h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

EtB:

PC:

EtB:

There is no expression of incredulity that I can see. You say you can't take us seriously because we have sought out 'nonsense'. That is not an expression of incredulity. Those words are present for one purpose only: to proclaim your contempt toward the likes of me.

Following up with a weak excuse - "an expression of my incredulity" - compounds the insult. Please stop insulting me, and let's have that 'good debate', OK?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

You really *do* misunderstand. I was not expressing contempt, nor attempting to compound an insult. Please look back at the original context. I was saying someting about my own reactions - right or wrong - at being faced by expressions of the less-organised religions.

I am honestly quite distressed that you are taking this badly, because it is not my intention to hurt.

Back to the soul? The nearedt I get to god is a certain phrasing in Van Morrison's "St Dominic's Preview" - it's actually a pause between two of the lines.

If I didn't believe that already, I wouldn't be persevering with this.



I know, but the *way* you said it is quite offensive, as BtM remarked when he quoted it. Sadly, your intention doesn't alter this.



Repeat this in the FFFF thread, where it belongs.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ah. I hadn't realised you'd taken this off-line.

I'm afraid, old fruit, that I may cause offence. But do *please* let others' fight their own battles?

I appreciate that the above doesn't apply in this case. But you know me well enough to understand that a slipshod style comes as part of the package. You must admit that I could use much more offensive language if I was genuinely trying to offend.

Could I not be regarded as a thorny rose or a bittersweet delicacy?

The point of being 'excellent to each other' is *avoiding* battles!



Slipshod? I don't think you write *anything* you don't mean to....



You mean can you (and no-one else? ) be exempt from the one and only FFFF 'rule'? I don't think that would be fair on anyone, do you?

I have a strong suspicion - but I could be wrong, it happens regularly - that you intend to offend people, to see how they will react. And we all know angry people don't think clearly, and are therefore easier to best in debate, don't we?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<<I have a strong suspicion - but I could be wrong, it happens regularly - that you intend to offend people, to see how they will react.

Well, no, not quite. I *do* enjoy a good robust discussion. Yes, we should be excellent, agreed, but I really don't think that anything that I've posted so far can genuinely be interpreted as a vicious personal attack. Can it? May the gods save us from having to pussyfoot around when discussing our views. In that direction lies the Democratic Party Convention! I refer you also to my previous comments on "Italian Conversations." I grew up in an atmosphere of vigorous debate.

In the spirit of excellence, I'll certainly try and avoid offence. I promise. But might you also examine your reactions and consider whether you may be over-sensitive sometimes? Not necessarily in matters relating to yourself, but in what I suggest might be an (admittedly laudable) attempt to avoid damage to the eggshell sensibilities of imagined others.

I'm glad we're discussing it like adults, though...even if you do exasperate me (and I *know* it's mutual!)

This remains the stumbling block between us. You seem to believe that robust and straight-spoken discussion necessarily includes personal abuse. I would reverse this, and say that straight-spoken debate depends on the total absence of personal abuse! A fight is not a debate, and I don't believe we can learn anything by fighting (except maybe how to hurt people better ).

For example, you posted a note today referring to the beauty of art (or something along those lines), which you said even an atheist can appreciate. To me, this contradicts the general stance you seem to adopt about beliefs. [I see litle difference between (dis)liking a work of art and believing in God - both are entirely subjective, not subject to logic, etc.] I have no difficulty at all in framing my doubts about this, and never once was I tempted to call you names! Please say you can see what I mean?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yes, I can. And I have not called you names. Not once. Not one single time.

All I have done is to express a view that certain views (and if I have included your own, this has been only tangentially) are (in my opinion - I can state no other) 'nonsense' or 'mumbo jumbo' or 'tosh'. None of this is even remotely 'unparliamentary language.'

There *does* seem to be a genuine gulf of understanding between us, because I don't see these things as personal attacks on anyone - merely (yes, 'merely') on their beliefs. As for the art discussion, I genuinely don't believe that I would even pause for breath if you opened with "This is silly" or words to that effect.

(And we *should* get around to the art/soul/god discussion. Prof. Ramachandran's neurological theories are highly relevant here).

OK: what do you add to the debate if you tell me your opinion of my opinion? We can reason this through logically, I think:

Let's assume that your opinion and mine are diametrically opposed on topic X. My opinion of your opinion must surely be a poor one. Likewise your opinion of my opinion. Similarly, if we are in close agreement on topic Y, our opinions of each other's opinions will be quite good. We can predict this using very simple reasoning, and we don't need to know what topic X or Y are to do so.

So, back to the quote above. Given that we disagree on this matter, I know without you saying anything what your opinion of my opinion is. It is a poor one. And if you think about it, you know that I know this. (And so on ad infinitum. ) Finally, let's observe that one is unlikely to be told that one's opinion is .

The conclusion: bearing in mind the above, and given that it will convey no information that is not already known, why would you contribute your opinion on someone else's opinion to the debate? It is very likely indeed that it will have a negative effect, isn't it?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>It is very likely indeed that it will have a negative effect, isn't it?

Only if one accepts that to argue is to insult.

Look...I will entirely agree that you have the moral high ground here. Obviously, part of my behaviour is akin to that of the naughty schoolchild.

But you must also accept that there is more than one valid tradition of debate. Having read one of your journal entries, it would seem that you are in favour of a coldly rational form of discourse. Yes - I can see your point. But it's hardly *fun* is it? At the end of the day, (whisper it) this is only an h2g2 forum and I can't really believe that I'm causing anything stronger than mild consternation. And if I do, then I will own up and take responsibility for making amends.

I'm trying to think of which noted French philosopher it was who made similar objections about Voltaire. He could never tell when Voltaire was being serious and thought that ribaldry had no place in enlightened discoures.

(Not that I'm comparing myself to Voltaire, of course)

OK, I think we'll leave it here. I don't think we've any new ground to explore. But before I go:



Absolutely not! What journal entry made you think that? I am in favour of abuse-free discourse. Everything else - definitely including humour - is encouraged (by me at least). The FFFF is not just about debate, it's a forum, a sort of virtual coffee shop where people can meet and chat. I have nearly always found it to be a fun, friendly place.

The *only* thing I'm against is personal abuse. It has no positive side, it makes no contribution, and its lack does not limit debate or discussion in any significant way.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P.S. here's the URL of a conversation based on one of my journal entries http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F50717?thread=419814&latest=1 It's about the topic we've been discussing here, but without the baggage of a specific issue to deal with. It's a short conversation, just my post and 14 replies. "Coldly rational"? Well it's rational, but it's also courteous, friendly, and playful too. I don't think it's in any way cold, but you must decide that for yourself. :-) There's no trace of abuse toward a person, or their beliefs, and it lacks nothing as a consequence. IMO, of course. Pattern-chaser "Who cares, wins"

Not at all. To gloat (or similar) is too close to abuse for me to split them.




Not even then! I am more and more convinced that our differences are based on your belief (to quote a wise man of my acquaintance: correct me if I'm wrong - I'm here for the debate! ) that debate necessarily involves rubbishing someone or their views.

The above quote seems to say that you wouldn't normally do this, but that if you're debating, such behaviour is accepted? Required, even? It isn't. A debate is not a fight. It's a lot more fun, and there's a whole lot more to be learned and enjoyed. Indulging in abuse - as opposed to criticism/discussion/argument - takes all that away, I find.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Would it surprise you to learn that I an stunned by the druids's degree of offence and level of vehemence?

I don't get why mattters of faith should generate personal offence. At least, not in a forum such as this. Naivety on my part?

'Fraid so (IMO). I *think* your mistake is to judge others by your own standards. They *don't* see things the same as you. They value things you see as trivial, and vice versa. Don't try to second-guess what they will or won't find offensive, just address them all, at all times, with courtesy. You will find that this - truly - doesn't restrict you in what you can say, just in the way you choose to say it.



This is a forum that delights in the exploration of faith-related matters, but only in the context of being excellent to each other. The FFFF is *not* a free-for-all religion-bashing forum.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

May I jump in here a sec? Pattern chaser, Edward has never been anything but polite and supportive in his posts to me. He really is a good egg. I honestly do not think he meant to offend you or anyone else. Do give him a break, ok?

JEllen

Hi JEllen. I wonder if you know what this conversation is about? It has developed in spurts, as off-line comments on discussions taking place elsewhere, as Edward and I both know, but you may not. I am trying to explain the reaction of myself and others, not to criticise. I wonder if that was obvious?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi, ok, I will let you two work it out.