Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:20:55
In reply to Re: BOB said that????????????? » zazenduck, posted by Dinah on June 5, 2006, at 11:36:49
> With respect, you seem rather biased in the way you police your 'sensitivity to feelings' rule. Let me give you an example; I spoke resently on a thread about iraq and saddam where I said his sons were purported to be blood thirsty monsters ... This went unchallenged but you can be sure if I suggested donald rumsfeld was a blood thirsty war monger (for example) that I'd have fallen foul of potentially upsetting people.
>
> TJI'm not sure it's necessarily the best rationale, but I try to minimize how much I police and sometimes I think there's more potential for upset than other times.
--
> I don't get you Bob, you come acrosss nice sometimes but I feel you really seem to have issues of omnipotence and I feel its hurting people.
> I wish I could duct tape your mouth shut for 2wks. and see how you like it :-(
> It hurts.
> It really f*cking HURTS- DO YOU HEAR ME ?????????????
>
> MuffledI hear you. If I'm omnipotent, then that means you're impotent. I'm sorry you're hurting.
--
> The thing is, that the Christian notion of God as some universal thing that affects ME, whether I believe in him or not-- THIS is so intrusive on my own personal beliefs. By simply saying that I have no God, no God watches over me etc etc I will offend any true believer in the Judeo-Christian concept of God. We simultaneously offend one another, simply by saying something about our own personal beliefs. Whether or not we phrase it in "I" language or not. It's a lose-lose situation.
This kind of thing has been coming up, so I'd like to distinguish between disagreeing, being sensitive and respectful, and language that could offend others.
If one person likes the Cubs and another person says they prefer the White Sox, I'd consider that a disagreement. If the first person is a real fan, they may be offended (caused to feel vexation or resentment by violation of what they consider proper or fitting). But I wouldn't consider the second person to have been insensitive or disrespectful. Saying the first person's team stinks I wouldn't consider sensitive, however, and saying the first person shouldn't be a fan I wouldn't consider respectful.
Here, "language that could offend others" usually has a very specific meaning: words and phrases considered often or usually disparaging, obscene, offensive, or vulgar by Merriam-Webster OnLine:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> Bob, I'm concerned that certain religions may be given preference in terms of what is deemed "civil" on the faith board.
>
> llrrrppThey may, and we've discussed that. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but freedom of speech is limited here.
--
> Just wondering. Are you willing to reconsider this block or not. Yes or no. Otherwise this debate could go on forever.
>
> JakeYes, but my mind hasn't been changed yet. Maybe it's a debate that *should* in some form go on forever?
--
> As far as I know, based on past practice, it is possible in the face of a Please Rephrase to apologize for any offense and withdraw the statement.
>
> If that's what one wishes to do, it seems like a safe option.
>
> Is this true, Dr. Bob?
>
> DinahThat's been my past practice, but rephrasing may be a useful exercise, so I've considered being more insistent. What do you think?
--
> can anyone tell me the rationale for blocking babblemail, along with public posting, during a block?
>
> LarThe idea is to increase the incentive to be civil.
--
> I don't recall Dr. Bob saying that. If anyone has links?
>
> DinahI don't recall doing so, either. Maybe it was someone else? I'd also be interested in links...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/655122.html