I have beloved family that have closely held religious beliefs that I think are wacky, but that's not passing judgement on them.
Tesla believed he was receiving signals from outer space and Newton believed in alchemy. Good, intelligent people sometimes believe wacky things.
I wouldn't classify derangement as a moral problem, more of a mental illness or a nurtured dislike; maybe something they grew up with. I'm not contradicting any religious worldview since I don't have one. I simply calling out people when they say ridiculous things.
The difference that I recognize is...
...on the one hand...someone who internally thinks those beliefs are "wacky" -- we ALL do that to various degrees re: certain people...
...on the other hand...someone who externally exports those thoughts to the world...
Once you get to the "gossip," stage, you have engaged in obvious social communication -- and in your case -- it was done to stigmatize those beliefs (passing subjective judgment). Now obviously, some beliefs deserve to be stigmatized. But that's another issue.
The issue we're dealing with is the cartwheels you keep engaging in to avoid the implications of your inconsistent commentary.
Tesla believed he was receiving signals from outer space and Newton believed in alchemy. Good, intelligent people sometimes believe wacky things.
I suppose for your next "trick," you're going to try telling us (like you tried telling us in post #136), that you're not really judging either Tesla's or Newton's specific "beliefs"...You'll tell us that you were merely thinking about Tesla's actions and Newton's actions...but you weren't really covering their beliefs at all -- nor passing judgment on them.
I wouldn't classify derangement as a moral problem, more of a mental illness or a nurtured dislike; maybe something they grew up with. I'm not contradicting any religious worldview since I don't have one. I simply calling out people when they say ridiculous things.
Yeah, that's "typical" of people who tend to set aside either morality and immorality. In their "amoral" worldview, there's fewer options left to explain behavior. (That's why in our secular court system, you don't see pleas of guilty-by-reason-of-evil...just innocense-by-reason-of-insanity)
O...
K...
So; a person has to HAVE a certain veiw before they can be considered to be able to contradict another?
HMMMmmm...