Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

by flipper 143 Replies latest jw friends

onacruse

hs:
Perhaps the solution is as simple as to re-examine how we "come across," and respectfully (without surrendering our own strongly held convictions) alter our posting styles accordingly? And, lest anyone misunderstand, I am not thinking solely of you in this matter.
Did you not discuss this issue at great length with AlanF? I think you noted this on the Board some weeks ago. I thought that you reached a different conclusion then. Perhaps memory is failing me. If it is I am sure half a dozen people, including yourself, will correct me. ;)
No correction needed. My statement above is in the context of 'does debating have to be abusive to be effective.' My previous statements were in the context of 'can debating ever be abusive and yet be effective.' I would say No the the first, but now say Yes to the second. Being abusive as a regular matter of course is what I suggest be re-evaluated.
Please do it nicely. You know how faint hearted I am. ;)
LOL
It is all a matter of degree Craig. If somebody, as has happened on this and other Boards, insults your wife, I would hope that you would have something very disrespectful to say to that person.
That is, of course, my natural inclination. However, in my experience, insofar as the Internet is concerned, saying something disrespectful in return accomplishes nothing more than providing more fodder for the well-insulated abuser(s). And thus to my point about "saying it to a person's face." Cowards will be cowards.
If they insult a passion to which you hold dear, well perhaps a reaction between the two is more apt.
And thus my query to BTS re: typing without brain engaged (paraphrase). At least if a person can recognize and acknowledge that they responded in the passion of the moment, well, that's something to which we can all relate...and oftentimes we'd be inclined to admit afterwards that "we were just a bit heated up at the moment--no offense intended."
What is a fact is that most every person that I have seen demanding that we behave nicely, treat each other well and disagree like mature citizens of a failed New World the past few days, has done the very thing they sneer at in others and used what they would call abusive language in the past. Can I describe them as hypocrites? Most on this Board would interpret this as 'name calling'. I just try to be more honest. ;)
I don't know if I have posted abuses in the last few days, but I certainly have done so in the past, and however infrequently I have done so, the only appropriate description is "hypocrite." The trick is to know that sometimes one "puts on the mask," but that sometimes one doesn't even know they have a mask on at all.
flipper

ONACRUSE- I agree with you that sometimes any of us could get heated up , before we know it . But like you said it isn't something that anybody would want to make a practice of. Peace should rule
hillary_step

But like you said it isn't something that anybody would want to make a practice of.
Can somebody explain what is so sinful about getting 'heated' up over ones passions, even passions that rock our world. It is okay to get 'heated up' every so often is it? ...lol
Do you realise just how deeply in the Dark Ages we would all be living if people chose not to 'get' heated up over passions? Think about it Flipper.
It is true that one seldom if ever sees anybody getting 'heated up' in Kingdom Halls', and the WTS touts this as a sign of true Christianity. What pap! What they and you seem to want to do is to control peoples emotions till they become passive and bland enough to create an enviroment in which warm and fuzzy rules, and no person is pushed beyond their personal comfort zone. A climate of emotional suppression.
I am not a Christian, but it seems to have escaped the notice of many that the Christ of the Bible was not exactly lacking in passions of many sorts throughout his life. You know what Flipper, when the need arose he called people names....lol. Bad names. Really, really bad names. He did not just use the word 'hypocrite, but described people as vipers and one of his best friends as 'Satan.' He also suggests that one day he is going to destroy most of us nbecause he does not like us very much, but that is a subject for another day. ;)
Could he have achieved the same effect by using love, understanding, calmness, or a miracle or two? Perhaps so, but he chose the more direct method, ad hominem!
Perhaps I am a Christian after all.
HS
onacruse

hs:
Can somebody explain what is so sinful about getting 'heated' up over ones passions, even passions that rock our world. It is okay to get 'heated up' every so often is it? ...lol
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anybody on this thread saying that "reacting passionately" is sinful. I submit that your insinuation of that loaded term into the conversation is a diversionary tactic. And in that respect, to follow up on what I said:
oftentimes we'd be inclined to admit afterwards that "we were just a bit heated up at the moment"
Let me emphasize oftentimes! Some of the "hardest hitters" on this board have said exactly that, so surely it's not an uncommon human behavior.
It is true that one seldom if ever sees anybody getting 'heated up' in Kingdom Halls', and the WTS touts this as a sign of true Christianity. What pap! What they and you seem to want to do is to control peoples emotions till they become passive and bland enough to create an enviroment in which warm and fuzzy rules, and no person is pushed beyond their personal comfort zone. A climate of emotional suppression.
An incorrect analogy, imo.
1) The "emotional conformity" you describe as being characteristic of the JW community (and yes, I use that word very deliberately) is not as pervasive, or as consistent, as you seem to assume. Of course, I can't substantiate my assertion on any contemporary professional studies, as I don't know of any such that exist. But I do base my assertion on my conversations with many current JWs and recently exited JWs, and on the well-studied and historically demonstrable social evolution of the vast majority of religions that have ever existed, or do exist: the "secularization" of religion.
2) Who can say how much of the "passivity" and "blandness" of people is enforced from without, or expressed from within? I think we've all known many people who strike us as "bland and dispassionate" as they are doing something like star-gazing, playing a game of chess, planting bulbs, bird-watching, etc. Are they doing such "passive" things because they are emotionally suppressed? I think not.
I am not a Christian, but it seems to have escaped the notice of many that the Christ of the Bible was not exactly lacking in passions of many sorts throughout his life. You know what Flipper, when the need arose he called people names....lol. Bad names. Really, really bad names. He did not just use the word 'hypocrite, but described people as vipers and one of his best friends as 'Satan.' He also suggests that one day he is going to destroy most of us because he does not like us very much, but that is a subject for another day. ;)
Could he have achieved the same effect by using love, understanding, calmness, or a miracle or two? Perhaps so, but he chose the more direct method, ad hominem!
That's a fair point, but a straw-man argument insofar as:
1) One must first assume that Christ actually existed, and
2) Granting 1), it must then be assumed that what Christ is accurately portrayed as saying and doing the things the gospels assert.
Perhaps I am a Christian after all.
At least I think we can all agree, with some considerable degree of certainty, that you are not a penguin.
hillary_step

Craig,
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anybody on this thread saying that "reacting passionately" is sinful.
The suggestion was that making a practice of getting 'heated' up was not wise. Is it possible to get heated up about anything without passions being involved. I hardly think so.
1) The "emotional conformity" you describe as being characteristic of the JW community (and yes, I use that word very deliberately) is not as pervasive, or as consistent, as you seem to assume. Of course, I can't substantiate my assertion on any contemporary professional studies, as I don't know of any such that exist. But I do base my assertion on my conversations with many current JWs and recently exited JWs, and on the well-studied and historically demonstrable social evolution of the vast majority of religions that have ever existed, or do exist: the "secularization" of religion.
...and I disagree Craig. The WTS puts a new recruit through a long-term process designed to strip them of emotional spontenaiety, independent thinking and passion for almost everything imaginable except for Field Service. My own views were similarly reflected by years of experience in Kingdom Halls.
Let me emphasize oftentimes ! Some of the "hardest hitters" on this board have said exactly that, so surely it's not an uncommon human behavior.
I am not in the slightest suggesting that people do not say things they regret in the heat of the moment. The difference with an online situation is that one has time to 'speak' and think things out.
The only time I have regretted ANY post at all in all these years is when I said some things to Dave (006) that were said in haste. Dave gave better than he took of course :), and I am sure that though we both might stand by what we said to each other, we both would have used different words. We have never apologized to each other because we are both too proud, but he knows that I am fond of him. We are both grown up about these things.
2) Who can say how much of the "passivity" and "blandness" of people is enforced from without, or expressed from within? I think we've all known many people who strike us as "bland and dispassionate" as they are doing something like star-gazing, playing a game of chess, planting bulbs, bird-watching, etc. Are they doing such "passive" things because they are emotionally suppressed? I think not.
Uhh! What are you on tonight Craig. Oopps! Let me put that in a 'nicer' way. Uhhh. You missed my point you lovely, cuddly huge-hearted human being.
I was not talking about physical 'passivity' but emotional passivity. Read my post again. Interrupt an astronomer, or 'twitcher', or avid gardener while they are focusing their attention on their goal and you will find out what I meant!...lol
That's a fair point, but a straw-man argument insofar as: 1) One must first assume that Christ actually existed, and
lol...Of course one must Craig. I am not sure why you are misunderstanding what are obvious points. My post was directed at the 'many' who have posted on threads the past few days asking for 'peace on board' and have pm'd me asking why I hate Christians. My argument is that the Christian spirit as reflected by the Biblical Christ is not passive, or bland but passionate and intolerant of idiots.
2) Granting 1), it must then be assumed that what Christ is accurately portrayed as saying and doing the things the gospels assert.
As I spoke as a non-Christian, this is true Craig. I think the point lies somewhere to the left of your right. ;)
Cheers - HS
onacruse

The suggestion was that making a practice of getting 'heated' up was not wise.
"Not wise" is somewhat different than "sinful," eh? The operative phrase in either case being "making a practice of."
...and I disagree Craig. The WTS puts a new recruit through a long-term process designed to strip them of emotional spontenaiety, independent thinking and passion for almost everything imaginable except for Field Service. My own views were similarly reflected by years of experience in Kingdom Halls.
Yes, of course the intent and desired goal of the WTS is to make every JW an unquestioning and compliant automaton, and it has been extraordinarily successful at achieving that goal for many decades. What I'm suggesting is that the last 20 years has seen an inexorable shift in the effectiveness of that campaign. Almost gone are the days of the True Believers, when almost every JW would, upon graduating High School, jump right out and become a regular pioneer. Almost gone are the days when a child raised "in the truth" would be reasonably expected to remain "in the truth" for the rest of his life. Almost gone are the days when going to Bethel was the goal of most any capable young JW.
I am not in the slightest suggesting that people do not say things they regret in the heat of the moment. The difference with an online situation is that one has time to 'speak' and think things out.
Did you mean to say "speak and then think things out"? If so, then we're on the same page.
The only time I have regretted ANY post at all in all these years is when I said some things to Dave (006) that were said in haste. Dave gave better than he took of course :), and I am sure that though we both might stand by what we said to each other, we both would have used different words. We have never apologized to each other because we are both too proud, but he knows that I am fond of him. We are both grown up about these things.
You are correct on all counts.
I was not talking about physical 'passivity' but emotional passivity. Read my post again. Interrupt an astronomer, or 'twitcher', or avid gardener while they are focusing their attention on their goal and you will find out what I meant!...lol
Point well taken...and I do try, with every earnest effort, to miss your points, as it gives me great pleasure to read your reposte.
lol...Of course one must Craig. I am not sure why you are misunderstanding what are obvious points. My post was directed at the 'many' who have posted on threads the past few days asking for 'peace on board' and have pm'd me asking why I hate Christians. My argument is that the Christian spirit as reflected by the Biblical Christ is not passive, or bland but passionate and intolerant of idiots.
I wasn't suggesting that your analysis was incorrect, but that what a few do does not an analogy make.
As I spoke as a non-Christian, this is true Craig. I think the point lies somewhere to the left of your right. ;)
Actually, more to the right of my left.
R.Crusoe

Maybe you need to wait a few extra seconds till you can 'feel' she is horny before you start with the talk?
Midnight Talker

Unfortunately, I see it all to often on similar sorts of online discussion where some people's insecurities show their ugly faces on the surface from time to time in form of abuse or wanting to win argument at any cost. What do you do when you come across somebody like that? Well, you have two options:
1. try being nobleman and walk away for the sake of peace
2. or try being bastard and accept the challenge.
I prefer bastard. Life has show loud and clear that if you try being noble with ulglyfaced ones they use your noble retreat as the sign of weakness and shit on your head with increased rigor.
Bystanders usually don't really know you retreated because of being noble, all they see is that you walked away. Guess who they'll think was correct all along? Especially if they don't know much about the background or the subject the argument was about in the first place.
While am all all for being a gentleman when I'm in presence of another real gentleman or a real lady, those who insist on rudeness, however, will get it back 10-fold. Those people need to be given a mirror to see how other people see them and the only way to do it in online discussion is by accepting the challenge.
R.Crusoe

Hey MT - you just graduate from Harvard?
flipper

MIDNIGHT TALKER- I agree that there are times a perso would want to do your No. 1 option - when you know you can get your point across - in time. But to be a gentleman and take the No. 2 option does not make one a coward. I took this option because I saw no use in beating a dead horse arguing about something that won't get solved. Some have their viewpoint here- that's fine . I respect they have their viewpoint - I don't see it as an all important world changing moment that I have to change their viewpoint for Christ's sake. I have a lot more important things to do in my life than arguing all day long. So- yes to keep peace I would rather walk away in dignity than to keep trying to impress people who I don't care about impressing anyway. This discussion board is also a support group and it does NOT have to be abusive to be effective .

By the way- welcome to the board ! You will find lots of support here ! Peace out, Mr. Flipper

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

Share this