Posts by onacruse

143

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

my wife and i were having an interesting discussion about some of the debates that take place on the board here .

now, granted most people , i feel upwards of 90 % on the board maybe higher try to be respectful in their debates or discussions on topics.

i think we all had enough bashing in the witness organization.

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.

143

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

my wife and i were having an interesting discussion about some of the debates that take place on the board here .

now, granted most people , i feel upwards of 90 % on the board maybe higher try to be respectful in their debates or discussions on topics.

i think we all had enough bashing in the witness organization.

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.

11

Passive-aggressive...Is it to be avoided?

by onacruse in

hs, in view of a recent post you made, and also (much more importantly) because i want to continue to learn about myself, i would appreciate your (and, of course, anyone else's) observations about the following (bolds added):.

dear cecil:.

i hear this term used frequently, usually with reference to a coworker, child, parent, etc, who is being a pain in the ass.

onacruse

hs, in view of a recent post you made, and also (much more importantly) because I want to continue to learn about myself, I would appreciate your (and, of course, anyone else's) observations about the following (bolds added):

Dear Cecil:
What exactly does it mean to say that someone is "passive-aggressive"? I hear this term used frequently, usually with reference to a coworker, child, parent, etc, who is being a pain in the ass. Surely there's a more rigorous clinical definition than that. --Frank Caplice, Chicago
Cecil replies:
You might get some argument there, Frank. It's true that if you look under "passive-aggressive personality disorder" (PAPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the older editions--more about that below), you find the syndrome solemnly described as a "pervasive pattern of passive resistance to demands for adequate social and occupational performance." But once you delve into the history of the term, you realize that--at least in the eyes of its critics--it's mostly useful as a high-flown way to call someone a pain in the ass.
The term "passive-aggressive" was introduced in a 1945 U.S. War Department technical bulletin, describing soldiers who weren't openly insubordinate but shirked duty through procrastination, willful incompetence, and so on. If you've ever served in the military during wartime, though, or for that matter read Catch-22, you realize that what the brass calls a personality disorder a grunt might call a rational strategy to avoid getting killed.
After the war the term found its way into civilian psychiatric practice and for many years was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of the mental health trade. According to the revised third edition (DSM-III-R, 1987), someone had PAPD if he displayed five or more of the following behaviors: (1) procrastinates, (2) sulks or argues when asked to do something he doesn't want to do, (3) works inefficiently on unwanted tasks, (4) complains without justification of unreasonable demands, (5) "forgets" obligations, (6) believes he is doing a much better job than others think, (7) resents useful suggestions, (8) fails to do his share, or (9) unreasonably criticizes authority figures.
You may say: I know a lot of people like that. Or even: I'm that way myself sometimes. Exactly the problem. From the outset skeptics argued that passive-aggressive behavior is an ordinary defensive maneuver and shouldn't be considered symptomatic of a mental disorder. Reacting to such criticism, the authors of previous versions of the DSM had defined PAPD narrowly: in DSM-III (1980), they'd said PAPD shouldn't be diagnosed in the presence of any other disorder (you can see how depression might contribute to procrastination or sulkiness, for example). The idea apparently was to curb careless use of the term--though shrinks weren't likely to say somebody was mentally ill if he was just a PITA, if he had some other psychiatric problem, they'd throw in PAPD too. Sure enough, after DSM-III diagnoses of PAPD declined sharply, to the point that some researchers felt the category should be abolished. Others, however, thought the exclusivity criterion was unnecessarily limiting and persuaded the editors of DSM-III-R to drop it. PAPD diagnoses shot back up. Conclusion: If we define PAPD rigorously, almost nobody has it; if we define it loosely, just about everybody does.
Recognizing that the definition as then formulated wasn't working but uncertain how to fix it, the compilers of DSM-IV (1994) dumped PAPD from the list of official disorders and relegated it to an appendix. The most telling complaint, in my opinion, was that merely being passive-aggressive isn't a disorder but a behavior--sometimes a perfectly rational behavior, which lets you dodge unpleasant chores while avoiding confrontation. It's only pathological if it's a habitual, crippling response reflecting a pervasively pessimistic attitude--people who suffer from PAPD expect disappointment, and gain a sense of control over their lives by bringing it about. Some psychiatrists have suggested that PAPD be merged into a broader category, called negativistic personality disorder. Diagnostic criteria: passive-aggressive plus (a) mad at the world, (b) envious and resentful, (c) feels cheated by life, and (d) alternately hostile and clingy.
We'll let the specialists work out the details. For now, though, we lay folk should strive to use the term "passive-aggressive" more precisely in everyday life. Say for instance that a coworker cheerfully agrees to refrain from a specified uncool act, then does it anyway. Is this passive-aggressive behavior? No, this is being an asshole. Comforting as it can be to pigeonhole our tormentors with off-the-shelf psychiatric diagnoses, sometimes it's best just to call a jerk a jerk.

I've no doubt that other much more "professional" definitions and evaluations can be offered, but this one struck a chord within me.

edit to add the link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030530.html

68

I Got The Job

by Abandoned in

jw
friends

i go in monday at 10:00 am to work out the details and total number of hours and such.

onacruse

When I was driving home from my own new job today, I was thinking about your interview today.

You are a real people-person, and you definitely deserve, and have earned, the acknowledgement that your job engenders.

Good on ya', dude! And have a great and satisfying next 3 days off.

Vacation is over! LOL

143

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

my wife and i were having an interesting discussion about some of the debates that take place on the board here .

now, granted most people , i feel upwards of 90 % on the board maybe higher try to be respectful in their debates or discussions on topics.

i think we all had enough bashing in the witness organization.

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.

20

A question about wireless internet connection....

by Gregor in

jw
friends

... we have left it unsecured, that is, no password to access it.

i know this means that someone near by can use our connection, but what are the dangers of this, if any?

onacruse

A few years ago, a friend of ours stayed with us for a week, and he had wireless (we didn't, and don't).

He gave us a little demonstration: Using his laptop, he accessed 4 open wireless connections from adjacent apartments. We asked him what he could do with them. He said "Anything I want to, and it will show up as if it came from their computer, not mine." Fortunately, he is not a malicious person.

He explained that each wireless transmitter has to be configured by the end-user, with specific IP info and passwords (if I understood him correctly), or else it's just like going onto the Internet without anti-virus and/or firewall protection.

6

The Bible and Gambling.

by LtCmd.Lore in

it is generally accepted that gambling is not a christian thing.

so much so, that jws are not supposed to play the lottery, make bets or wagers, play poker, even playing poker with fake money is frowned on!.

samson did it!

onacruse

The answer is here, if only you have the comprehension to understand it (bolds added):

*** w02 11/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
Is it wrong to bet if only small amounts of money are involved?
God’s Word does not discuss gambling in detail, but it does say enough to show that all gambling is incompatible with Bible principles. For instance, it is widely acknowledged that gambling incites greed. That fact alone is an important consideration for Christians, since the Bible states that "greedy persons" will not inherit God’s Kingdom and classes covetousness with idolatry.—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Colossians 3:5.
Gambling also incites egotism and an unhealthy competitive spirit, a strong desire to win. The apostle Paul warned against such things when he wrote: "Let us not become egotistical, stirring up competition with one another, envying one another." (Galatians 5:26) Further, gambling encourages in some a superstitious reliance on good luck. Gamblers develop all kinds of superstitions, hoping to influence luck in their favor. They remind us of the unfaithful Israelites who were "setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny."—Isaiah 65:11.
Some might reason that betting small amounts of money while playing a friendly card or board game with relatives or close friends is no more than innocent entertainment. True, someone who bets a small amount of money may not view himself as greedy, egotistical, competitive, or superstitious. Still, what effect could his gambling have on the ones he is gambling with? Many compulsive gamblers began by making petty bets ‘just for fun.’ (Luke 16:10) A seemingly innocent diversion turned out to be something far more sinister in their case.
That is especially true where children are concerned. Many children have felt the excitement of winning a small bet and have been tempted to go for larger sums. (1 Timothy 6:10) A long-term study published in the United States by the Arizona Council on Compulsive Gambling confirms that many gambling addicts began at an early age "by placing small bets on sporting events or playing cards with friends or relatives." Another report says that "children start gambling at home, usually at card games with family and friends." The report adds that "thirty percent of children who gambled started doing so before their eleventh birthday." Many teenage gamblers finance their addiction with crime or immorality, according to the study WhyDoPeopleGambleTooMuch—PathologicalandProblemGambling. What a tragic consequence of something that may have seemed at first to be harmless!
Since we are living in a world that already has too many snares and temptations, why unnecessarily expose ourselves to yet another? (Proverbs 27:12) Gambling—with or without children present, for small or for large sums—endangers spirituality and should be avoided. Christians who enjoy board or card games as recreation would be better advised to keep a penciled score or to play the game simply for fun without keeping score. Wise Christians who care about their own spirituality as well as that of their friends and family avoid the practice of gambling—even for small sums of money.

[Footnote]
The WorldBookEncyclopedia defines gambling as "betting on the outcome of a game, event, or chance happening." It further states that "gamblers or players usually bet money on . . . such games of chance as lotteries, card games, and dice."

However, "gambling" on 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1954, 1958, 1975...now that constitutes a spiritual risk worth taking, without running any risks of greed or superstition.

Interestingly, the WTS published 4 major articles in 2002 about gambling.

143

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

my wife and i were having an interesting discussion about some of the debates that take place on the board here .

now, granted most people , i feel upwards of 90 % on the board maybe higher try to be respectful in their debates or discussions on topics.

i think we all had enough bashing in the witness organization.

onacruse

BTS, a more "neutral" term, which I perhaps should have used, is "aggressive."

Not to press the point too aggressively on my own part:

Sometimes someone acts nasty, and it isn't even directed at me, and I give 'em both barrels.

Does that not then constitute a response in kind?...a perpetuation of the aggression?

At least I am creative about it most of the time without outright name calling.

There are subtle, yet equally aggressive, ways of name-calling, which most often evoke the same reactions.

My fingers are faster than the mental brakes.

Why?

143

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

my wife and i were having an interesting discussion about some of the debates that take place on the board here .

now, granted most people , i feel upwards of 90 % on the board maybe higher try to be respectful in their debates or discussions on topics.

i think we all had enough bashing in the witness organization.

onacruse

BTS:

I usually end up regretting it.

As have I.

What do you think about the "solution" I suggested?

143

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

my wife and i were having an interesting discussion about some of the debates that take place on the board here .

now, granted most people , i feel upwards of 90 % on the board maybe higher try to be respectful in their debates or discussions on topics.

i think we all had enough bashing in the witness organization.

onacruse

BTS:

I guess I have no business posting anything on this thread.

Is that a mea culpa? If so, then imvho you have posted (perhaps more, but also perhaps somewhat less) as abusively as many others. 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.