I find that when one retorts, "disrespect!" it is an attempt to circumvent being in the uncomfortable position of not being able to adequately defend one's position. Often this is the case in religious discussions. One is unable to answer difficult questions about doctrine, epistemology or ontology so resorts to "You're being disrespectful!" Well, not all beliefs and positions are worthy of respect. And often what the speaker is really wanting is deference.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 23, 2017 2:54 AM MDT
I think we all want others to respect our views whether they agree with them or not. It's hard to do sometimes if you believe those views are catastrophically terrible. The views of racists for instance. SIGH. Thank you for your reply whistle! :)
Then one must define what one by "respect". Is it possible to respect, however defined, beliefs one disagrees with? For instance a fully committed Christian must of necessity think every other religion wrong. Is this person being "disrespectful" or just holding to a necessary article of his faith?
I don't know what you mean by "fully committed Christian whistle". If you mean rigid and self-righteous I am not that committed. I taught Sunday School when I was 12 years old and I talk to God daily and have ever since I was a very small child. I don't talk about it much because really it's between me and Him. I respect all religions. In fact a long time ago on Answerbag I asked a question that went something like this..".What if God/ Buddha/ Mohammed/Zoroaster/Jehovah and all the Gods people worship were ONE PERSON in different manifestations? What what you do if that were true?" I don't recall the response. That might have been a question that was ignored completely. I ask a lot of questions and many of them are never answered. I am open to that possibility. I am open to all possibilities. I am not arrogant enough to believe that what I think and believe is the only possible way to believe and everything else is crap. Some people of course do subscribe to that. It makes them feel ever so superior to others. So what do you think about what I think? Thank you for your reply whistle! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at March 24, 2017 7:59 AM MDT
The comment of a fully committed Christian was not directed to you personally, but rather, to monotheists in general. If one follows any of the monotheistic faiths one must hold that all other religions are wrong. This is an inherent part of monotheism. The idea of a god of many faces is very egalitarian but it flies in the face of monotheism. One position must be wrong. If monotheism is correct the god of many face is incorrect. Then vice versa.
I can still see things in other religions (and other systems that attempt to explain the "supernatural") that parallel my beliefs.
For me, it's not so much that they such are wrong is that not everything has been figured out yet. (Although I will qualify that by saying that some beliefs about the Bible are just plain wrong.)
I think that God takes as His own "all those who are faithful to him."
I will leave the details of that to Him---I only speak the truth of which I am sure.
Me too. I say "I disagree with thee" and move on. Often that's all I say because getting into the same discussion with the same person over the same thing repeatedly makes no sense. Thank you for your reply Spunky and Happy Thursday! :)
Words can be evaluated in terms of their comprehension and extension and those qualities they are inversely related to each other. Words allow us to accurately convey our thoughts.
About 55 years ago, I looked up respect, admiration, and esteem---and each had a specific meaning.
Respect came from the Latin spicere, to look at. To respect someone or something was to clearly understand what their position was and why and how they got there (if they chose to share their reasoning).
And for years I was able to say truthfully that I totally respected someone's opinion or position, and because of that respect, I could further state whether or not I admired or esteemed that opinion or position and give my reasons for doing so.
Somehow, over a period of about 20 years, respect lost it's identity as an action and now (from Wikipedia), "Respect is a feeling of admiration or deference toward a person, child, non-human animal, group, ideal, or indeed almost any entity or concept, as well as specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem."
We lost some valuable distinctions in our categorization skills.
If I cannot understand your position and why you hold it---respect it in other words---how can I possibly intelligently say I admire or esteem it, or convey my disdain or agreement with what you have expressed?
Thank you for your thoughtful exposition tom. I appreciate it. I do not understand those who hate. I do not understand racists/bigots/misogynists/homophobes. I do not understand those who prefer to harm rather than help. I do not understand envy/jealousy/revenge/retaliation. I never will. So I do not respect those who exhibit those preferences. I can't comprehend that which is anathema to me. I only know that I do not like such people and avoid them when I can. I am very sensitive to my surroundings and I do not stay where hate lives and works and plays. I do respect those whose tastes in music/food/clothes/literature/professions differs from mine. I don't understand why a woman is an auto mechanic since it doesn't appeal to me personally but I admire such a woman for taking on such a job as that! Semantics also is always in play tom. One cannot escape or avoid it. So we do the best we can trying to communicate and sometimes we click and it hits and sometimes we don't and we miss! Happy Thursday! :)
"I would give the devil the benefit of the law for my own sake."
It's by respecting the devil that I can quote that statement.
I don't understand him either, but because I do understand what herepresents and therefore I can respect him.
I do agree that semantics (the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning) is in play---but it should never be used as an excuse to stop thinking critically.
Why does understanding what "he represents" bring with it respect? Maybe what you mean and what I mean by respect are not the same. I see no connection/relationship between words meaning different things to different people and the ability to think critically. Perhaps you can make the connection for me. Thank you for your reply tom and Happy Friday! :)
When you respect someone, it's like looking at something with the accuracy of a Monday morning quarterback.
Res---thing in Latin. Re--back in Latin Spicio---look at, see in Latin.
So, the Monday morning quarterback sees the thing in its development, its action, and in its result. In other words, precisely for what it is. And seeing it for what it is allows you to accurately judge the call---was it a "good" call---worthy of admiration and esteem or was it actually a "bad" call---worthy of disdain or even disgust?
So how do you factor in one's predisposition/partisanship/preferences? We all bring with us a predisposition to view things favorably that support our beliefs. No one is completely free of subjectivity. Monday morning quarterbacking has to do with physical moves/plays that are observable by all. Religion is not physical at all and depends upon that which cannot be seen or touched. So that analogy is not meaningful to me personally. Of course I never played football either so I am ignorant about that. At work after a project was put to bed we'd sometimes analyze the results to see what we could have done better or faster. Again that had to do with something tangible. Religion isn't that at all. In my opinion. Further evaluating something you don't espouse is of necessity going to put a different light on it. When you talk to other Catholics there is already consensus. You share certain specific beliefs to be a committed Catholic. When talking to a Unitarian or Presbyterian or Jewish person or a Buddhist or Muslim there will always be a distance between you, among you. Evaluating the "good" or "bad" aspects of other religions is tricky I think. Thank you for your reply tom.
This post was edited by RosieG at March 25, 2017 5:20 AM MDT
"So how do you factor in one's predisposition/partisanship/preferences? We all bring with us a predisposition to view things favorably that support our beliefs. No one is completely free of subjectivity. You are talking about confirmation bias.--- I tried to respond to each line you wrote, but I gave up---You wrote a paragraph that contained too many topics.---
And unfortunately, because I do respect it; if I had to grade it, it would be rated highly. And also because I respect it, I have neither admiration nor esteem for what you have said.---
And that's because you don't get it, and your responses is simply "incorrect."---
Depends on the disagreement at hand and the person I'm disagreeing with; their attitude, the way the perceive "disrespect" and their arguments. Dumb arguments don't deserve to be respected, but some people will mistake that as a disrespect to them rather than their dumb ass reasoning.
I've given up arguing nl. It holds no appeal for me. I give my opinion and listen to/read the opinions of others. If they differ I say "I disagree with thee" and move on. I am not argumentative. I don't have to be "right" or agreed with. But I do insist on civility and when that is missing I leave. It's easier on me. Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday! :)
Benedict Arnold 