Respect and civility

Ian Gordon

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
A thread just got deleted and I'm not complaining about that.

But as it was, I was going to post:

(To the thread-starter and someone who responded), there's a new rule about respect that is supposed to be, um, respected! I would love for this to be a truly applied change in the new Skeptiko forum. I think there's a way of expressing one's opinion without condescension towards the other person - no matter how outrageous and unwarranted the other person's position may appear.

It seems especially appropriate on a forum that's about "science and spirituality".

My 2 cents.
 
Ian Gordon said:
A thread just got deleted and I'm not complaining about that.

But as it was, I was going to post:

(To the thread-starter and someone who responded), there's a new rule about respect that is supposed to be, um, respected! I would love for this to be a truly applied change in the new Skeptiko forum. I think there's a way of expressing one's opinion without condescension towards the other person - no matter how outrageous and unwarranted the other person's position may appear.

It seems especially appropriate on a forum that's about "science and spirituality".

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I think this guy was a stalker. After 226 went up a got a lot of emails from Acharya... she's had a very hard go of it with a very small group of haters. apparently there's this one guy who follows her around on the net wherever she pops up. I've seen this kinda stuff before... it can be kinda subtle, but when you start to see the pattern it becomes clear.
 
alex.tsakiris said:
I think this guy was a stalker. After 226 went up a got a lot of emails from Acharya... she's had a very hard go of it with a very small group of haters. apparently there's this one guy who follows her around on the net wherever she pops up. I've seen this kinda stuff before... it can be kinda subtle, but when you start to see the pattern it becomes clear.
Click to expand...
Alex, why did you dislike my post?

I wasn't criticizing you for deleting the thread. I was criticizing the manner in which the thread-starter (Mr. X) was expressing him/herself (condescending), and how one of the other forum members (Mr. Y) responded (more condescension) - the language and tone used. I don't understand your thumbs down. Can you explain it?

Edit: I used this post/thread as an opportunity to make a general statement about respecting the respect rule for the entire forum! I'll repeat: I have NO problem with you deleting a thread by a stalker.
 
Last edited:
alex.tsakiris said:
I think this guy was a stalker. After 226 went up a got a lot of emails from Acharya... she's had a very hard go of it with a very small group of haters. apparently there's this one guy who follows her around on the net wherever she pops up. I've seen this kinda stuff before... it can be kinda subtle, but when you start to see the pattern it becomes clear.
Click to expand...

I trust your judgment on this. When I read that I thought it was kind of creepy. My hackles go up when the criticism isn't specific and doesn't acknowledge the ambiguity always present in these situations. It was too condescending.
 
Ian Gordon said:
A thread just got deleted and I'm not complaining about that.

But as it was, I was going to post:

(To the thread-starter and someone who responded), there's a new rule about respect that is supposed to be, um, respected! I would love for this to be a truly applied change in the new Skeptiko forum. I think there's a way of expressing one's opinion without condescension towards the other person - no matter how outrageous and unwarranted the other person's position may appear.

It seems especially appropriate on a forum that's about "science and spirituality".

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
There is no connection between respect/civility and spirituality. I think it's important to keep in mind that spirituality as discussed here does not mean religion - it simply means non-physical - I call it consciousness - although that term too can run afoul of other meanings.
 
Saiko said:
There is no connection between respect/civility and spirituality. I think it's important to keep in mind that spirituality as discussed here does not mean religion - it simply means non-physical - I call it consciousness - although that term too can run afoul of other meanings.
Click to expand...
I think you'd have a lot of folks here disagreeing with that - not that spirituality does not mean religion (I don't consider myself religious, btw), but that there is no connection between the term spirituality as used here and the general sense, to some degree.

I think Alex's decision to use those words instead of "intelligent conversation about science and expanded (or non-local) consciousness" says something. I could be wrong.

Regardless of our disagreement on this, the rules of the forum remain.

EDIT: A lot of the topics covered here, e.g. NDEs and mediumship, have a "moral" component. I'm the first one to defend the view that the "morality" found in some of them/it isn't as simple as sometimes portrayed (a very human-like morality, simply going good works, etc.), but that they indicate we live in a spiritual universe - in fact, that's what I think the essence of NDEs, visitations, etc., convey.
 
Last edited:
Saiko said:
There is no connection between respect/civility and spirituality.
Click to expand...
I disagree. But I've no great desire to debate the topic, It's sufficient to express my opinion.

I think it's important to keep in mind that spirituality as discussed here does not mean religion - it simply means non-physical - I call it consciousness - although that term too can run afoul of other meanings.
Click to expand...
The term "spiritual" probably has a pretty broad meaning. However, I think it is usually taken to mean something rather more than "non-physical". We already have a term for that. It is "non-physical". I would say that "consciousness" is distinct from either of the previous two terms. However I do accept that giving a precise definition of any of these terms is not easy, and would certainly give rise to plenty of differing opinions,
 
Ian Gordon said:
I think you'd have a lot of folks here disagreeing with that - not that spirituality does not mean religion (I don't consider myself religious, btw), but that there is no connection between the term spirituality as used here and the general sense, to some degree.

I think Alex's decision to use those words instead of "intelligent conversation about science and expanded (or non-local) consciousness" says something. I could be wrong.

Regardless of our disagreement on this, the rules of the forum remain.

EDIT: A lot of the topics covered here, e.g. NDEs and mediumship, have a "moral" component. I'm the first one to defend the view that the "morality" found in some of them/it isn't as simple as sometimes portrayed (a very human-like morality, simply going good works, etc.), but that they indicate we live in a spiritual universe - in fact, that's what I think the essence of NDEs, visitations, etc., convey.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there'd be some who disagree. And they'd be incorrect. And you definitely are not getting it. Yes we are expressions of spirit and yes so are the universes. ("We live in a spiritual universe") but that has nothing to do with nice, respectful, civil etc. Do you think that a rude, arrogant even mean-spirited person is any less an expression of spirit than someone who is kind, loving, caring, etc? If you think that you'd be incorrect. Morality, niceness and all that is not what NDEs, etc are about.

Also . . . as far as rules go . I favor open discourse. Apart from overt flame wars and threats and keeping things on topic, I think rules are just people getting their control freak on. I also don't favor the use of "intelligent" Who gets to decide what that is? Does that mean if there's someone who is objective ly more aware than most of non-physical but is not smart in the conventional way has nothing that is of benefit to the discussions here. In fact "intelligent" is often most prized by those who haven't opened up and expanded and seek to "get there" by intellectual means. Which doesn't work.
 
Typoz said:
However I do accept that giving a precise definition of any of these terms is not easy, and would certainly give rise to plenty of differing opinions,
Click to expand...

I think that's why it can be critical to agree on a precise defintiion. It can save alot of talking past one another.

Pat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top