Online Reactions

oops, you're right. i misread it. i thought she had criticised him earlier. my bad. she also didn't participate, so her reaction makes even less sense.

By the way, she might not even be atheist. maybe her religion is just different.

 

It clearly was an overreaction on her part, but not that great of a surprise that something like this would happen. To be honest, I'm sure many people would be less offended if you did quote the Koran. For some reason the Torah/Bible is off limits for many.

 

Coin, I think you may be living in a fantasy world of your own now.

1.) The statement you made is worded as a statement of FACT, not opinion. You both make factual claims (i.e. who wrote it, what their society was like, and what the book has been used for) and presented them as absolutes (saying "I believe" would have made it a claim of factual suspicion, meaning you believe these are the facts, but are not sure, as opposed to making it an opinion).
2.) You apparently have assumed that this individual shares all your beliefs and opinions, when in fact I have since learned she simply gets in hissy fits about a lot of stuff. About a week earlier, she left the faction for no greater reason than that she was in a bad mood (or so a reliable and unbiassed member of the faction told me in consolation).
3.) You have made up this strange belief that she had previously warned me when, in fact, she had previously responded positively to a 'mild dose' of the topic (I said I would pray for her because she was ill and she thanked me).

I do take your advice on blaming her, though, and I don't. I obviously hit a very sensitive button I was not aware of. I don't blame her at all, I was just worried I had done something seriously wrong.

 

it is what i see it as, which makes clear that it is my perception. that should count as an opinion, as i admit it's subjective.

If you already know this, then what was the point of this thread?

 

Coin, you can't change the fact that you made absolute factual claims, which are not opinions. Opinions can be neither right nor wrong. Everything you said is either correct or incorrect. Therefore, they are not opinions.

Because I didn't find that out until after I had posted the original topic, actually. Still, the severity of her reaction worried me and so I also wanted to 'gauge the temperature' of the topic in general.

 

Well, yes. I think I see your point, Coin. So, if he had been a Muslim instead and using the Koran, he would have been that much easier to spot, since he would have been holding an AK-47 and had our hostages with him.

 

Whoa, man, you remind me of myself in my younger years. All fire and brimstone! Going against the grain is one thing, spouting "sacrilegious blasphemy" like there's no tomorrow is another. Don't worry, I pretty much agree with your standpoint, I've just realized a little bit of diplomacy usually gets points across easier.

Which made me wonder - how much overheating in an average religious online debate is caused by a single "too much, too soon" comment? Having seen both sides of the fence from strongly religious to strictly atheist, I can relate to the fact that the frame of reference can vary wildly. Yet I can't understand why, for example, it's right next to impossible to discuss the definition of "sin" without it turning into a zealot war as soon as there's just ONE in the discussion that doesn't vehemently agree with everything said thus far.

Edit: It's like religion, no matter if you're for or against, is a REASON to cast good manners, logic and intelligence aside.

 

NOG: You were acting like a douche (mostly assuming bible knowledge and making it a required part of the game), and I couldn't blame anyone for telling you to knock it off and refusing to participate.

However, a gigantic hissy-fit and ragequit? Overreaction.

 

I disagree. Basically, you're saying that someone who isn't familiar with the subject matter being used for the hints is justified in "telling you to knock it off and refusing to participate". Hints need to be based on something. What if, instead of using the bible, NOG had used a rock'n'roll or non-biblical historical reference, and someone isn't familiar with rock or history - would they'd be justified in telling NOG to knock it off? I don't think so. What if it was a computer game reference, and the person wasn't familiar with games (pretty unlikely here, I know, given what the group is all about, but hopefully you get my point). Yes, they could decide not to participate, but that's different from "refusing" to participate, since the latter suggests some sort of "attitude".

Anyway, I agree with most people here - definite over-reaction.

 

So basically, Trebek is a douche? It appears to me that the whole point of the game is to give clues from all sorts of sources, and the fun is unearthing those clues. Simply referencing the Bible in this context is not "shoving religion in everyone's face." That's the sort of ridiculous hyperbole that makes it difficult for people of differing opinions to find common ground.

Oh, yes, thought I'd mention this one:

I hear what you are saying, Drew, but I think that we all have a right to expect a certain degree of rationality from our fellow man (and woman!) We expect it on SP and I believe that for the most part we get it.

 

Tal hit the nail on the head there. If I'd have paid to participate in an MMO, I'd be really pissed off if I had to endure a bible commercial.

Yeah, this was one one of my more untrusive posts, and the disclaimer didn't quite do the trick. I've grown to be milder over the years too. I'd rather be fire and brimstone than eternal hellfire and damnation. Oh wait, it's the same isn't it?

About my disclaimer, just FYI:
"what I see it as is .... bla bla ..." [perception, subjective, opinion]
"it is ... bla bla ..." [factual claim]

 

Absolutely, but my point was that while NOG didn't do anything wrong, he probably should have seen it coming. I concede that this may just be my cynicism talking.

 

Actually, Coin, this is a F2P MMO, if that makes any difference. As to your claims:

Let's disect that a bit:
bronze/iron age: A factual claim as to the time of authorship. Vague, but technically not inaccurate, as the earliest claim of 'authorship' goes to Moses at about 1500 BG (Late Bronze Age), and the latest extend into first and second century AD (steel age?).

fiction:a factual claim of reliability. Though many accounts are unprovable (did a cloud descend on a tent), many others have significant archeological evidence backing them up (wars, rulers, treaties, etc.).

mixed with some astrology: a factual claim about the use of a certain pre-science/pseudoscience. Accurate, though it doesn't feature very prominently.

written by people obsessed with cruelty and death: a claim about the cultural psychology of the authors. This is as close as you come to opinion, as whether something is 'obsessive' behavior or not can be debatable, even among professionals. All things considered, though, it's a pretty unsuportable claim. Of all the things they worshiped their God for, the one thing He isn't God of (and specifically says so Himself) is the dead. Compare that to just about every other culture of the time and for several thousand years (in some ways, even today) and the Jews appear remarkably un-obsessed with death.

used to avoid taking responsibility for acts of despicable violence, even atrocities, over the ages: a factual claim about how it has been used in the past. Accurate, and I'm happy to see you admit it was what other people used as an excuse for behavior they wanted to do anyway.

Of the 5 claims, 3 are accurate factual claims, one is a debatable factual claim (though certainly inaccurate in great parts, other parts are debated), and one is a pseudo-factual claim about behavior. All in all, the 'opinion' label is pretty thin.

Coin, simply saying 'this is my opinion' doesn't actually make it an opinion. All to often, it is actually a belief. Beliefs can be either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. An event either happened or it didn't. A thing is possible or it is impossible. An opinion is entirely subjective. 'Icecream tastes good' is not absolutely anything. It is entirely up to the individual. An opinion statement similar to what you put would be more like:

"and see it for what I see it: An unreliable, dangerous, and harmful text, which has done more harm to humanity than good."

Those are opinions. Reliability is something that each of us has our own definitions and standards for, and as such is a matter of opinion. Danger is likewise not a quantifiable or confirmable statement. What one person sees as dangerous, another may see as progressive. Likewise with harmful, and any comparison between it's harm and it's good is comparing two subjective and immesurable quantities. How much harm equates to how much good?

 

My quote was actually supporting the fact that you just made... Throwing that out there.

 

Halasz, sorry I wasn't clear -- I was using your quote to criticize Taza's douche comment. You and I are on the same page.

 

I think she overreacted, but I can see how it might have looked from other players' perspective.

"Hey guys, read this great book called the Bible, it will give you the answers to this weeks puzzle and also has answers to a lot more of life's questions"

I know thats not what you meant NOG, but I'm sure thats what it would have sounded like. If I was one of the players, I may or may not have bothered to look the passage up. Probably not I guess.

 

NOG, I'm a big non-believer of religion, but i just can't see how someone could take offense to putting in a clue from the bible. If they are not religious or practice another religion, the bible is just another book in the world. Not much different than Tolkien's Silmarillion to me. They both are fine reads describing, in one's opinion, the story of creation and then some. If i was participating in that online game, i would've looked for the clues as much as any religious fanatic would. As that is the whole point of the exercise, is it not? I would think that if someone were to want to participate in that kind of exercise, it's for the thrill of finding the clues and figuring them out that matters. To have such a reaction is, well, just plain childish...