Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 32 of 1540 (820413)
09-20-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-19-2017 3:16 AM


Sounds like extra baggage
Faith's linked article writes:
Religion’s finest moments in history have starred zealots who refused to bow to common sense...
This idea of zealots who refuse to bow to common sense also describes religion's worst moments in history.
Crusades.
Most wars.
If only we could understand that no one needs a Bible or Laws or Commandments in order to be a good person.
All you have to do is ask the person you're affecting if they like it or not.
If they're screaming in defiance while you segregate them away from the rest of society; this is probably a good indication that they don't like what you're doing to them. And you should stop.
Stand up for the belief that we all have the equal right to pursue our own ideas as we see fit.
All the good religious examples from the article are exactly this ^^

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 3:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 269 of 1540 (821707)
10-11-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
10-06-2017 11:53 AM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
Faith writes:
Once you know the Bible is God's word and MUST be God's word because otherwise we really are at the mercy of our fallen minds and the "helpfulness" of demons who love to trip us up, once you know that how can you question it? All you can do is rely on it, take it as your authority and teacher. That's what it's for. Without it all kinds of religions are invented that have some partial truths but a lot of demonic "help" as well. The Bible is God's gift to us to teach us the truth about Himself and the Moral Law and the nature of sin and God's Judgments and Christ and salvation, and to keep us from the errors of our fallen minds. You DO mislead new believers by questioning it. There is no other source of reliable information about God.
Do you think there's a difference between the following:
1. Questioning the Bible - The Bible says something, and you don't like it, so you ask questions in order to see if there are any loopholes you might be able to jump through.
(I agree with you that such an idea would be misleading to new believers)
2. Questioning the Bible - The Bible says something, but you don't know what it is, so you ask questions in order to seek clarification on what, specifically, the Bible is actually saying.
(I do not agree with you that such an idea is misleading to new believers, I think this sort of questioning shows an honesty and dedication to the purity of the Bible that should be respected and encouraged)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 10-06-2017 11:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 10-11-2017 11:31 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 270 of 1540 (821709)
10-11-2017 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Phat
10-10-2017 11:15 AM


Re: One More Thing For The Record
Phat writes:
I'm starting to agree with the idea that there is no black and white dichotomy in human morality. I used to firmly believe in the all or nothing pronouncement of saved or lost but am now more comfortable with the honest realization that I could be both!
Perhaps. Or maybe not
Now, *IF* there is a final judgment and God (or someone) is deciding whether or not each individual is Saved or Lost... then, well, you will definitely be Saved or Lost... just like everyone else. Unless God has an "undecided" pile?
Of course, this is besides the point.
The point is that such a judgment (even if an "all powerful, all knowing God" decides to attempt such a thing) is entirely laughable.
It says nothing about the character of any individual person. It really only speaks of the character of the one making the judgment.
Each individual person will have a history of situations and experiences.
Some of those scenarios will be closer to a Lost judgment while others will be closer to a Saved judgment.
Many will not give an indication either way.
Now, even if there is some final judgment about whether you end up on the Lost or Saved side... it won't erase those situations and experiences that make you "you" from the opposite side of things. They will still exist. "You" will still exist. And with this new information, "you" can still decide to do whatever you can to go in whatever direction you'd like.
Therefore... any "final judgment" (even from an all-powerful, all-knowing God) is entirely useless for judging someone's character (if that is supposed to be the point.)
All it ends up doing is show us what the Judge's character was in trying to divide people at the time of their judging.
Phat writes:
I used to defend this accusation by stating that one has to either stand for something or they will fall for anything! but I am now realizing that I actually stand for many things and fall for many things every day and that it is overall a learning process.
Not only that, but sometimes we stand for things we fell for before... or fall for things we stood for before.
We're all human... with varying degrees of memory, motivation, stead-fastness, resolve and ideas about what's actually "moral" and when.
If you want to help - try to be better.
Honestly. And you're the only one who will ever know if you're really being honest about your abilities or not.
If you don't want to help - then screw you too
I simply could never even imagine being an atheist! The implications are chilling to me personally.
We just try "to be better" in ways that are different from your personal situations and experiences.
That's basically all it really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Phat, posted 10-10-2017 11:15 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2017 11:29 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 273 of 1540 (821713)
10-11-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Faith
10-11-2017 11:31 AM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
Faith writes:
I understand the term "questioning" to be used in the sense of doubting that the Bible is telling the truth. Not understanding it or having problems with some of its concepts are perfectly normal attitudes everybody goes through.
Do you think it's possible that you think someone is "doubting" the Bible when they're actually just trying to understand it?
Because... that's what it looks like you're doing.
Pretty much all the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 10-11-2017 11:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 10-11-2017 12:24 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 274 of 1540 (821715)
10-11-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Tangle
10-11-2017 11:29 AM


Re: One More Thing For The Record
Tangle writes:
They must have such a lot of fun making this shit up.
Heh... no kidding.
Actually, in all fairness, I believe it's nerve-wracking for them.
So nerve-wracking that they generally end up labeling pretty much anything as "a sign" that things should be the way they describe so that the responsibility isn't on them.
For two reasons:
1 - They don't want such responsibility.
2 - The responsibility is supposed to be God's. Not theirs. Therefore, it has to not be theirs. They are only a "conduit."
And then there's the politics of it all... sometimes they describe things in such a way that goes against their own best interests (followers included)... because if everything always went their way, it would obviously not be "inspiration from God."
And then the whole thing ends up exactly as we see it... a writhing mess of patchwork, too convoluted for anyone to actually adhere to and so contradictory that any questioning/examining would clearly show it's certainly not the work of any "higher intelligence."
But, it must all be accepted and supported by the "officials" because without it... the good parts of faith simply disappear. Ironically, the good parts of faith wouldn't disappear... they only think such would be the case. And they end up straining... screaming... to uphold an un-uphold-able position because if they don't... "all is lost" as it would show that what they say is required, really isn't.
Like the poor, panicking toddler that drowns in 1 foot of water simply because they didn't believe they could reach the bottom and stand up where they were.
Such a waste of time and energy for something that, really, is incredibly simple and accessible at it's core because it's just a part of being human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2017 11:29 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 276 of 1540 (821717)
10-11-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
10-11-2017 12:24 PM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
Faith writes:
Sure it's possible.
I apologize.
It seems I have misunderstood you. I'll try to read your comments in another light now.
Thanks for being honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 10-11-2017 12:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1089 of 1540 (824932)
12-05-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1088 by 1.61803
12-05-2017 11:25 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
1.61803 writes:
So if other universes exist with completely different timelines and they begin to interact with our universe then yes I would call those things supernatural insomuch that I could very hardly call those things natural occurrences.
I agree with your phrasing here.
But what about permanency?
Wouldn't something that's really "supernatural" be supernatural all the time?
With your above provided example... let's say such a thing is identified today.
I agree that calling it "supernatural" seems... rather normal.
But what if our knowledge of it grows and familiarity grows over the next 1000 years?
What if kids are brought up simply understanding that "yeah, those gates over there take you to the other-world."
And it becomes an ingrained part of normal society that things happen-like-this here, but happen-like-that over there?
Would it then become natural? Just a different kind of natural we didn't know about before?
Are all things supernatural doomed to become "natural occurrences" as familiarity grows?
Is anything actually supernatural in the sense that it will (and should) always be referred to as supernatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1088 by 1.61803, posted 12-05-2017 11:25 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1250 by 1.61803, posted 12-12-2017 5:53 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 1501 of 1540 (826751)
01-09-2018 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1492 by Faith
12-29-2017 10:04 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
Faith writes:
I'll just say it again: there is no hate for anybody in anything I've said.
The problem is, you don't get to declare such a thing.
This is the pride of the sinner - "knowing" that they're not sinning.
The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.
Therefore, it's impossible for you to declare that you're not hating.
You may not be aware of any hatred that might be occurring... but you don't get to say there's no hatred in your own statement.
Even if you get 20, 000 people to agree that there's no hatred in it... what if the next 10 people all feel the hatred from the statement?
Let me give you an example so you can understand:
"I love my kids!" - a wonderful, loving statement, yes?
Well, what if you said this to a stranger. And that stranger happens to be unable to have children, and really, really, really wants children... but can't. By saying this to such a stranger you would only be reminding them of sorrow and sadness.
Then this statement becomes a selfish profession that only serves to hurt this stranger.
Then this statement begins to contain "hate."
It's all about how things are actually received. Not how the one declaring it wants it to be.
It then only matters if you care about how it's received.
Well, Faith, do you care about how others receive your statements?
Do you care if you're spreading hate in ways you may not understand?
This isn't about being liberal and trying to shut things down.
This is about being honest.
Continue to say what you want to say.
Just don't say "It contains no hate!" because that's false, you don't get to declare such a thing. A 3 year-old understands you can't possibly know such a thing.
Say the truth: "I don't care if this hurts anyone or not, I want to say it anyway because I think it's true!"
Or: "I don't think this hurts anybody, so I'll keep saying it!"
Stand up and believe in the things you declare.
Say them with honesty and integrity.
There's no reason to hide behind ambiguity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1492 by Faith, posted 12-29-2017 10:04 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2018 9:07 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1526 of 1540 (827059)
01-16-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1502 by New Cat's Eye
01-14-2018 9:07 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
New Cat's Eye writes:
Stile writes:
The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.
Wait, wuuuuuut?
Hate is an emotion held by a person. Only you, yourself, know what emotions you're feeling.
Nobody but you can know if you really have hate or not.
Exactly.
Only you, yourself, know what emotions you're feeling.
I was attempting to point out the absurdity in prefacing statements with a disclaimer such as: "There is no hate in what I'm saying..."
The only thing we can claim is that we are not intending to cause hate with what we're saying.
We cannot claim if there actually is or is not any hate in a statement... because that depends on how the statement is received.
The statement is received by other people. Each of those other people are under the same declaration you've made - that only they, themselves, know what emotions they're feeling.
Therefore, the person making a statement doesn't get to declare if there is "no hate" in what they're saying.
The best they can declare is that there is "no intention of hate" in what they're saying.
But if someone takes offense... then that offense is fair to have.
And then we all get to judge whether or not we care if that offense is worthy of changing the statement/action.
Hatred doesn't reside in statements, it resides in the heart. It's an emotion and it comes from your ego.
I agree.
When I say "the statement contains hate" I'm talking about the emotion that resides in the hearts of those who hear/receive the statement. (What else is a statement for other than to be received by others in some way?)
My point was that no one gets to declare something like "I'm not hating on anyone when I say: ....".
And then act as if they get a free pass regardless of whether or not anyone takes offence.
My point was that it's perfectly valid for anyone to take any offence on any statement (regardless of it being prefaced by "I'm not hating on anyone when I say: ..."
It's just a matter of caring about the reactions.
Most people who start sentences like that actually mean something along the lines of "I don't care if I hurt anyone, I believe this so I'm going to say it to your face!"
They're just too much of a coward to actually say that. They think people will respect them more if they feign some sort of attempt at not wanting to hurt other people... and then proceed to make statements that hurt other people...
Now, such things can actually be badass if it's about a statement such as "all people should be treated equally."
But it can also be pretty horrible if it's about a statement such as "gay people are all sinners."
My point is that we all get to have a valid reaction.
And then we all get to decide if we care about anyone's reaction enough to change the statement.
And on top of that, we all get to decide if we thing those who change the statement (or not) are dicks (or not).
And no one gets to say "You're not allowed to feel offended... I said my statement didn't include any hate!" Because that's just a silly thing to say if you understand how people and feelings work.
Hmm, why the scare-quotes? What are you talking about, really?
Sometimes I quote things because I think I'm using the word in the way the original person intended it... but I'm not sure (because I'm not them) so it's my indication that I'm sort of guessing/assuming on what they meant originally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2018 9:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1527 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 1:01 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1529 of 1540 (827175)
01-19-2018 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1523 by Percy
01-15-2018 7:30 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.
But Stile was as wrong as you. The law does have a say in whether a statement is hateful.
I don't think that the law saying whether or not a statement is hateful invalidates what I was saying.
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was saying.
I was talking in the context of actual reality.
Not the context of "good enough to legally prosecute someone over."
Many innocent people have been jailed, even executed according to the law.
The law cannot define the truth or actual reality. The law can be wrong on a great many things.
Even if the law found that a statement contains no hate... I certainly would consider the statement as containing hate if someone actually was deeply, truly offended by it. The only people who wouldn't acknowledge the offense and hateful-statement-towards-that-person would be those who don't care about that person... you could say that they "have hate" for that person.
The only person who can really identify if they are deeply, truly offended by something is that person.
People can lie, yes, and we all get to judge if we think someone is lying or not.
The law can attempt to prescribe such things, yes, but it's only that - an attempt - there is no guarantee of being correct.
And if the person is telling the truth, and the law disagrees? - then the law is wrong. The person may well still be prosecuted under the law - being right/wrong about reality has never stopped the law from prosecuting people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1523 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 7:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1531 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2018 1:54 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1532 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 2:33 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1530 of 1540 (827176)
01-19-2018 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1527 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
New Cat's Eye writes:
I'll see you on Battle.net (if I do).
Sounds good.
My BNet tag changed a while ago. Not sure which one you have.
I forgot I had one, made a different one to play some World of Warcraft, then remembered the old one and had them merged into a single account.
My only BNet tag now is: ColdRaven#11666
The Stile one got destroyed in the merger.
But haven't been on in a long time.
Purchased the Necromancer expansion for D3, but haven't played it yet
Just been piddling here and there in FF14 with the Wifey lately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1527 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1533 of 1540 (827188)
01-19-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1531 by NoNukes
01-19-2018 1:54 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
NoNukes writes:
Stile writes:
The only person who can really identify if they are deeply, truly offended by something is that person.
Of course, this is true. But if this is the basis of your argument regarding hate, then your argument is nonsense.
This is not the basis of my argument regarding hate.
Regarding "hate" in general, I've never attempted to make an argument.
This was my point: I was attempting to point out the absurdity in prefacing statements with a disclaimer such as: "There is no hate in what I'm saying..."
In the context of that point, the idea of hate-intention from the sender of the statement is irrelevant (although I agree it certainly could exist).
In the context of that point, the idea of hate-reception from others discovering the statement is the only thing relevant.
And the only people who know if others are feeling hate from the statement... are those others themselves.
Hate is the intent of the person delivering that 'something'.
I suppose that depends on your definition of what hate is.
I do not agree.
To me, hate is a feeling a person has.
That feeling can be for or about something specific, or not.
It can be in reference to something that happened to a person, or not.
I only agree that you are describing one specific way hate can exist (intention to harm others).
There are many other ways.
I was talking about one of the other ways.
Similarly, we might acknowledge that someone taking offense at a completely innocuous statement does not translate that statement into hatred either.
If we're going to get into specifics about statements containing hatred... then I agree with New Cat's Eye.
Statements (in and of themselves) cannot contain hatred. They're just words. Kinda like inanimate objects.
But, again, this depends on your definition of 'hate.'
The following uses a definition of hate regarding it as a feeling that only people/living beings can have.
People can feel hatred from reading statements (what I was talking about). But the statement in and of itself cannot "contain hate."
Therefore, someone taking offense at a completely innocuous statement certainly does translate that statement into hatred... for that person.
We can all judge whether or not we care that such a person is feeling hatred from a statement no one else feels any hatred after reading.
But regardless of what we judge... it doesn't discount the feelings that the one person is actually feeling.
Like the statement "all people should be treated equally."
Some will feel hatred reading that statement.
I don't care about such people and think they should be ignored.
This doesn't change the fact that some people certainly do feel hatred from that statement.
The statement, in and of itself, contains no hatred though, it's just a bunch of words.
Another statement: Every gay person should die.
I personally feel a lot of hatred from this statement.
I think this statement should be changed, and no actions should occur due to this statement.
The statement, in and of itself, contains no hatred though, it's just a bunch of words.
People exist who would read that statement and feel no hatred.
I think such people should be reviled and restricted.
So, what do you think?
Can a statement itself actually "contain hate?" Or is hate a feeling that only people can have?
If a statement can actually, independently, "contain hate," how do you know if it contains hate or not?
How many people have to feel hatred from a statement before everyone can tell that it "contains hate?"
10? a million? everyone?
How many people have to not feel hatred from a statement before everyone can tell that it is "innocuous?"
10? a million? everyone?
What if a million people you know feel hatred from a statement, but 10 million you don't know think it's "innocuous?"
What if everyone agrees a statement is innocuous 50 years ago, but they agree that it's full of hate today? Was the statement always full of hate and they didn't know it? Or are today's people wrong? Or can it change?
Instead of working out forced answers to such questions and getting everyone to agree with it.. I find it's easier just to accept that 'hate' is only a feeling that intelligent-enough beings have. And things like statements - just a bunch of words - cannot contain hate, only provoke such feelings in people or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1531 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2018 1:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1538 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2018 7:15 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1534 of 1540 (827190)
01-19-2018 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1532 by Percy
01-19-2018 2:33 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Percy writes:
I don't think so. In Message 1501 you said:
Stile writes:
The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
I say this is wrong because you say "only". It isn't only such people who get to decide. Use of the word "only" is also why New Cat's Eye was wrong, because it isn't only the people hate is directed at who get to decide.
You are technically right, and contextually wrong.
My statement about "only" was fully in context of the point I was trying to make: I was attempting to point out the absurdity in prefacing statements with a disclaimer such as: "There is no hate in what I'm saying..."
Such a statement includes the person making the statement as well as others receiving the statement.
The intentions of the person making the statement (regardless of being done with hate or not) are irrelevant.
The only relevant feelings of hate are those receiving (or discovering) the statement.
One can say a statement contains hate... and it doesn't (because no one who observes the statement cares).
One can say a statement does not contain hate... and it does (because someone who observed the statement felt hatred from it).
We can care about the receivers, and the senders, in different ways depending on our own judgments
But, in this context, the only feelings-of-hate that actually matter are those who observe/receive the statement.
However, in the broader scope of "all hate, in anyway, in any context" you're right... my statement is incorrect.
Regarding your side of the question, someone who burns a cross on a lawn isn't necessarily feeling any hate. That's just the way they were raised, that you have to keep niggers in their place otherwise they get uppity and begin to feel they're as good as whites, and we all know that isn't good because it would upset the established order handed us by God himself, which would be bad for both blacks and whites. So the cross is burned with the most noble of intentions.
The reality is that it's still a hate crime.
Yeah, I would agree it's a hate crime.
I would also agree that it being "a hate crime" is not an indication that it contains hate.
Your included fact:
That's just the way they were raised, that you have to keep niggers in their place otherwise they get uppity and begin to feel they're as good as whites, and we all know that isn't good because it would upset the established order handed us by God himself, which would be bad for both blacks and whites.
..is what makes it hateful... they are purposefully trying to incite hate.
But burning a cross on your lawn?
I doesn't have to be hateful, and doesn't have to incite hate. Regardless of it being a hate crime because that's how the law is defined.
What if I thought my kid was possessed, and I thought the demon got into his cross?
I run it outside, burn the cross on my lawn.
No one sees me, no one ever finds evidence that it occurred, and no one ever knows it happened.
No one feels any hate from it.
Did I burn a cross on my lawn? Yes.
Was it done hatefully? No.
Did it incite hate? No.
If the law new about it would it be a hate-crime? Maybe.
Would whatever-the-law-finds, itself, make it hate-inciting or done-hatefully? No.
As to whether hate is in the eye of the one who expresses it or the one who it is directed at, both are possible.
Absolutely.
There are many kinds of hate.
But for my "only" statement, I wasn't talking about all the kinds of hate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1532 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 2:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1535 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 3:59 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1537 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2018 6:01 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1539 of 1540 (827357)
01-23-2018 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1535 by Percy
01-19-2018 3:59 PM


Re: What defines something as hate?
Percy writes:
Maybe we can agree that the answer is complicated since hate sent can be unreceived, and hate can be received without ever being sent, and all kinds of other possibilities.
Absolutely.
I would certainly agree that any single "general statement" about hate (even one of my own) is most likely not as all-encompassing as the originator might intend.
(the point underscored by what happened to Aziz Ansari, see I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life).
I (like to) believe that Aziz is handling this well.
But, without any facts or knowing either candidate personally, it's difficult to go on much more than what's found in the news. Which is, generally speaking for such things, woefully lacking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1535 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 3:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1540 of 1540 (827358)
01-23-2018 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1537 by Rrhain
01-19-2018 6:01 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Rrhain writes:
There was an understanding that the scenario was not you trying to destroy your own property by immolation but rather going to someone else's property without their consent in order to erect a cross and set it on fire specifically so that they can see it.
Yes.
My point was to show that "hate" does not objectively exist within inanimate objects... or words in statements... or actions on inanimate items.
Although it cannot (and should not) be meant to lessen the amount of hate a person can feel when observing such things.
The point is that the hate is in the people involved in such things.
But when something walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. To claim that if we pluck it, cut its feet off, remove the bill, and genetically re-engineer it with pig DNA it isn't a duck would technically be true, but isn't what was originally seen.
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.
But from what I can get from it... I don't think I disagree with you at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1537 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2018 6:01 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024