I have no respect for people who have no respect for others' race, religion, nationality, culture, gender, belief and age. And to stand back, do nothing and play witness to such poisonous personality and disrespectful character in someone of lesser age is even more despicable.
Because of that, I'm taking a said someone I believe has changed for the worse (he has become the personification that lack of respect I speak of), off my RSS list.
One less read ain't gonna kill me, but one more read like the last will only serve to poison my mind and ruin my already deteriorating perception of Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man").
22 comments :
Nooooooooo!!!
a blog or post that you've read?
ATTN: joshuaongys
– YESSSSSSS!
ATTN: -lte-
– A post I read from a blog I used to RSS. But it's not really the post I was disappointed with. It was the manner in which the arguments were made. Especially in the comments. It was rude, disrespectful and totally uncalled for.
Sigh. Guess good writers aren't necessarily good people.
S'been awhile since I've been here, so I'll try and make this respectful.
What I respect and cherish most is honesty (both spiritual and intellectual honesty). During the controversy over a church's publication use of the word Allah, I wrote a post using historical facts and Quranic scriptural quotes to defend said church - and the freedom of speech of Christians. I didn't do it because I like that church or Christians in general. I did it because I'm defending what's right. I did it because I was angry at a lot of Muslim acquaintances I have who condemned the church without even knowing their own holy book.
In my latest post, I defended education, the scientific process and what is possibly the foremost field in biological research - and my evident anger is directed towards the dishonesty of people trying suppress real knowledge with outright lies. Lies I can demonstrate as such. Lies as plain as days. Lies perpetrated on people who have not had the appropriate training and education to see through.
Besides, a person should not demand respect just because he or she believes in something. Torquemada tortured and killed countless people because of his beliefs. Hitler murdered millions of Jewish people because of his beliefs. When Arthur Shelton murdered his atheist friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, not too long ago with a shotgun because Larry did not believe in God - it was because of Shelton's private beliefs as well. I respect a person's race, nationality, sexual orientation etc, but I will not respect anyone's beliefs just because they are their beliefs. To do that is dangerous. Any belief system worth believing in should be able to withstand criticism and potentially even ridicule.
I never expected respect for any of my beliefs. I expect to defend them when they are called into question. When someone (regardless of age) wanders in and make scientific, polemical and historical claims which are patently false, I call him out on it - and I do not mince words. I always, always make my contempt clear.
Of course, there's no reason why you should be exposed to such "poison" so I fully understand why you would want to stay away. I simply want to make my position clear on the issue of respect. Sorry you have to witness such unpleasantness, Pam.
ATTN: k0k s3n w4i
– Hey there. I must say I'm surprised to see you here. More surprised even that you left a comment exposing yourself as the said blogger I chose to leave anonymous.
Anyway, it feels like you're missing the point. Hear me out without going on the offense or being defensive ok? Cos I'm going to tell you why I RSS-ed your blog to begin with.
• Because you're a good writer. I like your writing style, I like the thought you put into your arguments, I like the tales of your travels (plus the pictures!), and I like your humour-driven brand of sarcasm.
• Because you're a guy with a point of view. We all know that's becoming increasingly rare these days. And though I may not always agree with your POV, I respect that at least, you have a stand and you're not ashamed of it. And that's good.
• Because I saw kindness in you. Toward the people you meet and toward animals even. I read about how you looked out for the puppies on your way to school and how you liked playing with them. With stray cats too. And about how you wanted to offer an old lady in a bus your seat. How you thought kids holding handbags were adorable. And about how you were so concerned over and saddened by the little black puppy that died on your birthday.
• Because you were a loving boyfriend. I saw the way you loved Phoebe and it made my day knowing that there were nice men out there for good girls who still knew how to SHOW love. I loved reading the post with her in them. And I especially remember the one where she published on your blog.
ATTN: k0k s3n w4i
– Now let me tell you why I think you're missing the point of why I'm so taken aback by your response. Even if you said you never expected anyone to respect your beliefs, nor do you think anybody who believes in anything should demand respect, know this: Even though I disagree with you, I respect you for your beliefs. I respect that you have chosen to believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. And that's cool cos you can believe whatever you want to, much as I have chosen to believe in whatever I do.
What caused me to lose respect was your method of defense. To me, the end never justifies the means. It wasn't the facts you presented or the theories that got me feeling like it all wasn't right. To me, it was the manner in which you defended your stand and the theories you believed in. Sure, you proved a point. But you stated your stand in ways that shocked me cos... I no longer saw the intelligent, fair-gamed, kind, loving guy I thought I was reading.
The purpose of intelligent debate is to hear one another out and to learn from one another, right? Not to touch nerves on purpose. (Which you expressed that you actually wanted to do.) Because then, it's no longer a gentlemanly debate. It's just becomes as immature as kids at the playground calling each other names. You weren't just tackling the issue or the argument. You wanted to ridicule, diss and mock the other party. You were disrespectful, condescending and patronising in most of your points.
You say that "any belief system worth believing in should be able to withstand criticism and potentially even ridicule." Unfortunately, you weren't criticising and ridiculing the belief system. You were criticising and ridiculing the person who believed in it, who was merely stating his point and offering some words of advice. Take 'em or leave 'em, you still didn't have to be mean or disrespectful. Especially when it's from someone older who was merely sharing his own experience in the matter.
I don't know you personally but I've always thought that you were a nice person from what I read. Cocky at times, but nice on the inside. After all, a person who's capable of loving to the extent of putting hidden messages in his designs cannot possibly be all that bad, right? Well, perhaps I was wrong. Cos I didn't see that nice guy in your last post. And that's what I was disappointed about. Not your argument. But the portrayal of the character behind k0k s3n w4i. =(
YOU GO GIRL!
WTF. Pointless bickering. God is rock and roll and that's that.
ATTN: yapthomas
– Haha. So semangat.
ATTN: andrewlow
– And hello to you, too, Mr Andrew Low. Nice to see you here. Haha. Since I probably won't be seeing you at this year's Kancils anyways.
In the last seminar I attended we learned WADA - We Agree to Disagree Agreeably.
I am very flattered and very, very surprised that you thought so highly of me, but I have to tell you this. I am more than two dimensions. I am also arrogant, single-minded and am capable of hurting people. Do I have anger management issues? Hell yes.
And to quote myself more accurately;
"This is a subject I get particularly defensive and reactionary about, so I expect to have my nerves touched (while making sure I touch some back)"
I have deliberately insulted a commenter. In debating circles, it's known as an ad hominem attack, and aren't considered valid arguments - but they do not in any way invalidate my real arguments. I've read through my own comments and the only times I attacked his character is when I call him ignorant, uninformed, unqualified, childlike (this one belongs to him, really) and said that his manner of obtaining morality offends me. Now, they may be ad hominem, but I clearly explained the reasons why I call him those things.
Sure he sounded polite, but ad hominem attacks - even if they sound nice, are still ad hominem. Do not confuse niceness with goodness, and vice versa. Whether I'm good or not, is up for debate. But being nice and amiable is not automatically good.
You weren't just tackling the issue or the argument. You wanted to ridicule, diss and mock the other party.
Yes, I do. And I set out to reply him with those goals in mind. Allow me to explain why; It may appear that he's merely giving unsolicited advice and sharing his supposedly age-related experiences - and to many others, it'll read as such too. What I see is the object of my ire in the post - an intellectually dishonest person. He repeatedly air opinions and platitudes about biology and xeno-intelligence like they are profound statements, but are actually bunk. This is how creationists manage to mislead millions about science. Remember now that millions of other Christians manage to quite easily reconcile their Christian beliefs with science - but this commenter covertly uses sarcasm and mock-incredulity to try and discredit something he evidently has no idea about using his faith. This is precisely why evolutionary science is unjustly banned from classrooms; the interference of religion into something it has no business poking its nose into.
He reminds me of evangelist Ray Comfort, who wrongly used the banana to disprove evolution (look for his video on YouTube). After being told that the reason the banana appeared to have been designed is because it was artificially bred by human farmers to look that way - and that bananas do not actually look like that in the wild and aren't seedless - Ray Comfort continuously perpetrates these "opinions" of his on his lectures and writing. Just like how that commenter in my post will continue to do to his people and to other people besides. Like how he tried to evangelise to me; what missionaries frequently refer to as "sharing of experience and opinions" instead.
He may sincerely believe those trite comments he made, and may air them freely to his fellow Christians and to people he tries to proselytise to. He may feel it's perfectly reasonable and feel no pricks to his conscience about doing so. But I want him to know that he cannot do that with impunity. I want him to know that opinions and feelings have no place in science - so I call him ignorant, uninformed and unqualified (all perfectly true statements).
On the pricklier question of his morality, which I called into question very callously and rudely - I did it because I realise that he used scriptures to justify his moral code, right after I pointed out centuries of folly by people who have used scriptures to do terrible things. I have long tried to raise awareness about animal cruelty, about the environment and about mankind's wanton exploitation of nature and seeing that he believe in the same verse often used to justify those modern atrocities; I felt disgust. This seemingly reasonable and friendly person coming in to talk to me about morality is nothing but someone who uses Bible verses to support his position (even if he only used it to support a pseudoscientific stance). I abhor the way people use "sacred" texts to justify morality of any sort.
And he said this gem to me,
"If you think science does make men better, you are living a lie
... when in my previous comment, I clearly said,
"science does not say what is moral or immoral"
Just because he said he's not interested in engaging in any argument doesn't mean he wasn't arguing. And what's worst, it shows that he's only interested in airing his views without actually reading mine.
And while he's in my comments section, he also threw out some misinformation about how science is a belief system which one may evangelise. He implied a bias in the evolutionary process towards mankind, belying the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about. Yet, he continues throwing his opinions about it irresponsibly using the air of respectability his age gives him (why else would he mention it?). This is why I need to impress on him that he's uninformed, unqualified and ignorant, regardless of how old or experienced he is.
He is an intellectually dishonest person through and through. And if I have to do this all over again, I would have done the same. I would hate to lose readers over this, but I cannot live with myself if I have to hide my contempt.
What I found particularly disturbing was how he ridiculed other people's religion. Sure, he doesn't believe in religion, but that doesn't mean he had to be so disrespectful about it.
Lissa: I have to respect a system of belief that calls for my eternal torture for eternity just because I'm not its adherent? I have to respect a book that says people like me (along with my family and town) should be destroyed? I have to respect an institution that has perpetrated some of the greatest injustices to humanity for centuries? Which is more disturbing, Lissa?
So instead of ridiculing such a belief system, you are insisting that I should respect it?
"You are only worth the respect you give others" says the owner of this blog.
si bek luan la..everybody study hard..study clever clever..work hard..make lots of money..love Jesus..end of story..peace..
well, that's true. . . .
just do what you feel its right~
we respect others first in return we got shit..then off you go~
ATTN: Melsong
– I totally agree with that.
ATTN: k0k s3n w4i
– Yes, I did think highly of you based on what I got from your writings. But it's always in interaction with others that we see a person's true character revealed.
I was surprised you approached the subject like all Christians are alike and that you likened us to many of the worst people in history. There are extremists in every school of thought. That doesn't make the rest of us who believe in the same thing bad people or fools who just follow blind faith. In the same way, just because some extremists burnt churches in Malaysia doesn't make the other folk who believe in the same God bad people.
Perhaps the problem was that this topic was a particularly sensitive one to you so you went on the offense, therefore leading to a response that took me by surprise. Whatever the matter, the method you have chosen to approach the comments on your page was something I wasn't comfortable with, hence my decision to stop my subscription to your RSS feeds.
Yes, I realised quickly that you used fallacies in your arguments. (Where I studied, the ad hominem attack was referred to as a Personal Attack Fallacy.) Sure it may seem like a perfectly logical method of deducing the flaws in a person's argument by dismissing the person himself is ignorant, uninformed, unqualified and childlike – therefore being unqualified to say whatever they have said.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false. (Or in your words, a lie.)
But to me, there's no glory in winning an argument based on that. Such fallacies have been disallowed in debates for a reason – so the debate is fair and logically sound. And when you commit a fallacy, you are in fact making a technical flaw which makes your argument unsound or invalid.
Anyways, like I said before, you're no longer tackling the issue so let's just save us all the trouble and not go there. You've resorted to attacking the person and dismissing their claims altogether based on your belief that they aren't qualified professionals on the issue discussed, though in turn, I wonder if you're qualified in the same respect to speak on the matters you hold so close to heart. Having said that, I shan't throw that question back at you because I believe this can go on and on with you defending your reasons for defence and explaining why you approached it the way you did with that man. No point in all that.
Sen Wai, the issue discussed on your blog is not my concern anymore. Neither is your response to that man or his response to you. So what if he was using ad hominem attacks to rebut your post? I wasn't reading him. I was reading you. It was your blog I was following. So in moving forward, I'm just going to drop this. Let's drop this, ok? Because to see this back and forth on your blog is one thing. But to have my readers challenged by what you believe in just because they leave a comment regarding a topic related to my post isn't exactly my cup of tea.
ATTN: Shen
– Peace
ATTN: taufulou
– Am doing that. Thanks for stopping by! I think your blog name is quirky. =)
ATTN: Lissa
– There are always people with differing views, eh babes? Well, I guess he's just angered by the arguments made and is using a style of arguing that isn't widely accepted. Especially not in cultures like ours that hold respect for one another so dearly. (With so many races/religions in Msia, we have to! Or else...? Sure die.)
Anyways, I've responded to him here already so let's all berganding bahu, then hop, skip, jump and move on with life. =)
Of course, I would like to point out that I did not dismiss his claims because I think he is unqualified and uninformed - I explained at length why he is wrong, and THEN pronounced my assessments of him. I did not use those words as arguments, Pam... I'd ask you to read carefully but you have obviously made up your mind so that's the end of that.
I did not challenge your readers with what I believe in - and sorry if you think that way. This is, after all, a post about respect, and I engaged her on that basis with absolutely no calling of names (no sirree). And I did not liken all Christians to the worst people in history - I merely pointed out that some of the worst people in history are Christians. And my biggest target is the Bible itself (and I quoted many, many horrible verses which Christians held to be the words of God, which no one seems to feel like addressing). It's not that Christians aren't nice. It's just that Christians can only be nice people if they ignore most of the Bible.
And I am going to drop this too. I wanted to comment anonymously but apparently, your blog only allows either OpenID or a Google Account commenter. Seeing as we'll probably never cross words ever again, I like to leave you with one of my favourite quotes from a very important movie,
"Everyone is disappointing the more you know someone."
Synecdoche, New York (2008)
Thought you might like it.
ok everyone, thanks for all your comments..very insightful..everyone is entitled to their own opinions...yay close chapter..peace..
Post a Comment
Talk to me!