I object to the closing of the death and religion thread.

[geebob]

The thread starter posted a serious topic. I didn't find it necessarily offensive but it was a good question. not all the posts were great but I think those were the minorities.

I can understand the concern for members who may be facing death or have a loved one facing death, but the issues surrounding it are ones that at least mature adults will have to face with regard religious implications.

The topic is only offensive as an unavoidable issue in life, one which is not simply a private and personal matter but has social implications and should be dealt with at a social level as well as on a personal level.

You don't have to allow this topic on the ubuntu forums, but it's darn shame that you wouldn't.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=715157

[KiwiNZ]

I am going to be very blunt here.

If folks for once , just once forgot their own self centre's and tried to think of others instead they may well realise that there could well be people who read these Forums that have just lost someone close to them.

Try to place yourselves in their shoes for just a little time.

[matthew]

I will also add that adding a disclaimer saying "I don't mean to be insensitive but..." generally means that a person knows that they are being insensitive and will offend someone. If that is the case, they would be better off not saying whatever it is they were about to say, or at least saving it for a real life conversation among people who know them well. Doing something that you know will offend is never appropriate in a public setting unless you are a comedian, artist, or politician in front of a crowd, and even then it is debatable.

I support the thread's closing.

[geebob]

Try to place yourselves in their shoes for just a little time.

I beg your pardon but I as everyone else on that thread are people who have lost loved ones, close friends under tragic circumstances (as if there were any other kind) and will continue to do so in the future.

There's no need to change shoes. We've been in them. We will be in them again. Maybe I wouldn't want to deal with this topic under those circumstances. But I don't want that greif to swallow my life and tell me that I can never do all the things again that I could do before the time of grief.

Even the grieving have a responsibility to themselves to avoid situations that will only exacerbate their grief. And even the grieving have the right to put themselves at risk. A topic like that really could be salt in a wound for some and for others, to wrestle with why it was worth it for their loved ones to fight for survival could also be therapeutic. Philosopher Nicolaus Wolterstorff pointed out that grief for each death is individual and unique. He wrote "lament for a son" dealing with the grief over the death of his son and he spelled out some ideas that he found offensive in dealing with that grief.

Some people who are offended may choose to participate, and you know, that's not necessarily bad. For an emotionally relevent situation, emotions are relevent. It's still possible to maintain civility though it may be difficult, but I'm one to say that it is worth the effort. Why is so and so offended? What's offensive about the issue or the answers given? What would be less offensive? What are the implications of the offense? If someone is willing to examine her emoitions analytically we will be richer for it! I have done just that on other issues and my understanding is better for it on those issues.

We have poverty of ideas when we think that emotions, especially the strong and even hurtful ones should be avoided in rational discussion. We are not giving the human experience it's full treatment in our analytic thought and thus it is woefully incomplete.

I will also add that adding a disclaimer saying "I don't mean to be insensitive but..." generally means that a person knows that they are being insensitive and will offend someone.

It generally means that it is an emotionally risky topic and may be interpreted in offensive ways. It doesn't mean that it necessarily is offensive but only that the potential is there.

The description of the barnyard warns that there are will be such topics with such a potential.

If that is the case, they would be better off not saying whatever it is they were about to say, or at least saving it for a real life conversation among people who know them well.

I object to treating this mode of communication and the relationships formed here as second rate. Yes, there are disadvantages to this over live face to face communication, to people we know, and there are advantages. The topic though with much potential for emotional stress also is one that requires analysis. For some of us, the written text is far better as all of our thoughts can be laid out, organized, without someone talking over us, with few restrainst on time and so on. Furthermore, we're going to find more people willing to discuss these things on the internet then in face to face situations and in a sense, there is less risk here in broaching the topic in a public virtually anonymouse forum where those who don't want to deal with the topic can merely pass it by, but it's different if a friend comes up to you and makes an issue of it. It may be less of a choice in that situation.

Secondly, by putting the topic out there, the thread starter is expanding to a greater group of people who collectively and very likely individually have a greater deal of knowledge on the subject. The man asked a theological question. How many theologians and philosophers does he personally know or at least how many of his friends spend time delving significantly into the issue at an amature level? If most of the guy's friends are atheists and even just a few shallow Christians, he's not going to have that good of an opportunity to get a good answer to the question.

In short, dealing with this issue privately as opposed to a public internet forum is not better. It's just different.

Perhaps one of you fellas have gone through a tragedy recently. I'm sorry if this is the case, but then, like any judge in a court of law, ideally you should remove yourself from a personally invested situation and allow someone else to moderate.

Doing something that you know will offend is never appropriate in a public setting unless you are a comedian, artist, or politician in front of a crowd, and even then it is debatable.

so much for the Martin Luther King Jr's, the Votaires, the Darwins, the Susan B Anthonys, Jesus, and every other person who has had in important impact on our culture and has offended plenty of people along the way in places they were told they shouldn't be.

or politician

funny then that there should even be a public forum to discuss politics, religion, and any other topic which is explicitely admitted to have the potential for offense... in the description of the forum.


I appreciate the moderation. I understand that there will be situations where there will be no hard and fast objective standards to appeal to and the judgement will ultimately have subjectivity. I'm not one to say thus withold judgement. I'm not going to suggest that some topics wouldn't be too offensive. Nevertheless, I hope you will reconsider for this one for the reasons I gave.

[KiwiNZ]

I have not lost someone close to me recently, but that does not stop me from seeing things from their point of view.

I recieved a note from another member involved thanking the closure of the thread. And no I will not give their name here.

[KiwiNZ]

I wanted to add ,Geebob , I can appreciate your feelings in the matter. However , this Forum is the Official front for Ubuntu and as such our moderation has to reflect this .

Not every random thought needs to be voiced here, some times things are better just not said.

[geebob]

I realize that the title of the thread has a higher inflamatory potential than necessary.

Would it be acceptable if I continued the topic in a new thread with the title "Why do the religious value survival?"

This is a more abstract title that doesn't focus directly upon what is a vulnerable and tragic period of life for many people and their families. Terminal illness is imeadiately a downer, but survival is a positive concept.

it reflects the broad intentions of the thread because in the very first thread, rye_ questions why the religious don't place themselves in dangerous situations given their views on life after death.

[KiwiNZ]

I realize that the title of the thread has a higher inflamatory potential than necessary.

Would it be acceptable if I continued the topic in a new thread with the title "Why do the religious value survival?"

This is a more abstract title that doesn't focus directly upon what is a vulnerable and tragic period of life for many people and their families. Terminal illness is imeadiately a downer, but survival is a positive concept.

it reflects the broad intentions of the thread because in the very first thread, rye_ questions why the religious don't place themselves in dangerous situations given their views on life after death.

I have stuggled wit h this one. My compassion for others tells me that this does not need to be here .
But my belief in sensible sensitive open discussion says the opposite.

I am just not sure . I am going to give this further thought.

[geebob]

I'm convinced that had this alternate title been the one given in the first place, no one would've thought anything of it. It's a perfectly good philosophical question.