?

Log in

No account? Create an account

t3knomanser's Fustian Deposits

For Future Reference

How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy

run the fuck away

Mad science gone horribly, horribly wrong(or right).

For Future Reference

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
johnny cash
There are certain reasons that I might apologize for something.
  • Through carelessness or purposeful malice, I have caused harm(physical/emotional/etc) to others.
  • Making arguments based on factual errors: "Oh! I'm sorry, I stand corrected."


Off the top of my head, that covers it. In both cases, we're talking about apologizing for actions that I regret.

What I do not apologize for is speaking my mind- even if it offends people. I don't ever regret being open about my arguments. My thoughts are mine, and if you have a valid argument against them, I would be most interested in hearing it. I do not expect, or require that people agree with me. But if you're going to discuss your point-of-view with me- be prepared to defend it (if I find it disagreeable). Especially if the conversation starts with you entering into a debate. When I join the debate, don't suddenly be offended that I rip your arguments to shreds.

Now, one thing that does piss me off is when people make these sorts of posts that are oblique references to something else that none of their readership knows about. So, let me clarify this whole thing. ellie is pissed at me for ripping into Christianity and religion in general. In my mind, this was a dispassionate conversation about a topic- obviously other people didn't feel that way about it. That's ellie's problem, not mine. It was, at no point, a personal attack. It displeases me that it was interpreted that way- but I don't regret my part in it. Nor should this be news to anyone- I think it's been well established that I'm a confrontational and debate oriented person, so much so that I'll debate subjects that I don't have any interest in, and I'll take sides in a debate I don't agree with for the sole purpose of honing my rhetoric.
  • It was that pathetic little Christian meme-virus in her brain struggling to survive. It made her angry at you so as to protect itself.
    • Fuck you. This wasn't about an arguement. This was my feelings getting hurt and someone I thought was a friend completely unable to apologize for hurting my feelings. I don't mock his beliefs, and yet he was mocking mine. Sorry, but that's called being a shitty friend.

      There's many things that I could say, all of them hurtful, so I won't.
      • Wow, that's a pretty deep infection.
        • Remy has all sorts of infections too. You might want to make sure you're vaccinated against the unable to be a man infection.
        • Oooh. The jab at the masculinity. Nice.
          • Well, you know, I call em as I see em.
          • I didn't realize caving to childish foot-stomping and irrational demands based on some invented slight was a "manly" thing to do.
          • Oh, and while we're discussing who's got the moral high ground here, let's review who has descended into into personal assaults and who hasn't.

            I don't have any personal stake in your Invisible Sky Man theories. I don't think any the less of you for holding them- I just disagree, and don't have much respect for the concept itself. That you would be offended because I don't respect what I consider bad, ill-founded, poorly-supported and generally fantastical ideas- it's staggering really. I wouldn't think an adult, secure in their faith, wouldn't give a damn if I liked their Invisible Sky Man or not. Apparently, I was mistaken.
            • Er, "I wouldn't think an adult, secure in their faith, would give a damn"
            • You are mistaken. Perhaps it should be as you say, however, as I would think you would know, most people do very much care what others think of their closely held beliefs.

              I think you are intelligent enough to know this. Therefore, I have a hard time seeing what you are saying here as anything more than rhetoric designed to be counter-inflamatory in ways that will allow you to continue holding the "moral highground".

              On the other hand, you do certainly seem to have the higher ground over all. (S)he? did indeed break down into ad hominem rather quickly, and you are managing to maintain your standard semi-rude manner without much escalation detectable in your overall tone(other than the innevitable icon change).
              • We were what was a fairly peaceful discussion of prayer and it began to get out of control. I was the only one defending the virtue and validity of religion and began to feel like I personally was under attack. Some people were making very general statements without actually understanding Catholicism because admittedly all they had was information straight from fark. But yes, arguements were getting out of control and Remy made two comments I found offensive. As a friend, I asked him to apologize for hurting me feelings and as a friend he could not.

                Which is why I'm no longer his friend. I don't have the energy to waste on people who simply do not care or respect my thoughts and feelings. I would highly advise you to take this into consideration while speaking with him.
              • I'm sorry your feelings were hurt- but I'm not, and never will be, sorry for the comments I made. I don't particularly care if my honest assessments are considered offensive.
                • That's all I wanted. Why was that so hard to understand? And thanks btw for removing me as a maintainer of a community I helped start and indeed created.
                  • Because that's not what you were asking for- nay demanding. You were demanding I apologize for statements I'm willing to continue standing by. And I have no idea what you're talking about.
                    • So you're saying that Minna because now she's a maintainer?So either she hacked into your lj account to remove me, or you did it and now am trying to be coy. Because I believe that Minna is my friend, and that she is sticking true to her email to me, I am logically forced to believe it was you. However it if it was her, I would be corrected of course. Hurt that my friend thought poorly of me, but corrected.

                      So, which was it?
              • We were what was a fairly peaceful discussion of prayer and it began to get out of control. I was the only one defending the virtue and validity of religion and began to feel like I personally was under attack.

                You just said it yourself; you felt like YOU were under attack because you were the only one defending your position in the debate.

                Politely stating that you did not feel up to defending your position at that time, and bowing out, would have been the dignified response.

                Demanding apologies for 'getting your feelings hurt' is not.
        • As normal, the virus places its own survival above all else, including the survival of your friendships with others.

          There is no loyalty except loyalty to the Party Christ, no love except the love of Big Brother God. All competing pleasures we will destroy.

      • I wasn't mocking. I won't apologize because I didn't say anything I regret. Any upset is completely on your side of the debate. It is about an argument, because that's what I was participating in.

        You're perfectly welcome to "mock my beliefs" if you can identify any. Good luck on that. I don't believe in believing in things.
    • Did it ever occur to you that what you say here could easily be described in similar terms? Your own anti-Christian meme-virus kicking in to cause you to mock something you are unable of conceptualizing in a meaningful way?

      I wouldn't necessarily call it that myself but you might perhaps examine your own words for moments when they are self-applicable.
      • I know you weren't replying to my comment, but I'd like to point out that I'm not anti-Christian. I am anti-theist. My reasons for this are simple: there is no evidence to support such a thing, there is no compelling reason to adopt such a belief, and there are a large number of serious philosophical problems that are created by adopting a specific theistic religion. The plethora inconsistencies in the "Big 3" of monotheism are problematic to any potential religious adopter.

        I, personally, don't mock religion. Theism is an indefensible position from any rational standpoint.
        • I don't think that your final statement is necessarily true but I'd rather not get into it at the moment. Perhaps if you'd like to discuss it via email it would be a more suitable forum.

          Interestingly though, I don't quallify that last statement as necessarily untrue either. I have a hard time seeing any position being defenseable from a purely rational standpoint.

          And there's certainly no reason you shouldn't respond to my comment. This is your journal entry after all. :)
      • Oh, I conceptualized it for what it was, hence: A virus. It's host is the human mind. It seeks to expand, grow, and spread into other human minds and alter them. It turns them into copies of the original host, and alters the mind to defend the virus by whatever means required.

        Religions, philosophies, even languages - all memes, all viral in nature. The question, then, is what do these viri seek to accomplish once they've infected enough minds?

        Well, I know of one that, upon reaching a certain population threshold of infection, invariably becomes impatient with the "conversion" (read: infection) process and simply begins wholesale slaughter on anyone who carries a different virus (or none at all) to insure it's survival. Just ask the six million Jews who died at the hands of Christians in WW2, and the countless millions of other non-Christians who've died at the hands of "Christian Love" over the last two thousand years.

        It's a death cult, pure and simple. The only reason they aren't shooting "heretics" on sight to this day is that the "heretics" have learned to band together and fight back - for now. Those these days it seems that may change back, which one would suppose is great for Christians and bad for everyone else in the world.

        But as long as you're on the side holding the guns to the backs of people's heads, who cares, right?
        • If your father killed a person and you were not alive when the crime was committed, would you also be guilty of the crime? Look, I was not defending the hyprocracy of the faith. Catholicism has been used by ambitious men to do horrible things in history. As has Islam and Zionism, lest we forget.

          Are there overzealous Christians out there today doing terrible things? Absolutely. I wasn't defending them. To a good many Christians, they're not.

          And before we accuse me to holding guns to people's heads, please be assured I'm nearly a pacifist. I would only kill in a dire situation, as in if my life would be taken if I did not lethally defend myself. I abhor violence in most situations. I find Christians who do use violence to convert of get a message across as doing a terrible thing. I would not consider them Christian.
  • I can see where you're coming from, but you should know by now that religion is a very touchy and personal issue, and that 'ripping into their argument' especially when it wasn't a particularly volatile or extreme argument in the first place, can come off as very hurtful.
    • Which I understand, but in my mind- that's not my problem. It ceases being personal when you start a discussion on the topic.

      I'm not comfortable with self-censoring just so that "we can get along". I'm perfectly happy avoiding the subject. In most situations, that's what I do. If a friend of mine posts a religious statement in their journal, if I don't have anything constructive to say, I don't comment there. This was a specific religious debate in Minna's journal. If one isn't ready to have their poor arguments shown for what they are, they really shouldn't start those sorts of debates. If ellie had followed my rule and not commented in someone else's personal post (marked with warnings for possible offense I might add), we wouldn't be in this situation.
    • Perhaps you might consider the fact that while you consider things to be a certain way, and that they ought to be a certain way, does not mean that they are.

      If you are not comfortable self-censoring for the sake of friendship then that is admirable. However, you also should not expect to keep many friends. A vast majority of the population is incapable of accepting blunt and confrontational personal opinions in more mature and detached ways. Especially on such sesitive topics.

      I am not saying she should have necessarily taken the conversation in the direction she did. Its unwise, in my opinion, to start a discussion on a topic if contradictory opinions will offend you. I am simply saying that if you know her, and somehow expected her to react in any way other than how she did, perhaps you should take some time to rehone your powers of observation, eh?
      • Once again, I don't brook compromise. The world should be a certain way, and within my sphere of influence, it will be that way.

        And actually, I'm not entirely surprised- a year ago I would have been. I've been noticing a gradual change in her character over that time. As you might gather, I'm not certain that's for the best.
    • And... there's a difference between self-censoring & tact. But, you've never really understood the difference. You're an asshole, plain an simple. And I actually *don't* mean that as a personal attack. When dealing with you, most of us know better than to discuss anything we actually care about because you are completely callous when stating your opinions.
      • I think Neal Stephenson put it best:
        "We make our way in the world by knowing that two plus two equals for, and sticking to our guns in a way that's kind of nerdy and that maybe hurts people's feelings sometimes..."
        "Hurts whose feelings? People who think that two plus two equals five?"
        "People who put a higher priority on social graces than on having every statement uttered in a conversation be literally true."

        In my mind, that encapsulates the entire problem- if my claims could be demonstrated to be logically flawed or factually incorrect, that's a perfect reason to apologize. The fact that I made (by my estimations) true statements that offended someone- well, I'm sorry they were offended, but not sorry for saying it.

        You are right- I am an asshole. I've mellowed a lot in my old age, but not so much that I actually care about offending people. The idea that people can be offended is one that's hard to wrap my head around. It's the nerd in me slipping back out.
  • Huzzah for LJ drama. If not for it I might get something done with my time my life would be empty and meaningless.

    What is your IM bye the way? I would think that we might have some interesting conversations if we chatted. Coming down on largely different sides of many issues yet still managing to respect each other(at least for my part) would, I think, make for at least good self-reflective dialogue.
    • That will have to wait for a later date however. Tonite I have commited to go and enjoy the evening with my brother. I'll check this when I get back however.
    • My IM handle is the same as my LJ name- but I'm rarely on IM (read: a few minutes a month, at most). I'll use the Gmail chat feature (gmail addy is the same as my LJ name, again).

      I think you're right though- some interesting conversations.
  • What no one has mentioned

    That faith in something differs from proof.

    The majority of religion, in my exposure, is based on the concept of faith. To have faith in something does not require absolute proof. It is impossible to prove that you believe in something. It is only somewhat verifiable through past behavior.

    I must say that I'm quite suprised that the intellects between all of this did not have the capacity to point this out.

    Everyone would do well to keep a clear definition between the two. It should be someone's ability to defend their belief in "invisible man in the sky" as it is yours to defend your choice of clothing for the day, or what music you listen to. There is no empirical manner to "prove" faith, although, admittedly, there are those who try. However, we must be able to delineate between people who have faith in a benevolent being who maintain a similarly benevolent lifestyle, and those who are overzealous about thier belief to the degree of detriment to others. Someone's belief in said "invisible man" in no way is to your detriment. Therefore, unless your purpose is to agitate, it is of little consequence or benefit to do argue such a topic. Minds are not changed through direct confrontation of belief.

    And let's not forget where someone went to a primarily Cathoic school. Seems like quite a telling affiliation to me.

    What many people don't like is to challenged to defend their faith, which by definition, is impossible to defend, or refute. This is the reason that religion and science tend to differ; science is based largely upon evidence and observation, religion is based upon faith. Apples and oranges.

    note: I apologize for chiming in on something that isn't my business. I am a friend of a friend, was cruising some posts, and feel a need to defend those who are defending a belief, or membership of an organization, of whom some members have well surpassed their "duties", to the point of harming/maiming/killing others. In every large enough population/organization there are elements which will act to the detriment of the population to which they belong. Feel free to delete this.
    • Re: What no one has mentioned

      Faith is a premise that needs no proof- unless you enter a debate on the validity of religion. Faith is only inarguable within the scope of that faith- to someone outside of it, it's nothing more than an intellectual cop-out.

      At some other point I can pick more at this argument- I'll get back to it when I'm not working.
Powered by LiveJournal.com