Clearly this person hasn't heard of this thing called "Old Believers"
I am not an Old Believer at all, this is a joke
Why I was kicked (Protestantism/Christianity > other religions)
- Thread starter fi11222
- Start date
- Status
I am not an Old Believer at all, this is a joke
That doesn't make any sense. I am not a Muslim, but if I say Sunni Muslims aren't "real" Muslims, then that is still religious bigotry.
Well, did the Russian Tsardom ever give independence to Lithuania? I don't remember this to have happened.Who is this disclaimer needed for? The Tsar?
By the time Lithuania obtained its independence, the Tsardom had been abolished de facto, so...
Napoleonrules
Banned
Why are there 4 pages worth of feeding this troll? Please, can we move on, this shouldn't even be existed, let alone in this forum instead of talk forum. Nothing to see here, people.
fi11222
Banned
No. If you present it as an historical point of view, it is not bigotry. By saying so, you are asserting that Islam split into several factions, some of which were in some sense "real" (as in "true to the original principles of this religion") and others (in this case Sunni) were "bogus" or "fake". There are plenty of reasons why such a thing would make sense, like saying that Trotsky was a "real" communist, while Stalin was not, or that Peter Jackson's version is not the "real" Lord of the Rings.
"Hispanic immigrants are a drain on society, Chinese immigrants are much more more studious. Of course as a white man I'm neutral in this whole debate."
Daily reminder that not having a dog in the fight is not the same thing as being non-bigoted.
@fi11222, oh, man, you've kicked the hornests' nest, IMO.
Here's the problem that I have with this. Everyone here is arguing from within their own belief system. And for the sake of civility, we should understand that, and remember that when we lay out our positions. Most of your comments, I believe, would have benefited by a smattering of "I think" or "IMO" or "I believe" or a qualifier that says, "I understand that my opinion or belief system may not be shared by other folks."
I don't believe you're bigoted, largely because I see your argument as grounded in your own worldview. Here's the thing about any of our worldviews (at least as I see it... see, this is a qualifier. For those who disagree with me, this lets them understand I'm not deliberately trying to piss on their leg), I think each person's worldview attempts to frame the world through a set of understandings, ranging from why are we here, what are we to do, how do we interact with each other and where do we go from here.
Because our worldviews are an existential component of who we are, they require a degree of exclusivity. That's why (IMO, here's that qualifier) when you and @Obergruppenführer Smith are in sharp disagreement, its because of opposing worldviews. I'd even argue that you're right and he's wrong as far as whether the comment which offended him was bigoted. My reasoning is because of the exclusive demands placed on each of your own worldviews. A lot of the time, we call someone else's view bigoted because it runs counter to our own worldviews' demands of exclusivity.
I'm not trying to piss you off, but in a semi-anonymous forum like this, civility is important, and in some ways, I think you failed in presenting your argument in a civil manner. I'm not in any way trying to give cover to those who leveled a charge of bigotry against you. The reason for this is that if we exclude from civil discourse those who do not share our worldview and it's inherent demand for exclusivity, it becomes an echo chamber, where everyone repeats similar set of mantras and beliefs. And at the end of the day, the forum benefits from having contrarian worldviews introduced. After all, sometimes it benefits the environment when we allow that voice in the wilderness to cry out.
Here's the problem that I have with this. Everyone here is arguing from within their own belief system. And for the sake of civility, we should understand that, and remember that when we lay out our positions. Most of your comments, I believe, would have benefited by a smattering of "I think" or "IMO" or "I believe" or a qualifier that says, "I understand that my opinion or belief system may not be shared by other folks."
I don't believe you're bigoted, largely because I see your argument as grounded in your own worldview. Here's the thing about any of our worldviews (at least as I see it... see, this is a qualifier. For those who disagree with me, this lets them understand I'm not deliberately trying to piss on their leg), I think each person's worldview attempts to frame the world through a set of understandings, ranging from why are we here, what are we to do, how do we interact with each other and where do we go from here.
Because our worldviews are an existential component of who we are, they require a degree of exclusivity. That's why (IMO, here's that qualifier) when you and @Obergruppenführer Smith are in sharp disagreement, its because of opposing worldviews. I'd even argue that you're right and he's wrong as far as whether the comment which offended him was bigoted. My reasoning is because of the exclusive demands placed on each of your own worldviews. A lot of the time, we call someone else's view bigoted because it runs counter to our own worldviews' demands of exclusivity.
I'm not trying to piss you off, but in a semi-anonymous forum like this, civility is important, and in some ways, I think you failed in presenting your argument in a civil manner. I'm not in any way trying to give cover to those who leveled a charge of bigotry against you. The reason for this is that if we exclude from civil discourse those who do not share our worldview and it's inherent demand for exclusivity, it becomes an echo chamber, where everyone repeats similar set of mantras and beliefs. And at the end of the day, the forum benefits from having contrarian worldviews introduced. After all, sometimes it benefits the environment when we allow that voice in the wilderness to cry out.
fi11222
Banned
@drewmc2001: I agree wholeheartedly.
The whole reason I started this thread is because I am trying to cover some groundwork so that I can point people to it in order to provide context and thus reduce the likelihood of people taking what I say amiss.
The only difference we may have is one of style. This is a forum and it thus heavily slants our style of communication in the direction of brevity. Thus I think that "I think" or "IMO" or "I believe", etc. cannot be used all the time on pain of making anything we say unbearably cumbersome.
This is the reason I started this thread. I do not wish to discuss the heart of the issue here but simply provide sufficient background data about myself and where I am coming from, along with all the qualifiers about the fact that this is a position I wish to defend because I believe it is accurate but nothing more. As I said earlier, I intend to provide a link to this discussion in my future posts (probably in my signature) in order to always have the appropriate qualifiers close at hand without having to repeat them after every sentence.
The whole reason I started this thread is because I am trying to cover some groundwork so that I can point people to it in order to provide context and thus reduce the likelihood of people taking what I say amiss.
The only difference we may have is one of style. This is a forum and it thus heavily slants our style of communication in the direction of brevity. Thus I think that "I think" or "IMO" or "I believe", etc. cannot be used all the time on pain of making anything we say unbearably cumbersome.
This is the reason I started this thread. I do not wish to discuss the heart of the issue here but simply provide sufficient background data about myself and where I am coming from, along with all the qualifiers about the fact that this is a position I wish to defend because I believe it is accurate but nothing more. As I said earlier, I intend to provide a link to this discussion in my future posts (probably in my signature) in order to always have the appropriate qualifiers close at hand without having to repeat them after every sentence.
What I'm quite surprised is that the mods have decided to let THIS go instead of charging in and doing what they usually do like sending this thread to chat for example given the nature of this thread.
fi11222
Banned
This is not bigotry, it is plain racism (mentioning "race" as an explanatory factor). It is absolutely not what I am doing here.
There are social and political reasons why Protestantism closely aligns with modern society, but your insistence that it "is better" than other versions of Christianity because of this, or arguing that Protestantism proceeds some kind of progress is wrong. Protestantism is indicative of social forces that bely modernity, and shouldn't be indicative of change itself.
- Status