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?
RE: "it exasperates me, when I get accused in an unfavorable way of what I did not mean" - I believe you meant exactly what you said, you just expected a more favorable reaction.
I think you've made yourself quite clear. Both here and on your own website, you make it obvious that you lack empathy for others less fortunate than yourself. Perhaps if you could ever bring yourself to extend your world beyond yourself, you'll come closer to finding that which you seek.
Is it ridiculing that which is ridiculous or is the ridicule just part of its very nature?
I do not understand the question. Please explain
I can't address Doug Reardon's question, as I'm not clear either on what he meant, but I have one more question for you - have you ever considered volunteering at a homeless shelter, to help the poor and homeless, or for an orphanage, to help displaced, parentless children?
I know you grew up in post-war Germany, and that must have been difficult for you, but beyond that, I sense you have had a personal, tragic, possibly even devastating event in your life that has embittered you, at the very least. I certainly don't expect you to share with total strangers what that event was, but I feel you should speak with someone professional about it.
Again, good luck to you --
Archaeopterix, please stay inside the limits of your ignorance about my person and refrain from further innuendos. This is a forum to exchange thoughts, it is not a place to annoy people with reputation damaging allegations, which need to be corrected. It is also not the place to play kitchen psychologist upon people.
Volunteering is a typically religious behavior of people attempting to earn a place in heaven. Providing for the unfortunate is a secular government's job to do this with taxes paid by the more fortunate. Caring for persons with special needs is a qualified work to be done by paid professionals and not be untrained but eager volunteers, who may do a lot of damage.
Here in Germany, every person with a legal full residency is entitled to get welfare for an unlimited time, whenever they cannot provide for themselves, no matter if by unemployment or illness. Decent people do not become homeless.
RE: "Decent people do not become homeless." - I'm not clear on your definition of decent, but I know a lot of decent people who have lost their jobs and had their homes foreclosed upon.
RE: "Volunteering is a typically religious behavior of people attempting to earn a place in heaven." - do you really believe that? It's also the behavior of atheists who know there's no god and no heaven, and that we are all we have, and must look out for each other. I'm as atheist as they get, and I've volunteered for many things, including working with the early Civil Rights movement here in the US, and with special needs children, and with homeless shelters (at least the soup kitchen portion). How does that fit with your one-size-fits-all paradigm?
RE: "Providing for the unfortunate is a secular government's job to do this with taxes paid by the more fortunate." - sounds like you would prefer distancing yourself from those less fortunate, and much like Voltaire, simply tend your garden. A word of warning - the higher the tower, the thinner the air.
RE: "reputation damaging allegations" - I don't think you need to worry about my comments, you're doing a great job of that entirely on your own.
You're really twisting her words to unreasonable positions. Do you actually have any sympathy for what she is trying to say?
I don't feel I am at all.
RE: "Do you actually have any sympathy for what she is trying to say?" - do I sympathize with her belief that it's OK to mock desperate, deluded people, hoping to be made well, as long as it's done quietly, behind their backs? No, I do not.
Tell you what, Kris - pop over to her website, in which she refers to children as "brats" and "cancers," and to those who choose to have children by the derogatory term of, "breeders," - read 50 or 60 of her posts, then, when we're on equal footing, come back and we can discuss it.
I'm not finding the post that gives context to your far-reaching interpretation of the comments in question. You take statements which, right or wrong, seem to be about pragmatism and rationality, and turn them into something which sounds elitist or malicious or even as evidence of psychological damage.
If she holds the view that government and trained personel the most efficient agencies for distributing aid and support to the disadvantaged, why would she advocate volunteerism? To jack off her own ego? To create some superficial air of benevolence so that others can pat her on the back?
And just to keep things clear, I am not criticizing those that volunteer with genuine conviction; I am simply stating that I do not laud those that would volunteer without conviction. I will also state Maruli's position was not without merits, though I am not perfectly aligned with it. Instead of weighing her position, however, you jumped to a position that assumes she merely wants to distance herself from the homeless. Why is that? Because you read some blog entries? Really?
RE: "...why would she advocate volunteerism? To jack off her own ego? To create some superficial air of benevolence so that others can pat her on the back?"
My original contention was that she lacked compassion for others less fortunate than herself. I believe that her statements back up that contention.
Do you really see jacking off one's ego as being the motivation of those who volunteer to help others? If so, then we atheists need to work harder to counter the faulty assumption by theists that we all feel that way.
Incidentally, aren't you volunteering to come to her aid? Wouldn't it be better to allow trained personnel from one of those efficient agencies to do that? Or could you merely be jacking off your own ego?
Do you really see jacking off one's ego as being the motivation of those who volunteer to help others?
I've already clarified this. The post wasn't that long or complicated.
Incidentally, aren't you volunteering to come to her aid?
Again, no sense of context.
I see it otherwise - you volunteered to come to her aid because you felt she was being attacked, a compassionate action on your part. Maruli has made a considerable number of statements that indicate, to me, that she lacks the same degree of compassion that you have so gallantly exhibited. I simply pointed out those statements.