Ridiculing others.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To give some respect to buckky who is going through a hard time, I am moving this out of his thread as other posters have suggested I do.
This thread is about the question of why we ridicule others who hold different opinions from us, whether or not doing so is effective, and whether or not it is a 'good' or 'bad' thing to do.
Why do we do it?
1. Becau dicule others, and are some groups more likely to be the subject of ridicule? If so why?

Upsetting the status quo always seems to trigger a kneejerk reaction from ... knee jerks!!.

For me when I was going through school (yr1 to yr 12) our school was the most americanized schools in the area - especially when it came to sports and also film and television.
Those doing maths 1 and maths 2, physics, chemistry, and there were a bunch - mainly all attending virtually all those classes.
Sidetrackedc. ooops.
Anyway the background setting - The Gold Coast was an ever imposing player in the decision making processes . Do this, jump through that.
You'd go away for 6 months and come back and you wouldn't recognize your 'home town' because of the ever imposing multilevelled high rises going ahead.
It's really weird. I go back to my primary school about 12 years later. When I left it was the same size as all the other buildings around it now it is dwarfed by all this real estate land grab. Seems the Gold Coast gave the go ahead to a whole bunch of highrise apartments as the Gold Coast's profile become a firm world name for party goers around the world to check it out.

f*&%#@ the locals, specially the aboriginies - we have the money so we will take the place!! We'll throw you a bone after the dust settles, ok. cya then 😉


for this ( you can read a whole lot more to those brief descriptions, with some of your thoughts would probably not far from the mark 🙂 )

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, right, after all, he's [b]much more likely to respect you if you disrespect him.

Respect is earned, not simply expected and given for no reason. Treat others how you would wish to be treated. Sound familiar?[/b]

I, obviously, have a different way of dealing with these things than you. How can twhitehead know what it feels like to be disrespected unless someone disrespects him? The Pharisees had to learn this from Christ, for I doubt if anyone would dare stand up to them and call them the names Christ did. It apparently did not change them, because they had Him crucified. However, this makes their judgment that much easier at the end of the age.

Well, I don't know about you, but if my soul were in danger of being thrown in the lake of fire at the second death, I would hope someone would be making an effort to wake me up to this fact, so that I might have a chance to do something about it.

However, if you can help twhitethead see his errors, I wish you would give it your best shot. Perhaps, I may also learn something from your example.

P.S. Getting twhitehead to respect me isn't my main goal, if that is what you think. I probably don't deserve his respect anyway.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is ridicule in an attempt to get you to stop acting like a dumbass, which I know you can't be, if you are really a computer programmer, as you say. The only reason I treat you with disrespect is to help you learn the truth and so you may also treat me with some respect.

Do you think it is having the desired effect? Part of the question in my OP is whether or not ridicule is really effective.
Its rather like terrorism. I know that terrorism is really effective at terrorising people, but I have always wondered how effective it is at furthering the goals of the terrorists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its rather like terrorism. I know that terrorism is really effective at terrorising people, but I have always wondered how effective it is at furthering the goals of the terrorists.

It got almost the entire the U.S. military garrison out of Saudi Arabia in next to no time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you think it is having the desired effect? Part of the question in my OP is whether or not ridicule is really effective.
Its rather like terrorism. I know that terrorism is really effective at terrorising people, but I have always wondered how effective it is at furthering the goals of the terrorists.

I guess not, if it makes you compare me to a terrorist. Maybe Suzianne is correct. But I was just being me and don't know how to be a Suzianne.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess not, if it makes you compare me to a terrorist. Maybe Suzianne is correct. But I was just being me and don't know how to be a Suzianne.

I am comparing the tactic to terrorism. Comparison does not imply equivalence.
My point is that both terrorism and ridiculing often have the expressed intent of 'waking up' the victim to the perpetrators plight/message and have the effect of annoying the victim. In both cases it does usually get the attention of the victim, but the question is whether the attention that is obtained is what was originally desired.
For example 9/11 did not make the US look more favorably on Muslims, nor did it make them back out of Israel. But maybe neither was the actual intention of the terrorists in question.
Similarly when we ridicule people on these forums, we often get the attention of the person, but instead of changing their views, they may simply hold firmer to their beliefs and loose all respect they might have had for us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am comparing the tactic to terrorism. Comparison does not imply equivalence.
My point is that both terrorism and ridiculing often have the expressed intent of 'waking up' the victim to the perpetrators plight/message and have the effect of annoying the victim. In both cases it does usually get the attention of the victim, but the question is whether th ...[text shortened]... they may simply hold firmer to their beliefs and loose all respect they might have had for us.

The 9/11 terroists had no intention of 'waking up' the victums they killed. It was the reward of 70 virgins that was the actual intention of the terrorists in question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The 9/11 terroists had no intention of 'waking up' the victums they killed.

Thats not what I meant. One possibility is they wanted the attention of the US (and the world in general).

It was the reward of 70 virgins that was the actual intention of the terrorists in question.
It is not so much the intentions of the deluded pawns that I am interested in but rather that of the masterminds.

What is your primary motivation for wanting to convert others? Is it because you think you will have a better chance of getting into heaven, will get some reward of some sort, or because you genuinely care about the future of our souls? Or some other reason?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats not what I meant. One possibility is they wanted the attention of the US (and the world in general).

[b]It was the reward of 70 virgins that was the actual intention of the terrorists in question.
It is not so much the intentions of the deluded pawns that I am interested in but rather that of the masterminds.

What is your primary motivati ...[text shortened]... of some sort, or because you genuinely care about the future of our souls? Or some other reason?[/b]

Christ is interested in saving the lost sheep. I am saved by the grace of the Lord due to my belief, faith, and trust in Him. I am not saved by any works I might do on earth.

However, I am told I will be judged by what I do in the body, as to what unknown rewards I may or may not receive. Christ told his followers to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But I do what I do, not because I am expecting some unknown reward, but because I seem compelled to do so, perhaps by the Holy Spirit.

I admit I do not do everything I believe Christ wants me to do. I believe this is because I am still an imperfect Christian. The fact that I am a Christian, or at least claim to be, means it is not that difficult to become a Christian. You, however, don't even claim to be saved nor want to be, as far as I can tell. You seem to be content in being a lost sheep destined for the lake of fire.

Christ wants me to love my enemies, but I am not good at that sort of thing. Now if you were my enemy, I would probably be like Jonah and make no attempt to warn you. But I don't really know you enough to think you are my enemy. I can't say I love you either, because of your attitude. Perhaps you may feel the same about me.

Anyway, I am just delivering the message that you need a Savior. I do not feel I have a stake in the outcome, for if you do convert to Christ, it has to be the work of the Holy Spirit on you. For the message I deliver is with as much insult and as little love as I am capable. For now, I am only going to wish you good luck with what you wish to do with the rest of your life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is wrong with intolerance? I think it depends on what you are intolerant of. For example I am intolerant of slavery. I am intolerant of people wanting to teach creationism in science class. I am intolerant of people threatening my child with hell.
There are in fact many aspects of religion that I am intolerant of because I believe they are harmful b ...[text shortened]... me and to others. Am I wrong to be intolerant? Do you consider yourself tolerant of everything?

I might be intolerant of things I consider wrong [purely from a Biblical standpoint] like gay marriages.

However I agree that a religion dominated society can go overboard - like the things you mention .. the teaching of creation in a science class or with the foolish threats of hell to kids .. and there easily are more examples. I have said before many times some religious people dont know when to shutup and back off from their preaching and proselyting. I dont argue with atheists. I only confront people with a similar starting point like myself ie a belief in God/Bible etc., that way we have some basis for discussion.

There is no easy solution to the differences between the atheist and theist. Society is constantly adjusting to changes in the way people think and change happens, but ridiculing is probably not the way out in my opinion.

Originally posted by JS357
This doesn't make sense to me. It more or less implies that "the theists" that are ridiculed by atheists actually have illogical beliefs, which is not something I would expect a theist to say.

Also, many atheists couldn't care less about what someone else believes, it is their actions that they do or do not want to tolerate. Sure, we have vocal atheists on ...[text shortened]... ut if it is only expressed through ridicule, that is not much more that a free-speech issue.

Belief in God is not rational or logical because there is no solid proof that God exists. There are some who might claim to have met Christ or seen angels etc but I have never had that experience.

My belief is based purely on faith in something for which I have no proof. Therefore that makes my faith illogical and irrational.

Originally posted by Rajk999
My belief is based purely on faith in something for which I have no proof. Therefore that makes my faith illogical and irrational.

An I believe that such illogical beliefs lead to further and further illogical belief such as the various religions we have today. I believe that ultimately such beliefs are harmful and so when I can, I try to dissuade other people from believing illogical things.
However, I wouldn't go so far as to say I am intolerant of all such illogical beliefs. I try to dissuade people but I do not go further than that and am perfectly happy having theist friends, family members etc. I am also not blind to all the good that comes out of religions. I was born in an Anglican run hospital and went to a Catholic run secondary school. It is just my opinion that the bad outweighs the good.

As I said, I am more intolerant when it comes to things that I see as being significantly more harmful such as religious terrorism or religious attacks on science and the education system. I can also get quite vocal when it comes to 'alternative medicine' which is not religion but is nevertheless illogical belief.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Belief in God is not rational or logical because there is no solid proof that God exists. There are some who might claim to have met Christ or seen angels etc but I have never had that experience.

My belief is based purely on faith in something for which I have no proof. Therefore that makes my faith illogical and irrational.

OK I see how you are using the words. Not irrational usages, but I was taught differently.

For example.

All mules are green.
This animal is a mule.
Therefore, this animanl is green.

Is logically and rationally valid, but not logically and rationally sound.

It's just the usage of the words that I was taught.

No big deal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To give some respect to buckky who is going through a hard time, I am moving this out of his thread as other posters have suggested I do.
This thread is about the question of why we ridicule others who hold different opinions from us, whether or not doing so is effective, and whether or not it is a 'good' or 'bad' thing to do.
Why do we do it?
1. Becau ...[text shortened]... dicule others, and are some groups more likely to be the subject of ridicule? If so why?

Some people just really deserve to be ridiculed. By lampooning these individuals, one is performing a service to society, even if the only effect is to generate some light amusement. And you never know, maybe the horse will learn to sing.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Some people just really deserve to be ridiculed. By lampooning these individuals, one is performing a service to society, even if the only effect is to generate some light amusement. And you never know, maybe the horse will learn to sing.

Aye. Indeed, as an example, what is the "correct" (non-ridiculing way) to address stuff like:
http://www.redhotchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=147854&page=1#post_2890805 ?