# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Disclaimer concerning my posts about philosophy and religion OT about definitions

## Mikawa Ossan

I think it may be useful to clarify this a little more, especially the forum's definition of 'religious extremists':

AVOID RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA
The Religion & philosophy subforum is a place for rational discussions and analysis, and to share one's reasoning on various philosophical matters. Please refrain from posting the views of an organised religion, religious institution or copying passages from holy books (e.g. Bible, Quran...) with the aim of proselytising (use of such passages for analysis and comparison with other texts are welcome though). We won't accept religious extremists on the forum.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Some people want to stretch the word "religion" to encompass everything and anything. Even on this forum some will use the lesser meaning of the word just to try and make anyone`s passion or interest stick as "religion." Some have wanted to doggedly affix it to me due to my strong interest in animal rights and vegetarianism.

They will crow, "that is your religion, therefore you are no different -- you are religious." Ugggh sigh. But, where are my holy scriptures from god, what have I stated that goes against logic like so many of the fairy tales and myths found in holy books?

In the context of discussing religion on a philosophy or religious board, the level headed will, or should, admit for the sake of clarity and consistancy, that religion is that which includes the dogma of rules and prescribed edicts for behaving based on holy books with a god.

----------


## Mycernius

> AVOID RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA
> The Religion & philosophy subforum is a place for rational discussions and analysis, and to share one's reasoning on various philosophical matters. Please refrain from posting the views of an organised religion, religious institution or copying passages from holy books (e.g. Bible, Quran...) with the aim of proselytising (use of such passages for analysis and comparison with other texts are welcome though). We won't accept religious extremists on the forum.


I think we have only had one person who violated this rule to the point of insanity, Jarvis. Passages from Holy Books shopuld be allowed on when making a point about the passage in question, such as threads looking a Biblical or Koranic texts. If they are posted with only the view to preach, then they should be dealt with. What they rules are essentially saying is that we can be open to religious discussion, but not to outright preaching. This should go for other subjects as well, such as political views, etc,.

As for my views on several definitions:
*Christian*: Anyone who follows the biblical teachings, whether they are Catholic, Anglican or JW. I will not distingush between weak Christians, those who follow some teachings, and strong Christians, those who believe absolutly in the Bible.
*Muslim*: As with Christian
*Religion*: Anyone who follows anything with a passion and zeal. This does not have to be a Diety based religion. It can cover extremists in anything they believe in, be it God or the Nazi party.
*Extremist*: Anyone who believe in something so strongly that they cannot see beyond their own noses. Not open to criticism or any view point that does not follow their own.
*God*: A supernatural being that can cover the omnipresent Judo-Christian God to minor dieties of myth. I will invaribly refer to God as an it, as I always thought God should be genderless. I will even refer to them as dieties rather than Gods.

I do consider myself fairly tolerant with believers of various religions, but I will not be preached at. I admit that I do harbour a dislike for the three main monotheist religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) Chiefly because of their past deeds and the attitude that the heads of these organisations still support.

----------


## Mycernius

> Some people want to stretch the word "religion" to encompass everything and anything. Even on this forum some will use the lesser meaning of the word just to try and make anyone`s passion or interest stick as "religion." Some have wanted to doggedly affix it to me due to my strong interest in animal rights and vegetarianism.
> They will crow, "that is your religion, therefore you are no different -- you are religious." Ugggh sigh. But, where are my holy scriptures from god, what have I stated that goes against logic like so many of the fairy tales and myths found in holy books?
> In the context of discussing religion on a philosophy or religious board, the level headed will, or should, admit for the sake of clarity and consistancy, that religion is that which includes the dogma of rules and prescribed edicts for behaving based on holy books with a god.


I will admit it was me. Don't skirt around who it was, but the definition is clear and I still stick with what I said.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I will admit it was me. Don't skirt around who it was...


I`ve learned a few things when discussing with people who hold more power than myself. Sometimes the oblique approach is the most wise.




> *Religion:* Anyone who follows anything with a passion and zeal. This does not have to be a Diety based religion. It can cover extremists in anything they believe in, be it God or the Nazi party.


It is such a wide definition that the majority of the populace do not normally use the word that way. To insist its use as such or to enter into a conversation without prefacing what you mean by religion, would result into confusion by its use. "Sorry, Marge, can`t see you today. Little Johny has his religion today." Unbeknowest to Marge, Little Johny is merely attending soccer practice because he is highly passionate about soccer. Marge, however, would definitely have a different view of where Johny is going.




> *Extremist*: Anyone who believes in something so strongly that they cannot see beyond their own noses. Not open to criticism or any view point that does not follow their own.


What does this mean? and who is going to judge that someone is not seeing something beyond their own nose or that anyone is not open to criticism? The criteria for judging all that would be subjective. Are you saying that just because they do not change their opinion that that then makes them an extremist? As for myself, I am open to all opinions and I seek them out, however, just because I do not change my opinion does not mean "extremist" is appropriate. 

"George Bush, You should become a Muslim." Now, if George Bush never becomes a Muslim does that make him an extremist? What if he isn`t even open to the idea of becoming a Muslim? Does that make him an extremist? After all, if we apply your "can`t see beyond their own noses because he believes in his own opinion" from the Muslim point of view, he would then be an extremist. I can paint more scenarios as well to even tighten it up more. 

Again, the terms you used in that are subjective from the parties involved. Nothing is concrete in that.

I would define extremist as anyone willing to go to extreme lengths to accomplish something. That would mean occupying a larger percentage of someone's recourses, time, money, and expertise to accomplish their goal. Perhaps it would also include what society has deemed within the normal range of mores and acceptable behaviour (however, that does not mean that that behaviour is in and of itself wrong -- just socially or culturally wrong at that specific point in time [e.g. blacks sitting at counters in restaurants to break the color barrier was considered extreme at that time, but in and of itself the right thing to do in the face of racism]).

----------


## Maciamo

> I think we have only had one person who violated this rule to the point of insanity, Jarvis.


I agree. The new rules are meant to be preventive. The Religion subforum is only temporarily closed until we see clearer on what should be allowed.




> Passages from Holy Books shopuld be allowed on when making a point about the passage in question, such as threads looking a Biblical or Koranic texts. If they are posted with only the view to preach, then they should be dealt with.


That is what I implied in the new rules. It is ok for analysis and comparative purpose, but not for propaganda purpose.




> What they rules are essentially saying is that we can be open to religious discussion, but not to outright preaching.


That is correct.




> As for my views on several definitions:
> *Christian*: Anyone who follows the biblical teachings, whether they are Catholic, Anglican or JW. I will not distingush between weak Christians, those who follow some teachings, and strong Christians, those who believe absolutly in the Bible.


Maybe we should use such terms as "Weak Christians" and "Strong Christians" when it can lead to confusion.




> *Religion*: Anyone who follows anything with a passion and zeal. This does not have to be a Diety based religion. It can cover extremists in anything they believe in, be it God or the Nazi party.


I find this definition to be much too wide. Anything can be called religion then. The Religion subforum could thus become a place to discuss any strong believe, be it political, spiritual, or even hobbies (for some people golf or video games could be called a "religion" with such a wide definition). But does that fit the intended definition of "Religion forum" ? 




> *Extremist*: Anyone who believe in something so strongly that they cannot see beyond their own noses. Not open to criticism or any view point that does not follow their own.


Ok, I agree. But that goes beyond the topic of this thread, which is about philosophy and religion.




> *God*: A supernatural being that can cover the omnipresent Judo-Christian God to minor dieties of myth. I will invaribly refer to God as an it, as I always thought God should be genderless. I will even refer to them as dieties rather than Gods.


Why should be be genderless. What if you are referring to a Greco-Roman or Hindu deity that has a gender ? What if you are referring to the male image of the Father as mentioned in the Bible ? God is genderless for most Deist and Patheists, but is not for most religious people.Or are you just stating your own beliefs rather than how you use the word in a discussion ?




> I do consider myself fairly tolerant with believers of various religions, but I will not be preached at. I admit that I do harbour a dislike for the three main monotheist religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) Chiefly because of their past deeds and the attitude that the heads of these organisations still support.


I feel about the same way.

----------


## Mycernius

> Why should be be genderless. What if you are referring to a Greco-Roman or Hindu deity that has a gender ? What if you are referring to the male image of the Father as mentioned in the Bible ? God is genderless for most Deist and Patheists, but is not for most religious people.Or are you just stating your own beliefs rather than how you use the word in a discussion ?


A bit unclear on my side. God as in Judo-Christian God as genderless. The rest as is fitting. :Smiling:  




> What does this mean? and who is going to judge that someone is not seeing something beyond their own nose or that anyone is not open to criticism? The criteria for judging all that would be subjective. Are you saying that just because they do not change their opinion that that then makes them an extremist? As for myself, I am open to all opinions and I seek them out, however, just because I do not change my opinion does not mean "extremist" is appropriate


How about unwilling to listen to reason or anything beyond their own limited view. It has nothing to do with changing opinion, just the equilvalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la, la, la' whilst someone is saying or writing something.





> I find this definition to be much too wide. Anything can be called religion then. The Religion subforum could thus become a place to discuss any strong believe, be it political, spiritual, or even hobbies (for some people golf or video games could be called a "religion" with such a wide definition). But does that fit the intended definition of "Religion forum" ?


For the religion forum yes, but outside it I will use it in the context of anyone who persues their views with an almost maniacal zeal outside that forum.




> Maybe we should use such terms as "Weak Christians" and "Strong Christians" when it can lead to confusion.


You can do. It is just how I would usually see someone who calls themself a Christian

----------


## Ma Cherie

That's interesting. I have my own definition of what an extremist is.
*Extremist:* Someone who doesn't accept other views (religious or otherwise) or a different way of thinking. Someone who is willing to die for their views, which is normally a religious view and possibly will kill other people who don't agree with them.

----------


## Elizabeth

> That's interesting. I have my own definition of what an extremist is.
> *Extremist:* Someone who doesn't accept other views (religious or otherwise) or a different way of thinking. Someone who is willing to die for their views, which is normally a religious view and possibly will kill other people who don't agree with them.


I would consider religious extremists on par with radicals and militant sects/groups that as much as possible reject secular society, dress traditionally, educate kids in their own schools or at home, etc. and, as Ma Cherie said, for a subset of them that can justify the use violence in support of their convictions.

Unless there are clear and definable distinctions amongst these terms, there is no logic I can see grouping "evangelicals" or "born again Christians" or anyone who subjectively isn't considered to be engaging in a sincere effort at interfaith diaglogue together with much more extreme or separatist or fringe elements who believe themselves to be the chosen few and would overthrow modern society given the opportunity.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Originally Posted by *strongvoicesforward*
> What does this mean? and who is going to judge that someone is not seeing something beyond their own nose or that anyone is not open to criticism? The criteria for judging all that would be subjective. Are you saying that just because they do not change their opinion that that then makes them an extremist? As for myself, I am open to all opinions and I seek them out, however, just because I do not change my opinion does not mean "extremist" is appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about unwilling to listen to reason or anything beyond their own limited view? It has nothing to do with changing opinion, just the equilvalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la, la, la' whilst someone is saying or writing something.


Hi Mycernius,

How do you judge or know when someone is sticking their fingers in their ears, or going 'la la la' whist someone else is saying or writing something? Children on the playground do that, but most adults do not do that physically in a conversation. So, how do you know they are not listening to what is being said? Again, that decision would be subjective. Do you have an objective criteria to put forth telling us that people are "not seeing something beyond their own noses?"





> Originally Posted by *Maciamo*
> I find this definition to be much too wide. Anything can be called religion then. The Religion subforum could thus become a place to discuss any strong believe, be it political, spiritual, or even hobbies (for some people golf or video games could be called a "religion" with such a wide definition). But does that fit the intended definition of "Religion forum" ?





> For the religion forum yes, but outside it I will use it in the context of anyone who persues their views with an almost maniacal zeal outside that forum.


And, if not prefaced every time you used it in how most of society uses it, it would lead to confusion in real life just as it would here on the forum -- hence the inappropriate use of it in your way for everyday normal speech.

Though, I do see you have inserted a new adjectival word, "maniacal." My son is a math maniac and has convinced me to enrolll him in an after school cram school so he can get more of it. He does math all the time and enjoys bringing it up in conversation. 

"Marge, I can`t meat you for tea today. I have to take my son to his religious studies." 

Surely, Marge, if not knowing my son`s mania for math, would assume I am taking him to some kind of church with a deity and holy scriptures involved. 

You see, using religion in that sense causes confusion because that is not the normal usage of it. You can use it that way, but you would have to preface it and clarify it in order to not cause confusion to the listener. Most people like to communicate efficiently.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I have my own definition of what an extremist is.
> *Extremist:* Someone who doesn't accept other views (religious or otherwise) or a different way of thinking. Someone who is willing to die for their views, which is normally a religious view and possibly will kill other people who don't agree with them.


Hi MaCherie,

I agree with the second part of your definition but not the first.

Would I be an extremist because I don`t accept that The Citizens of the U.S. should relinquish all lands back to Native Americans? Or would Native Americans be extremists for not listening to me in saying that their demands are baseless? Both subjectively from their own side could call the other an extremist, and only prejudice would define the meaning of the word. Therefore, simply by just not simply accepting other views or a different way of thinking should not be labeled "extremist." Perhaps a better word exists to describe what you are referring there. Maybe "stubborn" or "closed minded" may be a better fit.

The second part I agree with you. However, are all forms of "extremism/extremists" bad? Personally, I don`t think the word deserves to be a pejorative in the negative sense at all times. Your thoughts?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I would consider religious extremists... and, as Ma Cherie said, for a subset of them that can justify the use violence in support of their convictions.


Hi Elizabeth,

Would the use of the word "extremist" include non-secular revolutionaries or even governments as well?

Would the Sons of Liberty and Minutemen who destroyed property and attacked/killed in order to gain independence from what they viewed as unjust governments be engaging as "extremists," too? And, would "extremist" in that case be bad?

I recently asked, "Are all forms of extremism bad, even when property damage or deaths are the results, and sometimes planned results of personal behaviour?"

Haven`t many societal changes to the world that have resulted in more freedom for people the result of social upheavals and extremist action done by the players of those times? Perhaps, the word extremism is being condemned with a very large blanket and not being given its due for the benefit that it has brought many, by those who were brave enough to be extreme to go against the status quo.

Food for thought. Your thoughts?

----------


## Maciamo

Thanks for all pointing out how difficult it can be to define just a wor (in this case, "extremist") and how it can lead to serious misunderstandings.

Merriam Webster has a very clear and non ambiguous definition of "extremism" :

1 : the quality or state of being extreme
2. advocacy of extreme political measures : RADICALISM

As for radicalism : 

1 : the quality or state of being radical
2 : the doctrines or principles of radicals

They don't like taking risks with actual definitions, do they ?

Oxford is only slighty better => Extremist : a person who holds extreme political or religious views. 

In either case there is no mention of killing people, not being able to see clearly, not changing opinion, not accepting other people's views or behaving in a particular way.

I don't like dictionary definitions. Let's see what Wikipedia has on *Extremism* :

_Extremism is a pejorative term used to characterise the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups as irrational, counterproductive, unjustifiable, or otherwise unacceptable to a civil society._

There is little mention of religion in the rest of the article. Maybe I should have used the term *Fanaticism* :

_Fanaticism, from French fanatique or Latin fanaticus 'inspired by a god, frenzied' fanum 'temple' is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby._

Closer even to what I meant is *Fundamentalism* :
_
In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, through literal interpretation of religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions._

I think for example that Evangelists and Born-again Christians do not necessarily fit the defintion of religious extremists or fanatics (some do), but all could be label fundamentalist by the essence of their beliefs. In fact Wikipedia does cite several times evangelical Protestantism as an example of Christian fundamentalism.

----------


## Mars Man

This thread can certainly be seen as a step in the right direction--that of reaching out for understanding--yet it seems to trip over itself, thus falling far from the goal it seeks to obtain. In the atmosphere of positive criticism, let me point that out. 

Firstly, the key element under consideration is '*understanding*'.

 *I*_ I have noticed that misunderstandings are . . . 

I wish to have my comments understood according . . .

. . .who completely misunderstood the meaning. . .

(#3) I also tend to attach less importance to "form". . . rather than the "content" (actual meaning). . .

I just cannot understand how. . .

. . . as to understand my point of view. . . 

. . . never manage to understand me. . .

I can't understand such behaviour._
*II*_ This is the purpose of this thread. I want to avoid all future misunderstandings, . . ._
The secondary element is the listing of the definitions attached to some words that Maciamo uses. In other words, he then fixes the definitions/referents intended when *he* uses those words so as to possibly avoid misunderstanding. So far, everything looks up; this is going in a good direction. . . a first step. It is about that time, however, that a aura of foreshadowing occurs. 

_(#1 par.3) I have often been criticised on this forum (Eupedia Forum; in locative context--combined forums; emotional/adverbial context?) by people who completely misunderstood the meaning of what I said because they judged it according to their own definition of the words used._
Of course this statement represents Maciamo's understanding of another's understanding, and there is where we start to see some water leaks develop. (I might point out here that the very important matter of context has been ignored.) 

In further explanation, on post number three--somewhat reminiscent of the old 'Some Explanation About Me In the Last Few Months' thread (Dec. '05; pg 3 of Community subfora)--we find the following in the third paragraph: 

_It is in my character to attach a lot of value to reason, logic, knowledge, independence of mind, curiosity, outspokenness and wit. . . I also tend to attach less importance to the "form" (the way something is said) rather than to the "content" (actual meaning), which also means that I prioritise "truth" or 'facts' over people's feelings (even my own)._
The points to keep in mind here as we go, are that the words chosen to say something do not carry the weight of what the core meaning is; according to Maciamo's personal view. One Immediate drawback is seen in that the emphasis of emotion expressed by how someone says something can be reasoned to have true meaning--to be factual, and have an actual referent--to the extent that a person's emotional state is indeed a fact ! 

Therefore, if we value reason and independence of mind, we will understand that there is truth and fact in 'the way something is said' too. For example, take the sentence: "You never listen to me when I talk to you." Of course we do not see the fact being that everytime the speaker speaks, the addressed listens 0% of the time--as the words chosen literally mean--but rather that the speaker is showing annoyance with the lesser quantity of listening. (even if that may be as much as 80%) It is clearly the case that the emotion that the speaker is portraying is *a fact !*

So here we find an element of contradiction. To say that the actual meaning cannot be expressed in how a person chooses to say something is obviously false. To claim that a lot of value is given to reason and independence of mind, and to assert the anti-thesis of the statement that a person's emotional state is a fact, is cearly leading to a crash in contradiction. 

A greater problem, however, appears to be hidden in the jungles of what comes next. . . and I will make that a second post. Please bear with me.

----------


## Mars Man

The communitive road to understanding is a bumpy one, and is filled with a number of pot-holes, so care must be taken to reach that destination. 

This thread has started out in that direction, and that is a first step; if only it hadn't fallen upon itself. I am looking at the third post. ( which is reminiscent of the old 'Some Explanation about me' thread [Dec. '05, Pg 3 of Cummunity subfora])

Two points seem to stand out as being contradictory in nature. the first is in the third paragraph where it is said that _I tend to attach less importance to the "form" (the way something is said) rather than the "content" (actual meaning), which also means I prioritise "truth" or 'facts' over people's feelings (even my own)._ 

We know that the expression, "You never listen to me." is in a form that is emotionally emphatic. It is not to say 'you listen to me 0% of the time', but is to say ' you don't listen to me as much as I want you to.' The emotion is shown by the 'way it is said', and, that the emotion is real--is a fact--cannot be denied. At this point, we can see that some water leakage has become. 

The next area of concern starts with, _This is to say that as harsh and sometimes offensive as I may sound while discussing some philosophical or religious topics, you should only be offended enough as to try to understand my point of view._ What's missing here? *The other person's desire to be understood !* 

And then we have, _I usually get harsh with people that I feel never manage to understand me, out of frustration._ and, _I only hold grudges when people constantly attack me for apparently no reason - . . . I can't understand such behaviour._

Again the key point is understanding each other--it's not a one-way steet. How can a person who holds it natural ( see para. 3 lines 1, 5-6; para. 4 first sentence) to be harsh with those who do not understand him ignore those who are harsh with him because he does not understand them while giving priority to 'truth' and 'fact'? If that one does not understand the other, it is a fact, and if the other does not understand that one, it is a fact. *Effort is needed to try to understand each other!!*

A person harshly critcises his relatives for their religious beliefs as long as they talk about it, so surely they will not talk about it in order to release the pressure of criticising. If they contine to talk about it, they will face continued criticism. In that case, what would be the weight of their statement that 'they cannot understand why the other one keeps attacking them apparently for no reason? (because that one cannot understand that he does not understand them, you see)

If we only look at understanding from our point of view, we will never get good communication. In order to understand, we do need patience, empathy, logic, reason, and care. 

Maciamo, why don't you put down the 'I' for a little while, and try on the 'you' and see how it fits. To make understanding happen, we have to have open ears. To communicate successfully, we need a two-way street. Take some good, old-fashioned altruism, and mix it with determination to understand the other, and then you will get understanding. What goes 'round, comes 'round. I wish you all the luck with that most honorable effort and goal. Communicating equally !!

----------


## Maciamo

Mars Man, what I meant about not attaching much importance to the form is that I go straight to the point without trying to embelish or soften what I think. Many women for instance tend to use understatement or speak in an indirect way. Sometimes it is really hard for me to understand my wife because of that. She will says 'yes' when she means 'no'; she often won't tell me when she disagree with something, or just "hint" at it by a lack of enthusiasm. I am the exact opposite. If I disagree I have to say it, as I am afraid that others think that my silence is a form of agreement. I do not use deviated ways or understatement when I say things. At best I use sarcasms when I feel like joking (they are also often misunderstood on a forum, as people do not hear the tone of my voice, or just don't understand sarcasms).

Here is another example of clear misunderstanding, when you comment of my sentence : "I tend to attach less importance to the "form" (the way something is said) rather than the "content" (actual meaning), which also means I prioritise "truth" or 'facts' over people's feelings (even my own)."

What I meant is that I always prefer to know the "truth" even if it hurts me or others. Let's keep in mind that this thread is mostly about my posts related to philosophy and religion. The words "truth" and "facts" are not opposed to "feelings" (which as you said are facts too), but to lies, illusion or misrepresentation of reality. For instance, if it can help you understand me better, I have heard many Japanese saying that they believe that cheating on someone is not "bad" as you as they are not caught and don't hurt their partner's feelings (or it is not "bad" for politicians to be corrupted as long as the public doesn't find out). I much prefer to always know and do all I can do to know rather than be deceived or deceive myself. It is the same for philosophy and religions (well, more metaphysics than morals, of course, as morals is relative and subjective and doesn't really have any absolute truth or facts).



> "The next area of concern starts with, This is to say that as harsh and sometimes offensive as I may sound while discussing some philosophical or religious topics, you should only be offended enough as to try to understand my point of view."
> What's missing here? The other person's desire to be understood !


I usually do my best to understand the other side. But understanding something and accepting it are two very different things. Here is another example between my wife and I. We we have an argument, she often says that I do not understand her or not listen to her, while I claim the same. However, every single time I am able to rephrase with my own words what she means, and she agrees that it is exactly what she meant - often better expressed and summarised as she could have done it, does she tell me. Yet she still has no idea of what I meant, and this is evident when I ask her to explain what she understood from what I said. I took my wife as an example, but this has proven to be true with almost every person I have been close to and argued with. I understand them and can explain what they mean to them, but they don't understand me well or at all. I am ready to explain Sabro's point of view on religion, for instance. But in most of the posts where he rephrase what I said, it didn't mean the same at all, which showed he had not understood at all my reasoning. I don't want to sound arrogant saying this. In fact it is extremely frustrating for me.



> Maciamo, why don't you put down the 'I' for a little while, and try on the 'you' and see how it fits.


Do you believe I am not able to understand other people's opinion (about philosophy or religion) ? I believe that I understand in 99% of the cases and disagree in 90% of those 99%, which may make me look like I don't understand. To be able to disagree well you first have to understand exactly what the other means. That's why I never felt that any argument of Sabro had any weight as he was "shooting the wrong target" (i.e. criticise me for things I didn't mean). One potent example is when I criticised me in 3 separate threads because he didn't understand what I meant by "intellectual rape" (about teaching creationism) and equated it for "emotional or psychological rape". What I mean by "intellectual rape" is that it is against reason, against one's intellectual understanding of the world. "Psychological rape" sounds like someone had been traumatised due to some sexual abuses or hardships with lasting effect on their personality or something. Furthermore Sabro thought I was referring to all religious education when I only (and I thought "clearly") wrote about creationism. I take this example as it is one of the most recent, but I am sure there has been dozens, if not hundreds of similar complete misunderstandings of my posts by Sabro alone before.

----------

