by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends
Do you post here often? Personal attacks are thrown around all the time. . . . sab
You can see my post count and time of joining . . . so I could see your first question as a snide remark . . . but I don't, because you are partially right . . . personal attacks get thrown around some of the time.
Hence the existence of this thread.
That's not smearing sab . . . an idea is proved sound, through question and interrogation.
Look Size, we can sit here and theorize, but the fact is that there is a vien of JWN that is against the idea of this forum containing unverifiable claims. They don't want someone running around claiming the Lock Nest Monster exists. They will first approach the subject with genuine interest and when a certain standard is not met they are targeted for vitriol in an attempt to bully them off the forum. Good cop/bad cop is used as a means of frustrating the opponent into getting banned or leaving on a defeat. Again, I almost feel like you and I see different things by witnessing the same forum. You think the Lock Nest Monster guy has compelling evidence? Of course he doesn't, but that doesn't mean there can't be a group of Nessy fanatics on this forum. That would be cool, but if they are made to feel stupid for believing what they believe then they will simply not be here, which is bad because all are welcome. These people are only interested in creating an environment that they like. They want control of the thermostat, but the thing is they can only manipulate their way to it because they don't have any actual control.
ou can see my post count and time of joining . . . so I could see your first question as a snide remark . . . but I don't, because you are partially right . . . personal attacks get thrown around some of the time.
Snide? That's a strong word, I'd use sarcastic. My point isn't the quantity of personal attack, it's the quality. They are often hid in a high vocabulary which makes them all the more potent.
-Sab
I think that what might be helpful is not just the advice and acceptance that we will overlook insulting or baiting posts... but that we will also try our best not make the insulting or baiting posts.
Because at the moment I see a lot of... I feel better; I won't rise to the bait anymore (but stating that is stating in a sense that it is the others -whomever they might be- are the ones making the baiting or insulting posts; so it becomes a rebuke as well)
Some people might just like to hear that you are going to try to talk better to others, and not just that you are also going to try to react better.
Peace,
tammy
They are put through a series of interrogations....sab
That's an interesting perception. So pulling apart an idea is interrogation? Should ideas not be pulled apart?
And by the way. Your response to my question above
There's less pity to be had for someone who kills in cold blood and doesn't take their own life in the process.
I would likely learn everything there was to know about the bomber's purpose to see them as human rather than an inhuman monster
These are times when God is needed the most because life just doesn't make sense
THis would lead to a very long discussion on another thread and I personally find this very disturbing and ironic that the bomber killed for their god and the help for forgiveness would need to come from your god. And all the while...your child has been mudered by a suicide bomber.
Mr response to this would be to do everything I could do to prevent further suicide bombers doing it to someone elses child. I would be protesting, marching, demonstrating. Whatever I could to wake the world up to the personal effects of this disgusting behaviour and belief. And as far as forgiving them. I may or may not do that for my own benefit to give me peace of mind. But I certainly wouldn't do it to appease some god. And since no god actually helped to prevent my child being murdered...it would seem utterly futile to get help dealing with the issue after the fact.
I read recently about a young girl in Japan who was brutally tortured and eventually murdered after 48 days of pure unadulterated horror. And a response from some obviously caring christian person was that, God loved her and would help her. Really? where was this god while this girl was being tortured? How are they so sure that this god is going to help her? There has been no evidence of that so far and now she is mutilated and dead. And why on earth did they think this brought any peace to the girls family (the mother is now undergoing councelling because what happened to her daughter was so horrific). Sometimes these offers and sharing of Gods love are just so inappropriate they are like rubbing acid in a wound. And yet....the believer thought they were being caring.
Now some non-atheists may interpret what I have said as anger at a god, or something similar. What they might fail to see is that I don't believe god is or could do anything to help because I don't believe it is real. So I do not place any blame on any god. I place the blame fairly and squarly on the believer who felt the need to kill for their god.
Mr response to this would be to do everything I could do to prevent further suicide bombers doing it to someone elses child. I would be protesting, marching, demonstrating. Whatever I could to wake the world up to the personal effects of this disgusting behaviour and belief. And as far as forgiving them. I may or may not do that for my own benefit to give me peace of mind. But I certainly wouldn't do it to appease some god. And since no god actually helped to prevent my child being murdered...it would seem utterly futile to get help dealing with the issue after the fact.
Why do you have to wait to be personally affected until you act? Are there not dead children already? Is it the responsibility of the victim to protest? What if they are not up to it?
-Sab
but then complain when believers are getting too much "air time."..sab
I have not personally seen this complaint anywhere. Maybe I missed it.
Snide? That's a strong word, I'd use sarcastic. . . . sab
Semantics sab. The fact you missed, is that I didn't take it as either, in spite of your admission that it was intended to be sarcastic. Instead I focussed on your point.
Do you get my point?
That's an interesting perception. So pulling apart an idea is interrogation? Should ideas not be pulled apart?
You have a profound misunderstanding of what I posted and it goes to show that you are part of the problem, rather than the solution. It's not just the interrogation, I agree that ideas should be pulled apart. However after they are there is no need to deem that person unable to speak further on the subject. There is almost always reasonable doubt to be found in any conclusion if one looks hard enough. Vigilance should never be discouraged.
I have noticed that after this interrogation process is completed that the posters who initiated it make sure the subject isn't brough up again or else following where it was left off. For instance a poster might claim: "You have been shown that Lock Ness Monster is a myth!" Then the other person might say, "I believe in the Lock Ness Monster depsite what this poster has showed me." This is where the first poster really should drop the issue. However I have seen posters not take this step and press the issue and this is what causes some longwithstanding disputes.
So yes, ideas should be pulled apart, ONCE and then conclusions can be personally made. Nothing on this forum should ever be regarded as official especially since only the mods and admins have editing abilties.
-Sab
Tec:
Because at the moment I see a lot of... I feel better; I won't rise to the bait anymore (but stating that is stating in a sense that it is the others -whomever they might be- are the ones making the baiting or insulting posts; so it becomes a rebuke as well)
Welcome back, Debbie Downer! LOL
Orrrrrrrr........... you *could* look at it, like the ones who have resolved to not take the bait and not take disagreement as a personal attack, are in effect admitting that they participated in such things in the past and no longer wish to. So there really is no "rebuke", only in your own mind, if that's how you choose to view it.
Semantics sab. The fact you missed, is that I didn't take it as either, in spite of your admission that it was intended to be sarcastic. Instead I focussed on your point. Do you get my point?
You chose to bring up the fact that I was being sarcastic and then you used it to support your argument by using a descriptive word with a negative connotation. Negative and positive connotations are not matters of semantics. My being sarcastic was merely a chosen means of communication because I felt it was the only way to accurately get my point across. It's not an invalid line of communication.
-Sab
