Is mocking important?

[Andiferous]

This rather models a goodly portion of my main point.

^__^ True. Of course, I try to do the same with our less intelligent brothers and sisters/ or more intelligent brothers and sisters.

That was kinda mean, you dissenter.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

It's a personal thing for me to not ridicule others; so when I argue or wish to convince another person of my point of view, I don't mock him or her, instead, I use evidence. Sure, I can use mocking, but the same, based on my experience, gave me more enemies rather than have more free thinking friends. ^^,

Perhaps you weren't mocking well? I don't think anyone here is suggesting you should be incessantly mocking... but used appropriately, it can be very effective. Don't mock when you can make friends but mock when no friendship will be had but an audience can be turned...

I admit that mocking works, but I did not say it is a good rhetoric. It is something the person to whom I replied to thought I did.

You're clearly using some odd use of the word "good" in this context. When I talk about "good rhetoric," I'm talking about "effective" rhetoric since that's what people really care about...

Incidentally, not to be too much of a grammar Nazi but you used too many prepositions in your last sentence. I thought I'd point it out 'cause your use of the word "whom" indicates that you might actually care. You could say "...the person to whom I replied thought..." or you could say "...the person whom I replied to thought..." but to do both is redundant. The preposition "to" is used in conjunction with the object "whom." The second instance of "to" serves no purpose...

 

[Nordmann]

or you could say "...the person whom I replied to thought..."

No, in this case the "who" is no longer dative but actually genitive. So no need for the "m".

Just because you're a person who apparently cares about these things

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

or you could say "...the person whom I replied to thought..."

No, in this case the "who" is no longer dative but actually genitive. So no need for the "m".

Just because you're a person who apparently cares about these things

I do care about these things and I'm open to the possibility of erring but... what?

Never mind that I can't find anyone who claims that the genitive form of "who" is anything other than "whose," why do you think that the use of the word "whom" in this case is genitive?

Because the pronoun in this case is the object of the verb "replied," you use the objective form of the pronoun, which is "whom." The top two Google hits, here and here, reveal pages that confirm this with specifically analogous examples...

 

[lrkun]

It's a personal thing for me to not ridicule others; so when I argue or wish to convince another person of my point of view, I don't mock him or her, instead, I use evidence. Sure, I can use mocking, but the same, based on my experience, gave me more enemies rather than have more free thinking friends. ^^,

Perhaps you weren't mocking well? I don't think anyone here is suggesting you should be incessantly mocking... but used appropriately, it can be very effective. Don't mock when you can make friends but mock when no friendship will be had but an audience can be turned...

I admit that mocking works, but I did not say it is a good rhetoric. It is something the person to whom I replied to thought I did.

You're clearly using some odd use of the word "good" in this context. When I talk about "good rhetoric," I'm talking about "effective" rhetoric since that's what people really care about...

Incidentally, not to be too much of a grammar Nazi but you used too many prepositions in your last sentence. I thought I'd point it out 'cause your use of the word "whom" indicates that you might actually care. You could say "...the person to whom I replied thought..." or you could say "...the person whom I replied to thought..." but to do both is redundant. The preposition "to" is used in conjunction with the object "whom." The second instance of "to" serves no purpose...

If you read what I wrote, then you'd understand that I actively chose not to mock because I can because I chose a different alternative.

 

[DawahFilms]

I know there's some back and forth going on here, but honestly...all these rationalizations just seem like excuses to justify being an ass.

There is absolutely no reasont to direspect another person unless they do it to you first. Many times, these individuals don't even know that their beliefs are disrespectful to you because they aren't intending that.

Out of many things I despise, I really hate when some random person I've never met just starts stereotyping me, insulting me, and thinks they know what I believe based simply on the label I give myself. I don't appreciate it and I don't understand why I somehow deserve that disrespect yet they think they are entitled to my respect afterwards...

 

[borrofburi]

I know there's some back and forth going on here, but honestly...all these rationalizations just seem like excuses to justify being an ass.

There is absolutely no reasont to direspect another person unless they do it to you first. Many times, these individuals don't even know that their beliefs are disrespectful to you because they aren't intending that.

Do you respect individuals who claim the earth is flat?

Out of many things I despise, I really hate when some random person I've never met just starts stereotyping me, insulting me, and thinks they know what I believe based simply on the label I give myself. I don't appreciate it and I don't understand why I somehow deserve that disrespect yet they think they are entitled to my respect afterwards...

Sure, I fully agree that mocking people for things they don't actually believe is a poor idea. Yet I don't see the relevance between that and, say, mocking flat earthers for their rejection of reality.

 

[lrkun]

I know there's some back and forth going on here, but honestly...all these rationalizations just seem like excuses to justify being an ass.

There is absolutely no reasont to direspect another person unless they do it to you first. Many times, these individuals don't even know that their beliefs are disrespectful to you because they aren't intending that.

Out of many things I despise, I really hate when some random person I've never met just starts stereotyping me, insulting me, and thinks they know what I believe based simply on the label I give myself. I don't appreciate it and I don't understand why I somehow deserve that disrespect yet they think they are entitled to my respect afterwards...

I disagree. There is no reason to disrespect another. There is no unless, provided that, or exception to this rule. We live not in the age of an eye for an eye. A wrong is not cleansed by another wrong.

Simply, -1 -1 = -2

-1 (wrong) -1(revenge) = -2
-1(wrong) -1(revenge) =/= 0

Why?

Because evidence based reasoning works just as well to say the least.

 

[DawahFilms]

I know there's some back and forth going on here, but honestly...all these rationalizations just seem like excuses to justify being an ass.

There is absolutely no reasont to direspect another person unless they do it to you first. Many times, these individuals don't even know that their beliefs are disrespectful to you because they aren't intending that.

Do you respect individuals who claim the earth is flat?

Out of many things I despise, I really hate when some random person I've never met just starts stereotyping me, insulting me, and thinks they know what I believe based simply on the label I give myself. I don't appreciate it and I don't understand why I somehow deserve that disrespect yet they think they are entitled to my respect afterwards...

Sure, I fully agree that mocking people for things they don't actually believe is a poor idea. Yet I don't see the relevance between that and, say, mocking flat earthers for their rejection of reality.

Yes, because I respect them as human beings first and foremost, not based on what they may subscribe to. I may disagree with their views, but I do not think it practical or justified to attack the person at all.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I know there's some back and forth going on here, but honestly...all these rationalizations just seem like excuses to justify being an ass.

There is absolutely no reasont to direspect another person unless they do it to you first. Many times, these individuals don't even know that their beliefs are disrespectful to you because they aren't intending that.

This is why you mock the beliefs, not the person. You know, hate the sin, not the sinner?

 

[aeritano]

I know there's some back and forth going on here, but honestly...all these rationalizations just seem like excuses to justify being an ass.

There is absolutely no reasont to direspect another person unless they do it to you first. Many times, these individuals don't even know that their beliefs are disrespectful to you because they aren't intending that.

This is why you mock the beliefs, not the person. You know, hate the sin, not the sinner?

Excellent point Flyingbastard,

but i have to bring up the issue of the treatment of LGBTs and the supporters of LGBT rights (such as you know.. not being killed as in most islamic countries). Since i am gay and the unifying belief of the Abrahamic religions is that i should be stoned to death, does that give me the right to disrespect them? because i have been yelled at by Christians and Muslims alike that im not allowed to disrespect them, even though they disrespect me.

So as good as a claim it is Dawah, it holds as much water as a pasta strainer. And in terms of not knowing that their beliefs are disrespecting you....you have to be an idiot in not realizing that wanting to kill, discriminate, harm, etc someone for being different is a form of disrespect.

 

[kenandkids]

but i have to bring up the issue of the treatment of LGBTs and the supporters of LGBT rights (such as you know.. not being killed as in most islamic countries). Since i am gay and the unifying belief of the Abrahamic religions is that i should be stoned to death, does that give me the right to disrespect them? because i have been yelled at by Christians and Muslims alike that im not allowed to disrespect them, even though they disrespect me.

So as good as a claim it is Dawah, it holds as much water as a pasta strainer. And in terms of not knowing that their beliefs are disrespecting you....you have to be an idiot in not realizing that wanting to kill, discriminate, harm, etc someone for being different is a form of disrespect.

A very poignant response and question. When someone's very existence is considered to be a mockery of a mainstream religion...

 

[DawahFilms]

Excellent point Flyingbastard,

but i have to bring up the issue of the treatment of LGBTs and the supporters of LGBT rights (such as you know.. not being killed as in most islamic countries). Since i am gay and the unifying belief of the Abrahamic religions is that i should be stoned to death, does that give me the right to disrespect them? because i have been yelled at by Christians and Muslims alike that im not allowed to disrespect them, even though they disrespect me.

So as good as a claim it is Dawah, it holds as much water as a pasta strainer. And in terms of not knowing that their beliefs are disrespecting you....you have to be an idiot in not realizing that wanting to kill, discriminate, harm, etc someone for being different is a form of disrespect.

Oh please. This goes back to my stereotyping comment regarding what you THINK someone believes based on the mere labels you give them. No where in islamic law is it suggested that homosexuals should be stoned to death. In fact, homosexuality is rarely spoken of and is included in the list of adultery offenses, which have various interpertations of punishment for MUSLIMS only (as Sharia only applies to Muslims in an Islamic State). You may find a few scholars that suggests it, but in the light of the overwhelming consensus, you have absolutely nothing to worry about much less should you be going around spouting nonsense about how the "unifying belief of the Abrahamic religions is that i should be stoned to death". I mean, really. You want to have a liscense to disrespect people based on particular views, you could in the very least not make such blanketed statements.

If anything doesn't hold water it's your ignorant suggestions towards what others beleive, not my own statements.

Until a person says what they believe and allows you to be informed about it, you have no business knocking on their door to tell them how much a douche they are or how stupid their views are simply based on labels or appearances. As a homosexual yourself, you should know very well how it feels to be stereotyped for your preferences.

 

[Laurens]

I don't think mocking anybody personally because of what they believe is acceptable. However, mocking their beliefs is perfectly fine.

Its the difference between "that belief is stupid because....", and "you're stupid for believing that"

In some instances mockery is the best defence against unreasonable positions. The more mockery it receives, the less people believe it.

People often take mockery of beliefs to be personal mockery, but that is only due to their inability to differentiate between criticism of them as a person, and criticism of their beliefs, and the person making the criticism cannot be blamed for that.

I do not take it personally when a creationist mocks evolution. I would take take it personally, however if they said that people who accept evolution are ignorant jackasses...

 

[Noth]

Oh please. This goes back to my stereotyping comment regarding what you THINK someone believes based on the mere labels you give them. No where in islamic law is it suggested that homosexuals should be stoned to death.

I don't think that's the point though. There are currently (from the top of my head) 7 countries in the world where homosexuality is a capital offence. IIRC 6 of those are Islamic countries. If anything, stating that Islam seems a tad bit harsh on homosexuals is by and large an understatement, regardless of what 'modern Muslims' in Western societies believe.
Friendly Christians will often tell me that they're a-ok with homosexuals, some of them will push my buttons a bit and utter the stupid sentence of "well, love the sinner but hate the sin" and all that jazz. However in all dealings with Christians or Muslims it is not about exactly what the qu'ran of the bible says but what is preached. The bible doesn't have a remarkable lot to say about homosexuality either. However what IS said is used as an excuse to spread hate and abuse.
Christians will say this as defence all the time: "well but those rules of stoning people to death are from the Old Testament. They don't apply any more. Jesus changed everything!" But again, that is not the issue. The issue is that this stuff IS written in that holy book and that it DOES make their god look like one of vengeance and malice, not one of love at all.

In fact, homosexuality is rarely spoken of and is included in the list of adultery offenses, which have various interpertations of punishment for MUSLIMS only (as Sharia only applies to Muslims in an Islamic State).

And therein lies a great deal of the problem. The bible also says "when a man lies with another man it is an abomination unto god." Despite that many Christians I know are ok with me being homosexual the fact remains that their views based on what should be law regarding homosexuality, what should be taught in classrooms and what should be permissible for me are based on a few lines that can vary per interpretations, but judge me nonetheless for being born the way I am.
I do not see how the world is made better by allowing such archaic prejudice and ignorance to be a law somewhere, regardless of whether it applies to Muslims only. It is this law that is used as an excuse to hang gay men in Iran for instance. Now I know you don't agree with that (I should hope), but if that's the manner in which Sharia law can be abused to violate basic human rights then I think the issue is clearly not solely with the people interpreting it.

You want to have a liscense to disrespect people based on particular views, you could in the very least not make such blanketed statements.

Since we're doing this in the topic about mocking: if I mock, say, Islam, but not Muslims themselves, do you feel that in return you should be entitled to mock me or my sexuality? Would you be offended if I said I think Islam is just an iron-age cult worshipping a capricious god?

Until a person says what they believe and allows you to be informed about it, you have no business knocking on their door to tell them how much a douche they are or how stupid their views are simply based on labels or appearances.

Emphasis mine.
You are right when you feel that we should not tell you what you believe. You are, indeed, entitled to your own interpretation of your holy book and your religion. However, if you are entitled to your own interpretation of your holy book this automatically means that even non-believers or people from different religions are entitled to their own interpretations of your holy book. The key thing to remember is that people from a specific faith do not have a monopoly on how the words should be read and interpreted. What follows from that is that even an atheist can and may have an opinion about a religion and about the beliefs of people who subscribe to that religion.
So even if I don't think you are 'stupid,' I'm fully entitled to think that about your religion. Without knowing any specifics about your personal interpretations of Islam I know that you believe there is a god. I find this a silly notion. I should not be preached at because I feel that way.

As a homosexual yourself, you should know very well how it feels to be stereotyped for your preferences.

The key point in aeritano's post, which you seemed to have either ignored or left out for the sake of rebuttal was "i have been yelled at by Christians and Muslims alike that im not allowed to disrespect them, even though they disrespect me."

In light of your post. your above statement on stereotyping comes close to trying to compare what religion someone subscribes to with the sexuality someone is born with. That is an assertion I hope you're not trying to make as the two simply do not compare.
Quite simply, that you feel (I assume, as you said your religion states this) homosexuality is a form of "adultery" is fine if you keep it within your own personal space. It should not affect me. I would hope you don't resort to those statements when you're trying to judge homosexuality and homosexuals, even if they're of your own religion.
As I live in a secular/ Christian country it does indeed not affect me. But experience there teaches that religious views that should have no effect on those that don't subscribe to it DO have an impact in social and political spheres.

 

[michalchik]

I know what it means to respect a person. Treat them with deference and politely. I know what it means to respect someones right even when you don't agree with what the are doing. Defend them from people who would stop them from being exercised and acknowledge that the decision is theirs to make. I really don't know what it means to respect a belief as opposed to the right to have a belief. A belief is information and you have an opinion about it. Would lying about that opinion if it was negative constitute respecting that belief? To me that just sounds like disrespecting the believer by supporting his mistakes. Humility is always important but so is honesty. Your opinion of a belief may be right or wrong, what you say to the believer may be rude or diplomatic, honest or dishonest, but I don't think you can respect or disrespect a belief.

If a creationist or a bigot came up to me and told me I should respect his beliefs, I would ask, "How and Why"? Would not pointing out the absurdities of the belief be respectful? It seems condescending towards the believer to me.

 

[aeritano]

In fact, homosexuality is rarely spoken of and is included in the list of adultery offenses, which have various interpertations of punishment for MUSLIMS only (as Sharia only applies to Muslims in an Islamic State).

Answer me this Dawah: If America were to pass a law that says all Muslims in America that live under America law are to be stoned, put in jail or to death if they openly practice (this is comparative to a gay man being open about his sexuality in Iran or Saudi Arabia) would you feel disrespected Dawah?

Because i know you are not in the US , so these laws dont apply to you, but would you still be pissed and feel like you're being disrespected and persecuted not as a person, but as a member of a larger group? and would you feel that these Muslims were being treated unjustly and with disrespect in America?

Swap America with the middle East and the Muslims with LGBT.

Until a person says what they believe and allows you to be informed about it, you have no business knocking on their door to tell them how much a douche they are or how stupid their views are simply based on labels or appearances.

um.. do these guys ring a bell?

good old Westburo Baptist Church... but here is a group of anti-gay people i have to see nearly every day on my way to work. they have basically made a camp in front of the courthouse here in San Francisco

this is right outside San Francisco City Hall. This isnt the WBC, but they were kind enough to lend signs to the local Baptists churches here in San Francisco.

Even though i included the westburo Baptist church (obvious nuts).. my point still stands. There are people like them on the streets here in San Francisco that yell at me nearly every day and insult me about being gay. I mentioned it in my last post that you omitted. (thanks for noticing Noth)

Am i safe to say what their beliefs are towards homosexuals? I mean, they put it on a fucking sign. I think they have clearly informed me and are being very vocal about it.. do i have the right to disrespect them?

I guess my real question is Dawah.. where is the line drawn? When does an opinion become disrespect?

Is condemning a group of people to death for being gay count as disrespect?

Is calling for the removal of human rights for being gay count as disrespect?

so tell me dawah.. where is the line? When are their actions towards me considered disrespectful?

Does it stop at words? or is violence needed? because I have a bullet wound in my leg and my boyfriend has a wound in his stomach courtesy of 3 Baptist church goers...

Does that count as disrespect Dawah?

Am i, as a living breathing person who's basic human rights are threaten globally, allowed to disrespect them Dawah?
(take a look at all the red X's in the middle east countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory)

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Excellent point Flyingbastard,
but i have to bring up the issue of the treatment of LGBTs and the supporters of LGBT rights (such as you know.. not being killed as in most islamic countries). Since i am gay and the unifying belief of the Abrahamic religions is that i should be stoned to death, does that give me the right to disrespect them? because i have been yelled at by Christians and Muslims alike that im not allowed to disrespect them, even though they disrespect me.

I'm gay too, and it is my personal opinion that such actions are abhorrent, and need to be met with all the scorn and straight out enmity wherever possible. The people who accept this as right would deserve their fair share of rebuke as well, but not always in the spirit of that we're fighting their ideas, not their person. Discarding poisonous ideas will make the inherent good in people come out.

We should not lower ourselves to their level; instead we need to lift them up. And that can only be done by cutting out the cancer that is in their minds.

 

[lrkun]

Excellent point Flyingbastard,

but i have to bring up the issue of the treatment of LGBTs and the supporters of LGBT rights (such as you know.. not being killed as in most islamic countries). Since i am gay and the unifying belief of the Abrahamic religions is that i should be stoned to death, does that give me the right to disrespect them? because i have been yelled at by Christians and Muslims alike that im not allowed to disrespect them, even though they disrespect me.

So as good as a claim it is Dawah, it holds as much water as a pasta strainer. And in terms of not knowing that their beliefs are disrespecting you....you have to be an idiot in not realizing that wanting to kill, discriminate, harm, etc someone for being different is a form of disrespect.

Oh please. This goes back to my stereotyping comment regarding what you THINK someone believes based on the mere labels you give them. No where in islamic law is it suggested that homosexuals should be stoned to death. In fact, homosexuality is rarely spoken of and is included in the list of adultery offenses, which have various interpertations of punishment for MUSLIMS only (as Sharia only applies to Muslims in an Islamic State). You may find a few scholars that suggests it, but in the light of the overwhelming consensus, you have absolutely nothing to worry about much less should you be going around spouting nonsense about how the "unifying belief of the Abrahamic religions is that i should be stoned to death". I mean, really. You want to have a liscense to disrespect people based on particular views, you could in the very least not make such blanketed statements.

If anything doesn't hold water it's your ignorant suggestions towards what others beleive, not my own statements.

Until a person says what they believe and allows you to be informed about it, you have no business knocking on their door to tell them how much a douche they are or how stupid their views are simply based on labels or appearances. As a homosexual yourself, you should know very well how it feels to be stereotyped for your preferences.

Dawah, the problem here is you only talk about your own personal understanding of the islam faith, you discount the facts with respect to the attrocities done by your fellow muslims. As a muslim, you must see not only based on face value, but based on facts, and non-muslims.

Simply, what's personal to you does not necessarily apply to the rest of your brethren. Even your scholars disagree with respect to some points. The same can be observed with other religions. Take christianity for example, hell no longer exists, but to some it still does.

 

[australopithecus]

There is absolutely no reasont to direspect another person unless they do it to you first.

Not strictly true. The Westboro Baptist Church haven't disrespected me personally, yet I feel totally vidicated in disrespecting them. Some people deserve no respect and invite disrespect by their own actions.

Many times, these individuals don't even know that their beliefs are disrespectful to you because they aren't intending that.

Which is why, personally, I find attacking those beliefs and not the person to be the better course.

Out of many things I despise, I really hate when some random person I've never met just starts stereotyping me, insulting me, and thinks they know what I believe based simply on the label I give myself. I don't appreciate it and I don't understand why I somehow deserve that disrespect yet they think they are entitled to my respect afterwards...

They're not deserving of your respect, they're clearly arseholes so treat them as such.