FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-27-2002, 04:04 AM   #101
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
Talking

Part 1:

Quote:
Originally posted by Arrowman:

...First off, let me say that I am going to say some things which are critical of the way you have expressed yourself in this thread. I do not wish this to be taken as a personal attack
Nah, don't worry. If only you would actually deal fair and square head-on with my points, I would be happy; but I'm not going to keel over in shock that someone disapproves of me for what I consider to be wrong reasons.

Quote:
...I disagree. ATG published her thoughts and opinions on the internet. We pick up and discuss sutff and people from elsewhere on the net all the time....
Theist Gal used to post here a fair bit, good stuff on good topics (Martin Gardner mainly).
I treat her differently because of that.

Quote:
... Heat-Kitchen. ....
This is where you yourself are in an ironic position, since you have now objected at least twice to the heat I put on.


Quote:
....But I think .... is stretching the netiquette just a little far.
Hey, you have every right to that opinion; I just happen to differ slightly in this particular case.

Quote:
.... I wouldn't take offence, and I don't think ATG has either. You seem to be protesting an injustice which the "victim" of the injustice hasn't complained about.
Nonsense.
This argument comes up every now and then, and is absurd; just because someone doesn't complain about something themselves, does not mean that they are not offended, nor does it mean that no-one else has the right to complain on their behalf.

Quote:
..... I will defer to that as a very credible opinion, as I do not have that background. At the same time, it is an opinion, and subject to challenge.
This is SecWeb; were I to announce that it's raining outside (which it is at this moment), I would expect to be bitterly challenged.

Quote:
.....I do not believe that "it is impossible for a True Atheist to ever convert to religion". I am not that ideologically arrogant (and I think you are right to suggest that some, too many, atheists are).
Good-o.
But I'll be keeping my main words on this for my promised opus on these matters.

Quote:
.... It is for ATG to rebut that assertion if she wishes, and not for you to describe the assertion as "nonsense". Well, I suppose it is legitimate for your to express your opinion, but you have done so in a way which implies that the original assertion was in some way inappropriate and that any other view is "nonsense".
ROFL, I'm none too sure just what you want to say right here. If everyone else feels they have to the right to delve into Theist Gal's psyche here, then I have just as much right to deliver my own opinions on the opinions expressed.

And you're still missing the point, Arrowman; in the previous <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=" target="_blank">Deaf Lesbian Shock-Horror-Scandal thread</a>, you objected to me being unbearably sarcastic about some of the more simply abusive posts in that thread; you insist that it's OK to be rude if one is "in the right", even when the appropriateness of that rudeness is called into question in a hard way.
I.e. here, you're saying it's OK for others to be rude about Theist Gal, and you've also (possibly) said it's OK for Kally to be rude about me, but it's not OK for me to be rude about the rude people.
Now just where do you get off, hmmmm ?


Quote:
At this stage, you are starting to sound - well, we'll come to that.
Hey, don't worry; I think you sound evasive and contradictory, but I'll come to that.

Quote:
(Funny how an Australian can lapse into using US shorthand for dates, in this case. I think "9/11" means something very specific now and will for years to come)
I use 9/11 myself out of politeness to Americans on this issue. But as an Australian myself I find American date and measurement systems quite bewildering at times.
Quote:
General tone is "prompt" - I suppose I assumed 12 months maximum for the period between boyfriend dumping and reconversion. For such a major life change, I call that "prompt". And again, 2 years an atheist after 7 years Catholicism, followed by reconversion a relatively short time later casts, to me at least, doubt on the depth of the atheism in the first place. Sounds more like a "lapse in faith" to me, but I'll let ATG answer that for herself.
This is a well-reasoned argument, but even so I would disagree that even 12 months in that particular contxt is all that prompt - and the main points way previously were the dismissal of Theist Gal as not a "True Atheist ™ ", a very dubious stance, and the dismissal of her as a flibbertigibbet religion-wise, a simply nastily wrong judgment in her case - IMHO.
Quote:
.... so we can stop the semantics[/i]?
Oh come off it, man, enough with the rhetoric already.
Quote:
...Actually, I wouldn't mind if someone used that sort of thing on me. I wouldn't exactly LMAO and of course it is a misrepresentation of my position, but it's just a cheap shot.
Actually, it's not a misrepresentation whatsoever; in fact I produced three whole pages of solid reasoning especially for you (OK, OK, it was also for lurkers) on that <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=" target="_blank">Shock-Horror Thread</a>, to which you couldn't even be bothered coming up with some solid answers.

You objected to me being unbearably sarcastic about all the condemnatory amateur moralists boiling out of the woodwork on that Shock-Horror thread; and then when I produced all the reasoning as to just why, you threw up your hands and went away, rather than deal with it.

So enough of the bullshit re cheap shots; how about actually answering me for once ?

Quote:
Cheap shots are not the substance of an argument, should not be used as the substance, and not highlighted by the opponent when they are used in avoidance of the substantive issues. They're just cheap shots. Sometimes they're funny, sometimes they're not. So what. Mountains and molehills.
eh, eh, please don't take this as a personal attack, but you sound pompous, evasive and hypocritical here.

Quote:
....In my defence I will point out that IIRC in the thread in question I said I might get back to you, but I really wasn't sure I felt like pursuing the argument. I jumped in to that thread on impulse, and I didn't really want to spend posting time on that discussion.
No, all you wanted to do on that thread was condemn my behaviour; it kinda got you when I was simply too rational to be so condemned, no ?
Too much like hard yakka, mate, for you to actually answer me there rather than simply condemning me ?

Quote:
....Well now you're starting to sound pompous, judgemental and self-righteous.
Hey, don't worry, the feeling's mutual.
Let's be all in there together !

Quote:
What in the heck have I said on this thread, apart from a difference of opinion on how we discuss ATG's reconversion, that could bring into doubt my "moral reasoning"? Please.
I refer you to the sections marked in bold. Really, man, I've repeated myself so often on the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=" target="_blank">Shock-Horror</a> and this thread, and you simply refuse to deal with the point.

Quote:
And I am sure you are a formidable debater, Gurdur, when you get off your soap box,
Hey, don't worry, mate, I'm sure I could quite like you were you ever to deal with my point so explicitly and so clearly made so often, rather than simply ducking out, and using cheap rhetoric as a substitute for argument.

Quote:
and you may well be able to persuade me to vary my position on some things. But let's not start with aspersions on my "moral reasoning", please.
Oh come off it; if you refuse to deal with my point, that's your problem, not mine.
Watch me getting slowly sarcastic as we get further down the track on this.
Gurdur is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 04:06 AM   #102
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
Talking

Part 2:
Quote:
Originally mooted by Gurdur:

I say all of this for good reasons; I distrust your moral reasoning on this issue.
I wish to discuss this --- and you yourself brought up this very point in the previous discussion I'm referring to; you asked if it was really OK to simply be insulting in the cause of "rightness", but you never really did condemn it, more condoning it.

In that last discussion, people jibed at someone inappropriately --- and I jibed at them.
They objected to my jibing. I am laughing.
Let's see if we can hammer this one out now, OK ?

Please pardon me if I come on strongly on this one; while I know you yourself are generally polite, it's the condoning of certain behaviours that worries me, OK ?
Quote:
And thus answered by Arrowman:

Chapter and verse please. I have no idea what you're talking about. When I have time I might look up the thread in question - but since I have no recollection of saying anything remotely like that, I suggest the onus might be on you to quote (not interpret) me.
________________

CHAPTER AND VERSE:
Quote:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=3" target="_blank">Originally posted by Arrowman here</a>:

Observation: In watching Cipher44 and Gurdur go at it, I was struck by something. Because I agree with Cipher's position, and he expressed himself in terms that I would have, I was inclined to "take his side" when he was accused by Gurdur of going over the top. But then I realised that had I seen the same sort of language from someone I disagreed with, I might not have been as tolerant. I think there's something in that for all of us. We're inclined to judge people for being rude, personal attacks or whatever, more harshly when we don't agree with the sentiments they express.
END OF THE READING FOR TODAY

The final evasions are to be found at the end of that cited thread.
______________________

Quote:
Originally posted by Arrowman, continuing on:

While we're casting nasturtiums - given the way you have misrepresented my clearly written opinions in this and the other thread to conform to what appears to be your preconceptions - I distrust your judgement on this
Too bad; show me where I'm wrong.
Quote:
And I am sure you are a formidable debater, Gurdur, when you get off your soap box,
Hey, don't worry, mate, I'm sure I could quite like you were you ever to deal with my points, points made so explicitly and so clearly made so often, rather than simply ducking out.

Quote:
and you may well be able to persuade me to vary my position on some things. But let's not start with aspersions on my "moral reasoning", please.
Oh come off it; if you refuse to deal with my point, that's your problem, not mine.
Watch me getting slowly sarcastic as we get further down the track on this.

Quote:
Well, if you're talking about "deaf lesbians" no thanks. I should never have entered that debate because I didn't really want to pursue it. Bad message-board-iquette on my part.
tsk tsk tsk, you attacked me on that thread, then you get all uptight when your reasoning is logically challenged on this.
Perhaps I should think <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=6" target="_blank">about simply "flipping you the bird"</a> on this ?

Quote:
If you're talking about more general issues, please be clearer in what the subject matter is. Did you say you were going to start another thread? Shall we take it there?
Naw, I'll deal with this one here, since it's specific to you, not necessarily a general SecWeb thingy.
And I doubt I could be any clearer unless I was to draw diagrams.

Quote:
....And I think you're over-reacting.
.....Pedantry. .......With the greatest respect, I find your attitude on this thread and the other to which we refer, to be hectoring, self-righteous, mischaracterising the legitimate opinions of others based on your own prejudices and preconceptions, and over-reaction to minor issues. Not to mention, an incapacity to recognise a legitimate "agree to disagree" on even the most minor point, and let it go.
Pot, kettle, black.
Pardon me if I laugh my guts out.

Quote:
.... But that's the "me" that I try not to let out in public too much. People think I'm a grumpy, opinionated, not-fun-to-be-with Skeptic-Atheist when I do that.
tsk, which is exactly what I was drawing your attention to in regard to your own behaviour and that of others in the beforementioned <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=" target="_blank">Bizarre Alien Shock Horror Thread.</a>

Quote:
You seem to be projecting your own major concerns (in the case of this thread, the sometimes intolerance by atheists of other views etc) - concerns which may be legitimate - into the first example (this thread) which presents itself.
Heh, heh, heh, Arrowman, I suppose it would be useless once again to ask you to back this one up ? After all, I did explicitly say that while the behaviour in this thread hasn't yet reached the level I've seen before, it is reminiscent of aforesaid behaviour.
Moreover, I see no reason yet presented as to why my concerns are invalid.
And you simply trundle on about "projection". Tsk tsk tsk.

So, Arrowman, here we are once again; here yet again you become condemnatory of me, do not adequately ground your disparagements of my good self, demand full grounding from me, then probably you'll simply throw up your hands and declare you should have never gotten involved in this if I produce requested grounding, and that it's all just too difficult to justify your moral condemnations when requested to do so.

See any problem here in your behaviour ?

hmmmm ?


[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>
Gurdur is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 04:24 AM   #103
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenSL:

Could you clarify whether you are for or against abuse?

Or - are you for it when you do it and against it when it's done to you?

I'm confused...

love
Helen
Hey, this is getting really good !

First off, Helen, would you like to specify your question and things a bit more ?
Should you feel I have been abusive, please quote context and words, then I'll answer you.


I kinda love these five-way fights.
Gurdur is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 04:27 AM   #104
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
Post

Oh, and Helen, I'll give you a partial serious answer now;

Look over all my previous posts. I tend to defend under-dogs, though with some judgment as to when to do so; I tend to be only abusive of abusive viewpoints.
Gurdur is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 04:34 AM   #105
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Smile

Quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
<strong>Look over all my previous posts. I tend to defend under-dogs, though with some judgment as to when to do so; I tend to be only abusive of abusive viewpoints.</strong>
How can I qualify to be an 'underdog'?

I thought that all theists here are 'underdogs' by definition...

Anyway, I wasn't alleging that you had been abusive in any given situation. I could look and see whether in my judgement you'd crossed the line from 'aggressive debate' into 'abusive comments'. But even if I did you may disagree; so, I'm not sure it's worth me taking the time. And in saying that I'm not intending to say "Yes you were abusive but I know you'll deny it". If I had meant that I'd say it. I'm truly saying "I am not taking a position at this moment on whether in my judgement you have posted abusive comments or not, since I haven't had time to do adequate research into it".

Of course, you're free to assume I am lying/being evasive/dodging the issue/being disingenuous...

But as I think I've said before, I much prefer it when people read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote rather than what they think I might have meant. Otherwise it's very difficult to have any sort of meaningful [online] conversation at all.

love
Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 04:46 AM   #106
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenSL:

How can I qualify to be an 'underdog'?
with difficulty (to me) in your case. You're warmly accepted and treated very nicely by most people here; and my own reservations vis-á-vis you have to do with how I perceive your integrity.
Quote:
I thought that all theists here are 'underdogs' by definition...
Have you been paying much attention to Tercel ?

Theist with a chainsaw, there !

Besides which, why should I defend masochists from their masochism ? (joke)

Quote:
Anyway, I wasn't alleging that you had been abusive in any given situation.
Good-o.

Quote:
I could look and see whether in my judgement you'd crossed the line from 'aggressive debate' into 'abusive comments'. But even if I did you may disagree; so, I'm not sure it's worth me taking the time. And in saying that I'm not intending to say "Yes you were abusive but I know you'll deny it". If I had meant that I'd say it. I'm truly saying "I am not taking a position at this moment on whether in my judgement you have posted abusive comments or not, since I haven't had time to do adequate research into it".
uh huh, uh huh, uh huh ?
You pass up the opportunity for more deep insights into my sordid character, simply because it's all too much work ?
My overly huge ego is distraught; there's no such thing as bad publicity, but you're not even giving me an iota of that.
Quote:
Of course, you're free to assume I am lying/being evasive/dodging the issue/being disingenuous...
Naw, I assume four things, seriously:

1) I'm not important enough to you for you to keep track of me and my stances, even those on you

2) In the posts where you managed to get me going, you were reacting far more to your own preconceptions rather than me, so you don't really remember my responses to you

3) You have other priorites rather than hammering out this one.

4) As you intimate yourself above, you're not prepared to be challenged; you're not prepared to be disagreed with.
A basic difference between ourselves, possibly, there ?
Quote:
But as I think I've said before, I much prefer it when people read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote rather than what they think I might have meant. Otherwise it's very difficult to have any sort of meaningful [online] conversation at all.
I respond often with the history of the person to whom I am responding in mind; quite often, one thread is just a continuation of ongoing conversations for me.
So sue me, but I think my attitude makes sense, especially in terms of ongoing development.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>
Gurdur is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 05:00 AM   #107
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Smile

Originally posted by Gurdur:
HelenSL: How can I qualify to be an 'underdog'?

Gurdur:with difficulty (to me) in your case.


D'OH

You're warmly accepted and treated very nicely by most people here; and my own reservations vis-á-vis you have to do with how I perceive your integrity.

Could you and would you elaborate? I take my integrity seriously and hope not to be thought lacking in it.

But...I try to balance truth and love OTOH and that might mean I do not always share everything I know, think, or believe.

If you see that as lacking in integrity then there's probably not much I can do about it because love is as important to me as truth.

Helen: I thought that all theists here are 'underdogs' by definition...

Gurdur: Have you been paying much attention to Tercel ?
Theist with a chainsaw, there !


I haven't been paying much attention to him in particular but I certainly have been dismayed many times by the tone of posts by self-professed Christians, here.

Besides which, why should I defend masochists from their masochism ? (joke)

Fair enough

You pass up the opportunity for more deep insights into my sordid character, simply because it's all too much work ?

Well, as a Christian I'm supposed to do this: whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things (Phil 4:8).

So I'm not supposed to focus on sordid stuff...

My overly huge ego is distraught; there's no such thing as bad publicity, but you're not even giving me an iota of that.

Maybe I know a thing or two, huh?

Naw, I assume three things, seriously:

1) I'm not important enough to you for you to keep track of me and my stances, even those on you


In a sense that's true but only because I have many things I know I should be focusing on and only 24 hours a day.

It's not that I think you are unimportant relative to any other human being in a general sense.

It also has to do with - I'm not sure it would 'achieve a constructive end' for me to examine your posts with an eye to what I might think is 'abusive'. I factor that in in deciding how to spend my time.

I'm not saying my time allocation is perfect; in fact I daresay it's quite problematic in some ways.

2) In the posts where you managed to get me going, you were reacting far more to your own preconceptions rather than me, so you don't really remember my responses to you

That may be true although it's unfortunate and I apologize if I prejudged you as much as it sounds like I did from what you just wrote.

3) You have other priorities rather than hammering out this one.

Oh, well, yes, I can't deny this since I just said it in response to your 1)!

I respond often with the history of the person to whom I am responding in mind; quite often, one thread is just a continuation of ongoing conversations for me.
So sue me, but I think my attitude makes sense, esepecially in terms of ongoing development.


I think that's a very good way to respond and I did notice that the way you seem to have applied it to two people posting on this thread is to be kinder to them. I liked that a lot.

I think it's great as long as you are open to people changing over time rather than assuming that they will always respond as they did on one thread or one occasion. Because - everyone has bad days and we can all learn...

And I don't have evidence that you aren't open in that way; it was a general comment about appropriately applying that method.

So, I guess I agree with it too much to sue you...this time, anyway!

love (are you one of the people who hates that I write this? )
Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 05:13 AM   #108
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenSL:

....
Could you and would you elaborate? I take my integrity seriously and hope not to be thought lacking in it.
  • On 711, you've attacked liberal Christians as being too liberal, and by implication all liberal Christians; when called out on that, you simply asserted you knew them better than I.
    .
  • You rather brutally patronizingly put down a very nice bloke (damn, I can't remember his name, the theologian from Virginia) on 711, when he expressed shock over your fundy attack on liberal Christians.
    .
  • You've expressed desires for Christian revivalism on 711.
    .
  • You've ducked the issue on your forcing of your own church upon your children, despite the fact that you complain often enough about your church.
    .
  • You've attacked other Christians here for their "terrorist God", while often enough refusing to be upfront about your own fairly hardline Calvinist beliefs.
    .
  • You've used what I consider emotionally manipulative comments on me at various times, including in this thread -- yes, I can cite them.

IOW, I see you as deriving many benefits from us here - our openess, our acceptance etc. - but without being fully upfront yourself.

Quote:
love (are you one of the people who hates that I write this? )
Helen
Had you paid attention to the second-last time we butted heads together (about 2 weeks ago), you would know the answer to this.

Helen, I try very hard to be honest as possible unless someone proves themself not worthy of it; if asked for my honest opinion, very often I will give it --- which is why I am now giving you my opinion.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>
Gurdur is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 05:37 AM   #109
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Smile

Originally posted by Gurdur:

On 711, you've attacked liberal Christians as being too liberal, and by implication all liberal Christians; when called out on that, you simply asserted you knew them better than I.


Without a link I can't comment on what I replied to you - and you evidently have a different username there because I don't remember interacting with 'Gurdur' there...

But I can tell you this: on a board that clearly states that only posts in line with it's own theology are acceptable, then, yes, I might well oppose anyone who deliberately and persistently flouts that rule because it's disruptive. And I might well use the Bible to show that they are posting things contrary to the rules of the Board. Why not?

You rather brutally patronizingly put down a very nice bloke (damn, I can't remember his name, the theologian from Virginia) on 711, when he expressed shock over your fundy attack on liberal Christians.

Again, I'd need a link. I don't recall doing that to anyone except those who've persistently and deliberately violated the 711 rules on what content is acceptable.

You've expressed desires for Christian revivalism on 711.

That's rather vague and you gave no link. I don't deny that I do not agree with those who think that Christianity has no beneficial effect in the lives of its adherents or on the world.

Of course I wouldn't want anything about it that I see as problematic to be 'revived'. I've never lamented the demise of witch-hunting, etc...

You've ducked the issue on your forcing of your own church upon your children, despite the fact that you complain often enough about your church.

We simply disagree - me and many people here - about whether my kids will be harmed by me making them go to church. As I said when this was being discussed - in reality kids have to do all kinds of stuff that their parents make them do. And it's not necessarily 'bad' that they learn they don't always have all the choices they want in life. They'll have to respect that if they ever have an employer and want to keep the job, get promoted etc. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of my church I am better able to be careful that my children aren't harmed by their involvement. I would think it would be more worrying if I thought my church was perfect - that would show me very unrealistic. Nothing involving humans is perfect!

You've attacked other Christians here for their "terrorist God", while often enough refusing to be upfront about your own fairly hardline Calvinist beliefs.

I try to encourage other Christians to think out of the box' a bit more and to be civil in their posts here. Those are my goals. Discussion of my own beliefs doesn't further my goals.

You've used what I consider emotionally manipulative comments on me at various times, including in this thread -- yes, I can cite them.

Since you know what they are I assume you chose not to be manipulated . It's up to you whether you quote them or not.

Are you ever emotionally manipulative?

I use whatever resources I have available to me that I do not consider immoral to use...

IOW, I see you as deriving many benefits from us here - our openess, our acceptance etc. - but without being fully upfront yourself.

Many people here don't even share their real names; and you call them 'open'?

I could say more if I was anonymous too; but I don't like anonymity and I think it might lead me to say things I'd rather not say.

I think you're somewhat out of touch with the reality of this board if you're assuming most people are more upfront than me

Helen: love (are you one of the people who hates that I write this? )
Helen

Had you paid attention to the second-last time we butted heads together (about 2 weeks ago), you would know the answer to this.


Had you been the only person I interact with I might have remembered; but I get confused who is who after a while. At least I have noticed that it irritates some people here...

Since you didn't answer the question I won't consider - yet - whether not to use it in replies to you.

Helen, I try very hard to be honest as possible unless someone proves themself not worthy of it; if asked for my honest opinion, very often I will give it --- which is why I am now giving you my opinion.

And I appreciate it very much.

One thing I wonder is whether you understand that it's not always a matter of "I'm right therefore you're wrong". Or vice-versa. There are times when we will disagree and there's no way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong". Or vice-versa. Not only that but when it comes to what I do with my own children, I obviously know them better than you or others here and it's my responsibility to raise them as best I can, not yours. So it wouldn't make sense to me to change the way I raise them simply because a stranger, with different values from me, objects to an aspect of how I am raising them. I do try to listen to what people say here, to me, but it would be foolish to leap to making major changes in my life just because a stranger thinks I ought to...

love
Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 07:45 AM   #110
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LALA Land in California
Posts: 3,764
Post

Quote:
originally posted by Theist Gal:
One thing I think you'll agree with me about is that the more secure a person is in their beliefs, the more tolerant they are of those who differ.

Thanks for your support, Helen (and Paul, and all the other nice secure folks around here!)!
Theist Gal,
I'm not sure I understand the secure comments. Could you explain?

Thanks,
Kally
Mad Kally is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.