Jo-Anne Morgan wrote:This is very interesting. People's responses to JAMR's disagreement with their point of view are identical to those of the SES when disagreed with i.e. stonewalling and a refusal to engage.
We appear to have come full circle. 'Animal Farm' springs to mind.
It's completely different Jo-Anne.
The SES actively recruit people onto their courses and into their children's schools through disingenuous advertising. They also advertise as being in pursuit of wisdom and the truth (without making it clear that they think they have the answers to that already). When people feel put out that they have been mislead, or who think they are on a genuine questionning journey (ie not having all the answers already), then the lack of engagement and stonewalling are a direct example of how they preach (and advertise on the basis of) one thing, and act differently.
When you post on this forum, there is no obligation to engage with anyone. It is polite and flattering when some anonymous person takes the time to read your views online and respond, but there is no obligation to, and not taking the time to read some anonymous person's views online is not impolite nor insulting nor is it bad faith (saying one thing and acting differently). How could it be? We all have lives and other things to do and we haven't asked anyone here to pay us money on the promise that we will listen and reply to every word!
The comparison that seems more accurate to me is one about courtesy and manners. When you are at a social occasion, if one person dominates discussion with long monologues insisting that their point of view has more validity because of their own claims about their evidence and dissects every last syllable that everyone utters and makes the conversation all about their viewpoint about what others are saying, then many people regard that as bad-mannered and quite boring for others.