J. R. Malloy writes
> [on blocking senders]
> > What I don't understand is why they have to announce it.
> > That seems a might peculiar. Probably they only want to
> > offend and insult the party that annoyed them.
> Or perhaps it's a modicum of courtesy to other list members who may
> (otherwise) wonder why the offending party's messages are no longer being
> engaged. In effect, announcing it says to the whole list: My lack of response
> is not to be misconstrued as inability to rejoin, but rather as refusal to
> feed the troll.
I had not considered that. Yes, I know that my usual response is
simply to pass over posts that I agree with. So if there was a
thread that I was heavily posting on and---up to the moment in
question---was replying to all the comments that I disagreed with,
then, yes, perhaps announcing that I was blocking someone might
be beneficial. But I'm sure that I've seen some exceptions---
that is, people coming out of left field merely to announce "PLONK"
that someone had been kill-filed. Back to the subject:
> An example of someone who affirms religious belief while not being a liar
> or a fool is... someone who feels personally benefitted by religiosity.
I know that someone just posted something contrary, but I believe
that the truth is the most important thing, and this doesn't help
get them off the hook: if they affirm religious belief, something
is still wrong. I'll say what that could be after
> Therefore, I'd amend my previous statement such
> that anyone who truly believes in religiosity is
> a liar, a fool, or a psychological cripple.
:-) Nobody can call you mealy-mouthed. I still think
that it's also possible that they
(1) are intellectually crippled by lack of skeptical ability
(and would therefore be easy marks for other scams)
but this may not be so different from your "psychological
cripple" on re-reading
(2) so convinced of religion's benefit to all peoples and
nations that it clouds their judgment. They're not
consciously lying, but don't have open minds, either
"Team players" also can fall into this category. Rush
Limbaugh fits into this category, as is easily seen by
his constant allusions to football and so on. Such
people sometimes don't have truth as their number one
priority, and simply have to give mutual support to
> Or, as Jessie Ventura reportedly said, "Religion is for
> weak-minded people" (which statement ignores liars and
> categorical idiots).
Now I like his statement even more than I used to.
> If religiosity provides the cognitive crutch that some people need in order to
> do their best, then that's fine. Debunking religiosity doesn't require us to
> demean those who need and use religion in private.
Why not? Yes, if people are going to entertain false beliefs,
I'd of course prefer that they do it in solitude. But it still
has to be stated that not only is what they believe false, but
that there is something very wrong with how they think.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:44 MDT