'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[plekhanov]

I agree. That's why I added "it doesn't change the logic". The logic is similar. Or I should have said the irrational logic.

I think there is a somewhat similar logic in that despite being a dominant and privileged group some Xians seem to just love trying to see themselves as a persecuted minority and go round pretty much seeking things to be offended by so they came cloak themselves in self pitying victim-hood.

 

Take for example that school girl a while ago who was told that having a crucifix on a necklace was against her schools uniform policy due to health and safety concerns, but that she could where a crucifix badge on her lapel. Despite the fact that there was no prohibition upon her actively displaying a crucifix her parents & their church went of crying persecution to the papers not because Christians were being discriminated against but because they weren't being given special privileges.

 

That girl wasn't a victim but her family were determined to try and pretend she was, just like all the whining Xians in this thread who are trying to act like they're being persecuted by the use of all things abbreviations.

[Alien]

I don't think the word is the issue and thinking it is is to miss the point.

 

Take an example of someone who has had the misfortune to be christened Bertie.... but he prefers to be called Bert.

 

There is nothing offensive in the word 'Bertie', but after he has told his colleagues he doesn't like being called Bertie and prefers to be called Bert what is he to think of one of his colleague that persists in calling him Bertie? Perhaps a mistake the first few times, habit can be hard to break, but as time progresses and Bert reminds his friends repeatedly the conclusion he will draw is that the person is trying to wind him up.

 

Note there is nothing offensive about the word..... it is its usage after the person has said they find it offensive that provides a context for the way Bert will interpret his colleagues unwanted behaviour.

 

I would agree with that but the word xian as an insult is the first I've come across on this forum..and I do tend to read the religious debate threads..unless of course we have many offended who've all a sudden woke to the idea.

[plekhanov]

It's also not meant to demean those believers. Moreover it supports the growth of Xianity which occurred in Greece before Rome, in effect.

 

This is an abbreviation which has been used for the best part of 2k yrs. It is not designed to be an offensive term.

 

Perhaps though, we should remember those users of the Forum who rely on software so they can access the place. We don't allow 'txtspk' excessively, so perhaps we should consider these people?

But Xian, Xmas... isn't 'txtspk' as you point out it's simply a common, ancient abbreviation and not one likely to trip up any half decent text to speech program, any more than 'Lib Dem' is.

 

Infact if people are really concerned about blind users maybe they should go after all the terrible puns some people seem compelled to write instead of the names of politicians and their party's, those people write 'Micro$oft' and so forth which seem likely to be more of a challenge for such programs.

[happyhippy]

The alternative to Black is censored as an insult, maybe there are those that would like to see Xian censored too?

 

My point was down to the spelling, which might not be recognised by some software. Otherwise, I do agree with you.

[happyhippy]

But Xian, Xmas... isn't 'txtspk' as you point out it's simply a common, ancient abbreviation and not one likely to trip up any half decent text to speech program, any more than 'Lib Dem' is.

 

Infact if people are really concerned about blind users maybe they should go after all the terrible puns some people seem compelled to write instead of the names of politicians and their party's, those people write 'Micro$oft' and so forth which seem likely to be more of a challenge for such programs.

 

Xian (which I use myself) may not be recognised by software. Xmas almost certainly will be. That was my point there. I do actually agree with you, but just thought of putting another point across ....

[onewheeldave]

That's not going to go down to well with most of the xmas card population this year but I'll go along with you on that on.

 

A big difference between 'xmas' and 'xtian' is that the former is a well-established, non controversial term used in common language by pretty much everyone- the latter is a term primarily used by militant atheists in arguments (as opposed to constructive debates) with or against fundamentalists.

 

 

In reality what is happening here is the dislike of one or two SF's in particular who use the word. It so happens at the same time those particular SF's are well versed in debate and at the same time put up some very good and most importantly logical arguments...even if it is aggressive at times.

 

It's really, really not about one or two SF posters this is not an issue that only relates to SF- internet wide, terms like those being discussed are considered, by some, to be either counter productive, or derogatory.

 

 

If I said to you stop using the word "God" because it insults me through my atheism you'd probably call me mad. But you don't get atheists using such petty insecure arguments.

 

 

Atheists are subject to the same human frailities as anyone- becoming an atheists by no means automatically means a person is immune to irrationality- it certainly does not make a person immune to having a big ego

 

I've seen plenty of atheists using petty and/or irrational arguments- just as I've seen many non-atheists using petty and/or irrational arguments.

 

What makes a persons arguments/reasoning rational, is the fact that they are themselves rational and, there are rational atheists, rational non-atheists, as well as irrational atheists and irrational non-atheists.

 

Personally, it seems to me, that it makes good, rational sense, if engaged in a debate, to stick to making good, sound, rational statements, in a way that the person you're discussing with, has a chance of appreciating what you're trying to get across: as opposed to wrecking any chance of them appreciating the points you're making by using terms you know full well will just wind them up.

 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that militant atheists do not have a right to use terms they know that their opponent will find insulting- we live in a free-speech culture.

 

But clearly, if the stated intention is communication and genuine discussion, use of terms seen as derogatory by the other person, is deeply counter-productive.

 

If the intention is to wind up the other person, or inflame the debate beyond the point at which rational, calm discussion is possible, then use of such terms is a good move.

 

Why a rational atheist with a love of truth, reasoned debate and sincere communication would wish to inflame the debate beyond the point at which rational, calm discussion is possible, is, for me, a little confusing.

 

It borders on irrational behaviour

[onewheeldave]

And it helped "rational discussion/communication" when in the 1st post I recall you making you attempted to conflate atheism with Marxist Leninism did it?

 

Was it 'diplomatic' of you in a recent thread to try and depict 'New Atheists' as a group of would be artistic censors?

 

It's all well and good you demanding that atheists post 'rationally' and to avoid using 'derogatory' terms but the thing is you clearly don't practice what you preach, just the opposite in fact.

 

The other thread got locked. Let's try and ensure this one doesn't as well.

 

I'm not demanding that atheists post rationally- we have free speech, so atheists can post as they wish, rationally or otherwise, respectfully or otherwise, diplomatically or otherwise.

 

I'm not demanding anything- what I'm doing is pointing out that if, a given atheist, wishes to communicate effectively with, or explain rationally some truth to, another individual, that using terms that that individual considers to be derogatory, is a bad move, in that it is counter productive to that aim.

[plekhanov]

<snip even more concern trolling>

So do tell us what 'aim' is it that you have in mind when you go round conflating atheism with Marxist Leninism and trying to depict 'new atheists' as would be censors? What 'truth' are you 'rationally' trying to 'communicate' when you do that?

[onewheeldave]

So do tell us what 'aim' is it that you have in mind when you go round conflating atheism with Marxist Leninism and trying to depict 'new atheists' as would be censors? What 'truth' are you 'rationally' trying to 'communicate' when you do that?

 

I won't be getting into any discussion with you on that, as-

 

1. it's off-topic to this thread

2. I did my best to explain on the other thread- the more I said, the more you seemed to misinterpret what I was saying

3. the other thread got locked, I'd rather this one didn't

[plekhanov]

I won't be getting into any discussion with you on that, as-

 

1. it's off-topic to this thread

2. I did my best to explain on the other thread- the more I said, the more you seemed to misinterpret what I was saying

3. the other thread got locked, I'd rather this one didn't

Oh how surprising you consider your behaviour and the extent to which it digresses from your preaching 'off topic' yet strangely you never seem to find the behaviour of the atheists you so like to lecture 'off topic' just the opposite in fact.

 

You know if you really want atheists to take your advice about how they conduct themselves maybe you should have 1st taken the precaution of not making your hostility to atheism so clear. I'd no more take your advice about how to conduct myself in a debate than I would a bookies about where to place my bets with him.