Respecting beliefs vs. respecting Posters.

[DMB]

Mod Note: I copied this post from here (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=815). I agree with DMB (thanks!) that it deserves its own thread.

-Worldtraveller

There is something I would like to bring up -- I'm not sure if it oughtn't to have its own thread -- and that is Nunyo's demand for "respect".

Over many years I have time and again had problems with this. It has always been theists who have demanded respect for their views or even for their religion or religion as a whole.

Now asking for civility is one thing I can well understand. But respect? Surely that is something to be earned!

Of course, "respect" is a complex word with many meanings. I can and do respect someone's right to believe six impossible things before breakfast. But I do not respect the beliefs, nor do I necessarily respect the believer.

[Worldtraveller]

IMO, I agree with DMB's last sentence, except I would add that my default position is to extend respect to the person, as well as the person's right to believe. I have found that it is only a minority of believers (in the US, anyway) that are able to distinguish their beliefs from their person, and their intolerance for any criticism of their beliefs leads them to lose my respect.

Cheers,
Lane

[Barbarian]

I have found that it is only a minority of believers (in the US, anyway) that are able to distinguish their beliefs from their person, and their intolerance for any criticism of their beliefs leads them to lose my respect.The protocol goes like this: "I believe in God" "Well, I am an atheist" "O RLY? So you think I am an idiot, then?".

In my experience, these guys are far from being a minority; for me, the above exchange exemplifies well-established, almost stereotypical Christian behavior. OTOH, maybe our theists are of the shy kind, whereby only the real fundies speak ever up, and among them the percentage of those identifying themselves with their beliefs is higher.

ETA: also, why is this in Town Hall? I haven't told you guys yet about my hypothesis concerning how we are all the descendants of shamans and con-men, and why the role of teaching others is such an efficient remedy helping us cope with our own doubts. But I won't defile TH with such mundane stuff ...

[DMB]

I have only limited time to post at the moment, as I am in the throes of moving house and only sit down at my computer for a rest and a little light relief when I am so worn out that I can hardly take any more.

I would like to come back to this in some detail when I have more time, but now I will just give a few shreds of my issue with all this.

Seven years ago I was a member of a small board which basically fell apart after I refused to extend automatic respect to religious beliefs. Jobar, Copernicus and Jack the Bodiless were members as well, so they might remember something about it.

I have to disagree a bit with Lane here, in that I don't always respect posters either. I think everyone should be entitled to put forward their views and it is reasonable in TR (but, not, for example RnR) to demand a certain degree of civility towards any poster (although IMO not if they themselves behave badly).

IRL one can respect people for many things other than their views, but on an internet board there isn't much to go on apart from their views. (Perhaps their knowledge, their sense of humour or their writing skills? -- not much else.) If you don't respect the views, it's hard to respect the person.

But the real problem I am having is much wider than theist demands for respect on the internet. In the wider world, we are seeing a relentless campaign for respect for various religions, which clashes head on with the right to free thought and free speech. It is strongest from the islamists, but it is also coming from the Vatican. For five years running, the UN Human Rights Commission/Council has passed resolutions against the "defamation of religion". This is a body that scandalously fails to do anything worthwhile to protect human rights, while constantly trying to accord such rights to religions. Humans ought to have a right to freedom of religion or belief (UNHRC carefully neglects most aspects of that). Religions are not humans and should have no more rights than political parties. "Respect" for religion in this context seems to mean, "don't you dare criticise any aspect of my religion".

[Preno]

IRL one can respect people for many things other than their views, but on an internet board there isn't much to go on apart from their views. (Perhaps their knowledge, their sense of humour or their writing skills? -- not much else.) If you don't respect the views, it's hard to respect the person.Exactly, plus most people are here in order to discuss stuff, so how good a debater someone is is obviously given more importance here than IRL. A possible exception is that one can easily earn disrespect for being a jerk or for abusing one's power.

Respect (whether for people or for views) is something to be earned, not to be demanded. If something, demanding respect diminishes the respect I may have had for you.

[JamesBannon]

"Beliefs" don't deserve respect - people do.

[The 800# Gorilla]

"Beliefs" don't deserve respect - people do.Ramen!

[Garnet]

Correction: Some people deserve respect, not all.

There is no way that I can have respect for someone like Fred Phelps.

[David B]

Correction: Some people deserve respect, not all.

There is no way that I can have respect for someone like Fred Phelps.

Fred Phelps is a bit extreme.

What about someone like Dan Barker - before he deconverted?

I wouldn't have respected his beliefs at all, though, had I come into contact with him on a message board, I'd have attempted to engage him civilly.

For one thing, I prefer civility.

For another - I take the pragmatic view that if one is civil to someone, then one has a better chance of actually getting them to challenge their own views than one has by being uncivil.

David B

[Garnet]

Correction: Some people deserve respect, not all.

There is no way that I can have respect for someone like Fred Phelps.

Fred Phelps is a bit extreme.

What about someone like Dan Barker - before he deconverted?

I wouldn't have respected his beliefs at all, though, had I come into contact with him on a message board, I'd have attempted to engage him civilly.

For one thing, I prefer civility.

For another - I take the pragmatic view that if one is civil to someone, then one has a better chance of actually getting them to challenge their own views than one has by being uncivil.

David B

I picked extreme on purpose. :D

As for Dan Barker before his deconversion, I don't know enough about him to be able to say whether or not I would have had respect for him. There are Christians for whom I have deep respect. There are atheists for whom I have no respect at all. My respect is earned, not freely given.

Being civil to someone is not the same as having respect for a person. My default is to be civil to people until they show me by behavior or action that civility is unwarranted. But that is a whole other discussion.

[Dlx2]

Respect (whether for people or for views) is something to be earned, not to be demanded.

This one.

[nygreenguy]

How could anyone seriously respect someones view that the earf is 6000 years old? Its like respecting the belief in a flat earth.

Same goes with people. However, even if we have zero respect for them, its no reason to bludgeon them with personal attacks. Its the whole "if you cant say something nice..."

Otherwise threads just get turned into flame-fests and we all look stupid.

[hecaterin]

How could anyone seriously respect someones view that the earf is 6000 years old? Its like respecting the belief in a flat earth.

Same goes with people. However, even if we have zero respect for them, its no reason to bludgeon them with personal attacks. Its the whole "if you cant say something nice..."

Otherwise threads just get turned into flame-fests and we all look stupid.This is a good point, and if you don't mind I'd like you to expand on it.

If I remember correctly you *were* a young-earther, not very long ago. But you changed your mind - how did that happen for you? Did being laughed at have any effect? Was it the evidence alone that swayed you? Did any particular posts/people/arguments have a notably strong effect, or was it a cumulative process with nothing really standing out?

In my case, polite disagreement is likely to get me to listen, while insults just make me angry and stubborn. Even if there's evidence with the insults.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Respect is for humans, not ideas.

Respect is not the same as courtesy.

People get a certain amount of courtesy by default, and gain or lose it by their behaviour.

People get neutral respect by default, and must earn any positive balance.

[Ian Nerr]

How could anyone seriously respect someones view that the earf is 6000 years old? Its like respecting the belief in a flat earth.

Same goes with people. However, even if we have zero respect for them, its no reason to bludgeon them with personal attacks. Its the whole "if you cant say something nice..."

Otherwise threads just get turned into flame-fests and we all look stupid.This is a good point, and if you don't mind I'd like you to expand on it.

If I remember correctly you *were* a young-earther, not very long ago. But you changed your mind - how did that happen for you? Did being laughed at have any effect? Was it the evidence alone that swayed you? Did any particular posts/people/arguments have a notably strong effect, or was it a cumulative process with nothing really standing out?

In my case, polite disagreement is likely to get me to listen, while insults just make me angry and stubborn. Even if there's evidence with the insults.

This is a good point. If you really want to convince someone of something, you don't want to attack them and put them on the defensive. The best thing to do is help them figure it out on their own. Ideally, they should feel it was all their idea.

[nygreenguy]

This is a good point, and if you don't mind I'd like you to expand on it.

If I remember correctly you *were* a young-earther, not very long ago. Close. I was never a young earther, even when I was a JW.
But you changed your mind - how did that happen for you? Did being laughed at have any effect? When people were assholes, I tried even harder to support my point, regardless of the validity of their claims. When people go on the verbally abusive offense, you almost automatically defend yourself and your beliefs with disregard to the truth or rationality of the other persons argument.


Was it the evidence alone that swayed you? Evidence with some interpretation.

Did any particular posts/people/arguments have a notably strong effect, or was it a cumulative process with nothing really standing out? Well, both. This is one post (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3157248#post3157248)

In my case, polite disagreement is likely to get me to listen, while insults just make me angry and stubborn. Even if there's evidence with the insults. exactly

[RBH]

Respect is for humans, not ideas.

Respect is not the same as courtesy.

People get a certain amount of courtesy by default, and gain or lose it by their behaviour.

People get neutral respect by default, and must earn any positive balance.QFT.

[Jobar]

DMB speaks sooth; so does HNA.

Most of you recall how frequently I charged the "Bring back Rants, Raves and Preaching!" windmill, at IIDB. This issue is the major reason why I did that. Some people deserve disrespect, and II stifled that.

[David M]

Respect is for humans, not ideas.

Respect is not the same as courtesy.

People get a certain amount of courtesy by default, and gain or lose it by their behaviour.

People get neutral respect by default, and must earn any positive balance.


Exactly how it shoud be.

[tjakey]

Reading these posts gives me the warm and fuzzes. I have very little respect for beliefs; I outright loath Islam, find Catholicism incoherent and its abuse of women abhorrent, marvel at the YEC’s self delusions, (I used to be one.) and am at a complete loss as to how the American Protestant Church built itself around the character who preached the Sermon on the Mount.

Respect is something for people, and people must earn it. There are religious people I respect. But that respect is for their character and actions, not for their beliefs. It is mixed in with my understanding that the gods, and faith in a god, are two completely different things. The god(s) don’t exist, but the faith is real. And sometimes that faith can lead to something positive in a person’s life that is due respect. So the knife cuts even a little sharper, I can respect the person, I can even respect that they have faith, I still have no respect for the belief that generates the faith.

But if they throw the belief or the gods in my face, I reserve the right to bitch slap them until their ears bleed.

[Lanakila]

A thread with an OP that states I believe thus but I do not want to debate it is not deserving of respect. Why bring it up if you aren't willing to debate it, especially in/on a place where debate of different ideas is the norm? Someone who starts a thread thusly is not deserving of respect, no matter what their views are.

[Octavia]

Respect is for humans, not ideas.

Respect is not the same as courtesy.

People get a certain amount of courtesy by default, and gain or lose it by their behaviour.

People get neutral respect by default, and must earn any positive balance.

This tends to be my real-life default as well.

[David B]

Respect is for humans, not ideas.

Respect is not the same as courtesy.

People get a certain amount of courtesy by default, and gain or lose it by their behaviour.

People get neutral respect by default, and must earn any positive balance.

This tends to be my real-life default as well.

I'm an optimist, and hence prone to giving the benefit of any doubt. I tend to giving a little positive respect by default, and a degree of courtesy by default.

David B

[DMB]

Respect is for humans, not ideas.

Respect is not the same as courtesy.

People get a certain amount of courtesy by default, and gain or lose it by their behaviour.

People get neutral respect by default, and must earn any positive balance.

This tends to be my real-life default as well.

I'm an optimist, and hence prone to giving the benefit of any doubt. I tend to giving a little positive respect by default, and a degree of courtesy by default.

David B

I find this fascinating. It illustrates for me the fact that people interpret the word "respect" in different ways. I can't "give" respect to someone. I can be totally civil to them, but if they are an unknown quantity, they don't get respect from me. They have to earn it.

[Notta_skeptic]

I find this fascinating. It illustrates for me the fact that people interpret the word "respect" in different ways. I can't "give" respect to someone. I can be totally civil to them, but if they are an unknown quantity, they don't get respect from me. They have to earn it.
That may be due to cultural differences. When I traveled in Japan, as part of an American audience I was told that we didn't "respect" the Japanese when we left our water bottles & glasses under our seats after a performance. We were told to return to an auditorium and place them on the tables provided at the back. We were also told we weren't demonstrating "respect" when we were not dressed appropriately for a lecture in a university.

It seems that the Japanese I was associating with expected "respect" regardless of how we (the visiting Americans) were treated. And having someone stop and stare and point at me when I was in a 7-11 is not my idea of "respect", yet it happened more than once. (I was in a small country town.)

[His Noodly Appendage]

Heh.

I think the term translates as 'recognition of differing social status'.