Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
To be a hypocrite, you would have to think Wicca is not only a mistaken belief, but a ridiculous belief worthy of mockery. Is that what you think?
|
No, I do not think that Wicca is mistaken or ridiculous belief worthy of mockery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
An analogy only works if the original argument and the analogous argument map on a one to one level - do you understand that "Oiler Fan" is on a different categorical level than "hockey fan", and that "Wiccan" is NOT on a different categorical level than "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Buddhist" or any other example of "believers in some kind of God"?
Clearly you don't, as you remake the same argument above, and make the exact same error. If the analogy doesn't map, it is not useful in evaluating the original argument. You are comparing unlike things as if they were like, and that is a fatal flaw in your logic regardless of how "clear" it is to you.
|
You do realize that the original Oiler fan statement was followed by the "rolling eyes" smiley, right? Does that not indicate to you that I may have been somewhat less than serious?
Still, you must realize that "Being something", followed by a subcategory which provides distinction shouldn't be that confusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
I repeat my expansion of the original argument, as apparently you skimmed over it the first time: If you believe in one thing, mocking others who believe in something different, but no less plausible, is hypocritical as you are essentially mocking belief itself - claiming that it is a positive characteristic in yourself but a negative characteristic in others. There are arguments to be made against that statement, but your analogy isn't one of them.
|
No, I don't necessarily agree. If both Person A and Person B have different belief systems, Person A does not necessarily mock belief itself if he teases Person B but merely a belief in something different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
I'm pretty sure he was looking to see if there were any other Wiccans on CP, just like he originally posted. Some people were being funny but not in an offensive way, but others were clearly trying to get a reaction. I don't care for that kind of small-mindedness, as there is a distinct difference between questioning someone's beliefs in a thread where the intention is to debate those beliefs, and doing so in a thread where there was no such invitation. If the thread had been "What do you think about Wicca?" or even "Wiccan practioner cures cancer, scientists mystified", that would be different.
|
I agree with you here. However, just because someone tries to get a reaction from you doesn't mean you have to give them one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Of course it has happened, but not nearly as much as the more "sensitive" Christian members think. Disagreement does not necessarily imply a "put down", unless of course any challenge at all to one's world-view is seen as dangerous antagonism.
|
I am aware that in my lifetime I have probably received much more abuse and mockery for my support of the Seattle Seahawks than my choosing to attend a particular church.
When I see a car driving down the street with a Darwin fish growing legs, I tend to see the humour in it, and I would be tempted to mock those Christians who claim to be offended, even though I would classify myself as a Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
With that kind of logical leaping you should look into making the 2012 Olympic team when they finally let sophistry into the event list. I don't even know where to start with this, other than to say that I think you mean "biases AGAINST organized religion", and that the word "competent" doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
And should they add nitpicking to the 2012 Olympic Games, maybe we can be roommates at the Athletes Village!
