climbing of sacred hills

close
more_vert
Rhiannon R
Rhiannon Jul 11, 2013 14:19:28
Replying to Mustard

It wouldn't be polite to call them an idiot though would it, especially to their face. Isn't that the 'respect' bit, a version of politeness? Wouldn't you subscribe to that much? You can give them your reasons why they are wrong (or you think they're wrong). They can change their mind if they want. And anyone looking on can draw their own conclusions. You might privately think they're an idiot and roll your eyes and give up trying to change their opinion. It doesn't do much good to call them an idiot and start a punch up?

But it's not like the tma forum hoho, in real life should you not generally try to maintain politeness? Respect doesn't imply you agree with their crazy ideas. Just that you accept their right to hold them.

Your point about the number of people holding the idea though, that's relevant somehow isn't it. I can't quite work out how yet.

M Mustard
Mustard Jul 11, 2013 14:38:21
Replying to Rhiannon

Rhiannon wrote:
It wouldn't be polite to call them an idiot though would it, especially to their face. Isn't that the 'respect' bit, a version of politeness? Wouldn't you subscribe to that much? You can give them your reasons why they are wrong (or you think they're wrong). They can change their mind if they want. And anyone looking on can draw their own conclusions. You might privately think they're an idiot and roll your eyes and give up trying to change their opinion. It doesn't do much good to call them an idiot and start a punch up?

But it's not like the tma forum hoho, in real life should you not generally try to maintain politeness? Respect doesn't imply you agree with their crazy ideas. Just that you accept their right to hold them.

Your point about the number of people holding the idea though, that's relevant somehow isn't it. I can't quite work out how yet.

Sorry, I wasn't expecting to be taken so literally. I'm not suggesting going up to people and calling them idiots. What I'm suggesting is that it seems that irrational views only become deemed worth of respect when they're labelled "religious".

I'm not even convinced regarding the "right to hold views". That's fine in principle, but that assumes that views exist in a vacuum and don't affect other people. Generally, it's more complicated than that - like in the way some religious views designate spaces as "sacred" that other people might be interested in interacting with.

Not sure what you mean about the numbers?