beastie wrote:I did miss your answer to that question, Wade.
Wade actually directly answered a question and said:
There are certain behaviors, statements, and beliefs (secular or religious) that are not deserving of respect-bigotted behaviors, statements, and beliefs for example.
I don't think any human or human-related thing should be above criticism. But most are due reasonable and respectful criticism.
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? It isn't the case that ALL beliefs, behaviors, statements are due reasonable and respectful criticism after all. Some are too ridiculous and/or offensive and dangerous. (I wonder if Plutarch will agree on this point) Personally, I don't think the "young earth" argument is due reasonable and respectful criticism, either, nor the "aliens in a volcano" because both are so completely disconnected to reality and science that believing in either is a sign of willful ignorance. So it all depends on a very subjective measure, doesn't it?
So the difference between us is not that Wade, and perhaps Plutarch, believes that people shouldn't mock in general, but that they don't agree that what is being mocked
deserves to be mocked. That is largely due to your personal belief in the thing being mocked.
I mean, after all, if someone genuinely believed that people of color descended from "mud people", and this is an idea sanctioned by God, do you really think they would believe it deserves to be mocked? Or do you think those who really do believe that God is going to reward the suicide bombers with 72 virgins think that the mocking that takes place about that is justified? Or is it a sign of being Satanic and evil, to them?
It's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? What you really don't like is seeing
your beliefs mocked. No one does.
Actually, while it certainly is in the eye of the beholder, the difference between us it isn't so much largely due to personal beliefs in the things being mocked (I don't believe in the "young earth", "aliens in a volcanos", "mud people", "72 virgins", yet I don't view these beliefs as deserving mockery, whereas you do). Rather, it is a difference in general inclination to mock or not. You are far more inclined than me to mock and/or rationalize mocking. And, I think this general inclination is a function of fundamental belief about self and others. Those, such as yourself, who have a highly inflated sense of self (typically a function of overcompensating for pronounced insecurities and irrationaly low sense of self) and subsequently a generally low opinion of others (particularly certain groups with whom your insecurities and irrational low sense of self tend to become more aggitated), will be more inclined to mock, and to think mocking is appropriate, and to rationalize mocking. Those, on the other hand, who embrace humility, and have a mature, fair, and balanced sense of self in relation to others, and who are thus guided by the precepts of the Golden Rule, love, charity, and kindness, will be more inclined to respect the beliefs of other they disagree with, and are generally disinclined to mock the beliefs of others.
I imagine the homosexuals you haunted on their own board didn't particularly like seeing you link homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia either, do you? They probably thought that your statements did nothing more than reveal your own bigotry. I happen to agree with that, by the way, because your statements went beyond mocking to extremely offensive, unfounded, disconnected with reality and resistant to change when presented evidence that reasonable people would accept. That seems far closer to the real definition of a bigot to me than someone who mocks isolated behaviors, statements or beliefs of a powerful group that has caused him/her quite a bit of grief and pain.
You, like some of the homosexuals and homosexual advocates that I have enteracted with over the years (not to be confused with "haunting"), have irrationally confused legitimate classification, with mockery and bigotry. Classifying people as human unavoidably links all humans with various undesirable people (such as murderers, rapists, pediphiles, etc.). Given this unavoidable linkage to undesirable people, is it reasonable to view the classification of human as "going beyond mockery" and to consider it "bigotry"? Of course not. It is assinine to suggest that it would in this case as well as in the case of the general classification of sexual attraction disorders. In other words, what you suggest about my CSSAD page, isn't real mockery or bigotry, but irrationally imagined mockery and bigotry. That is a separate issue.
So help me know if you can tell the difference between mockery and criticism. Do you agree with Plutarch that the two examples of me, personally, "mocking" were really examples of mocking, or were they criticism?
I will leave that to be worked out between the two of you.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-