PDA

View Full Version : Offended by controversial conversation


tourmaline
22nd July 2010, 05:42 PM
1) Sally, Joe, and Pedro are natural scientists standing around a camp fire on a college field trip talking about how they chose their field and what they like about it.

2) Sally comments that she was surprised that to find religious people that study natural science.

3) At that moment Max walks up and says, "I am religious and study natural science."

4) Sally asks Max, "How do you reconcile the two?"

5) Max says in an offended tone, "None of your business."

Is the offense the the fault of:

A) Sally for asking the question?
B) Max for interjecting personal information into the conversation?
C) Both are at fault for discussing taboo topics?
D) Hey, I ordered a cheese burger.

Edited to correct the names.

Steelmage
22nd July 2010, 05:46 PM
Not all religious people believe that the world was created in 6 days (god rested on the 7th). Sally should not assume, also Max should not be offended and explain to Sally why he studies natural science as well as how he balances the two for himself.

John Jones
22nd July 2010, 05:49 PM
1) Sally, Joe, and Pedro are natural scientists standing around a camp fire on a college field trip talking about how they chose their field and what they like about it.

2) Sally comments that she was surprised that to find religious people that study natural science.

3) At that moment Max walks up and says, "I am religious and study natural science."

4) Sally asks Max, "How do you reconcile the two?"

5) Max says in an offended tone, "None of your business."

Is the offense the the fault of:

A) Sally for asking the question?
B) Max for interjecting personal information into the conversation?
C) Both are at fault for discussing taboo topics?
D) Hey, I ordered a cheese burger.

Edited to correct the names.

Pedro is the Agent Provocateur in this scenario. Joe is the capitalist running-dog.

tourmaline
22nd July 2010, 06:11 PM
Not all religious people believe that the world was created in 6 days (god rested on the 7th). Sally should not assume, also Max should not be offended and explain to Sally why he studies natural science as well as how he balances the two for himself.

Not every religious person believes in a literal interpretation of the bible, true. But this was also assumed by Sally.

Sledge
22nd July 2010, 06:17 PM
E) none of the above. Max took offense. He is at fault, if there is fault in such a thing, for being offended.

Also, I note Pedro doesn't say anything. RACIST!

Maxtor
22nd July 2010, 06:35 PM
Max is at fault for expecting something other than what is usual and reasonable. What Sally said and assumed was within the boundaries of what is common and reasonable in such conversations.
Max had a chip on his shoulder which is contrary to the Biblical doctrine that he is defending in the first place.
God bless you.

tourmaline
22nd July 2010, 06:35 PM
Pedro is white

Sledge
22nd July 2010, 06:41 PM
Oh, so you can't be racist against white people? Max and Sally are using affirmative action to keep the white man down. That's it, I'm voting BNP at the next election.

MG1962
22nd July 2010, 06:42 PM
It was Mr Green in the library with the lead pipe

John Jones
22nd July 2010, 06:46 PM
Pedro is white


So Pedro is the white Agent Provocateur posing under an Hispanic name.

That kind of subterfuge is the most offensive thing in this scenario.

Sally and Joe ought to hand-out some instant karma, while Max makes a beer-run.

tourmaline
22nd July 2010, 06:48 PM
It was Mr Green in the library with the lead pipe

He was in your mo.... never mind.

Eric D
22nd July 2010, 06:50 PM
Not all religious people believe that the world was created in 6 days (god rested on the 7th). Sally should not assume, also Max should not be offended and explain to Sally why he studies natural science as well as how he balances the two for himself.

Agreed.

plumjam
22nd July 2010, 07:22 PM
Sally is at fault for ignorantly assuming that to be studying science you should be a believer in materialism. Newton was the opposite of that, as have been many of the greatest scientists in history.
And that is not a dying outlook or a purely historical artifact. The more that is learnt about the amazing complexity and intricacy of the natural world, the less rational is the coincidence theory thinking of the materialists.

She should abandon the camp and trek back to the library.

AvalonXQ
22nd July 2010, 07:37 PM
Sally is at fault for a) trying to do science and b) opening her mouth, neither of which get Joe his dinner.

Marduk
22nd July 2010, 08:37 PM
That's it, I'm voting BNP at the next election.

Didn't do em any good the last time
:p

Maia
22nd July 2010, 08:45 PM
1) Sally, Joe, and Pedro are natural scientists standing around a camp fire on a college field trip talking about how they chose their field and what they like about it.

2) Sally comments that she was surprised that to find religious people that study natural science.

3) At that moment Max walks up and says, "I am religious and study natural science."

4) Sally asks Max, "How do you reconcile the two?"

5) Max says in an offended tone, "None of your business."

Is the offense the the fault of:

A) Sally for asking the question?
B) Max for interjecting personal information into the conversation?
C) Both are at fault for discussing taboo topics?
D) Hey, I ordered a cheese burger.

Edited to correct the names.

Max couldn't possibly have really been offended, because he HAD to know that after walking up and saying what he did at that particular moment, Sally was going to ask the question she did. So I think the "offense" was fake to begin with. Sally was being kind of annoying, but Max was being whiny and passive-aggressive and clearly should have been sent back for cheeseburgers.

Complexity
22nd July 2010, 08:50 PM
E) Max, for intruding into a conversation by offering relevant personal information and then being unhappy at being treated as a participant.[/quote]

Sun Countess
22nd July 2010, 09:33 PM
Are Joe and Pedro just there as eye candy?

If they're standing there shirtless, or perhaps on a horse, it would help me to understand why Max intruded on their campsite in the first place.

learner
22nd July 2010, 09:56 PM
Oh, so you can't be racist against white people? Max and Sally are using affirmative action to keep the white man down. That's it, I'm voting BNP at the next election.

No Cucumber Sandwiches for you then :p

I say Max is at fault. He should have noticed a private conversation was going on and stood back at a discrete distance until invited in. Thats what I do. :)

Blackened Cat
22nd July 2010, 10:05 PM
Max.

For being a douche and being scared of Sally's ignorance of the world.

Plus Sally is most likely a Lesbian. Max is short for Maxine. Sally was just trying to hit on Max.

But Max is Straight on weekends.

:D Well that's what I got out of the question.

Dear God, thank you for Lesbians!

TimCallahan
22nd July 2010, 10:17 PM
Max is at fault for expecting something other than what is usual and reasonable. What Sally said and assumed was within the boundaries of what is common and reasonable in such conversations.
Max had a chip on his shoulder which is contrary to the Biblical doctrine that he is defending in the first place.
God bless you.

Agreed. He really missed an excellent chance here to dispel a stereotype. Kenneth Miller, coauthor of a standard high school biology textbook that fairly prominently covers evolution, and one of the experts testifying for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller et al v. the Dover, PA Board of Education, i.e. the famous Dover trial, is a theist and a devout Christian. Had Max pointed this and/or other examples out to Sally, rather than getting his nose out of joint, he might have started her thinking.

Even had Sally phrased things in a way that was snotty or obnoxious, getting into a snit over it is a bad idea. A better response would be to calmly point out that the two spheres can be reconciled, then gently point out that putting things in certain ways is insulting.

Epok
22nd July 2010, 10:30 PM
I think Sally was naive in assuming that a natural scientist can't have religious beliefs but Max is the jerk for walking into the conversation and snapping like he did after being asked a relevant question. Some people can't justify their religious beliefs with reason so they tend to use aggressive behavior ask a defense mechanism.

Pup
22nd July 2010, 10:35 PM
E) Max, for intruding into a conversation by offering relevant personal information and then being unhappy at being treated as a participant.

What he said.

Lukraak_Sisser
22nd July 2010, 10:36 PM
I think we're all too busy looking at the four to miss John, who manipulated everything invisibly behind the scenes for the whole day just so that the argument can unfold and he gets all the cheeseburgers.

tourmaline
22nd July 2010, 10:44 PM
Sally is at fault for ignorantly assuming that to be studying science you should be a believer in materialism. Newton was the opposite of that, as have been many of the greatest scientists in history.
And that is not a dying outlook or a purely historical artifact. The more that is learnt about the amazing complexity and intricacy of the natural world, the less rational is the coincidence theory thinking of the materialists.

She should abandon the camp and trek back to the library.

Materialism? Like Madonna?

Are Joe and Pedro just there as eye candy?

If they're standing there shirtless, or perhaps on a horse, it would help me to understand why Max intruded on their campsite in the first place.

All were at the same camp site/field trip. It shirtless help you then by all means. I like to imagine things like this:



Plus Sally is most likely a Lesbian. Max is short for Maxine. Sally was just trying to hit on Max.

But Max is Straight on weekends.

:D Well that's what I got out of the question.

Dear God, thank you for Lesbians!


A better response would be to calmly point out that the two spheres can be reconciled, then gently point out that putting things in certain ways is insulting.

Making a bland personal statement about herself was insulting?

TimCallahan
22nd July 2010, 11:05 PM
Making a bland personal statement about herself was insulting?

No, I'm saying that even if she had said it in a snotty way, there are better responses than getting your nose out of joint. The way you phrased the hypothetical conversation did make her remark sound inoffensive.

By the way, is this entirely hypothetical or based on something you witnessed?

marplots
22nd July 2010, 11:27 PM
Max is a Muslim geneticist of my acquaintance. Naturally, Sally should not be speaking to a man in this fashion. It is unseemly and against the Koran. I too would be offended if questioned by a woman.

tourmaline
22nd July 2010, 11:43 PM
No, I'm saying that even if she had said it in a snotty way, there are better responses than getting your nose out of joint. The way you phrased the hypothetical conversation did make her remark sound inoffensive.

By the way, is this entirely hypothetical or based on something you witnessed?

Oh gotchya.

The events described here are based on a real events. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. To my recollection, this is what transpired.

Soapy Sam
22nd July 2010, 11:54 PM
Kill them all.
Let god sort it out.

fishbob
23rd July 2010, 12:02 AM
Been doing that for a thousand years and it still isn't sorted out.

bluesjnr
23rd July 2010, 12:12 AM
Jesus - Pedro........

Both Hispanic names, know what I'm sayin'

tourmaline
23rd July 2010, 12:29 AM
Jesus - Pedro........

Both Hispanic names, know what I'm sayin'

Mexicans are the real the chosen people?

skullerello
23rd July 2010, 12:46 AM
Unless this scenario actually happened, we're dealing with an hypothetical situation; and I refuse to take part.
Hypotheticals are invented; they rarely follow real-life dynamics, because the dynamics contain too many variables to be properly factored in. Omniscence, not even remotely a tangent, should predestine any one of us from engaging in such loose speculation without some a priorie information.
I always fail "hypotheticals" in interviews for exactly that very reason.

tourmaline
23rd July 2010, 12:49 AM
Unless this scenario actually happened, we're dealing with an hypothetical situation; and I refuse to take part.
Hypotheticals are invented; they rarely follow real-life dynamics, because the dynamics contain too many variables to be properly factored in. Omniscence, not even remotely a tangent, should predestine any one of us from engaging in such loose speculation without some a priorie information.
I always fail "hypotheticals" in interviews for exactly that very reason.


The events described here are based on a real events. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. To my recollection, this is what transpired.

What else would you like to know?

skullerello
23rd July 2010, 12:59 AM
I guess I stuck my foot in my mouth on this one...

tourmaline
23rd July 2010, 01:08 AM
hehe, i feel ya ;)

SezMe
23rd July 2010, 01:48 AM
Not every religious person believes in a literal interpretation of the bible, true. But this was also assumed by Sally.
If so, it is not relayed in the story. Do you know that Sally actually assumes that every Christian is a literalist? If so, was that assumption conveyed in her tone of voice?

catsmate1
23rd July 2010, 03:47 AM
It was Mr Green in the library with the lead pipe
You mean the Reverend Green.:)

welshdean
23rd July 2010, 04:24 AM
Easy!

Sally should have been washing dishes or cleaning around the campsite, leaving the sciencey stuff for the men. If Sally was talking about the delights of fluffy kittens then that would be OK. ;)

Moral of the story: Women know your limits!

Here's the proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8injvP1lJ8I&feature=PlayList&p=F164AA6F7F65C0CD&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1


ETA: Tourmaline, what was the outcome of it all?

Dave Rogers
23rd July 2010, 05:35 AM
Sally is at fault for ignorantly assuming that to be studying science you should be a believer in materialism. Newton was the opposite of that, as have been many of the greatest scientists in history.

That's not an argument as to whether Sally was offensive. It's an argument as to whether she was fully informed as to the potential scope of personal belief. Therefore, if you're correct, her next question was a request for information on the subject on which you've determined her to be uninformed - in other words, an attempt to rectify her own lack of knowledge by requesting explanation from someone who possessed the knowledge she lacked. Why do you deem that to be offensive?

Dave

angrysoba
23rd July 2010, 05:47 AM
Max is wrong.

Is he joining the conversation or not? If he is he should answer the perfectly reasonable follow-up question if only to disabuse Sally of her rather narrow interpretation of our divine lord (God is in fact a kind of David Hume-type jovial figure who spent a long time making the world but too lazy to allow it to run perfectly or smoothly). And if he isn't joining the question he shouldn't have stuck his oar in in the first place.

Max wants it both ways and he can't have it in reasonable adult society!

:mad:

learner
23rd July 2010, 06:01 AM
I would like to know why Sally, Joe and Max are so casual about a Pedo in their midst. :)

Lothian
23rd July 2010, 06:08 AM
Sometimes people can be offended without anyone being at fault. The question is a ligitimate one for Sally to ask. That Max got upset is not his fault. He is dumb Christian who knows no better.

ZirconBlue
23rd July 2010, 06:39 AM
Max wants it both ways and he can't have it in reasonable adult society!

Sure he can! I know I've certainly had it both ways in "adult" society.

angrysoba
23rd July 2010, 10:23 AM
Sure he can! I know I've certainly had it both ways in "adult" society.

But not in a "reasonable" adult society!

tourmaline
23rd July 2010, 01:58 PM
ETA: Tourmaline, what was the outcome of it all?

The instructor, who walked up to the conversation with Max, steped in and answered the question by asking Max "Do you use science to explain how the planets revolve around the sun and religion to explain other things?" To this Max said yes.

If so, it is not relayed in the story. Do you know that Sally actually assumes that every Christian is a literalist? If so, was that assumption conveyed in her tone of voice?

I know that Sally knew at the time that there are multiple degrees of how literaly someone can interperet their religion. And that the terms like religious, spiritual, and agnostic are not used consistently. I think the tone of her voice was of aceptance. She didnt seem to be making a judgment.