Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and this is yet another example of thinking that is seen as utterly irrational.
Like yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
inciting fear is inciting hate.
No, it is not.
There is no concomitant relationship between fear and hate.
One can incite fear without hating, just as one can incite hate without fearing.
It's also possible to incite fear to to incite hatred, and christians have been doing exactly that for 1,500 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
and I continue to point out the flawed logic and irrational thought process
the post above included
It's neither flawed nor irrational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
Let me guess - he doesn't want them hanging around?
You just have to understand what you're reading, which is something christians are unable to do.
Yahweh rewards people in the here-and-now and punishes people in the here-and-now because there is no Heaven or Hell.
Later, you see a fundamental shift in theology. That shift comes with the formation of the kingdom and the shift from henotheism to monolatry.
Yahweh no longer punishes or rewards individuals, as all punishments and rewards are now levied on the Kingdom and its people as a whole.
But, that fails when King Josiah, who does everything Yahweh wants -- at least according to the devious liars Jeremiah, Hilkiah and Shapshan -- gets killed and the kingdom is ultimately destroyed with the people exiled into the Babylonian Captivity.
Now you see another fundamental shift in theology.
If doing what Yahweh wants results in this misery, then maybe we're not really doing what Yahweh wants and what he really wants is to take care of widows, orphans, the sick and invalids and the destitute and that's what the Latter Prophets emphasize.
inciting fear is inciting hate. inciting others to fear is a behavior used by those who are hatemongers.
hatemonger - "one who arouses hatred for others. depreciator, detractor, disparager, knocker - one who disparages or belittles the worth of something."
that is the mindset and the behavior you continue to exhibit. the behavior of deprecating, disparaging, denigrating, belittling is used to incite hate.
see if you can instead talk about behaviors. without labeling any groups.
can you do that? I have yet to see it from you. when you can do that there can be rational discourse. until then, it is absent.
I've wanted to come back to this post for several days, but am just now getting around to it.
The statement of mine that you highlighted -- that you responded to -- was "Fear is a great motivator". And it is, but you totally misunderstood my post. The first definition of "great" is, "of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average". So perhaps if I change one word you'll better understand, although I doubt it, because you jump to conclusions awfully quickly and often without thinking, and sometimes (I suspect) based on a degree of misandry.
So let me change that word and say that: Fear is an effective motivator. You previously took my comment to mean instilling fear was a good thing to do, and -- if you carefully read my post -- you'll find the examples I gave were fear negatively influencing or even causing more negative behaviors.
Last evening I was rewatching an excellent film about a racial incident in Mississippi -- "A Time To Kill". Although fictional, it is almost a textbook story about how fear motivates people...negatively.
As far as labeling people, you do it yourself. Naturally...because labeling is part of human nature. Sometimes it's a bad part of human nature. And sometimes it's positive. As a school administrator, there was no field that REQUIRED labeling people more than special education. But guess what, with a hundred special ed kids in our school, it would have been impossible to give all teachers a concise, workable profile of each child without using labeling terms. But when we would say that John is __________, while Mary is ______________, a teacher could instantly begin to think of strategies he or she could use for John and Mary. I'm white. I'm old. I'm slightly left of middle. I'm gay. I'm a Buddhist. I'm overweight. I am a tachy-brady syndrome patient. I'm a supporter of civil rights. I'm anti-Trump. Those are all labels, and as soon as I say one, the other person can begin to sketch in his or her mind what I'm about. Labeling is simply human shorthand.
And for a person who doesn't like labels, what did you do? You used the labels depreciator, detractor, disparager, and knocker in the very post where you were criticizing labeling. The problem is that you like to criticize others when they use labels, while you think it's just fine to use labels yourself. We can attach a label to that -- hypocrisy. And at various times, we're all a bit hypocritical.
Did it ever occur to you that this very thread uses a label in its title -- "New Atheism".
I'm blunt. No question about it...at least here. But I don't think you've been winning many Miss Congeniality crowns, either.
inciting fear is inciting hate. inciting others to fear is a behavior used by those who are hatemongers.
hatemonger - "one who arouses hatred for others. depreciator, detractor, disparager, knocker - one who disparages or belittles the worth of something."
that is the mindset and the behavior you continue to exhibit. the behavior of deprecating, disparaging, denigrating, belittling is used to incite hate.
see if you can instead talk about behaviors. without labeling any groups.
can you do that? I have yet to see it from you. when you can do that there can be rational discourse. until then, it is absent.
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing about hate groups such as the posted reference to "The Proud Boys," or something else. Yes, there are people over a wide spectrum of beliefs that try to make capital out of fear. It is mormal for a targeted group to identify the ones making them a target. The other viewpoint saying, "your side does it too is no kind of excuse.
I've wanted to come back to this post for several days, but am just now getting around to it.
The statement of mine that you highlighted -- that you responded to -- was "Fear is a great motivator". And it is, but you totally misunderstood my post. The first definition of "great" is, "of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average". So perhaps if I change one word you'll better understand, although I doubt it, because you jump to conclusions awfully quickly and often without thinking, and sometimes (I suspect) based on a degree of misandry.
So let me change that word and say that: Fear is an effective motivator. You previously took my comment to mean instilling fear was a good thing to do, and -- if you carefully read my post -- you'll find the examples I gave were fear negatively influencing or even causing more negative behaviors.
Last evening I was rewatching an excellent film about a racial incident in Mississippi -- "A Time To Kill". Although fictional, it is almost a textbook story about how fear motivates people...negatively.
As far as labeling people, you do it yourself. Naturally...because labeling is part of human nature. Sometimes it's a bad part of human nature. And sometimes it's positive. As a school administrator, there was no field that REQUIRED labeling people more than special education. But guess what, with a hundred special ed kids in our school, it would have been impossible to give all teachers a concise, workable profile of each child without using labeling terms. But when we would say that John is __________, while Mary is ______________, a teacher could instantly begin to think of strategies he or she could use for John and Mary. I'm white. I'm old. I'm slightly left of middle. I'm gay. I'm a Buddhist. I'm overweight. I am a tachy-brady syndrome patient. I'm a supporter of civil rights. I'm anti-Trump. Those are all labels, and as soon as I say one, the other person can begin to sketch in his or her mind what I'm about. Labeling is simply human shorthand.
And for a person who doesn't like labels, what did you do? You used the labels depreciator, detractor, disparager, and knocker in the very post where you were criticizing labeling. The problem is that you like to criticize others when they use labels, while you think it's just fine to use labels yourself. We can attach a label to that -- hypocrisy. And at various times, we're all a bit hypocritical.
Did it ever occur to you that this very thread uses a label in its title -- "New Atheism".
I'm blunt. No question about it...at least here. But I don't think you've been winning many Miss Congeniality crowns, either.
Anger forced me to spend some time thinking about this. My use of labels created a lot of dissonance that I couldn't live with. It seemed to me the very act of using labels was pitting one person against another, but what choice does any of us have? We have to have a way to navigate. Like atheist/believer, Christian/Jew, conservative/liberal, shirts/skins, pepperoni/sausage...
I finally figured out my problem was that I had been taught to put those labels in front of their humanity instead of behind it. Once that clicked for me the labels were pretty easy. I still get hung up on some of those if I feel very strongly about a particular issue and I try and draw conclusions about their humanity but I realize that's just me being emotional.
I've wanted to come back to this post for several days, but am just now getting around to it.
The statement of mine that you highlighted -- that you responded to -- was "Fear is a great motivator". And it is, but you totally misunderstood my post. The first definition of "great" is, "of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average". So perhaps if I change one word you'll better understand, although I doubt it, because you jump to conclusions awfully quickly and often without thinking, and sometimes (I suspect) based on a degree of misandry.
So let me change that word and say that: Fear is an effective motivator. You previously took my comment to mean instilling fear was a good thing to do, and -- if you carefully read my post -- you'll find the examples I gave were fear negatively influencing or even causing more negative behaviors.
Last evening I was rewatching an excellent film about a racial incident in Mississippi -- "A Time To Kill". Although fictional, it is almost a textbook story about how fear motivates people...negatively.
As far as labeling people, you do it yourself. Naturally...because labeling is part of human nature. Sometimes it's a bad part of human nature. And sometimes it's positive. As a school administrator, there was no field that REQUIRED labeling people more than special education. But guess what, with a hundred special ed kids in our school, it would have been impossible to give all teachers a concise, workable profile of each child without using labeling terms. But when we would say that John is __________, while Mary is ______________, a teacher could instantly begin to think of strategies he or she could use for John and Mary. I'm white. I'm old. I'm slightly left of middle. I'm gay. I'm a Buddhist. I'm overweight. I am a tachy-brady syndrome patient. I'm a supporter of civil rights. I'm anti-Trump. Those are all labels, and as soon as I say one, the other person can begin to sketch in his or her mind what I'm about. Labeling is simply human shorthand.
And for a person who doesn't like labels, what did you do? You used the labels depreciator, detractor, disparager, and knocker in the very post where you were criticizing labeling. The problem is that you like to criticize others when they use labels, while you think it's just fine to use labels yourself. We can attach a label to that -- hypocrisy. And at various times, we're all a bit hypocritical.
Did it ever occur to you that this very thread uses a label in its title -- "New Atheism".
I'm blunt. No question about it...at least here. But I don't think you've been winning many Miss Congeniality crowns, either.
Just when I think my wishes have come true, reality hits.
Now we are speaking truth. The word indoctrination is used so casually by that poster but it is the very thing that non-believers like me don't accept as normal,
It is normal, I think. It's and evolved instinct to train people function as part of a tribe. We have our roles - the alpha pair, the Guard, the family. I think there is evidence that at one time the mystery of motherhood lead to a Stone age matriarchy and trade and co -operation rather than war. But farming, land, increased population let to border disputes and wars and men took over rulership. Religion (being invented by men - or re -invented after a more woman -run fertiiity religion) supported gender -roles and has done so ever since.
This is become the 'Norm'. and is 'normal' in that sense. It may even be (arguably) normal in the sense of natural. But our society and technology means that we can do better. We adapt the environment rather than adapting to it; we can adapt 'natural' gender roles rather than letting it control us. Atheism, taking the whole element of 'God's intentions' out of it and giving us the options makes this easier to do. The problem is the 'old Norm' thinking still continues because (until recently, anyway) there wasn't the will at the top. And if Right - wing religion has its' way, there never will be.
I've said it before. But sometimes I feel like I'm watching children playing in a sandbox when I visit the RS main forum. It literally reminds me of one time when I was in middle school with my friend riding bikes. We stopped and watched some younger kids who were talking about building a motel, which they hoped to complete by that afternoon. (That memory just came to mind.)
I can remember getting angry and wanting to correct them in their thinking. Now I realize, I should just leave them at their play.
I've said it before. But sometimes I feel like I'm watching children playing in a sandbox when I visit the RS main forum. It literally reminds me of one time when I was in middle school with my friend riding bikes. We stopped and watched some younger kids who were talking about building a motel, which they hoped to complete by that afternoon. (That memory just came to mind.)
I can remember getting angry and wanting to correct them in their thinking. Now I realize, I should just leave them at their play.
One of the favourite fallacies in theist -thinking is confusing a reality of which 'children' are unaware with an unproven belief which they can't get others to accept just on their say -so.
(the venomfang fallacy' as i call it and the related 'skeptics denied powered flight' fallacy)
Anger forced me to spend some time thinking about this. My use of labels created a lot of dissonance that I couldn't live with. It seemed to me the very act of using labels was pitting one person against another, but what choice does any of us have? We have to have a way to navigate. Like atheist/believer, Christian/Jew, conservative/liberal, shirts/skins, pepperoni/sausage...
I finally figured out my problem was that I had been taught to put those labels in front of their humanity instead of behind it. Once that clicked for me the labels were pretty easy. I still get hung up on some of those if I feel very strongly about a particular issue and I try and draw conclusions about their humanity but I realize that's just me being emotional.
But it is something to think about.
I like the way you phrased on sentence -- that "We have to have a way to navigate".
I remember a time that a parent did a formal complaint against our school's special ed department, and went all the way to the feds. We had to pull all the records of that student, and because he was a special ed student there were literally 4 or 5 cases of paperwork to review. Teachers didn't need to know that much information about the child. The label was "shorthand" for being able to pull up the strategies for working with that kind of kid.
But we do have to be careful with labels. We were having a parent night meeting one year and I was talking about our test scores and I said something like, "Our Black students saw a rise in test scores of ___ percent this past year, and we're very pleased with the progress we're making there. A white parent stood up and said, "Mr. ___, the correct term is not Black. It's African-American". To which a Black parent stood up and said, "My children are still citizens of [some African nation], so Mr. Lynch is right to use the term Black since not all Black children in this school are American".
Sometimes we worry too much about labels. Sometimes not enough. But the bible is certainly a document that relies on label after label after label.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
