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

[Wildcat]

Nail on the head, in fact Wildcat even came on earlier and argued for using the word 'militant' to describe atheists like me.

 

I agree with a lot of what he's got to say on most topics, but he does indeed exemplify perfectly the double standard of society at large when it comes to this one.

 

I assume you mean this:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6835302&postcount=200

 

In which case I clearly was not arguing "for using the word 'militant' to describe atheists like me".

 

I was saying the intent of the word was not as clearly offensive as you made out. In just the same way I have said usage of Xian can be innocent and without intent to cause offence. It is only after someone has said that the labeling causes them offence that its continued use could be said to be intended to cause offence.

[flamingjimmy]

I assume you mean this:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6835302&postcount=200

 

In which case I clearly was not arguing "for using the word 'militant' to describe atheists like me"

 

Fair enough, you were still apologising for onewheeldave's usage of the term, and I still think it is an excellent example of you displaying a double standard when it comes to religion.

 

The point is, I really don't think you would've made a post like that if it wasn't atheists who were being insulted. If it were Christians or Muslims you'd be staunchly defending them and probably would've objected to the use of the term along with me.

[plekhanov]

Wildcat I've just decided I find it "offensive" when people who criticise the Lib Dems abbreviate their name, henceforth I demand that anyone who criticises the Lib Dems must refer to them as Liberal Democrats or I will be offended. Of course I see no problem with people who support or who are ambivalent about the Lib Dems saving themselves a little time by abbreviating the name.

 

Similarly I find it offensive when people who don't support the government describe it as anything but the "Conservative, Liberal Democrat Coalition Government". Lib Con, Con Lib, Con Dem... are all offensive to me at least when used by anyone criticising the government, supporters & neutrals can abbreviate away.

 

I look forward to you entering all the threads in which the above abbreviations are used to berate those I disagree with for being so insulting and offensive.

[Wildcat]

You're still arguing the point from a deist standpoint but the article was specifically about a theistic god that is both metaphysical and yet manifests itself in the physical world so from that standpoint it's good to know that you understand the idea of a theistic god is as non sensical as the rest of us atheists, it's just a shame you don't spend as much time as the rest of us atheists in pointing that out to xtians, muslims and jews.

 

You don't appear to understand the words you are using. Deism and Theist distinctions have nothing to do with what I was saying.

 

You should look up some Criticisms of the Logical Positivists like AJ Ayer if you want a more explicit reference.

 

Well, yes. I'm afraid 'pulled apart' does mean 'to find flaws and highlight them' leading to the conclusion that, in this case your analogy, was weak and ill thought out.

 

Leading to either establishing the analogy is accurate or not. The pulling something apart to analyse it doesn't refute the point being made any more than dissassembling a car and reassembling it means the car engine never worked.

 

No. The strength of an argument, or more accurately your analogy, is made on the grounds of whether it stands up to scrutiny by other independent people seeing if they can find fault with your reasoning.

 

That is what I said.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat I've just decided I find it "offensive" when people who criticise the Lib Dems abbreviate their name, henceforth I demand that anyone who criticises the Lib Dems must refer to them as Liberal Democrats or I will be offended. Of course I see no problem with people who support or who are ambivalent about the Lib Dems saving themselves a little time by abbreviating the name.

 

Similarly I find it offensive when people who don't support the government describe it as anything but the "Conservative, Liberal Democrat Coalition Government". Lib Con, Con Lib, Con Dem... are all offensive to me at least when used by anyone criticising the government, supporters & neutrals can abbreviate away.

 

I look forward to you entering all the threads in which the above abbreviations are used to berate those I disagree with for being so insulting and offensive.

 

The problem is I don't believe you are using it for any other reason than to make a rhetorhical point. Had you been offended why didn't you mention it before?

[plekhanov]

The problem is I don't believe you are using it for any other reason than to make a rhetorhical point. Had you been offended why didn't you mention it before?

No I really do want everyone who criticises the party and government I support to have to go to the trouble of typing out their full names.

 

Besides you don't seem to have a problem with Xians using their supposed 'offence' at an abbreviation when a few individuals use it (even though they're fine when everyone else does) as an excuse to personally attack & criticise those individuals why do you defend them yet oppose me when I fabricate offence in just the same manner?

 

Could it be that yet again you have double standards?

[Wildcat]

Then you haven't met many xtians. Why do you think so many of them (ime) find the term 'first name' as opposed to 'christian name' so offensive when filling forms etc?

 

I have met plenty of Christians, and not once have I known any take offence at forms asking for their first name. The ones I have met have the understanding to realise it would be mildly offensive and confusing to ask people of other religions or atheists for their Christian names because they would in all probablity tell you they don't have one.

 

You might do but I don't. If I feel that somebody is taking offence over something too easily or to make a point then that offends me. As an honest, forthright person it would be hypocritical of me not to point that out to the person I was responding to.

 

Just like Christians do but you then ignore? Why is it one standard for you and another for others?

 

On top of that if you treat everybody the same irrespective of whether you know them personally or not then how does somebody you're close to know that they're special?

 

I would hope that people you thought special would be treated a bit better than simply with respect and with dignity.

 

Because this thread is about offence on a public forum which means it's perfectly legitimate to apply the same standards to other public organisations.

 

The contexts are very different on a forum you address posts to individuals or to the other contributors to the thread. The context is specific not general.

 

I agree it would be rude or ill mannered or discourteous in a personal context with a work colleage. That's not to say it would be offensive. Rudeness and offensiveness are different things.

 

I suppose rudeness could be welcomed in certain situations

 

But I don't see what the relevance of that has to a situation set out in the OP where the person causing the offence has good reason to expect their actions will cause offence because the victim has told them so.

[milquetoast1]

Why does it not apply when Christians time and time again say they take offence at use of the word and people persist in using it? It is precisely the same.

 

Do I really have to spell this out?

 

If Bertie insists that he is not called Bertie, he wants to be called Bert, then it would be rude for people that know him to call him Bertie.

 

If Bert insists that he is not called an "Owl", he hates the abbreviation and wants to be called a "Sheffield Wednesday Supporter", then it would be rude of people that know him to call him an "Owl".

 

If Bert says he doesn't want to be called a "Sparky", he hates the abbreviation and wants to be called an "NICEIC Electrician", then it would be rude of people that know him to call him a "Sparky".

 

If Bert says he doesn't want to be called a "Christian", he hates the general description which includes those nutters from certain other churches, and wants to be called a "Roman Catholic", then it would be rude of people that know him to call him a "Christian".

 

People might think that Bert is a bit petty and childish with his requests, but it would still be rude to ignore them.

 

But Bert's taste in personal offence cannot influence how the wider society uses such terms. Nobody is going to stop using the words "Bertie", "Owls", "Sparky", and "Christian" just because Bert doesn't like them.

 

I note that you now suggest that the word Xtian should be avoided because "Christians time and time again say they take offence" to it. Well it is a change in your initial arguing at least, and you would have a case if:

 

1. It was true, and

2. There was some logical reason.

 

It is neither of those.

 

Some Christians might take offence for reasons unknown to them, but mainly because they used to use it when they were young but now they see it used by the likes if Plekhanov, and, well, you know, it just, sort of, niggles a bit.

 

 

 

Oh, and where were you when spindrift called a'theists shrill hysterical thugs?

 

[Wildcat]

No I really do want everyone who criticises the party and government I support to have to go to the trouble of typing out their full names.

 

Besides you don't seem to have a problem with Xians using their supposed 'offence' at an abbreviation when a few individuals use it (even though they're fine when everyone else does) as an excuse to personally attack & criticise those individuals why do you defend them yet oppose me when I fabricate offence in just the same manner?

 

Could it be that yet again you have double standards?

 

Are you really trying to argue that the offence people have repeatedly expressed is constructed?

[Norbert]

I sometimes use the X abbreviation. It had never crossed my mind that it might offend theists. I use it because the concept of Christ offends me.