Where do you draw the distinction between a contrary viewpoint and a personal attack?

Question

My own view is that any religious viewpoint in the public sphere is fair game for critical analysis. I assume that if I put my beliefs out in public some will agree and some will try to cut them down. I reckon this is a good thing, and I can even learn new things if I'm not too thin skinned.

So where do you draw the line?

Answer 1

i draw the line at attacking the individual, but i see the religion as fair game. no topic should ever be without debate, or satire.

Answer 2

People should be okay, with others asking questions ABOUT their religion. However, when questions are no longer being used to learn about someone's religious beliefs; that is when people cross the line.

JUST because someone has put their faith / beliefs / religion, as you say "in the public sphere". Does not give you or anyone else the right to 'attack' them on a personal level.

For example: a person asks this question "Why are Christians so stupid?

Does that question have any redeeming "critical analysis" or is that person just being a 'playground bully'?

__________________________________________________

"First impressions very seldom tell us, the substance of another person."

Answer 3

there is not any longer something interior the Bible approximately abortion. there is plenty approximately capital punishment. Like maximum matters, you will locate Biblical help for the two edge in case you seem difficult adequate. Shakespeare as quickly as wrote, “the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” That stated, there are a number of passages interior the previous testomony that help capital punishment, commonly for rather hassle-free offenses: - Adultery (Leviticus 20:10) - Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:sixteen) - Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14 & 15) - Disobedient infants (Exodus 21:15 & 17; Leviticus 20:9) - Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13) - no longer being a virgin on your wedding ceremony evening (yet provided which you're a woman - Deuteronomy 22:20-21) some human beings cite Romans 13:a million-7, which states that all and sundry governments are sanctioned by way of God, and if the government dictates some thing – like capital punishment – then that's God’s will (you could additionally use this passage to legitimize abortion). in spite of the indisputable fact that, I even have yet to confirm a coherent reconciliation of this passage with governments like Hitler’s Germany, or Stalin’s Russia, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or any of the thousands of others that have been in charge for awful atrocities for the era of historic previous. Governments are run by way of individuals, who're – inherently – imperfect. that's why the U.S. has a device of assessments and balances, and why our regulations are consistently changing (remember, there replaced right into a time while slavery replaced into legal, while women human beings couldn’t vote, while there have been no new child hard artwork regulations, etc.). This argument merely would not fly. the recent testomony (starring Jesus) is in the main ANTI-death penalty. as an occasion, interior the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye fixed for an eye fixed” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one that can take a existence interior the call of justice. Romans 12:17-21 warns us against answering evil with evil, and assures us that God will see to justice interior the afterlife. In John 8:7, Jesus says, "enable he who's devoid of sin forged the 1st stone." there are a number of, many sensible problems with capital punishment (that I won't get into right here), yet merely from a ethical perspective, that's incredibly sparkling that Jesus did no longer help it. real CHRISTians shouldn’t, the two.

Answer 4

A contrary view point, when it is legitimate, is simply putting across to another what you believe to be the truth because you want the other to come to the truth as well.

A personal attack is specifically designed to hurt the other - something entirely different from the first|


But often a personal attack comes under the guise of presenting the truth or a contrary point of view|

You can tell when this "truth" or expression of opinion somehow leaves you hurting inside with a definite subtraction of self-esteem|


A legitimate and honest difference of opinion does not have that effect|



---

Answer 5

I agree - if you put your ideas out there, then you should be ready for some critisism. I love reading all the different views on this subject. I personally draw the line at uninvited opinions. I don't know if that is considered an attack, but if I haven't asked you what you think about my beliefs, or opened a discussion about them, then I probably don't want to know them. :)

Answer 6

I personally believe that contrary viewpoints allow others to express them selves without judgment and have equal access to all other viewpoints without judgment from the asker. I also believe that a personal attack involves ones views expressed in a manner that is harmful to a race or a group without any opportunity to freely express other's opinions on an equal basis. Have a great day!
Thank you,
Eds

Answer 7

A personal attack is insulting or being rude to the person.There is really no line to be drawn,as courteous people,even when they are quite ruthless in their arguments,will know what to keep the debating to.
I agree with you that if you are going to talk,you better be prepared for criticissm of your view point.there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.It helps you grow as a person.

Answer 8

Saying "I disagree with what you believe and this is what I believe" would be a contrary viewpoint.

Saying "You and your religion are full of bull and you are all so stupid and gullible and make me sick" is a personal attack.

You could draw a line, a triangle and several circles within the difference there eh?

Answer 9

Nameing Names is a personal attack against the named.

Answer 10

That's a really difficult issue. Obviously if we're saying that a particular religious belief is ridiculous then that reflects on the person who sees fit to hold it. However, foolishness and ignorance are curable, so we can phrase our comments in a way that indicates we're trying to help the person see the light, rather than just condemning them for what they believe.

Answer 11

I always give the other party involved in the discussion the benefit of doubt, therefore I am prone to never take comments on a personal level (expect when they become intolerably rude and if they do, I tend to ignore them).