Massage, you may have missed a thread today...well, last night for you,
in the current events, it has since been pulled and three of the posters
here, who regularly post, here within the religion forums, were
incredibly derogatory, and purposefully infammatory, hence the new rules
at the top of here in religion and in current events...

These three present as Christians, and choose to be seen as not wanting
controversy...

Jess, yes, I do tend to pick a few threads to read, and ignore anywhere
from 40% to 95% of what goes on around here.

Lee, Massage, I wouldn't worry about it. It doesn't really matter.

Kid, what is it which doesn't matter?

Some people will always believe that they're right, no matter what. Let
them argue until they're blue in the face.
Doesn't mean anyone HAS to react to it or even respond at all.
It doesn't really matter so long as you yourself are comfortable with
who you are and what you believe.
I'm all for open dialogue and communication. I have learned a few things
here and I would like that to continue. I love the fact that some people
are comfortable with themselves and can discuss their beliefs in an
amicable manner without being forceful of their opinion.

You're right Harry...and I guess I'm just a little disillusioned with
human nature at times...

Sometimes it gets a little wearing..

Don't worry lovely, we all get there from time to time

KidAtH, in the general sense, I absolutely agree with you. You and the
dozen people with whom I've discussed this in private email, many of
which have given up posting in the religion/current events forums.

The open question though, is -when- is it hopeless, and -when- do people
actually listen and think. And this is why I'm (mostly) against
personal insults - insulted people usually have a hard time listening.

You are right that on the deeper issues, many people are permanently
planted in their position, fine. But they still have the capacity to
grow in other areas. I think Spider has the maturity to consider
Kerry's point about the drama. And BC has the potential to think about
ABs point about closing one's ears. And Red has the ability to think
about Spider's point about liberty, and my point about antagonism. The
list goes on - it might not happen today, but that potential is there,
and I think these conversations can actually be constructive.

Personally, I'd like to see more people like you -joining- the
conversation. Dilute the coupling of antagonistic pairs. If people
like you respond to an assault diplomatically, then the offended party
won't feel compelled to defend themself non-diplomatically, and the
feedback loop is broken.

Lee

I try, really hard somedays, to see the good in everyone. Sometimes it
just won't shine through no matter how hard you look. Bad timing I hope.
Sometimes on my part.

Hi Andrea

Oh, KidAtH, I realize now you were probably talking more about the
-other- thread, not so much about this thread (?). I didn't read the
other thread, but if you are saying that there comes a time to -drop-
past issues, rather than continue in pointless debate/conversation, then
I totally agree.

Massage, I mean here and in any other thread.
Sometimes it's obvious that the other person simply wants to argue that
they're right and you don't have a clue. Nothing to be gained from that.
I'll usually walk away.
I must admit, there have been times I've said things that could be seen
and may have been meant in an arguementative way.
I don't usually pick sides either. I have my own side and my own view
point! I will defend my friends if I feel it's necessary. Most of them
are quite capable though!

Massagetrade writes:

"I think a few people around here have axes to grind, and take their
grudges into every conversation they can. By doing so, they argue for
or against particular people or beliefs, rather than being on the side
of reason or truth. Sometimes your friends are wrong, and your
antagonist is right."

Nothing wrong with a little axe grinding from time to time as long as
one resists the urge to resort to metaphorical bloodletting. I think
most of us wouldn't be friends with our friends were we to know they
always had a hatchet to bury. Which is why I think one seldom errs when
preferring to defend one's friends against manipulative antagonists
skilled in doublespeak.

One can always talk across a boundary, it's quite another to get down
there in the mud with that antagonist. Keeping one's eyes on the
readership while deciding just where the bog begins and the axe grinding
stops is one tried-and-true method for not having to salvage one's
dignity from tatters later.

-Kerry O.

Choose your loyalties how you like.

MassageTrade writes:

" Choose your loyalties how you like."

By all means *if* one has the luxury. I don't think one always does. We
know that 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' can backfire terribly on
us down the road. And 'Every man for himself and God against all' is
dashingly heroic, but humans, being social animals by instinct and by
breeding, have, as a basic need, the feeling of belonging.

They don't call it "The Prisoner's Dilemma" for nothing. Still, if
you've ever studied Games Theory, the best way to navigate the dilemma
is to trust, even past maybe one or more defections. But not past a
third or fourth defection. That's when it becomes time to reappraise the
loyalty.

-Kerry O.

Oh, I guess I wasn't specific enough:

> By doing so, they argue for or against particular people or beliefs, rather than being on the side of reason or truth.

Choose your loyalties how you like.