Altruism

[Crackerbox]

Since no one has called you on it yet, the gratuitous and insincere use of the term 'dear' has been widely recognized as condescending and sexist. Continued use of this term while you are pretending that you are somehow qualified to provide Valka with an education that she has neither requested nor demonstrated any particular need for is likely to be deemed unacceptable.

Would you rather I called her annoying as she did me? How strange.

Is Valka attempting to educate me in what is a sociopath?

Prove to me that "dear" is condescending and sexist. Good luck with that. If you wish, Tim, I can also call you something endearing as well...if jealous.

 

[Borachio]

Proof isn't necessary. Some things are self-evident.

 

[Crackerbox]

For the sake of altruism, I'll simply call some posters... "chum". How about them apples?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And sincerity is an issue. When Valka calls me annoying there is not any doubt that she is annoyed with me. You calling her dear in this context is clearly not endearment, based on your opinion of your own superiority, and using a term that you would not use if Valka were not female.

Condescending and sexist.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Prove to me that "dear" is condescending and sexist.

I'll do my bit to prove what Tim actually asserted--that it's widely regarded as being so--by attesting that I, for one, regard it so, as you used it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

For the sake of altruism, I'll simply call some posters... "chum". How about them apples?

If you do it in the same condescending context it will be taken exactly as you intend it be taken, chum.

 

[Crackerbox]

And sincerity is an issue. When Valka calls me annoying there is not any doubt that she is annoyed with me. You calling her dear in this context is clearly not endearment, based on your opinion of your own superiority, and using a term that you would not use if Valka were not female.

Condescending and sexist.

Duly noted, chum. I wonder if you're aware of your own acerbic posts, yet never fail to point out mine. Interesting phenomena going on there.

 

[Borachio]

For the sake of altruism, I'll simply call some posters... "chum". How about them apples?

How about just being pleasant to people for a change?

 

[warpus]

This thread about altriusm is once again going to result in a fist fight. Why doon't we ever learn?

 

[Borachio]

We're our own worst enemies.

Or is it the best?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Duly noted, chum. I wonder if you're aware of your own acerbic posts, yet never fail to point out mine. Interesting phenomena going on there.

I'm well aware of them.

I also have made a pretty thorough study of group dynamics.

These two statements fully explain the phenomena in question.

Learning opportunity.

 

[Crackerbox]

This thread about altriusm is once again going to result in a fist fight. Why doon't we ever learn?

There's no fisticuffs in here. It's just blatent disregard for civfanatics rules and as yet unmoderated.

"Discussing the person, and not the topic. Ad hominems are generally not tolerated. We want people to focus on the discussion topic, not on the people discussing it. As a guideline, if your post only discusses the person (eg. their opinions, their background etc.) and is not related to the topic, you may be considered to be trolling. Discussing the poster, when civil and directly relevant to the topic, may be tolerated."

Everytime I disagree with posters, I get the above. I also get this:
"Passing comments on the style with which another poster posts, or the quality of their posts - stick to discussing the points they are making."

I've discussed altruism with evidence, from multiple sacred and secular traditions, and get criticized for doing so. This despite it being part of the forum's rules.



Some advice from Prospero:
William Shakespeare "The Tempest"

Spoiler :

PROSPERO
You do look, my son, in a moved sort,
As if you were dismay'd: be cheerful, sir.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's no fisticuffs in here. It's just blatent disregard for civfanatics rules and as yet unmoderated.

"Discussing the person, and not the topic. Ad hominems are generally not tolerated. We want people to focus on the discussion topic, not on the people discussing it. As a guideline, if your post only discusses the person (eg. their opinions, their background etc.) and is not related to the topic, you may be considered to be trolling. Discussing the poster, when civil and directly relevant to the topic, may be tolerated."

Everytime I disagree with posters, I get the above. I also get this:
"Passing comments on the style with which another poster posts, or the quality of their posts - stick to discussing the points they are making."

I've discussed altruism with evidence, from multiple sacred and secular traditions, and get criticized for doing so. This despite it being part of the forum's rules.

As long as we are quoting rules:

With 'lighter moderation' comes some tolerance for minor flaming of people that you are debating in a given thread. However, this is on the basis that if someone doesn't want to engage in that style of debating, then they can just stay out of the thread / forum.

You are not the first to start things and then cry for moderation when they are turned back on you, and you are not likely to be the last of that august company.

 

[Crackerbox]

As long as we are quoting rules:
You are not the first to start things and then cry for moderation when they are turned back on you, and you are not likely to be the last of that august company.

Who is crying? I'm here engaging with you, Tim. If you stick with the rules of the community, then who cares if you disagree with me? Diversity of thought is what makes a community operate.

Now if you're saying you don't have to follow the same rules as me, well, I have no problem hitting that old report button.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Go ahead, chum. As stated you won't be the first to push beyond the rules and then report someone for calling you out on it, and likely won't be the last.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Since no one has called you on it yet, the gratuitous and insincere use of the term 'dear' has been widely recognized as condescending and sexist. Continued use of this term while you are pretending that you are somehow qualified to provide Valka with an education that she has neither requested nor demonstrated any particular need for is likely to be deemed unacceptable.

Thank you.

Would you rather I called her annoying as she did me? How strange.

Is Valka attempting to educate me in what is a sociopath?

Prove to me that "dear" is condescending and sexist. Good luck with that. If you wish, Tim, I can also call you something endearing as well...if jealous.

It's condescending and sexist when you are addressing a member of the opposite sex in a condescending way, which this is. You and I are not family. You and I are not friends. You are not among the fewer than half-dozen people who I allow to address me as "dear" in my offline life. We're not even the sort of internet acquaintances from whom I might accept a bit of friendly teasing. There is no affection nor friendliness between us whatsoever. Stop addressing me in this way.

The word "annoying" is a way of describing a person's posts and/or posting habits. It's not the same as calling them a condescending and demeaning name.

Don't think I haven't noticed the many times when you've addressed other people in this thread and the "Eternal Damnation" thread in a condescending way. It's a bad posting habit to get into.

For the sake of altruism, I'll simply call some posters... "chum". How about them apples?

What are you "sacrificing" in this altruistic act of being as rude as you appear determined to be?

There's no fisticuffs in here. It's just blatent disregard for civfanatics rules and as yet unmoderated.

"Discussing the person, and not the topic. Ad hominems are generally not tolerated. We want people to focus on the discussion topic, not on the people discussing it. As a guideline, if your post only discusses the person (eg. their opinions, their background etc.) and is not related to the topic, you may be considered to be trolling. Discussing the poster, when civil and directly relevant to the topic, may be tolerated."

Everytime I disagree with posters, I get the above. I also get this:
"Passing comments on the style with which another poster posts, or the quality of their posts - stick to discussing the points they are making."

I've discussed altruism with evidence, from multiple sacred and secular traditions, and get criticized for doing so. This despite it being part of the forum's rules.

What part of calling me "dear" and being condescending toward me and toward other posters is discussing the post instead of the poster?

Here's a chance to practice some altruism, Crackerbox: Sacrifice your need to feel superior, in order to foster a better thread.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

We have people like this:

http://rt.com/news/iraq-police-suicide-bomber-507/

Caring about others.


Never. There's always a reward for oneself, brain research shows this, being nice in certain circumstances gives an emotional high.

Which "selfless" actions do you think involve the smallest emotional high?

 

[Borachio]

We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

But anyway, Mr Box. So far on CFC you have come across as arrogant, condescending, rude, and outright plain nasty. (This isn't an ad hominem btw; it's an observation of how you've come across).

Is it deliberate? Is it your intention to provide an object lesson on how a person shouldn't behave? Or do you think that Internet forums demand such behaviour from you?

 

[El_Machinae]

What if the client, unasked, tells his lawyer that he's guilty but wants to plead innocent?

A lawyer does not plead her client 'innocent'. She pleads her 'not [legally] guilty', in that she's stating that she would like the system to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her client is guilty. She'll attack the prosecution's case on its merits.

The attorney, however, cannot knowingly allow perjury. If the client declares she's guilty, then the attorney will not put her on the stand to claim she is innocent. There IS a bit of corruption in the system, 'cause attorneys will cross their fingers behind their backs and inform their clients to not tell them of their guilt and thus allow guilty clients to perjure themselves if they so wish. Because this perjury is rarely prosecuted, it gives a clear advantage to the clients who are willing to lie. And, indirectly, disadvantages innocent clients who testify in their defense.

No, dear, that's a psychopath, not a sociopath. Nice try, but epic failure.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

Given the huge intersection between these two conditions, this was outstandingly rude. I'm not discouraging a wee bit of education, but it's not like this was an 'epic fail'. Do you call it an 'epic fail, dear' when someone calls a cucumber a vegetable?

Some Atheists hate the Bible; others hate Jesus; others hate the believers. It's no surprise since Jesus himself said,
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. ... John 15:18-25

Props to the author of John aside, I think that there's a bit too much clinging to this verse in mainstream Christian culture. As you know, Christians are fallible and imperfect people, and so they can generate resentment and distaste based on their hypocrisy, short-sightedness, meanness, or shallowness (as well, granted, from behaving as we think Jesus intended). However, the improper behaviour will be attacked by 'outsiders' and then we have to read Christians trot out this verse as if it's some type of evidence that they're correct.

Again, Christians are fallible and so this verse is done a terrific disservice by the faithful. The douchey people quoting this verse vastly outnumber the non-douchey quoting this verse. Or (more fairly) not 'douchey people' (since that's a fairly grand characterization of someone), but by 'people who have recently acted douchely'.

I'd not say that atheist's hate the Bible so much as hate when it's abused by believers, for the falsehoods it propagates and the discrimination it causes. There might be some philosophical objection to the axioms used to generate the goodness it causes, but Christianity has been awfully slow in shucking the evil the Bible contains.

 

[Sommerswerd]

We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Sounds pretty non-theist to me where is the eternal existence, the heavenly reward, the infinite divine kingdom, the higher purpose?