Methods off preaching, conversion, spreading the Faith and religious tolerance

[freeandfun1]

Nice to see "intelligence" is based solely upon one's ability to agree with the majority of those present.

I guess that's why some of us seem to have gone a tad farther in life than others.. Not caring about majority opinion does seem to have it's advantages after all.

That is a pretty condescending comment and makes some very broad assumptions.... can you back them up?

 

[MissileMan]

Hell if I know----I'm not trying to turn this into a game of semantics--I just find it intersting how things are resolved (not legally) when 2 peoples rights interfere with each other. It certainly isn't "commen sense dictates" or "what people should know to be appropriate" because that obviously doesn't work.
My guess is that one side backs down, as USA suggested---either out of courtesy or disinterest.
Big fights result from a refusal to take a single step backwards ?

I guess I'd say that common sense and appropriateness would be why someone would back down. It would be common sense to believe if I told a customer to "get out of my face" that I would stand a very good chance of hurting the business or getting fired. Such conduct would probably already be defined as inappropriate by company policies. If someone were truly disinterested, then they probably wouldn't believe their rights are being interfered with.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nice to see "intelligence" is based solely upon one's ability to agree with the majority of those present.

I guess that's why some of us seem to have gone a tad farther in life than others.. Not caring about majority opinion does seem to have it's advantages after all.

That's your m.o. where's it getting you again, a job with no chatting allowed? Sounds like a real drag, man.

 

[UsaPride]

It would be common sense to believe if I told a customer to "get out of my face" that I would stand a very good chance of hurting the business or getting fired.

And it would be rude.

 

[Shattered]

Yes it is isn't it?



It's a public message board, posting your thoughts leaves them open to comments, whatever they may be. You continue to argue, or not,the choice is yours.

I suppose you're right... It's a real shame that this particular board is so "divisive".. It's a shame to see people who previously got along just fine fighting like cats and dogs, taking subtle jabs at each other, throwing assinine insults, and acting like children, just because they don't like one opinion on one subject.

But you're right in that it's each persons choice to continue to argue, or not.

I choose not. These couple threads have been a real eye opener...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I suppose you're right... It's a real shame that this particular board is so "divisive".. It's a shame to see people who previously got along just fine fighting like cats and dogs, taking subtle jabs at each other, throwing assinine insults, and acting like children, just because they don't like one opinion on one subject.

But you're right in that it's each persons choice to continue to argue, or not.

I choose not. These couple threads have been a real eye opener...

I bet I can link you to MORE evidence of your decision TO argue, despite your claims of nonarguing . Care to make a friendly wager?

***flashes gangster roll of $100 bills***

 

[Mr. P]

We've all established this already.

Hardly..all that has been establish is a lack of staying on thread topic..or even addressing it for that matter.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess I'd say that common sense and appropriateness would be why someone would back down. It would be common sense to believe if I told a customer to "get out of my face" that I would stand a very good chance of hurting the business or getting fired. Such conduct would probably already be defined as inappropriate by company policies. If someone were truly disinterested, then they probably wouldn't believe their rights are being interfered with.

or they are willing to sacrifice smaller rights for larger rewards?

 

[Shattered]

I bet I can link you to MORE evidence of your decision TO argue, despite your claims of nonarguing . Care to make a friendly wager?

***flashes gangster roll of $100 bills***

I did not state that I've had no part in the arguing. I did, however, state that I choose not to continue. It's nonproductive, and a waste of time.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hardly..all that has been establish is a lack of staying on thread topic..or even addressing it for that matter.

What would your policy be, man? out with it. You have no intellectual core.

 

[freeandfun1]

I did not state that I've had no part in the arguing. I did, however, state that I choose not to continue. It's nonproductive, and a waste of time.

Not trying to sound like an ass (but I know I am), if you really don't want to participate, then stop. You are acting like those Christians you have been bitch'n about.

 

[UsaPride]

It's a shame to see people who previously got along just fine fighting like cats and dogs, taking subtle jabs at each other, throwing assinine insults, and acting like children, just because they don't like one opinion on one subject.

I agree, which is why it took me so long to even reply to this thread. I haven't debated since, pretty much, before the election and have been getting along with everyone fine. It took me awhile to post here because I disagree with a couple of people that have become "friends".
So, I hope you're not including me in that, or your other statement. I haven't jabbed anyone, so I'm sure you're not.

 

[Said1]

I suppose you're right... It's a real shame that this particular board is so "divisive".. It's a shame to see people who previously got along just fine fighting like cats and dogs, taking subtle jabs at each other, throwing assinine insults, and acting like children, just because they don't like one opinion on one subject.

But you're right in that it's each persons choice to continue to argue, or not.

I choose not. These couple threads have been a real eye opener...

My views have been challenged, it's not a personal attack, and I don't respond as though it has been. Everyone here has gone against the majority at one time or another, who cares, it's a message board, not real life.

Also, I meant "you can continue to argue" as a general statement, it wasn't direct at you specifically, just a typo.

 

[MissileMan]

or they are willing to sacrifice smaller rights for larger rewards?

Yes, a rationalized choice could also be a motive to back down, but even that would seem to fall into the "common sense" pile.

 

[Mr. P]

What would your policy be, man? out with it. You have no intellectual core.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Okay..Deadend I see, whatever. .

 

[Shattered]

I agree, which is why it took me so long to even reply to this thread. I haven't debated since, pretty much, before the election and have been getting along with everyone fine. It took me awhile to post here because I disagree with a couple of people that have become "friends".
So, I hope you're not including me in that, or your other statement. I haven't jabbed anyone, so I'm sure you're not.

No, you haven't jabbed anyone...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Okay..Deadend I see, whatever. .

You're the dead end. All you've said in essence is that we all must adhere to the corporate policy. What should a policy be? What is the broader law on free speech? How should that figure in corporate policy? If at all? Is religious speech inherently divisive? You've touched no interesting facet of the conversation as it is progressing. Get in the now.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, a rationalized choice could also be a motive to back down, but even that would seem to fall into the "common sense" pile.

good point--guess people prioritize their rights differently, hence the division and refusal to back down even though these 2 may actually be arguing about totally tacit issues.

 

[5stringJeff]

OK...

First, my apologies for not being around much this weekend and letting things get out of hand. My bad.

Second, as to religious speech... it has been said before, common sense is usually a good barometer. I, as an evangelical, could very easily go everywhere and tell everyone I see about how I have a personal Savior and how they're all going to hell if they don't find Jesus, but frankly, that's not very effective, and as the non-Christians on the board have mentioned, it's very annoying. So I choose to do things a little bit differently. But that certainly doesn't mean that, if a moment arises, that I won't hesitate to bring up religion. But if the person isn't interested, that's fine - I can move on to something else.

All in all, though, I think that religious discussion shouldn't be avoided, if only so that people can learn about other's beliefs.

 

[Mr. P]

...and as the non-Christians on the board have mentioned, it's very annoying....

Don't be so fast to assume that anyone
that thinks this is annoying are not Christian, Jeff..Big mistake, IMO.