Runa216 said:
I spent the better part of a decade expressing my opinions on the matter in a peaceful, rational, logical, kind way, and it got me nowhere. I get a much stronger reaction (and much more passionate responses) when I'm blunt about it. this "being an arrogant 'tard" on the topic of religion is a relatively new development for me. Truth be told, I'm still holding back a bit, beause my opinions on the matter are even more aggressive than I've shown. My point is, this thread (and this 'article' as a whole) is an excercise in how sensitive people are, rather than logical. If the people involved were logical, rational people, they'd realize that what I said was identical, and treat it as such, but instead my words elicit an emotional response, which in a way supports the belief that faith, religion, and god are emotional comforts, not logical conclusions. |
Don't you think it would be better to give everyone the oppurtunity to prove that they can respond to peaceful words? Rather than being blunt or aggressive to them just because your past debaters were shitheads?
I find it very interesting that you say when you were sensitive & peaceful, that it got you no where. However, in this very thread, you've witnessed and acknowledged that sensitivity & peacefulness trumps bluntness & aggressiveness even when the message is the same. If people respond logically to Ricky's words and not yours, doesn't that prove that you're WORSE off by being blunt? Doesn't peaceful words seem to elicit more logical response then aggressive? (based off this thread)
Makes me wonder A.) Where you ever as peaceful as you say you were? B.) Do you prefer to elicit a strong, passionate response (like the one's you say you've recently been getting), or an actual logical response (like the responses to Ricky), and C.) Who were these people that you communicated with for the "better part of a decade", who has determined your pre-impressions of people today?
