Reply #75: Yes I understand The Point You Were Trying To Make

[arwalden]

>> Wow, there's some anger there! <<

Oh, I'm sorry, Ando.

What emotion would be more appropriate from someone whenever others are trying to restrict them from using accurate and truthful words? Should I react less intensely whenever someone merely makes the suggestion?

If anger is inappropriate, please tell me how I should react. :eyes:

>> If you'll notice, I didn't attempt to prohibit anything at all. You can say whatever you want and you can believe all of your definitions to be accurate as well. <<

No, technically you can't "prohibit" anything... you just suggested that we non-believers acquiesce to these absurd demands and use softer words like "ritual" and "doctrine".

>> The only point I was making is that there are certain words which help to contribute to a good discussion and there are others which do not. <<

Yes, Ando. I understood your point. But I'm not about to verbally hobble myself to satisfy the vanities of every overwrought Christian who take offense at clinical terms.

>> You can use words like myth and superstition in relation to Christianity, but don't get upset when some people take offense to the terms. <<

I'm not upset when someone takes offense. I offend them. They offend me. We're even. --- When I *do* get upset is when they (or others) try to label innocuous terms as HATE SPEECH, or when they try to prevent me from using those terms at all.

>> I'm not trying to change your definitions, I'm just trying to fill you in on what emotions you may be illiciting by using them. I'm not a censor, nor do I want to be. <<

Thanks for trying to fill-me-in. I appreciate that, but ultimately they are responsible for their OWN emotions.