...what Vendetta just said. That. Yes.
Belinda wrote:Vendetta wrote:
That's where you're wrong. You've completely missed our point. We are not saying that there are not bad things that need to be discussed, we are talking about the manner in which they are discussed. Of course there are bad things out there, the world is a screwed up place. And of course these things need to be brought to the table. But they can be looked at in a way that doesn't directly insult either party and takes all perspectives into consideration. We could be talking about the bombing of children in Sudan or somewhere, but the nature of the topic has nothing to do with whether or not you are so strong to your beliefs that you are unwilling to even entertain those of others, and instead bash them for believing such.
What do you mean "entertain" (others' beliefs)?
"Entertain" means to suspend in deliberation for a while, so as to sort out the facts. It's the opposite of "to dismiss out of hand."
True, you should understand the stories others are telling themselves and others. Having comprehended you are justified in bashing them for believing dangerous nonsense. You don't bash children, idiots, ill people, or slaves. You do lambast adults who refuse to take up their responsibilities to serve others and who instead serve themselves. Anger is justifiable and it can be effectual to express anger against men who are doing bad actions.
But here, we just talk about clarifying issues. Nobody's "doing" things by email. And talking rudely is unhelpful in clarifying issues. Personal attacks are irrelevant, and rhetoric is just empty posturing...someone trying to put enough acrimony and spite in their writing to convey emotion rather than intelligence, and bash other people into wounded silence.
That sort of thing is distracting, unhelpful, cowardly and petty. Why bother? We can be polite and still be strong in our intelligence. In fact, if we have to resort to rhetoric instead of substance, chances are we are conscious of intellectual failure on our part.
There are some of us here at online philosophy discussions who don't do philosophy as a form of escapism, but who are sincere.
Then we should talk with sincerity. We should focus on issues, not persons, on premises, not rhetoric, and on making intellectual progress, not on shutting people down.
Alas, there's a mix here.