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

[six45ive]

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.

 

I understand perfectly what you're saying. That it's meaningless to discuss metaphysical beings but as most people on this thread and even more in society in general are doing so then obviously both yourself and AJ Ayer are clearly wrong.

 

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.

 

But analogies don't simply work on the black and white idea of being accurate or not. They can be either weak or strong and that varies along a 'scale' of weakness or strength depending on the points being analogized. The conclusion being that if your analogy is weak then it helps to bring into disrepute the original point that you were analogising further reinforced by your dissassembling/assembling a car analogy that is even weaker if not a non existent analogy altogether.

 

That is what I said.

 

But you didn't though did you? It's what I said.

[Wildcat]

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 an "Sparky", he hates the abbreviation and wants to be called an "NICEIC Electrician", then it would rude of people that know him to call him an "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 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.

 

The thread and my comments have nothing to do with the usage of 'Xian' in wider society.

 

They are about the usage of the abbreviation on the forum and in debates with people who we know have repeatedly objected to the use of the word.

 

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.

 

That has been my argument all along... Here is the first occassion I really got involved after the comments on the first page:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6830557&postcount=98

 

2. There doesn't have to be a logical reason. The fact that offence has been taken is sufficient to know that an action causes offence and to therefore know the likely consequences of the actions that caused that offence.

 

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.

 

Like others have said usage of Xian may well go back to the middle ages, but I have never seen it used until seeing it on forum threads.

 

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

 

 

Not sure. I can't find the post to tell from the time and the date. His main contributions seem to have been made on a day I was working away from a computer. I suspect however he wanted to cause offence using language like that, so in that respect he chose his words well.

[Wildcat]

I understand perfectly what you're saying. That it's meaningless to discuss metaphysical beings but as most people on this thread and even more in society in general are doing so then obviously both yourself and AJ Ayer are clearly wrong.

 

Quite clearly you don't understand what I am saying. I wonder even now if you understand what you are saying, you have managed to garble that up so much.

 

You are the one arguing it is meaningless to discuss metaphysics, just as AJ Ayer did. Not me.

 

What I am saying is you can't discuss or restrict metaphysics to the physical, to the measureable.

 

But analogies don't simply work on the black and white idea of being accurate or not. They can be either weak or strong and that varies along a 'scale' of weakness or strength depending on the points being analogized. The conclusion being that if your analogy is weak then it helps to bring into disrepute the original point that you were analogising further reinforced by your dissassembling/assembling a car analogy that is even weaker if not a non existent analogy altogether.

 

But you didn't though did you? It's what I said.

 

We both said it. I said it first and then you repeated it as if you were disagreeing with me.

 

Take some deep breaths and try again to find somewhere where we have a difference of opinion before getting worked up.

[six45ive]

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.

 

Yep. That pretty much sums me up as well leading to the inevitable conclusion that in a free society nobody has a 'right to be offended'. In other words, just because the concept of xtianity offends me doesn't mean I have a right to stop people worshipping their god or using religious language when they are in my prescence such as saying 'god bless you' when I sneeze or saying 'I'll pray for you' if there is something distressing happening in my life. Yes that language offends me and I would explain that it's rude and inappropriate to use that kind of religiosity around me but at the end of the day it's up to them whether they take any notice of my wishes or not.

[six45ive]

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.

 

Personally I don't believe you've met many xtians. You may have met a few wishy washy, liberal, left wing pseudo xtians but I doubt that, socializing in your circles you've actually come across the real thing very often if at all.

 

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

 

Now it's you who's missing the point. The point being that even if I'm offended by somebody else's behaviour/language it doesn't give me any right to stop them expessing themselves in a way that they feel is true to themselves. My feelings don't come into addressing somebody else's behaviour/language.

 

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

 

Yes but I don't necessarily treat everybody with respect and dignity especially when they continue to follow a doctrine that causes so much suffering around the world. To do so would lead me to being a hypocrit.

 

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.

 

Not at all. I may make specific posts to specific posters but I may also be making general points. However I don't adjust my attitude depending on the context of the post I'm writing. Once again, to do so would be hypocritical of me and disingenuous to say the least and would actually show a disrespect to the poster I was addressing if I thought I had to handle him with 'kid gloves' because he can't deal with the real me.

 

I suppose rudeness could be welcomed in certain situations

 

Absolutely! Don't forget I've seen a photos of your good self.

 

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.

 

Because I don't see it as offensive and I don't accept the premise that just because somebody says they've been offended then that automatically means that everybody else must adjust their behaviour/language accordingly.

[milquetoast1]

The thread and my comments have nothing to do with the usage of 'Xian' in wider society.

 

They are about the usage of the abbreviation on the forum and in debates with people who we know have repeatedly objected to the use of the word.

 

That has been my argument all along... Here is the first occassion I really got involved after the comments on the first page:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6830557&postcount=98

 

2. There doesn't have to be a logical reason. The fact that offence has been taken is sufficient to know that an action causes offence and to therefore know the likely consequences of the actions that caused that offence.

 

Like others have said usage of Xian may well go back to the middle ages, but I have never seen it used until seeing it on forum threads.

 

Not sure. I can't find the post to tell from the time and the date. His main contributions seem to have been made on a day I was working away from a computer. I suspect however he wanted to cause offence using language like that, so in that respect he chose his words well.

 

Here is what you said on the link you posted to:

 

"Well the fact a number of posters have said they find it offensive might perhaps be a good reason?"

 

Here is what you said a few posts ago:

 

"Christians time and time again say they take offence at use of the word."

 

I've got to say that just as the words "militant", "shrieking", "hysterical", "shrill", "thugs", "fundamentalist", etc when applied to a'theists seems to have passed you by unnoticed, I too have failed to notice any Christians claim to be offended by the word Xtian.

 

Perhaps, in relation to SF, and before this thread was started of course, you could provide some examples to back up your "time and again" claim, because I sure could provide some examples of offensive remarks made about a'theists.

 

Let's put this in perspective. Some of the adjectives that I have quoted above are obviously offensive, there's no need to debate it, but using the letter X as an abbreviation for Christ is very very debatable indeed. Furthermore, whilst a'theists might be offended at some of the adjectives used, I don't think there is any real desire on our part to shut down the use of the language used. However, I can't help but think that the reverse is true with a small number of theists ... that they're not really offended, they just want to control the language used.

 

Incidentally, I've been studying the evolution of the word a'theist recently, and it does seem to confirm a few suspicions, but more on that later.

[six45ive]

Quite clearly you don't understand what I am saying. I wonder even now if you understand what you are saying, you have managed to garble that up so much.

 

You are the one arguing it is meaningless to discuss metaphysics, just as AJ Ayer did. Not me.

 

What I am saying is you can't discuss or restrict metaphysics to the physical, to the measureable.

 

:loopy:Oh dear, I now think you really have lost it and you're starting to project your inate nonsense onto my clear, unambiguous posts. So much so that you have yet to understand that I don't accept (as many religious people don't) that the metaphysical can't or won't ever be measured in a way that is clearly physical or won't be completely disproved as a red herring. You have no way of knowing that any more than I do but one thing that I am pretty certain about and that's all the evidence the idea of metaphysics to be a red herring.

 

We both said it. I said it first and then you repeated it as if you were disagreeing with me.

 

Sorry I must have missed it. Please point out where you admitted that your Bert/Bertie analogy was a weak analogy and so really didn't justify the original point you were trying to make.

[Wildcat]

Personally I don't believe you've met many xtians. You may have met a few wishy washy, liberal, left wing pseudo xtians but I doubt that, socializing in your circles you've actually come across the real thing very often if at all.

 

You can believe what you want. But readers will judge you on what you put and assert and on this occassion they will probably think you a bit bizarre.

 

Now it's you who's missing the point. The point being that even if I'm offended by somebody else's behaviour/language it doesn't give me any right to stop them expessing themselves in a way that they feel is true to themselves. My feeling don't come into addressing somebody else's behaviour/language.

 

I haven't said that people should not cause offence. My point is that if you are pretending to have a reasonable discussion with someone then causing unnecessary offence is not conducive to the debate and the person throwing insults around will be viewed as childish and disruptive.

 

Yes but I don't necessarily treat everybody with respect and dignity especially when they continue to follow a doctrine that causes so much suffering around the world. To do so would lead me to being a hypocrit.

 

Not at all. I may make specific posts to specific posters but I may also be making general points. However I don't adjust my attitude depending on the context of the post I'm writing. Once again, to do so would be hypocritical of me and disingenuous to say the least and would actually show a disrespect to the poster I was addressing if I thought I had to handle him with 'kid gloves' because he can't deal with the real me.

 

Absolutely! Don't forget I've seen a photos of your good self.

 

Because I don't see it as offensive and I don't accept the premise that just because somebody says they've been offended then that automatically means that everybody else must adjust their behaviour/language accordingly.

 

Yes, I think most people will have gathered you are unrepetantly rude and obnoxious. If you are happy for people to make that assessment of you then that is fine. You should however not be surprised when people express the fact they feel insulted by your posts and not in the slightest convinced by your rhetorhic because of the manner in which it is delivered.

[Wildcat]

:loopy:Oh dear, I now think you really have lost it and you're starting to project your inate nonsense onto my clear, unambiguous posts. So much so that you have yet to understand that I don't accept (as many religious people don't) that the metaphysical can't or won't ever be measured in a way that is clearly physical or won't be completely disproved as a red herring. You have no way of knowing that any more than I do but one thing that I am pretty certain about and that's all the evidence shows metaphysics to be a red herring.

 

Thank you for demonstrating even more clearly you don't understand. That is precisely what I said of your viewpoint. It is the old extreme Logical Positivist view of AJ Ayer that is only an academic topic for discussion now in terms of its flaws.

 

Sorry I must have missed it. Please point out where you admitted that your Bert/Bertie analogy was a weak analogy and so really didn't justify the original point you were trying to make.

 

The Bert\Bertie analogy has not been dented by any of the criticisms directed at it so far. Most have flown wide of the mark by trying to apply it outside of the situation I was using it in and the one around reasonableness of the substition was conceded but irrelevant since the substitution involves 5 letters not the inclusion of 8 additional words.

 

Where we are in agreement was the premisses around the way the validity of statements are assessed.

 

Justification for your conclusions have not been coherently explained, let alone dented my argument.

[six45ive]

You can believe what you want. But readers will judge you on what you put and assert and on this occassion they will probably think you a bit bizarre.

 

That's fine but I notice you haven't disagreed with my non belief in your circle of xtian friends/acquaintences.

 

I haven't said that people should not cause offence. My point is that if you are pretending to have a reasonable discussion with someone then causing unnecessary offence is not conducive to the debate and the person throwing insults around will be viewed as childish and disruptive.

 

I'm not pretending to have anything. When I'm debating I'm making my points in a way that feels right for me. If somebody reading my posts takes offence or feels that I'm bizarre, childish or disruptive then that's absolutely fine. It may or may not have an effect on changing their attitude to whatever the debate is about but it will leave them in no doubt that people are, first and foremost, individuals who are different and express themselves differently and certainly aren't some kind of homogenised, social robots who all think and feel and express themselves in the same way as everybody else.

 

Yes, I think most people will have gathered you are unrepetantly rude and obnoxious. If you are happy for people to make that assessment of you then that is fine. You should however not be surprised when people express the fact they feel insulted by your posts and not in the slightest convinced by your rhetorhic because of the manner in which it is delivered.

 

Yes that is fine but other than (for the sake of this argument because I don't believe it's the case) using the term xtian can you point to another clear example where I've been rude and obnoxious to individual xtians as opposed to xtianity in general.