41 replies to this topic

[Sip]

This thread is meant as a discussion regarding the issues of respect, tolerance of ideas, and how our forum as a whole operates.

To begin the discussion, first we must agree on a set of ground rules:

1. Not every idea is equally valid. This applies even to religion.
2. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is not a valid argument for anything.
3. Respect must be earned. It is not a right.
4. Personal insults accomplish nothing.

Now to expand on this:

1.

I highly doubt anyone around here will argue about the first part. That is, not everything is valid. We all know there is a lot of garbage that is sometimes attempted to be pumped into this forum. Noteworthy examples are those of genocide denial, the never ending jew-bashing as the "end goal", and many other more subtle issues.

The major concerns that have arisen recently deals with "religion". Religion is no exception. Much like ANY other topic, garbage is garbage. Here, one must make a distinction between personal beliefs and spirituality, vs. religious dogma and cultist attitudes. I personally will not tolerate all ideas, just because they are disguised as religion: especially if the froum is used as a preaching grounds for these ideas.

2.

I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, some opinions will be valid, others will be invalid. The notion of supressing expression against invalid ideas is the worst that can be expected of any forum. It will not only create an atmosphere condusive to "garbage collection", it will also create an artificial sense of approval for those ideas. So I am personally highly against this kind of tolerance. More so, I am fundamentally against tolerance of any idea, which inherently is intolerant of other valid view points!

Case in point: Christians that show up to denounce everyone else. If you are a religious fanatic that thinks no other view point but your own is valid when this subject is concerned, then you are not welcome here as far as I am concerned. However, if you would like to maintain your position while acknowledging that others who don't necessarily share your views might be right, then by all means, feel free to stick around and participate.

3.

Regarding respect: Respect is not a right. Anyone who posts any idea, must be willing to defend it to earn respect. Simply resorting to childish name calling, referring to other base-less sources, and claiming that the knowledge is arrived through some magical personal visions DO NOT earn automatic respect. So don't be surprised if you don't get far with these tactics.

Case in point: If someone shows up claiming the Armenian genocide did not happen and he was told so through a vision upon meditating hours and hours, then that person must be willing to accept the redicule and dismissal that will follow. Just like he is entitled to have the opinion that he holds, everyone else is entitled to hold their own opinion of the subject ...

4.

And last but not least, personal insults accomplish nothing. I am not saying I am not guilty of this because I am. HOWEVER, anyone who makes any grand claims, MUST be able to stand the heat that will follow. This whole notion of bitching and crying and demanding that everyone be nice and respectful only goes both ways. If you are reasonable and tolerant in your views, then expect the same from others.

Case in point: If you show up saying you have a certain religion and all those who don't follow it are essentially idiots or haven't seen the light that you have, then be VERY ready to get fired back on.

Ok I'm off the box, and the floor is open!

Edited by Sip, 22 March 2006 - 02:15 PM.

[Yervant1]

By the time I read the fourth rule I forgot the first one.

[Harut]

... Simply resorting to childish name calling, referring to other base-less sources...

... now let's open up another thread and discuss the validity of the bible...

[Sip]

By the time I read the fourth rule I forgot the first one.

That's why we always end up going in loops in these multi-page threads that evolve.

[Sasun]

Sip, I don't agree with the rules. This sounds dark ages when the church rules had to be maintained in order not to be burned on fire. Your definition of tolerance does not make sense, because I am having hard time to understand what intolerance would mean. Please define intolerance to me.

[kakachik77]

Sip, perhaps it would be helpful to reiterate or make a rule that this Armenian forum is a "secular" one where religion can be discussed but not preached and any prosletyzing or preaching attempts should result
in automatic removal of that member from the forum. People need to be punished to LEARN (isn't this mentioned somewhere in the bible

[Sasun]

Sip, perhaps it would be helpful to reiterate or make a rule that this Armenian forum is a "secular" one where religion can be discussed but not preached and any prosletyzing or preaching attempts should result
in automatic removal of that member from the forum. People need to be punished to LEARN (isn't this mentioned somewhere in the bible

How do you define preaching?

[Sip]

Your definition of tolerance does not make sense, because I am having hard time to understand what intolerance would mean. Please define intolerance to me.

My definition of tolerance is pretty much in-line with the dictionary definition:

Tolerance: acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, for example, in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views

However, tolerance of intolerant views is not covered in this definition. That's where I draw the line. You have continuously made an argument that that is intolerant. But we have to draw the line somewhere. Obviously we have refused to tolerate genocide denial. We also have not been tolerant of those that continuously post hateful and disrespectful material. I don't make any distinction with religion. Same rules apply. If you are tolerant of others, you will be tolerated ... simple as that.

[Sip]

Sip, perhaps it would be helpful to reiterate or make a rule that this Armenian forum is a "secular" one where religion can be discussed but not preached and any prosletyzing or preaching attempts should result
in automatic removal of that member from the forum. People need to be punished to LEARN (isn't this mentioned somewhere in the bible

That is a dangerous wording because it will sound like the forum is singling out religion and is "anti religion". Actually, the spirit of the discussion here is that why should religion be any exception to common sense and intelligent discussions? Why is it expected that all religious views be tolerated, even if they make grand, unsubstantiable claims and rely mainly on hearsay to push their stance?

The topic of religion, just like any other topic (be in Genocide, jews, science, culture, politics, business, economics, philosophy, language, history, roots, etc) should be subject to the same rules of conduct.

But on the substance of the matter, I definitely do agree with you Kakachik.

Edited by Sip, 22 March 2006 - 04:17 PM.

[Sasun]

Tolerance: acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, for example, in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views

Your point 1 flatly contradicts this definition, and you are obviously not tolerating the idea that some people may go to hell, and probably many other religious view. I hope you understand how dangerous your rules are.

I have a different set of rules from the US constitution, which is actually the lack of rules:
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No wonder there are no religious persecutions in the US, thank God for that at least.

[Sip]

Sasun you just don't get it. How many times do I have to repeat this?

You are absolutely free to do whatever the hell you want. You can have any religion you want. You can even go jump off a building as far as I am concerned. No one is enacting any laws here or preventing anyone from posting about any religion. So stop the whining.

Just don't expect me to jump around and cheer you or anyone else on with their religion. If my redicule bothers you, then ask yourself why that might be, not me.

This is not about freedom of religion or enacting laws against it. This is about basic civil behavior. Freedom of expression stops at crap. We should NOT tolerate spam, crap, and the like here. That is what I am saying. And much like any other topic, there are religious views that are crap. Pure and simple. Not all of them, but definitely some.

You would have a case if I had banned anyone for religious views or deleted any posts. I have not. So spare me this first ammendment bull.

Edited by Sip, 22 March 2006 - 04:36 PM.

[Sasun]

Sasun you just don't get it. How many times do I have to repeat this?

You are absolutely free to do whatever the hell you want. Just don't expect me to jump around and cheer you on. If my redicule bothers you, then ask yourself why that might be. Not me.

Sip, I think you don't get it. Your rules are self-centered because it is alway you who will be deciding the validity of ideas. How about I ridicule you and make up my own rules justifying why I do that? You are trying to reinvent a bycicle. I tell you what, that bycicle existed in middle ages when peoples thoughts were controlled. Ridiculing is also a form of punishment. Get it?

[Sasun]

Respect must be earned? In what currency and by what standards?

[Sasun]

Here is my rule: Ridiculing is not a civil behavior, it hurts people. It is a form of intolerance.

Edited by Sasun, 22 March 2006 - 04:43 PM.

[Sip]

Sip, I think you don't get it. Your rules are self-centered because it is alway you who will be deciding the validity of ideas. How about I ridicule you and make up my own rules justifying why I do that? You are trying to reinvent a bycicle. I tell you what, that bycicle existed in middle ages when peoples thoughts were controlled. Ridiculing is also a form of punishment. Get it?

Feel free to do it. I have never complained of redicule. That is entirely the point. You are free to think anything you want of me. And of course I will always get to decide how I feel about a certain subject. What kind of point is that?

I think you are confusing moderating duties with the discussions we have had here. As I said before, you would only have a case if I had abused my moderating powers to supress anyone's ideas (if they were expressed within the code of conduct of the forum).

But as things stand, you have no case.

[Sip]

And as far as "freedom of religion" and laws enacted by congress, go and start a religion in which you screw chickens for breakfast and run red lights on the way to church. You'll see how quickly "freedom of religion" will take a back seat to common sense and laws of society.


Yah and I know I could have phrased it better. But what's the fun in that?

Edited by Sip, 22 March 2006 - 05:36 PM.

[Fadix2]

And as far as "freedom of religion" and laws enacted by congress, go and start a religion in which you screw chickens for breakfast and run red lights on the way to church. You'll see how quickly "freedom of religion" will take a back seat to common sense and laws of society.
Yah and I know I could have phrased it better. But what's the fun in that?

I slighly disagree there, a religion survive from adaptation, if it can't it will vanish. Take a religion and incorporate it in a society in which the values proposed by that religion are clearly and totally contradictory with that society value, that religion will not survive. Some time elements survive and that religions adaptation will save it. So, the religions that have survived have survived for some reasons proper to the away it has become part of societies, you can not compare this with someone that just creat a religion, because it has not been tested still on the ground, you will only know if it is comparable after a period of time, to see what it has become if it has survived etc.

Damn, natural selection can be incorporated in everything.

About common sense and laws of society, common sense is acquired from experience, it is a conformism just like the laws of a society. Something end up on the floor everytime you throw it and not mater on what angle you throw it, and when you then decide to throw another thing common sense tell you it will end up on the floor, this common sense is simply a conformity, from childhood till now you have acquired this experience from observation and from that you expect things to be that way.

[Sasun]

Feel free to do it. I have never complained of redicule. That is entirely the point. You are free to think anything you want of me. And of course I will always get to decide how I feel about a certain subject. What kind of point is that?

I think you are confusing moderating duties with the discussions we have had here. As I said before, you would only have a case if I had abused my moderating powers to supress anyone's ideas (if they were expressed within the code of conduct of the forum).

But as things stand, you have no case.

Sip, I brought the example from the US Constition to show that look, we are living in this country and enjoying the freedoms. Part of that is because there are no rules on people's ideas and views, it would be absurd if validation of ideas came into picture. People would start being labeled idiots, morons, etc... even if you don't put them in jain for that it is still a punishment. Of course, I understand that you are not advocating new forum rules, and I am by no means saying that you as a moderator have done anything to that effect. Simply, the constitution usually reflects the basic moral values of the society. In a rerpessive society a constitution would have wording where tolerance was dependant on conditions. As soon as you put conditions there you go, those conditions can be interprated in various ways and bloodshed would be ready.

You are saying that you never complained of being ridiculed. I don't remember you being ridiculed, but let's assume you will not complain. But ask anyone if they mind being ridiculed. 99% of people do not enjoy ridicule.

Basically, the point between tolerance and freedom of thought/speech is that you can have any ideas about anyone, but you have to be discreete in expressing them. This is an uwritten rule about politeness and decency. If you have such rules written and enforced there will be repressions and it will be very ugly. Yet, existence of moral codes like this is essential for a civilized society. Everyone has the right to be impolite but it is not recommended, tolerant society is also a polite society. There are so many nice or neutral ways to express your thougths and disagreements. There are zillions of words to choose. Why choose a way that hurts individuals and creates disharmony? We have to try to coexist in peace and harmony (another unwritten moral code).

[Fadix2]

Giving values to ideas is human Sip. But I generally agree with what you wrote.

This thread is meant as a discussion regarding the issues of respect, tolerance of ideas, and how our forum as a whole operates.

To begin the discussion, first we must agree on a set of ground rules:

1. Not every idea is equally valid. This applies even to religion.
2. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is not a valid argument for anything.
3. Respect must be earned. It is not a right.
4. Personal insults accomplish nothing.

Now to expand on this:

1.

I highly doubt anyone around here will argue about the first part. That is, not everything is valid. We all know there is a lot of garbage that is sometimes attempted to be pumped into this forum. Noteworthy examples are those of genocide denial, the never ending jew-bashing as the "end goal", and many other more subtle issues.

The major concerns that have arisen recently deals with "religion". Religion is no exception. Much like ANY other topic, garbage is garbage. Here, one must make a distinction between personal beliefs and spirituality, vs. religious dogma and cultist attitudes. I personally will not tolerate all ideas, just because they are disguised as religion: especially if the froum is used as a preaching grounds for these ideas.

2.

I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, some opinions will be valid, others will be invalid. The notion of supressing expression against invalid ideas is the worst that can be expected of any forum. It will not only create an atmosphere condusive to "garbage collection", it will also create an artificial sense of approval for those ideas. So I am personally highly against this kind of tolerance. More so, I am fundamentally against tolerance of any idea, which inherently is intolerant of other valid view points!

Case in point: Christians that show up to denounce everyone else. If you are a religious fanatic that thinks no other view point but your own is valid when this subject is concerned, then you are not welcome here as far as I am concerned. However, if you would like to maintain your position while acknowledging that others who don't necessarily share your views might be right, then by all means, feel free to stick around and participate.

3.

Regarding respect: Respect is not a right. Anyone who posts any idea, must be willing to defend it to earn respect. Simply resorting to childish name calling, referring to other base-less sources, and claiming that the knowledge is arrived through some magical personal visions DO NOT earn automatic respect. So don't be surprised if you don't get far with these tactics.

Case in point: If someone shows up claiming the Armenian genocide did not happen and he was told so through a vision upon meditating hours and hours, then that person must be willing to accept the redicule and dismissal that will follow. Just like he is entitled to have the opinion that he holds, everyone else is entitled to hold their own opinion of the subject ...

4.

And last but not least, personal insults accomplish nothing. I am not saying I am not guilty of this because I am. HOWEVER, anyone who makes any grand claims, MUST be able to stand the heat that will follow. This whole notion of bitching and crying and demanding that everyone be nice and respectful only goes both ways. If you are reasonable and tolerant in your views, then expect the same from others.

Case in point: If you show up saying you have a certain religion and all those who don't follow it are essentially idiots or haven't seen the light that you have, then be VERY ready to get fired back on.

Ok I'm off the box, and the floor is open!

[Sasun]

And as far as "freedom of religion" and laws enacted by congress, go and start a religion in which you screw chickens for breakfast and run red lights on the way to church. You'll see how quickly "freedom of religion" will take a back seat to common sense and laws of society.

That does not seem like a realistic scenario though. Assuming it is, if you break any laws (let's say animal rights, disturbing neighborhood, etc.) there are laws against that. Still there is no need to regulate religious freedoms.