I am starting a new thread, because I do not want to be blamed as an alleged monster making fun of cripples and this accusation was getting out of the scope of the discussion about soulmates.
I claim: Every religious and other irrational belief and every behavior based upon such beliefs are so preposterous and ludicrous, that this justifies ridicule and making fun of it. This is independent of who is afflicted with the irrationality and of the reasons to behave irrationally.
This ridicule is principally justified by the irrationality. Hurting the feelings of the misguided believers is not justified, so the ridiculing has to be restricted to be done in a way, that they do not know it.
I told about having been to Lourdes and discreetly having a good laughter about the weird spectacle of the irrational religious behaviors. This does not imply laughing about the unfortunate and tragic situation of cripples and sick people. They have my compassion and my sympathy.
The evaluation of a person's situation and the evaluation of a person's method of coping with a situation are independent. Compassion with a person's unfortunate situation does not require automatic respect for weird coping, no matter if the coping is the belief in a miracle at Lourdes or in homeopathy or any other woo-woo.
The availability or lack of having a choice is the decisive difference: Becoming sick and crippled is not a choice. Making a fool of oneself by going to Lourdes is a choice. It is this choice, that justifies the laughter.
What about the Darwin award? Are the people, who have invented it also monsters? Does their laughing at weird ways of getting killed really preclude their having compassion with the dead persons and those grieving?
You are in a conversation concerning rationality against irrationality. You are claiming that mocking people behind their backs for their beliefs is justifiable.
I am claiming that such behavior yields no positive results. In addition, if you are not willing to make the same statements to the person's face, then you are also a coward. Furthermore, that claiming such behavior is justifiable is itself irrational.
Your English is fine, it is your position that is weak. Should everybody now mock you behind your back for your stubborn refusal to reconsider your irrational claim?
RE: "Sharing the ridicule for praying weird idiots without their knowledge is a very valid method of communication between likeminded people creating closeness."
As would be sharing the ridicule of cripples hoping for a cure at Lourdes, and easily extended to the mentally retarded and emotionally challenged, I must presume. What price closeness?
"Hurting the feelings of the misguided believers is not justified, so the ridiculing has to be restricted to be done in a way, that they do not know it."
Talking about people behind their back is now good(?).
Why isn't hurting their feelings justified? Just let them be hurt a little, people need to toughen up already. What's with this "let's not offend anyone" mentality nowadays.
I thought it was about not kicking someone while they're down rather than not offending anyone.
It shouldn't be seen as offending or kicking down. It's criticism, and it can come in many forms.
Laughing at people who are at Lourdes hoping for a cure that medicine can't give them (terminal cancer, etc.) IS kicking them while they're down. It's in no way just criticism.
Wishing for "health" to magically fall from the gods in the sky is throwing yourself on the ground like a sniveling dog. They're kicking themselves more than anyone else even could. It's more an issue of why even bother rather than should we kick them.
It is just as laughable as an african tribesmember who believes cutting a part of his body will relieve the pain in another part of his body because the "pain spirits will wander from one wound to another."
Or millions of muslims chucking small rocks at a bigger rock "to drive the devil away."
People would make fun of me if I prayed to a bottle of coke to cure me of my cancer. But praying to a puddle of pisswater gets you miracles?
I guess you differ from most of us in thinking that such attitudes are laughable rather than just pathetic and pitiable.
Ridicule has no place in the educational process.
I don't mind disagreements based upon what I am really saying, but I dislike to be antagonized as if I were wrong, before having had the chance to fully convey, what I am really attempting to say.
This discussion has given me food for thought and for elaborating my views, but I have taken it to my blog. Whoever cares to read: