please respect everyone and enjoy the myriad of views...

Question:

Is saying "I don't believe in X because I don't find it not to be convincing" 'disrespectful'?

danivon wrote:Question:

Is saying "I don't believe in X because I don't find it not to be convincing" 'disrespectful'?

Certainly not.

Saying one will rot in hell is a bit closer to the line.
Saying one is not "saved" according to holy texts is safer

I think you have a fine grasp of tact, Owen. (You usually employ it as well!)

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Question:

Is saying "I don't believe in X because I don't find it not to be convincing" 'disrespectful'?

Certainly not.

Saying one will rot in hell is a bit closer to the line.
Saying one is not "saved" according to holy texts is safer

I think you have a fine grasp of tact, Owen. (You usually employ it as well!)

Fine. No point engaging if I'm going to get told off for 'discounting' others (whatever that actually means).

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Question:

Is saying "I don't believe in X because I don't find it not to be convincing" 'disrespectful'?

Certainly not.

Saying one will rot in hell is a bit closer to the line.
Saying one is not "saved" according to holy texts is safer

I think you have a fine grasp of tact, Owen. (You usually employ it as well!)

Fine. No point engaging if I'm going to get told off for 'discounting' others (whatever that actually means).

I certainly did not think you were going to be disrespectful. Did you, and that is why you are not wanting to post anything?

danivon wrote:Question:

Is saying "I don't believe in X because I don't find it not to be convincing" 'disrespectful'?

You sure have a lot of negatives in this question. I can't quite parse out exactly what you mean.

KoS - the last 'not' is an error.

bbauska - Depends what you mean. I respect people who deserve it. Ideologies, which religions are, I find are ripe for challenge.

danivon wrote:KoS - the last 'not' is an error.

bbauska - Depends what you mean. I respect people who deserve it. Ideologies, which religions are, I find are ripe for challenge.

Challenges are fine. All I was saying is if anyone cannot be respectful, then the disrespectful statement should be re-thought.

Well maybe it would be helpful if people spent more time describing their own life philosophy.

Neal Anderth wrote:Well maybe it would be helpful if people spent more time describing their own life philosophy.

Simply put, the Golden Rule and Socialism.

danivon wrote:

Neal Anderth wrote:Well maybe it would be helpful if people spent more time describing their own life philosophy.

Simply put, the Golden Rule and Socialism.

Please go into further detail as to the sub-type of socialism you have in mind.

Neal Anderth wrote:

danivon wrote:

Neal Anderth wrote:Well maybe it would be helpful if people spent more time describing their own life philosophy.

Simply put, the Golden Rule and Socialism.

Please go into further detail as to the sub-type of socialism you have in mind.

Democratic, co-operativist, mixed economy, de-centralised and Internationslist.

danivon wrote:Democratic, co-operativist, mixed economy, de-centralised and Internationslist.

What would be the best example of this, historic and/or modern?

Neal Anderth wrote:

danivon wrote:Democratic, co-operativist, mixed economy, de-centralised and Internationslist.

What would be the best example of this, historic and/or modern?

Not sure. The Nordic countries, Republican Catalonia, New Lanark...

Now your turn.

The 'Nordic Model' certainly looks to be working well. The question that's come up for me is how transferable is it to other countries. Does it rely on the more homogeneous nature of those countries for it's success?

Iceland's response in the wake of the 2008 collapse seemed pretty remarkable as well, but they're all related.