|
In Reply to: Re: Why do you make it personal?Because it is personal! posted by Farmer on April 25, 2008 at 03:10:30:
"Sorry, but that arrogance stenches...yes, that arrogance I take very personal...because it is this haughty looking down which is more than irritating...sorry if you'd mind that I mind."
No, I don't mind that you mind. It's how you go about it when you do mind, that I mind.
We're meant to be independant thinkers and have different opinions, and there will always be the time we will have fundamental differences and even exhibit emotional attachments to our ideas.
But I think you crossed the line and made it personal.
Pettiness aside, I will address "arrogance" and "haughty looking down" while addressing two things I have issue with in your posts, which are particularly noticeable in this thread.
One: There is the way you uphold men of intelligence. It's not the first time you refer to them as far "beyond our level," and you talk about "who is the smartest" and "has the most credentials" and "followers." I'm not entirely sure if you were being ironic on the latter points, but you did say we are to be "humble" in the light of these great, far-superior, super-intelligent thinkers. Well, sorry, but I do not revere fellow human beings that cult-of-personality manner. I respect some for being geniuses, but I do not think what they achieve is so mystically unreachable. I do not need them to do my thinking for me so I can follow them. I am not "blown about by every wind" so that if some greatly-respected mathematician or scientist "proves that there is no god" I will become an overnight atheist due to his glorious credentials - because that is just not my personal experience of God. And neither will I become more convinced there is a God just because of a headline of some new discovery: "God proved in test tube!"
Perhaps that is not "humble" enough and too "arrogant" for you?
You do confuse me though, for you also say, "I won't let them tell me or any much smarter believer than me, that we are so to speak, just very dumb ignorant sheep."
Two: Your which-side-are-you-on knee-jerk responses. A general statement of fact does not imply a personal stance. At first I thought it was a language thing, but I see more and more that it is not - you seem to leave little room for general statements of fact and detached observation, due to your emotional investment in your own belief system.
In my opinion, math and faith are complimentary. But it is not incorrect to state that "math has been regarded an enemy of religion" - I gave you the quotes. You may not agree, I may not agree, but the statement itself is not incorrect - it is a fact of history.
In my opinion, child-sexual abuse is, always was, and always will be wrong. And if there were no laws against it or awareness of it 1000 years ago, it was still wrong and we should have been more enlightened. Now, I was sexually abused as a child, so you can only imagine the emotional investment I have in the idea it is wrong. But it is still not incorrect, even if unpopular and even inflammatory in this community (as I discovered), to say that not so long ago it wasn't as big a deal as it is now; that great man of science Arthur C. Clarke was an openly-practising pedofile who openly defended pederasty as late as the 90s. Saying it "wasn't as big a deal" decades ago when I was abused, does not magically make it less of a big deal for me, or diminish my pain and suffering, but it is still a general statement of fact that holds water. My blood might boil to hear it or say it, but it is a fact. It does not make me an apologetic, or imply that I think it was less of a crime "back then."
When it is no longer a general statement, I usually make it clear: this is me. My general distaste for man-worship and man-pleasing takes on higher levels, and I find myself exporting those ideals. I have a low tolerance for people seeing others as lesser/greater human beings due to race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, income level, etc. Yes, I jump on my high horse and go on a crusade (perhaps that is why you find me "haughty looking down"), because I am emotionally invested against narrowminded bigotry and ignorance, even when it takes the form of the question "hope" (the person who started this thread) asked.
There may be a clash of posting culture involved. You have been a proponent of people posting with where exactly they personally stand on an issue so there is something to discuss, and you are/were miffed by "unsporting" people such as Perry, who often posted general posts and links with little or no personal statements. I think you have a harder time digesting general statements. Perhaps that is also why you tend to make things personal: because you want to drive people to be more personal?
