The Thinking ‘Kat: Tea, Redux
I had barely posted my allegory about tea when it swiftly became apparent the point of my post had been spectacularly missed. To offer an explanation that is hopefully clearer (perhaps bordering on child-like, we shall see), let me break it down.
Both the tea-seller and their desired customer are in the public domain. Does this grant the seller the right to relentlessly pursue their desired customer, especially in an aggressive, nasty manner, and especially after the customer has said thanks, but no thanks?
When I wrote my post, it was aimed at Revival Fires, an individual who has trolled Bruce Gerencser for years. Revival Fires appears to operate with a determined righteous, going as far as to use this to justify his cruelty and cowardice. However, Revival Fires is far from alone in his attitude. The brilliant Rawi mentioned the concept of unsolicited advice, and it is certainly true that diehard Evangelicals – among others of a passionate religious stance – operate with this principle. They believe that their rights trump those of others, and that they should be free to preach at others, even against their wishes.
Of course, if one is free to preach in the public sphere without restraint (and seemingly without grace, kindness or compassion), then one must accept the consequences of that. You cannot be… let’s say boisterous in your manner, and act surprised if your attitude backfires. Viciously berating others in public for not accepting your beliefs, long after they have asked you to leave them alone, will not create an environment conducive to civil or constructive discourse. If you want people to hear you and take you seriously, perhaps try being respectful in the first instance, and if they still do not wish to hear you, back off. After all, would you, as a tea seller, appreciate someone hounding you to reject your tea, and try coffee instead? Especially if they preached fire and brimstone at you?
