Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Respect - Earned or Automatic?

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:18:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

All good and all happy is more "real"? Perhaps one should know my reasons but I have to go with... "No".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:25:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:18:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

All good and all happy is more "real"? Perhaps one should know my reasons but I have to go with... "No".

Perhaps I'm more interested in Psychological realm , so can't digest your "no", though I understand your meaning by "all good". But you also want good around you, at least as much as you can contribute up to a certain level of your capacity, if not is "all good" there.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:29:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:25:21 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:18:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

All good and all happy is more "real"? Perhaps one should know my reasons but I have to go with... "No".

Perhaps I'm more interested in Psychological realm , so can't digest your "no", though I understand your meaning by "all good". But you also want good around you, at least as much as you can contribute up to a certain level of your capacity, if not is "all good" there.

What we want and what we can have are rarely the same things. To believe that they are, or can be, is a deviation from reality. You can trust me on this.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:36:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:29:18 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:25:21 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:18:21 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

All good and all happy is more "real"? Perhaps one should know my reasons but I have to go with... "No".

Perhaps I'm more interested in Psychological realm , so can't digest your "no", though I understand your meaning by "all good". But you also want good around you, at least as much as you can contribute up to a certain level of your capacity, if not is "all good" there.

What we want and what we can have are rarely the same things. To believe that they are, or can be, is a deviation from reality. You can trust me on this.
Well, we can change our thinking pattern if we want. That is enough to create compatibility between our "want to change our mind" and reality that we've actually changed it", specifically. Assumptions and exceptions are always there, I've trust on it.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:43:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

I my personal experience the only emotion you can make another person feel is anger. You can't make them happy but you can sure piss them off trying.

However I do see where you are going with treating people with respect. It's one of the best points in Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People. He basically said that people feel about you the way you make them feel about themselves.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:46:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:43:02 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

I my personal experience the only emotion you can make another person feel is anger. You can't make them happy but you can sure piss them off trying.

However I do see where you are going with treating people with respect. It's one of the best points in Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People. He basically said that people feel about you the way you make them feel about themselves.

I rather find that people expect from others, what they would expect of themselves. Liars are usually the first of accusing others of lying, for example.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:53:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:46:42 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:43:02 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

I my personal experience the only emotion you can make another person feel is anger. You can't make them happy but you can sure piss them off trying.

However I do see where you are going with treating people with respect. It's one of the best points in Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People. He basically said that people feel about you the way you make them feel about themselves.

I rather find that people expect from others, what they would expect of themselves. Liars are usually the first of accusing others of lying, for example.

It's actually called transference. Most people are guilty of it at some point in their interpersonal relationships. I find it easier to treat other people with kindness and respect by default than to constantly be at war within myself about what their true motives are. I don't have time for drama. If they show me that they aren't worth my efforts I simply walk away.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 2:55:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:43:02 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

I my personal experience the only emotion you can make another person feel is anger. You can't make them happy but you can sure piss them off trying.

However I do see where you are going with treating people with respect. It's one of the best points in Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People. He basically said that people feel about you the way you make them feel about themselves.

Yes I've a story too. There was a prince with physical disability, every member of his family, even his single princesses sister and mother and brothers made him feel sorry for his disability by merely showing mercy based upon his acrid reality. At the end, his love was only for his step-brother, everyone questioned his mistrust over his own family, and why he just like his step-brother so much, he revealed and replied; because he's the only one who never let me feel that I'm disable. His company never let me feel my deficiency.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:03:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 2:55:46 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:43:02 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/24/2014 2:14:28 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

A little bit confusing when it comes to extract the essential of "respect". Personally I see the world differently. Every morning I've a new day, I want to be happy so I want happy people around me, if they're sad I would try making them happy. I won't say, they must earn happiness by their own tactics, or I'm not liable to make them happy, so and so etc. Rather reality is, I (or persons) want to be respected, in the same way, they want to give respect to others. They need no mess, all tranquility that heals and mesmerize us toward a happy day, happy life. Typically I'm fed up of fighting. Fed up of arguing, fed up of exerting abstract reality. Fed up of abhorrence, fed up of extremism, fed up of harshness and acerbity. I want all good around me, so I try all good around me. Isn't this idea more appealing? Isn't it more real....

I my personal experience the only emotion you can make another person feel is anger. You can't make them happy but you can sure piss them off trying.

However I do see where you are going with treating people with respect. It's one of the best points in Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People. He basically said that people feel about you the way you make them feel about themselves.

Yes I've a story too. There was a prince with physical disability, every member of his family, even his single princesses sister and mother and brothers made him feel sorry for his disability by merely showing mercy based upon his acrid reality. At the end, his love was only for his step-brother, everyone questioned his mistrust over his own family, and why he just like his step-brother so much, he revealed and replied; because he's the only one who never let me feel that I'm disable. His company never let me feel my deficiency.

While I do get the point of the story, would it have been fair to simply pretend as though there was no disability? It's not that it needs to be pointed out at every opportunity, but if someone is blind, it's appropriate not to ask them to drive. If they can't walk, you don't ask them to run to the cellar and grab a tool for you. It's one thing to treat a person with respect, and quite another to pretend that reality isn't real. If someone has a disability, it's best to help them when there are things they can't do, and to help them to do the things they should still be capable of doing.

This is a religion debate forum. So it's rather ridiculous that anyone might expect that the flaws and failings of their belief will be ignored. These are the "disabilities" of the belief, and it's disrespectful to pretend that they simply don't exist. Yet those who hold clearly faulty and false beliefs, become angered when we fail to show respect for their beliefs. And it's purely inappropriate to expect anyone to feign respect for a belief system which not only earns no respect, but actually does harm.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:32:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well I have 0 respect for a lot of things. Atheism, Socialism, Communism, Democratic Party, several sects of "Christianity" and that show jersey shores ;)

But for me to go around bashing any of those would just make me a douche bag in my opinion. Even worse would be to automatically trash, disrespect or make fun of a person just because they are one of those things. That would just tell me that I have serious self esteem issues. If it were me anyway.

I would have missed out on a lot of great and enlightening conversations and experiences if I had written off many of the members I've met here over the years just because the selected an idealogy or religion that I didn't respect.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:52:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:32:27 PM, jharry wrote:
Well I have 0 respect for a lot of things. Atheism, Socialism, Communism, Democratic Party, several sects of "Christianity" and that show jersey shores ;)

But for me to go around bashing any of those would just make me a douche bag in my opinion. Even worse would be to automatically trash, disrespect or make fun of a person just because they are one of those things. That would just tell me that I have serious self esteem issues. If it were me anyway.

I would have missed out on a lot of great and enlightening conversations and experiences if I had written off many of the members I've met here over the years just because the selected an idealogy or religion that I didn't respect.

I noticed you didn't offer a direct answer to the main question so I'm going to ask again, though I understand if you prefer not to answer without fully qualifying your beliefs on the matter. Should respect be given automatically, or should it be earned? And can you separate respect for a person, from respect for that person's beliefs?

Secondly, do you believe in the use of modern medicine? Certainly it has its problems, but if you knew someone who not only refused all forms of modern medical treatment, but also actively campaigned against it, wou;d you have respect for their beliefs? Would you respect their actions in seeking others to refuse medical treatment?

Modern medicine is - in some ways - is a valid analog for various religious beliefs. In fact, some sects do refuse certain forms of medical treatment on religious grounds. And it's one thing for someone to refuse life-saving treatment for themselves, and quite another for them to urge others to follow their example. Religion is damaging. It's overall impact on society is damaging to an extent which is likely incalculable. So how are we to have respect for people who spread such damaging, irrational and ignorant ideas, and why should these people expect us to pretend to hold respect for their beliefs, just because they believe them?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:52:34 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 4:32:27 PM, jharry wrote:
Well I have 0 respect for a lot of things. Atheism, Socialism, Communism, Democratic Party, several sects of "Christianity" and that show jersey shores ;)

But for me to go around bashing any of those would just make me a douche bag in my opinion. Even worse would be to automatically trash, disrespect or make fun of a person just because they are one of those things. That would just tell me that I have serious self esteem issues. If it were me anyway.

I would have missed out on a lot of great and enlightening conversations and experiences if I had written off many of the members I've met here over the years just because the selected an idealogy or religion that I didn't respect.

I noticed you didn't offer a direct answer to the main question so I'm going to ask again, though I understand if you prefer not to answer without fully qualifying your beliefs on the matter. Should respect be given automatically, or should it be earned? And can you separate respect for a person, from respect for that person's beliefs?

A certain level of respect should be automatic. I would be a diuche bag in my opinion if I automatically bashed something just because I have 0 respect for it.

Yes I do seperate respect for a person and their beliefs. If I had not I would have missed out on a lot of great conversations and experiences with a lot of members of this site.

Is it just me or is there an echo in here ;)

Secondly, do you believe in the use of modern medicine? Certainly it has its problems, but if you knew someone who not only refused all forms of modern medical treatment, but also actively campaigned against it, wou;d you have respect for their beliefs? Would you respect their actions in seeking others to refuse medical treatment?

Modern medicine is - in some ways - is a valid analog for various religious beliefs. In fact, some sects do refuse certain forms of medical treatment on religious grounds. And it's one thing for someone to refuse life-saving treatment for themselves, and quite another for them to urge others to follow their example. Religion is damaging. It's overall impact on society is damaging to an extent which is likely incalculable. So how are we to have respect for people who spread such damaging, irrational and ignorant ideas, and why should these people expect us to pretend to hold respect for their beliefs, just because they believe them?

I think there is a difference in respecting someones beliefs and disrespecting them. Someone could tell me I'm wrong for taking my child to the doctor and I would tell them I will consider their request but I if decide to take them anyway I will. I have no reason to disrespect them or their beliefs.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:06:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

In the real world if you don"t give respect you don"t get respect. Doesn"t matter if you get respect in return for giving respect, but you have to be a moron to think that one should receive respect when they are disrespecting and trying to belittle someone else. That in reality didn"t do anything to you, and they not required to take the crap you dish out nor respond to it. You know exactly what you are doing beastt. No matter how much you try to polish a turd, its still a turd, you can"t make your disdain and disrespect for others look any better then before.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:25:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:06:47 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

In the real world if you don"t give respect you don"t get respect. Doesn"t matter if you get respect in return for giving respect, but you have to be a moron to think that one should receive respect when they are disrespecting and trying to belittle someone else.
Do you mean like when you suggest someone to be a "moron"?

That in reality didn"t do anything to you, and they not required to take the crap you dish out nor respond to it.
So you agree that your response here is voluntary?

You know exactly what you are doing beastt. No matter how much you try to polish a turd, its still a turd
Some demand diplomacy, others see it as deception. It leaves little recourse. But in deference to your proclaimed preference; I think your beliefs are ridiculous, and I see how that shines in the crystal clear reflection they have left buffed upon your projected character.

you can"t make your disdain and disrespect for others look any better then before.
You mean "than before", DP... the word is "than". It conveys comparison. "Then" is a temporal (time-based) comparative. "This first, then that, verses this is bigger than that. And I only pick on you about that because you show the belief that you're in a position to rate the intellect of others.

So if I come right out and tell you that DEMONSTRABLY, your beliefs are no more sophisticated, mature, rational or intelligent than a child's belief in fairies and trolls, does that make you happier?

Perhaps you would care to address the topic; should respect be given as an automatic default, or does it only have value when it is earned? Try answering that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:05:38 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 4:52:34 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 4:32:27 PM, jharry wrote:
Well I have 0 respect for a lot of things. Atheism, Socialism, Communism, Democratic Party, several sects of "Christianity" and that show jersey shores ;)

But for me to go around bashing any of those would just make me a douche bag in my opinion. Even worse would be to automatically trash, disrespect or make fun of a person just because they are one of those things. That would just tell me that I have serious self esteem issues. If it were me anyway.

I would have missed out on a lot of great and enlightening conversations and experiences if I had written off many of the members I've met here over the years just because the selected an idealogy or religion that I didn't respect.

I noticed you didn't offer a direct answer to the main question so I'm going to ask again, though I understand if you prefer not to answer without fully qualifying your beliefs on the matter. Should respect be given automatically, or should it be earned? And can you separate respect for a person, from respect for that person's beliefs?

A certain level of respect should be automatic. I would be a diuche bag in my opinion if I automatically bashed something just because I have 0 respect for it.

Yes I do seperate respect for a person and their beliefs. If I had not I would have missed out on a lot of great conversations and experiences with a lot of members of this site.

Is it just me or is there an echo in here ;)

Secondly, do you believe in the use of modern medicine? Certainly it has its problems, but if you knew someone who not only refused all forms of modern medical treatment, but also actively campaigned against it, wou;d you have respect for their beliefs? Would you respect their actions in seeking others to refuse medical treatment?

Modern medicine is - in some ways - is a valid analog for various religious beliefs. In fact, some sects do refuse certain forms of medical treatment on religious grounds. And it's one thing for someone to refuse life-saving treatment for themselves, and quite another for them to urge others to follow their example. Religion is damaging. It's overall impact on society is damaging to an extent which is likely incalculable. So how are we to have respect for people who spread such damaging, irrational and ignorant ideas, and why should these people expect us to pretend to hold respect for their beliefs, just because they believe them?

I think there is a difference in respecting someones beliefs and disrespecting them. Someone could tell me I'm wrong for taking my child to the doctor and I would tell them I will consider their request but I if decide to take them anyway I will. I have no reason to disrespect them or their beliefs.

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:49:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yup respect needs to be earned. If people are really spouting out the truth there should be no reason it can't be agreed upon. If something is just faith based or opinion then I respect those who are willing to admit it.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:54:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So a tv evangelist really upsets some of you to the point of showing disrespect for what they believe?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 6:07:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.
I can't speak direction for you. But I can speak for main-stream America and they would not do what you would do. They would demand criminal prosecution of the parents, and seek civil (if not criminal) litigation against the one advising the parents, especially if that advice came under the color of any kind of certification or professional credentials.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

Would you consider it disrespectful if it were suggested that you receive professional "treatment" due to your unevidenced and counter-evidenced beliefs?

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.

Being "automatically respectful" is deception. You simply can't offer true respect for beliefs or people who garner no respect. What you're talking about is the pretense of respect, which is a polite form of lying. This is a major portion of what politicians do for a living.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 6:25:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 6:07:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.
I can't speak direction for you. But I can speak for main-stream America and they would not do what you would do. They would demand criminal prosecution of the parents, and seek civil (if not criminal) litigation against the one advising the parents, especially if that advice came under the color of any kind of certification or professional credentials.

I never said what I would do if they refused to take their child to the dr. I simply stated I would not disrespect them.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

That is a matter of opinion.

Would you consider it disrespectful if it were suggested that you receive professional "treatment" due to your unevidenced and counter-evidenced beliefs?

Nope, not at all.

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.

Being "automatically respectful" is deception. You simply can't offer true respect for beliefs or people who garner no respect. What you're talking about is the pretense of respect, which is a polite form of lying. This is a major portion of what politicians do for a living.

Not being disrespectful is not lying or deceptive.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:37:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 6:25:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:07:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.
I can't speak direction for you. But I can speak for main-stream America and they would not do what you would do. They would demand criminal prosecution of the parents, and seek civil (if not criminal) litigation against the one advising the parents, especially if that advice came under the color of any kind of certification or professional credentials.

I never said what I would do if they refused to take their child to the dr. I simply stated I would not disrespect them.
i didn't suggest what you would do either. I simply mentioned what main-stream America would do, and has done. But it seems that you rate disrespect as being worse than incarceration. I disagree. If someone's behaviors, beliefs, or actions don't garner respect, why pretend that they do? It's not beneficial. It's not corrective. It's not even productive. It's just deceptive in the name of social grace. There are far worse things you can offer people than a lack of respect. And many of these people are offering far worse than disrespect - like legislating violations of civil rights, plunging countries into illegal wars, for the sake of religious claims, and teaching ignorance to children.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

That is a matter of opinion.
Well, I understand why you would want to believe that. But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition.

Would you consider it disrespectful if it were suggested that you receive professional "treatment" due to your unevidenced and counter-evidenced beliefs?

Nope, not at all.
Good

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.

Being "automatically respectful" is deception. You simply can't offer true respect for beliefs or people who garner no respect. What you're talking about is the pretense of respect, which is a polite form of lying. This is a major portion of what politicians do for a living.

Not being disrespectful is not lying or deceptive.
It is when you're offering the pretense of respect to that which earns no respect. Respect absolutely has to be earned. The word is not synonymous with "being polite". It's a much different concept. All through my career I was in a position where I had to be polite to people and I often could not be openly honest with them. But that doesn't mean I respected them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:48:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:37:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:25:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:07:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.
I can't speak direction for you. But I can speak for main-stream America and they would not do what you would do. They would demand criminal prosecution of the parents, and seek civil (if not criminal) litigation against the one advising the parents, especially if that advice came under the color of any kind of certification or professional credentials.

I never said what I would do if they refused to take their child to the dr. I simply stated I would not disrespect them.
i didn't suggest what you would do either. I simply mentioned what main-stream America would do, and has done. But it seems that you rate disrespect as being worse than incarceration. I disagree. If someone's behaviors, beliefs, or actions don't garner respect, why pretend that they do? It's not beneficial. It's not corrective. It's not even productive. It's just deceptive in the name of social grace. There are far worse things you can offer people than a lack of respect. And many of these people are offering far worse than disrespect - like legislating violations of civil rights, plunging countries into illegal wars, for the sake of religious claims, and teaching ignorance to children.

You can have a reasonable conversation without disrespecting anyone. Legislative changes can happen without showing disrespect.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

That is a matter of opinion.
Well, I understand why you would want to believe that. But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition.

Describing a person you have never met as delusional is rather subjective, and a bit unsettling.

Would you consider it disrespectful if it were suggested that you receive professional "treatment" due to your unevidenced and counter-evidenced beliefs?

Nope, not at all.
Good

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.

Being "automatically respectful" is deception. You simply can't offer true respect for beliefs or people who garner no respect. What you're talking about is the pretense of respect, which is a polite form of lying. This is a major portion of what politicians do for a living.

Not being disrespectful is not lying or deceptive.
It is when you're offering the pretense of respect to that which earns no respect. Respect absolutely has to be earned. The word is not synonymous with "being polite". It's a much different concept. All through my career I was in a position where I had to be polite to people and I often could not be openly honest with them. But that doesn't mean I respected them.

And in your career what would happen if you were disrespectful?

Could your strong preference to be disrespectful to people that can not affect your life stem from your lack of being able to act that way towards people in your life?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:55:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:37:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:25:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:07:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.
I can't speak direction for you. But I can speak for main-stream America and they would not do what you would do. They would demand criminal prosecution of the parents, and seek civil (if not criminal) litigation against the one advising the parents, especially if that advice came under the color of any kind of certification or professional credentials.

I never said what I would do if they refused to take their child to the dr. I simply stated I would not disrespect them.
i didn't suggest what you would do either. I simply mentioned what main-stream America would do, and has done. But it seems that you rate disrespect as being worse than incarceration. I disagree. If someone's behaviors, beliefs, or actions don't garner respect, why pretend that they do? It's not beneficial. It's not corrective. It's not even productive. It's just deceptive in the name of social grace. There are far worse things you can offer people than a lack of respect. And many of these people are offering far worse than disrespect - like legislating violations of civil rights, plunging countries into illegal wars, for the sake of religious claims, and teaching ignorance to children.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

That is a matter of opinion.
Well, I understand why you would want to believe that. But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition.

Would you consider it disrespectful if it were suggested that you receive professional "treatment" due to your unevidenced and counter-evidenced beliefs?

Nope, not at all.
Good

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.

Being "automatically respectful" is deception. You simply can't offer true respect for beliefs or people who garner no respect. What you're talking about is the pretense of respect, which is a polite form of lying. This is a major portion of what politicians do for a living.

Not being disrespectful is not lying or deceptive.
It is when you're offering the pretense of respect to that which earns no respect. Respect absolutely has to be earned. The word is not synonymous with "being polite". It's a much different concept. All through my career I was in a position where I had to be polite to people and I often could not be openly honest with them. But that doesn't mean I respected them.

So what you are saying is that no one has your respect until it is earned. Tell me when you have treated someone with no respect and they stuck around to earn your respect?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:57:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When it comes to people, I have a 50/50 view of respect: I automatically give them 50% respect just by virtue of being a fellow human being. The other 50% is earned by virtue of the person's character and principles. Of course, the automatic 50% respect can be lost if I learn that the person does not even qualify for THAT amount!

As for beliefs, I see those as separate and distinct from the person, especially in the online environment. We talk much more about beliefs than the person here. If you expect your beliefs to command respect here automatically, then you are in the wrong place. This isn't a mutual admiration society.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:03:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:37:39 PM, Beastt wrote:

i didn't suggest what you would do either. I simply mentioned what main-stream America would do, and has done. But it seems that you rate disrespect as being worse than incarceration. I disagree. If someone's behaviors, beliefs, or actions don't garner respect, why pretend that they do? It's not beneficial. It's not corrective. It's not even productive. It's just deceptive in the name of social grace. There are far worse things you can offer people than a lack of respect. And many of these people are offering far worse than disrespect - like legislating violations of civil rights, plunging countries into illegal wars, for the sake of religious claims, and teaching ignorance to children.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

That is a matter of opinion.
Well, I understand why you would want to believe that. But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition.



Oops I stated that is a matter of opinion in regards to your entire paragraph. I can't say I agree that a little ridicule could have saved the childs life. Most people that are actually delusional , psychiatry defintion, will respond unfavorably to ridicule and resistance to their beliefs. So calling the parents names will probably just solidify their beliefs.

Like I said, merely an opinion.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:10:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
One of the most frequent complaints I see is in regard to respect. People become upset when their beliefs aren't given respect by default. My question would be; should respect be automatic? And if it is, is it really "respect"? Or is it more of a social grace of pretense to avoid offending someone by being honest with them?

There is a vast difference between respecting a person for their positive traits, and pretending to respect their for beliefs when those beliefs offer little or no consistency with reality (objective evidence).

I suggest that a belief garners respect by showing that it is consistent with reality - a quality we call "truth". When one proclaims their beliefs to be true but can't offer "objective evidence" (there's that phrase again), to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, then the beliefs have demonstrated no truth, and earned no respect.

How many people who are offended when someone demonstrates a lack of respect for their "sacred" beliefs, could actually state that they respect a group of people still ignoring the findings of vulcanology and worshiping volcanoes, up to and including, sacrificing their children to the volcano god? Is it really wrong to note the obvious common ground of sacrifice to, or for, one's god, between Christianity and Volcano Worship? If we have no valid reason to respect worship of volcano gods due to the evidence provided by seismology, vulcanology and geology, why should we be urged to show respect (or the pretense of respect) for Christianity and Islam, despite the evidence provided by big-bang, evolution, heliocentrism and abiogenesis?

The only true respect is earned respect. All other forms are attempts at deception.

What would you say or do to a Christian if you caught him teaching your children that they need to believe in a man named Jesus or they will go to hell?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:09:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:55:13 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:37:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:25:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:07:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.
I can't speak direction for you. But I can speak for main-stream America and they would not do what you would do. They would demand criminal prosecution of the parents, and seek civil (if not criminal) litigation against the one advising the parents, especially if that advice came under the color of any kind of certification or professional credentials.

I never said what I would do if they refused to take their child to the dr. I simply stated I would not disrespect them.
i didn't suggest what you would do either. I simply mentioned what main-stream America would do, and has done. But it seems that you rate disrespect as being worse than incarceration. I disagree. If someone's behaviors, beliefs, or actions don't garner respect, why pretend that they do? It's not beneficial. It's not corrective. It's not even productive. It's just deceptive in the name of social grace. There are far worse things you can offer people than a lack of respect. And many of these people are offering far worse than disrespect - like legislating violations of civil rights, plunging countries into illegal wars, for the sake of religious claims, and teaching ignorance to children.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

That is a matter of opinion.
Well, I understand why you would want to believe that. But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition.

Would you consider it disrespectful if it were suggested that you receive professional "treatment" due to your unevidenced and counter-evidenced beliefs?

Nope, not at all.
Good

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.

Being "automatically respectful" is deception. You simply can't offer true respect for beliefs or people who garner no respect. What you're talking about is the pretense of respect, which is a polite form of lying. This is a major portion of what politicians do for a living.

Not being disrespectful is not lying or deceptive.
It is when you're offering the pretense of respect to that which earns no respect. Respect absolutely has to be earned. The word is not synonymous with "being polite". It's a much different concept. All through my career I was in a position where I had to be polite to people and I often could not be openly honest with them. But that doesn't mean I respected them.

So what you are saying is that no one has your respect until it is earned. Tell me when you have treated someone with no respect and they stuck around to earn your respect?

Very very good question. But I would almost bet the farm that beast does in fact give auto respect to people that believe as he does. Which makes this, trying to find a good word for it, behavior even more unsettling.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:55:13 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:37:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:25:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:07:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:46:14 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:31:13 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now think it through. Suppose they convince a common neighbor, not to take their child to the doctor, rationalizing that even if the child dies, it's better than an eternity in Hell - and the child does die. Do you still feel you have no reason to show disrespect for their beliefs, and perhaps even disrespect toward them for spreading such ridiculous, dangerous and clearly false beliefs?

Why would I show disrespect to them or their beliefs? What would it accomplish really? Make myself feel better about myself? That's about the only thing that would attempt to do.

I would go over and respectfully present my arguments because being a douche bag will do nothing more than cause them to become even more defensive and possibly offensive which would do nothing for the childs wellbeing. Just serve my selfish pride and ego cause I told them off or something.
I can't speak direction for you. But I can speak for main-stream America and they would not do what you would do. They would demand criminal prosecution of the parents, and seek civil (if not criminal) litigation against the one advising the parents, especially if that advice came under the color of any kind of certification or professional credentials.

I never said what I would do if they refused to take their child to the dr. I simply stated I would not disrespect them.
i didn't suggest what you would do either. I simply mentioned what main-stream America would do, and has done. But it seems that you rate disrespect as being worse than incarceration. I disagree. If someone's behaviors, beliefs, or actions don't garner respect, why pretend that they do? It's not beneficial. It's not corrective. It's not even productive. It's just deceptive in the name of social grace. There are far worse things you can offer people than a lack of respect. And many of these people are offering far worse than disrespect - like legislating violations of civil rights, plunging countries into illegal wars, for the sake of religious claims, and teaching ignorance to children.

I think a little ridicule which might save the child's life, is preferable to the death of the child, followed by the incarceration of the grieving parent. And the primary reason we see this prompting for "automatic respect" (which is an oxy-moron), is only because these types of belief are so common. People who claim to work for the CIA and beg police for safe harbor despite the fact that they've never had any contact with any governmental agency or any spy agency and are clearly suffering a delusion, may receive the professional treatment they need (or not), but we don't see the huge outcry when people disrespect their delusional beliefs. And by definition, most religious beliefs are "delusional". You can take offense to that but it's simply the proper word.

That is a matter of opinion.
Well, I understand why you would want to believe that. But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition.

Would you consider it disrespectful if it were suggested that you receive professional "treatment" due to your unevidenced and counter-evidenced beliefs?

Nope, not at all.
Good

Being automatically disrespectful is the way of a child, a selfish spoiled child that cares only for themselves.

Being "automatically respectful" is deception. You simply can't offer true respect for beliefs or people who garner no respect. What you're talking about is the pretense of respect, which is a polite form of lying. This is a major portion of what politicians do for a living.

Not being disrespectful is not lying or deceptive.
It is when you're offering the pretense of respect to that which earns no respect. Respect absolutely has to be earned. The word is not synonymous with "being polite". It's a much different concept. All through my career I was in a position where I had to be polite to people and I often could not be openly honest with them. But that doesn't mean I respected them.

So what you are saying is that no one has your respect until it is earned. Tell me when you have treated someone with no respect and they stuck around to earn your respect?
This is not a coin. It has more than two sides. It's not a matter of respect or disrespect. There is a lot of middle ground. And I tend to start off in the middle. And just because I don't respect someone, doesn't mean I treat them with disrespect - especially in a situation where respect is demanded. That makes about as much sense as the God of the Bible, demanding that we love him, regardless of his behaviors. Love and respect simply don't work that way. So when I'm confronted with a police Commander who I know to be a lying prick, he receives the pretense of respect because that is what he demands. But that's all he gets. I have more respect for the homeless man standing in the hot sun all day asking for hand-outs. At least he's not accepting a large check from public monies simply to lie, promote himself, and violate every policy, rule, law and standard he can get away with. It was a police commander who found me guilty of "Insubordination" simply for mentioning the problem of violations of Constitutional rights, and then reversed the context of a witness statement (who said he was upset with the supervior's mishandling of the situation), to make it sound like my comments upset him. He quoted the "Yes I was upset", in the report. He simply didn't bother to include "I was upset about how the supervisor mishanded it. She asked him a question, and should have allowed him to give a complete answer".

Do you respect people you don't know, know next to nothing about, and have never met?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire