1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

respect and truth

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by mac, May 21, 2019.

  1. mac

    mac Staff Member

    It’s been a recurrent assertion that we must respect others’ approach, respect their point-of-view, respect their ideas and beliefs etc. My response is always that why should I if I don’t subscribe to them?

    I expect I’ll again be accused of playing semantics but surely what we should do is respect their right to hold their beliefs etc? We should not – I suggest - be expected to respect others’ ideas etc. when we don’t agree with them and may strongly disagree with them. Being expected to ‘show respect’ may just be a ploy to avoid challenge.

    Another common situation is that of individuals declaring that they want to learn or recognise ‘the truth’ when the reality is that there is no such thing. To my mind there are three likely situations:

    Ideas and/or information that are factually accurate/true – these are parts of ‘the truth’.

    Ideas and/or information that are factually inaccurate hence are false/ true – these are not parts of ‘the truth’.

    Ideas and/or information which are a mix of factually accurate and factually inaccurate. These can be the most difficult to differentiate and may lead to considerable confusion.
    Kurt and ChrisGreece like this.
  2. ChrisGreece

    ChrisGreece New Member

    You must ask for proof always. For example if somebody claims that he/she has a gift of knowledge ask him/her for a divination . Privately.
    Then you will know if he/she has a gift. But what if the individual you ask is wrong and he/she does not have a gift ?
    Then you have help him/her to stop wasting his/her time.And if you ask privately there will be no loss of face for anyone.
    Win / win really.
  3. mac

    mac Staff Member

    Your default position appears to be one of prescriptiveness. ;)
    Kurt likes this.
  4. ChrisGreece

    ChrisGreece New Member

    As a moderator here you have a duty to protect the emotional well-being of the members and most of them have suffered a tragedy.
    Therefore you must trust but verify also . This is common sense.
  5. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear Chris, Mac handles his job with amazing grace and tact. I wouldn't presume to tell him what he "must" do or not do, and I will ask you to respect him and not do that either.
    Kurt likes this.
  6. ChrisGreece

    ChrisGreece New Member

    Yes he is amazing and i totally respect him. I meant it as a compliment . I am sorry for the misunderstanding.I also need to explain that i am not a native English speaker and i do not have total mastery of the English language so please take this into account .
  7. Kurt

    Kurt Major Contributor

    I don't know if I may have provoked this unintentionally by being very on edge while simultaneously shouting to the high heavens about my hate for semantics....

    If that is the case then I apologise.

    I look up to you in awe. I consider you as a great teacher and do respect your intellect to the point that I would admittedly be inclined to automatically believe anything that you say. One of the things I plan on doing is making a list if my top 10 most spiritually accurate members, copy and pasting their posts into a word document and printing it out and then reading it while taking notes and trying to make something coherent out of everything and guess what? Surprise! Your number 1 on the list.

    At the same time though, I do tend to have 2 other traits that lead me to believe I may have provoked this accidentally which I acknowledge I will have to work on if I am going to advance and not regress in this lifetime. (I am going to make a post shortly on that because I have heard 2 different things on that. From you and Roberta who I also take very seriously.)

    The first is that I have more than just a small incline towards fascist thought and I am definitely going to have to balance that out. The second is that I am always tense and on edge which also needs to be balanced out.

    As far as semantics.... I know that I take a baseball bat to it as if it were a pinata, but I would like to say that the kind I describe are from people who try to debate each other on campus on merely share insight to (imo) a very limited intellect by being astoundingly petty to the point of making their own blood boil. For example they get into arguments over mundane things like animals being kept as pets are illegal and that it is slavery and the only way to combat this is to make a reasonable disincentive to having a pet... Which was followed by a stream of suggestions including suing for breach of intellectual property when a picture is uploaded to social media (this actually happens to. A man was sued after publishing a selfie that a chimp took of itself) and when someone tries to combat this insanity they resort to relying on technical terms to support their broken arguments and theres never any real thought, just a moral high ground and for a person. Like me who has a notoriously mischievous and chaotic worldview this can be frustrating. The English department here deliberately cultivates it as well and both parties are guilty of being petty.

    For example you say one thing and they have no response so they simply resort to claiming that they know not what your discussing and after this they will attack you for trivial mistakes of grammar and use this grammarly styled gotcha game to prove their intellectual superiority when it just really creates a logjam that IMHO should result in them being banned from all discourse until they can attack ideas and not just beat around the bush but swing in the branches like above the bush like a mental gymnast.

    You say an instead of A? They go Gotcha! And claim victory. English professors (at my college. I'm not sure about elsewhere, but at my college EVERYONE else including other professors hate the English department. They literally assign their students the task of going around campus and debating people on their talking points which tend to be bubblegum feel-good... I hope people understand that this is not being used as a insult but a word... Moralfaggish in nature and it just is very very very very exceptionally annoying. It's extremely subversive and pisses people off. And if you disagree then they make emotional appeals and then play grammarly gotcha and if you make the mistake I tend to make (follow up every statement ith a source) they accuse you of Gish galloping. That is where I started to hate semantics. Then they just simply resort to calling you a evil Nazi if all else fails because you don't support billions of dollars for starving African puppies in Bangkok.

    When I attack semantics I attack pettiness like that.

    But never legitimate philosophy. I like philosophy professors a lot (see it's normally the other way around) and I like you because you look at things in term of being valid and sound and don't act like slime in a argument by playing mental gymnastics.
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
    ChrisGreece likes this.
  8. Kurt

    Kurt Major Contributor

    One time I saw you call someone out for making a bubblegummy statement that obviously defies logic and was meant for rhetoric by screaming to the top of their lungs

    THERE IS NO DEATH!!!!!!!!

    and then resorted to playing in your own words 'silly word games' I am sure you remember this.

    That is a key example of when I also complain about semantics. But never from you Mac.

Share This Page