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?   

Views: 1466

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And let me add Kris, that your Humanitarian action - which I applaud, by the way, despite the fact that it was directed at me - was clearly not prompted by the possibility of a "pat on the back" or a promise of pews in paradise, it was a genuine, compassionate action, basically shoring up my point.

Has it not occurred to you that the larger part of the issue is simply that I take issue with your conduct?  

You really read 50+ blog posts? How did you muster that kind of attention span?

Simple, I have a higher IQ than you, but I can certainly understand your inability to relate --

Don't know why you felt attacked by that comment, but someone with a high IQ would have an occupation other than wasting his time reading 60 blog posts on the internet ;)

RE: "Don't know why you felt attacked by that comment"

You don't know why I felt attacked when you clearly questioned my attention span? I think you've just proved my point.

Though I rarely respond to your posts, I've read every one, and I find that at least 90% of them are filled with acrid vitriol - have you ever posted anything positive or encouraging to anyone on this site?

To answer your question, my IQ allowed me to do what I need to do, and still have time to read 60 blog posts, while writing for my own website, reading War And Peace, and in my spare time, I paint. But good luck with your Leggos, they're not as hard to put together as they might seem at first glance --

I rarely mention my IQ, but you did ask a question, and I answered it honestly.

I didn't question your attention span specifically, but interesting to see that you're not very confident about it, there must be more to it then. Your fruitless attempts to communicate with Maruli left no doubt to that of course. Someone who supposedly reads this much should not be missing the point of 80% of everything he reads, unless by "reading" you mean skipping every other word.

I doubt there are many people who would waste their time with something like that. Yours must not be as precious, seeing as your other hobbies include writing for your own inane blog. You two might not be as different as you think.

Someone who flaunts with how smart he is, like you love to do in many of your posts, rarely is. I know you think you're part of this rarity, I'm not gonna burst your bubble. You're smart.

RE; "I didn't question your attention span specifically" - yes, you did.

RE: "You're smart." - That makes one of us, doesn't it?

Like I said here, I prefer not to mock people like you, have a nice day.

Now you're just trolling, because I know your reading comprehension can't be this low.

No, I am not trolling.

Is it ridiculing that which is ridiculous

This is clear and yes, I am ridiculing, what I consider as ridiculous.

or is the ridicule just part of its very nature?

This phrase puzzles me.   What is the 'its' referring to? 

It can be hard to tell when a thread chain crosses from one page to another, but kOrsan's comment was almost certainly a reply to archaeopteryx, not you.


Blog Posts

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 1 Comment

Forever Cursed

Posted by Nerdy Keith on February 25, 2015 at 8:00pm 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service