The things that really wind me up!

I think we've got a bit lost in semantics now!

At the end of the day, my view, for what it's worth, is that one should always respect another's right to hold a view and express it ( even then within the limits of common decency) whilst there is no compunction to agree with or even respect that view itself. And always bearing in mind that views and facts are two completely different things.

Is that pretty much what you meant?

Indeed 

(...it may be 'semantics' on the page, but I do see this as a real issue in the real world - there are examples every day in the news papers where people / groups / cults think their actual opions / dogma / views SHOULD be respected, based on no other reason than that they think it should and then go on to demand recognition / dispensation / resources etc. etc. Furthermore in our race to "inclusivity", many times they are getting it.) 

 just look at some of the practices that go on around the world, the abuse of children and women sanctioned by medieval religious texts.

I would say "sanctioned by the present interpretation of medieval texts for personal gain".

And also in response to Rocky's:

"respecting of the contrary views is something the intelligent do automatically"

That is completely at odds with basic scientific principles (as you CS, part of my job).

Intelligent people consider the views of others and based on critical analysis and evidence, will if required change their views accordingly - THAT is what really intelligent people do!

CJ, we are discussing things(on CT) in a very standard fashion, you say, I say, we say fashion not a debate to gain points or to flaunt any individuals higher/superior eduction. I enjoy the discussions, regardless of whether I agree with the subject matter I will respect that persons right to their opinion. I prefer not to enter into the minutiae of hidden meanings or to attempt to cast any aspersions re that individuals level of intelligence. . . .It just don't register. As soon as it gets too deep I bail, purely because it becomes boring. Debating society CT ain't-gladly

 just look at some of the practices that go on around the world, the abuse of children and women sanctioned by medieval religious texts.

I would say "sanctioned by the present interpretation of medieval texts for personal gain".

Probably......especially because if we were sticking to the texts as written, we would still have slaves and be stoning people, raping them or sacrificing them all over the shop!

And also in response to Rocky's:

"respecting of the contrary views is something the intelligent do automatically"

That is completely at odds with basic scientific principles (as you CS, part of my job).

Intelligent people consider the views of others and based on critical analysis and evidence, will if required change their views accordingly - THAT is what really intelligent people do!

CJ, we are discussing things(on CT) in a very standard fashion, you say, I say, we say fashion not a debate to gain points or to flaunt any individuals higher/superior eduction. I enjoy the discussions, regardless of whether I agree with the subject matter I will respect that persons right to their opinion. I prefer not to enter into the minutiae of hidden meanings or to attempt to cast any aspersions re that individuals level of intelligence. . . .It just don't register. As soon as it gets too deep I bail, purely because it becomes boring. Debating society CT ain't-gladly

Sometimes things get misinterpreted.

I read it that you were stating that, "respecting of the contrary views is something the intelligent do automatically"

I had stated, I respected a persons right to have an alternate view, but was not forced to respect their view.

Ergo - You were calling me thick for my view / lack of respect!

I like a good debate - no harm no foul as they say

I liked it when someone just mentioned 'the steadies'

So much simpler to understand than the previous posts  getting a wee deep

And also in response to Rocky's:

"respecting of the contrary views is something the intelligent do automatically"

That is completely at odds with basic scientific principles (as you CS, part of my job).

Intelligent people consider the views of others and based on critical analysis and evidence, will if required change their views accordingly - THAT is what really intelligent people do!

CJ, we are discussing things(on CT) in a very standard fashion, you say, I say, we say fashion not a debate to gain points or to flaunt any individuals higher/superior eduction. I enjoy the discussions, regardless of whether I agree with the subject matter I will respect that persons right to their opinion. I prefer not to enter into the minutiae of hidden meanings or to attempt to cast any aspersions re that individuals level of intelligence. . . .It just don't register. As soon as it gets too deep I bail, purely because it becomes boring. Debating society CT ain't-gladly

Sometimes things get misinterpreted.

I read it that you were stating that, "respecting of the contrary views is something the intelligent do automatically"

I had stated, I respected a persons right to have an alternate view, but was not forced to respect their view.

Ergo - You were calling me thick for my view / lack of respect!

I like a good debate - no harm no foul as they say

 

CJ, you ain't thick, you know that. I have not taken any of your postings within this thread as anything but your take on things. We can agree or disagree as always

Re the OP, as I said on the missing page 3

Hypocrities.

Cyclist who insist on using the pavement when there is an alloted cycle lane on the road available, and the abuse one gets for telling them to use it.

Re the OP, as I said on the missing page 3

Hypocrities.

Cyclist who insist on using the pavement when there is an alloted cycle lane on the road available, and the abuse one gets for telling them to use it.

..the father of modern medicine?...that's a bit harsh!

Mis-reading people hates!