DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Life in General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30196--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: bopper
Date: April 30, 2019, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Honestly?
I think saying "I am an antinatalist" is a very very strong way
to say "I don't want kids"
It implies, to me, I dont think anyone should have kids and you
shouldn't have a kids and we should just let the human race die
off.
Now that is probably not what she means.
I think she should have something like "Why are you so
interested in my sex life?"
or "Please stop, now."
#Post#: 30198--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 30, 2019, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bopper link ---
>
> Honestly?
>
> I think saying "I am an antinatalist" is a very very strong
way to say "I don't want kids"
> It implies, to me, I dont think anyone should have kids and
you shouldn't have a kids and we should just let the human race
die off.
> Now that is probably not what she means.
>
> I think she should have something like "Why are you so
interested in my sex life?"
> or "Please stop, now."
>
--- End Quote ---
That is what antinatalists believe. She didn't tell me
everything she tried, but she tried other things and flat-out
stating that she was an antinatalist and didn't believe it was
moral to have children was last.
#Post#: 30210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Contrarian
Date: April 30, 2019, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t understand why one persons strong belief in an ideology,
is permissive and another’s beliefs in ideology is not.
(Violence or breech of human rights aside)
Yes, don’t bring up that you believe that having children is a
burden to all, including the children, while out to dinner with
friends and one friend is talking about how much they love being
parents etc.
But when one pushes such an idea, or any idea, on the other, why
is the counter argument being questioned in terms of etiquette?
Etiquette has already been broken. The gloves are off. An idea
was actually pressed upon a person who disagreed and in quite an
uncomfortable way, so the one to whom the belief was pressed
upon spoke her mind.
This is what it is to be human.
Are we really going to say, let’s just nod and smile, and we can
go home and hide in a corner and write our true thoughts in a
diary we hope no one will ever find? Have we forgotten the lives
lost to ensure we had the freedom to speak? Really do we want to
live like this? Do we want to stop all thought process and only
express what we are told is permitted?
There is a time and a place, to speak our true feelings, but
those rules were broken by the first speaker who insisted that
their idea was the best idea and if you don’t agree it is
because you don’t know, in other words are ignorant.
That’s when the breech of etiquette happened.
It sounds as though the second woman held on to grace as long as
she could. I honestly think the attempt was admirable.
I disagree with the second woman’s ideology, but I would happily
listen to her views if I caught myself going on about my own
despite the obvious attempt to move on, or allow others to
speak.
I am strongly against circumcision. I would never, at a dinner
table with friends, listen to one preparing for a Brit milah,
and immediately start talking about how barbaric I think the
process is. And believe me, the strapping down of a baby to
mutilate it, if those of you who believe it’s nothing can
imagine what how this process seems to those of us who don’t, is
a very distressing idea.
So I can actively participate in public debates, which I do.
However, when one sits down to break bread with people, one does
not take out their soap box and stand upon it.
But once one person at the table breaks that rule, it’s a free
for all for soap boxes.
For example, you can talk about planning your circumcision
ceremony all you want and I’ll talk to you about hummus, pita
and grapes, and appropriate outfits and music. But once you
start talking about the spiritual or medical need for such a
topic, and you insist, and you try to tell ME, that it is
necessary, you have pulled out you soapbox and stepped on it.
At that point, I will pull out mine. And hopefully we will
listen to each other and all parties present will learn
something new, especially the opposing sides. I debate quite a
bit and I almost always learn something new I must seriously
consider.
But one thing I’ve noticed is that some people don’t like to
learn that they are not the sole judge of what is right for
humanity.
And I can’t believe that this is even a topic of conversation.
If the antinatalist (spelling?) had heard the joy of the parent
in talking of her motherhood and children and then went off on
her own views, then yes, she had pulled out the box. But that’s
not the case.
When one person breaks etiquette or manners, it’s a bare fist
fight and there’s no punishing those who are just defending
themselves with every jab and right hook they have.
#Post#: 30212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: chigger
Date: April 30, 2019, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Everything Contrarian just said!!
#Post#: 30218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Kiwipinball
Date: April 30, 2019, 8:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Contrarian link ---
>
> I don’t understand why one persons strong belief in an
ideology, is permissive and another’s beliefs in ideology is
not.
> (Violence or breech of human rights aside)
>
> Yes, don’t bring up that you believe that having children is a
burden to all, including the children, while out to dinner with
friends and one friend is talking about how much they love being
parents etc.
> But when one pushes such an idea, or any idea, on the other,
why is the counter argument being questioned in terms of
etiquette? Etiquette has already been broken. The gloves are
off. An idea was actually pressed upon a person who disagreed
and in quite an uncomfortable way, so the one to whom the belief
was pressed upon spoke her mind.
>
> This is what it is to be human.
>
> Are we really going to say, let’s just nod and smile, and we
can go home and hide in a corner and write our true thoughts in
a diary we hope no one will ever find? Have we forgotten the
lives lost to ensure we had the freedom to speak? Really do we
want to live like this? Do we want to stop all thought process
and only express what we are told is permitted?
>
> There is a time and a place, to speak our true feelings, but
those rules were broken by the first speaker who insisted that
their idea was the best idea and if you don’t agree it is
because you don’t know, in other words are ignorant.
> That’s when the breech of etiquette happened.
>
> It sounds as though the second woman held on to grace as long
as she could. I honestly think the attempt was admirable.
>
> I disagree with the second woman’s ideology, but I would
happily listen to her views if I caught myself going on about my
own despite the obvious attempt to move on, or allow others to
speak.
>
> I am strongly against circumcision. I would never, at a dinner
table with friends, listen to one preparing for a Brit milah,
and immediately start talking about how barbaric I think the
process is. And believe me, the strapping down of a baby to
mutilate it, if those of you who believe it’s nothing can
imagine what how this process seems to those of us who don’t, is
a very distressing idea.
> So I can actively participate in public debates, which I do.
> However, when one sits down to break bread with people, one
does not take out their soap box and stand upon it.
> But once one person at the table breaks that rule, it’s a free
for all for soap boxes.
>
> For example, you can talk about planning your circumcision
ceremony all you want and I’ll talk to you about hummus, pita
and grapes, and appropriate outfits and music. But once you
start talking about the spiritual or medical need for such a
topic, and you insist, and you try to tell ME, that it is
necessary, you have pulled out you soapbox and stepped on it.
> At that point, I will pull out mine. And hopefully we will
listen to each other and all parties present will learn
something new, especially the opposing sides. I debate quite a
bit and I almost always learn something new I must seriously
consider.
> But one thing I’ve noticed is that some people don’t like to
learn that they are not the sole judge of what is right for
humanity.
>
> And I can’t believe that this is even a topic of conversation.
If the antinatalist (spelling?) had heard the joy of the parent
in talking of her motherhood and children and then went off on
her own views, then yes, she had pulled out the box. But that’s
not the case.
>
> When one person breaks etiquette or manners, it’s a bare fist
fight and there’s no punishing those who are just defending
themselves with every jab and right hook they have.
>
--- End Quote ---
And I'd agree 100% if it was just 2 people. But I think some
innocent bystanders got caught in the middle. Now maybe they
should have done more to help the one being interrogated, but I
don't think failing to jump into the conversation justifies
calling them immoral essentially. Now a lot of this depends on
how it was phrased precisely (e.g. how close did she come to
calling parents immoral), but that's my main problem with it. If
Person A punches me, and I punch her back but also have to hit
Person B to do so, that's a choice I just made.
#Post#: 30221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 30, 2019, 8:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kiwipinball link ---
>
> [quote author=Contrarian link=topic=1108.msg30210#msg30210
date=1556661249]
> I don’t understand why one persons strong belief in an
ideology, is permissive and another’s beliefs in ideology is
not.
> (Violence or breech of human rights aside)
>
> Yes, don’t bring up that you believe that having children is a
burden to all, including the children, while out to dinner with
friends and one friend is talking about how much they love being
parents etc.
> But when one pushes such an idea, or any idea, on the other,
why is the counter argument being questioned in terms of
etiquette? Etiquette has already been broken. The gloves are
off. An idea was actually pressed upon a person who disagreed
and in quite an uncomfortable way, so the one to whom the belief
was pressed upon spoke her mind.
>
> This is what it is to be human.
>
> Are we really going to say, let’s just nod and smile, and we
can go home and hide in a corner and write our true thoughts in
a diary we hope no one will ever find? Have we forgotten the
lives lost to ensure we had the freedom to speak? Really do we
want to live like this? Do we want to stop all thought process
and only express what we are told is permitted?
>
> There is a time and a place, to speak our true feelings, but
those rules were broken by the first speaker who insisted that
their idea was the best idea and if you don’t agree it is
because you don’t know, in other words are ignorant.
> That’s when the breech of etiquette happened.
>
> It sounds as though the second woman held on to grace as long
as she could. I honestly think the attempt was admirable.
>
> I disagree with the second woman’s ideology, but I would
happily listen to her views if I caught myself going on about my
own despite the obvious attempt to move on, or allow others to
speak.
>
> I am strongly against circumcision. I would never, at a dinner
table with friends, listen to one preparing for a Brit milah,
and immediately start talking about how barbaric I think the
process is. And believe me, the strapping down of a baby to
mutilate it, if those of you who believe it’s nothing can
imagine what how this process seems to those of us who don’t, is
a very distressing idea.
> So I can actively participate in public debates, which I do.
> However, when one sits down to break bread with people, one
does not take out their soap box and stand upon it.
> But once one person at the table breaks that rule, it’s a free
for all for soap boxes.
>
> For example, you can talk about planning your circumcision
ceremony all you want and I’ll talk to you about hummus, pita
and grapes, and appropriate outfits and music. But once you
start talking about the spiritual or medical need for such a
topic, and you insist, and you try to tell ME, that it is
necessary, you have pulled out you soapbox and stepped on it.
> At that point, I will pull out mine. And hopefully we will
listen to each other and all parties present will learn
something new, especially the opposing sides. I debate quite a
bit and I almost always learn something new I must seriously
consider.
> But one thing I’ve noticed is that some people don’t like to
learn that they are not the sole judge of what is right for
humanity.
>
> And I can’t believe that this is even a topic of conversation.
If the antinatalist (spelling?) had heard the joy of the parent
in talking of her motherhood and children and then went off on
her own views, then yes, she had pulled out the box. But that’s
not the case.
>
> When one person breaks etiquette or manners, it’s a bare fist
fight and there’s no punishing those who are just defending
themselves with every jab and right hook they have.
>
--- End Quote ---
And I'd agree 100% if it was just 2 people. But I think some
innocent bystanders got caught in the middle. Now maybe they
should have done more to help the one being interrogated, but I
don't think failing to jump into the conversation justifies
calling them immoral essentially. Now a lot of this depends on
how it was phrased precisely (e.g. how close did she come to
calling parents immoral), but that's my main problem with it. If
Person A punches me, and I punch her back but also have to hit
Person B to do so, that's a choice I just made.
[/quote]
With that logic, though, whoever gets out their soapbox fastest
in a conversation is the automatic "winner," and you wouldn't be
able to express your own moral viewpoint knowing that they and
others in the group could or do hold the opposite belief.
#Post#: 30222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Kiwipinball
Date: April 30, 2019, 9:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Victoria link ---
>
> [quote author=Kiwipinball link=topic=1108.msg30218#msg30218
date=1556672412]
> [quote author=Contrarian link=topic=1108.msg30210#msg30210
date=1556661249]
> I don’t understand why one persons strong belief in an
ideology, is permissive and another’s beliefs in ideology is
not.
> (Violence or breech of human rights aside)
>
> Yes, don’t bring up that you believe that having children is a
burden to all, including the children, while out to dinner with
friends and one friend is talking about how much they love being
parents etc.
> But when one pushes such an idea, or any idea, on the other,
why is the counter argument being questioned in terms of
etiquette? Etiquette has already been broken. The gloves are
off. An idea was actually pressed upon a person who disagreed
and in quite an uncomfortable way, so the one to whom the belief
was pressed upon spoke her mind.
>
> This is what it is to be human.
>
> Are we really going to say, let’s just nod and smile, and we
can go home and hide in a corner and write our true thoughts in
a diary we hope no one will ever find? Have we forgotten the
lives lost to ensure we had the freedom to speak? Really do we
want to live like this? Do we want to stop all thought process
and only express what we are told is permitted?
>
> There is a time and a place, to speak our true feelings, but
those rules were broken by the first speaker who insisted that
their idea was the best idea and if you don’t agree it is
because you don’t know, in other words are ignorant.
> That’s when the breech of etiquette happened.
>
> It sounds as though the second woman held on to grace as long
as she could. I honestly think the attempt was admirable.
>
> I disagree with the second woman’s ideology, but I would
happily listen to her views if I caught myself going on about my
own despite the obvious attempt to move on, or allow others to
speak.
>
> I am strongly against circumcision. I would never, at a dinner
table with friends, listen to one preparing for a Brit milah,
and immediately start talking about how barbaric I think the
process is. And believe me, the strapping down of a baby to
mutilate it, if those of you who believe it’s nothing can
imagine what how this process seems to those of us who don’t, is
a very distressing idea.
> So I can actively participate in public debates, which I do.
> However, when one sits down to break bread with people, one
does not take out their soap box and stand upon it.
> But once one person at the table breaks that rule, it’s a free
for all for soap boxes.
>
> For example, you can talk about planning your circumcision
ceremony all you want and I’ll talk to you about hummus, pita
and grapes, and appropriate outfits and music. But once you
start talking about the spiritual or medical need for such a
topic, and you insist, and you try to tell ME, that it is
necessary, you have pulled out you soapbox and stepped on it.
> At that point, I will pull out mine. And hopefully we will
listen to each other and all parties present will learn
something new, especially the opposing sides. I debate quite a
bit and I almost always learn something new I must seriously
consider.
> But one thing I’ve noticed is that some people don’t like to
learn that they are not the sole judge of what is right for
humanity.
>
> And I can’t believe that this is even a topic of conversation.
If the antinatalist (spelling?) had heard the joy of the parent
in talking of her motherhood and children and then went off on
her own views, then yes, she had pulled out the box. But that’s
not the case.
>
> When one person breaks etiquette or manners, it’s a bare fist
fight and there’s no punishing those who are just defending
themselves with every jab and right hook they have.
>
--- End Quote ---
And I'd agree 100% if it was just 2 people. But I think some
innocent bystanders got caught in the middle. Now maybe they
should have done more to help the one being interrogated, but I
don't think failing to jump into the conversation justifies
calling them immoral essentially. Now a lot of this depends on
how it was phrased precisely (e.g. how close did she come to
calling parents immoral), but that's my main problem with it. If
Person A punches me, and I punch her back but also have to hit
Person B to do so, that's a choice I just made.
[/quote]
With that logic, though, whoever gets out their soapbox fastest
in a conversation is the automatic "winner," and you wouldn't be
able to express your own moral viewpoint knowing that they and
others in the group could or do hold the opposite belief.
[/quote]
Personally, I don't think it's okay to win at other people's
expense. I certainly don't think it's polite. No matter how rude
someone else has been. Again, I think it depends on exactly what
she said. If she directly stated that anyone who has children is
immoral - I think that's rude when there are parents at the
table. If she said she's an antinatalist and other people looked
it up (I understand what the definition of an antinatalist is,
but there are a lot of people who are imprecise with language
out there), it's not as bad.
#Post#: 30223--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 30, 2019, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kiwipinball link ---
>
> [quote author=Victoria link=topic=1108.msg30221#msg30221
date=1556675601]
> [quote author=Kiwipinball link=topic=1108.msg30218#msg30218
date=1556672412]
> [quote author=Contrarian link=topic=1108.msg30210#msg30210
date=1556661249]
> I don’t understand why one persons strong belief in an
ideology, is permissive and another’s beliefs in ideology is
not.
> (Violence or breech of human rights aside)
>
> Yes, don’t bring up that you believe that having children is a
burden to all, including the children, while out to dinner with
friends and one friend is talking about how much they love being
parents etc.
> But when one pushes such an idea, or any idea, on the other,
why is the counter argument being questioned in terms of
etiquette? Etiquette has already been broken. The gloves are
off. An idea was actually pressed upon a person who disagreed
and in quite an uncomfortable way, so the one to whom the belief
was pressed upon spoke her mind.
>
> This is what it is to be human.
>
> Are we really going to say, let’s just nod and smile, and we
can go home and hide in a corner and write our true thoughts in
a diary we hope no one will ever find? Have we forgotten the
lives lost to ensure we had the freedom to speak? Really do we
want to live like this? Do we want to stop all thought process
and only express what we are told is permitted?
>
> There is a time and a place, to speak our true feelings, but
those rules were broken by the first speaker who insisted that
their idea was the best idea and if you don’t agree it is
because you don’t know, in other words are ignorant.
> That’s when the breech of etiquette happened.
>
> It sounds as though the second woman held on to grace as long
as she could. I honestly think the attempt was admirable.
>
> I disagree with the second woman’s ideology, but I would
happily listen to her views if I caught myself going on about my
own despite the obvious attempt to move on, or allow others to
speak.
>
> I am strongly against circumcision. I would never, at a dinner
table with friends, listen to one preparing for a Brit milah,
and immediately start talking about how barbaric I think the
process is. And believe me, the strapping down of a baby to
mutilate it, if those of you who believe it’s nothing can
imagine what how this process seems to those of us who don’t, is
a very distressing idea.
> So I can actively participate in public debates, which I do.
> However, when one sits down to break bread with people, one
does not take out their soap box and stand upon it.
> But once one person at the table breaks that rule, it’s a free
for all for soap boxes.
>
> For example, you can talk about planning your circumcision
ceremony all you want and I’ll talk to you about hummus, pita
and grapes, and appropriate outfits and music. But once you
start talking about the spiritual or medical need for such a
topic, and you insist, and you try to tell ME, that it is
necessary, you have pulled out you soapbox and stepped on it.
> At that point, I will pull out mine. And hopefully we will
listen to each other and all parties present will learn
something new, especially the opposing sides. I debate quite a
bit and I almost always learn something new I must seriously
consider.
> But one thing I’ve noticed is that some people don’t like to
learn that they are not the sole judge of what is right for
humanity.
>
> And I can’t believe that this is even a topic of conversation.
If the antinatalist (spelling?) had heard the joy of the parent
in talking of her motherhood and children and then went off on
her own views, then yes, she had pulled out the box. But that’s
not the case.
>
> When one person breaks etiquette or manners, it’s a bare fist
fight and there’s no punishing those who are just defending
themselves with every jab and right hook they have.
>
--- End Quote ---
And I'd agree 100% if it was just 2 people. But I think some
innocent bystanders got caught in the middle. Now maybe they
should have done more to help the one being interrogated, but I
don't think failing to jump into the conversation justifies
calling them immoral essentially. Now a lot of this depends on
how it was phrased precisely (e.g. how close did she come to
calling parents immoral), but that's my main problem with it. If
Person A punches me, and I punch her back but also have to hit
Person B to do so, that's a choice I just made.
[/quote]
With that logic, though, whoever gets out their soapbox fastest
in a conversation is the automatic "winner," and you wouldn't be
able to express your own moral viewpoint knowing that they and
others in the group could or do hold the opposite belief.
[/quote]
Personally, I don't think it's okay to win at other people's
expense. I certainly don't think it's polite. No matter how rude
someone else has been. Again, I think it depends on exactly what
she said. If she directly stated that anyone who has children is
immoral - I think that's rude when there are parents at the
table. If she said she's an antinatalist and other people looked
it up (I understand what the definition of an antinatalist is,
but there are a lot of people who are imprecise with language
out there), it's not as bad.
[/quote]
I texted Fiona: "What I said was, 'I'm an antinatalist, which
means I think it's immoral to have children. I've thought a lot
about the topic, read up on it, and I'm just flat-out against
having kids for moral reasons, so I hope that [i]fully[/I]
clears things up.' "
I personally just can't get behind the idea that you have to
take a moral role call, and possibly avoid expressing your
actual position, in order to be polite. The examples I can think
of are that I'm pro choice and my mom's pro life. I don't think
that if someone else brings up the topic, that my mom has to
stay silent because she knows my position and expressing hers is
the same thing as saying that I'm immoral. I don't think my
vegan friends have to hide the fact that they're vegan just
because they think my choices to eat meat and use leather
products are immoral. This would also preclude most religious
discussions unless you all believe the same thing, since a lot
of people think that morality and religion are inextricable.
#Post#: 30232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: LifeOnPluto
Date: May 1, 2019, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that the people who are
most insistent that one MUST have children in order to be
properly fulfilled/know what 'real love' is/achieve their
biological destiny/whatever, are often the ones who find
parenthood challenging behind closed doors. Or there wasn't much
else going on in their lives before they had kids.
Perhaps Fiona would have had more success shutting Kimmy up, if
she'd said something like "You're trying so hard to convince me
Kimmy, that it really sounds like you're trying to convince
yourself!" Then I'd use a sympathetic voice. "Is everything ok?
Are you not coping well with parenthood? Is your Little One not
sleeping, or feeding well? I'm really concerned about you, etc
etc."
#Post#: 30233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Aleko
Date: May 1, 2019, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I texted Fiona: "What I said was, 'I'm an antinatalist, which
means I think it's immoral to have children. I've thought a lot
about the topic, read up on it, and I'm just flat-out against
having kids for moral reasons, so I hope that fully clears
things up.' "
--- End Quote ---
I don't think it does. There are and have been many numerous
moral arguments against procreation, all the way from the
Manichaean belief that the material universe is inherently evil
and that one should avoid increasing it, through the idea that
life is so miserable that it is wrong to inflict it on others,
to the idea that it's ecologically unsustainable. I suppose the
likeliest probability is the third, but it isn't a foregone
conclusion.
And I don't agree that what she said amounted to calling all the
mothers there immoral. If a person believes that having children
/ abortion / fighting in wars / eating meat is always and
inherently wrong, it would certainly be immoral for that person
to do any of these things. But if other people who believe these
things are OK and indeed praiseworthy do them, that isn't
immoral.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page