to cause a pedophile to re-evaluate their behavior, wouldn't it be worth it for you to exercise some restraint in your dialogue?

[lordcooper]

If you witnessed such a thing occurring, would you be more inclined to politely request they cease or boot them in the head?

[SalmonGod]

If you witnessed such a thing occurring, would you be more inclined to politely request they cease or boot them in the head?

Irrelevent.  You're dodging via interjection of mental images meant to invoke moral outrage, further implying that acting to the fullest extent of one's moral outrage is always the best course of action.

I also don't like the implications of this tangent.  It's as if you're saying that the way you'd wish to address a pedophile is the proper way to approach any disagreement.  I don't see the value in this.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm with Devling on this one.
Sometimes this forum just devolves into a gaggle of scientific types pointing and laughing at the parts of the internet filled with "morons" who believe in some form of god.
It is tiresome. I'm not particularly religious, but still. All the religion-bashing gets really old after a while, y'know? 

As for a WTF, I am just ridiculously lethargic and drowsy today. I'm kinda confused as to why.

In the paraprahsed words of A.C. Grayling: Religion never gave Atheists the chance to be annoyed, they just burned them at the stake!