Posts by DogGone

13

The longest minute?

by Simon in

jw
friends

which is longer, a treadmill minute or a microwave minute?.

... or every minute of every thursday meeting when you wanted to get back home in time to see red dwarf and some elder who loved the sound of his own voice had the mic..

The "just a few minutes" you are asked to wait, alone, in the main windowless Kingdom Hall auditorium while three men decide in another little room if your friends and family will ever be allowed to say hello to you again. That's the longest minutes.

104

Farewell

by EdenOne in

"don't be dismayed by good-byes.

a farewell is necessary before you can meet again.

and meeting again, after moments or lifetimes, is certain for those who are friends.

DogGone

On the contrary, I find that when people show vulnerability here, talk about struggles, lost family, depressions, or health challenges there is an outpouring of empathy. By the time I get around to the thread so many have posted I hardly ever find a spot to add value.

On the other hand, From the small sample of threads I have followed, when someone posts a link to an article, or a half thought-through "reason" why evolution is false, or why the Israelite God is real, or why gun control is or is not acceptable, why climate change is or is not man made, etc, the intellectual points are attacked vigorously. The tone is strong.

The punishing response to posts that other posters find repellent, or ignorant, or dangerous should not be confused with a lack of empathy for people. Perhaps a lack of empathy for where other posters are intellectually, or on their journey past the JW's, or for how they might take the post. But, I'd say that is not universal at all. I've seen people spend hours carefully arguing points and bringing an immense wealth of knowledge to bear on a subject. If they didn't care for the poster I can't imagine why they would exhaust such effort in carrying on a conversation!

I do agree a gentle tone is more persuasive, and that is relevant if your aim is to persuade and not squash. Some ideas people want to squash. (as an example, I've argued, accurately, that recidivism rates for sexual crimes are remarkably low, but some aren't interested in persuading me but in squashing the offensive and uncomfortable point. It is understandable.)

On the belief front, I think we may be talking past each other a bit. Some closely self identify with certain beliefs so they naturally take an assault on a belief as a natural attack. Others have developed a different frame and are able to attack ideas without it getting personal. I think it helps if those in whatever frame understand the other frame and try to take and respond accordingly. A fantasy perhaps.

12

What kind of poster are you?

by DogGone in

a while ago someone posted a link to the flame warrior guide, it seeks to define some different types of posters.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/.

i thought it might be fun and lighten the current mood to reveal which "warrior" is closest to your style, in your opinion.

DogGone

Great debaters, indeed. The quality of the discussion and the general civility beat anything I run into on most other discussion arenas. Anything below an online news paper article, for example, is usually just petty nonsense,

12

What kind of poster are you?

by DogGone in

a while ago someone posted a link to the flame warrior guide, it seeks to define some different types of posters.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/.

i thought it might be fun and lighten the current mood to reveal which "warrior" is closest to your style, in your opinion.

DogGone

A while ago someone posted a link to the Flame Warrior guide, it seeks to define some different types of posters. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/

I thought it might be fun and lighten the current mood to reveal which "Warrior" is closest to your style, in your opinion. Please don't point out how you think someone else fits a certain warrior, that is not fun or kind. I hope this is a bit of a self-effacing humour kind of thing.

To me, I'm the diplomat:

Diplomat butts into hot disputes, presuming that the combatants will welcome and appreciate his even-handed and eminently reasonable mediation. Frankly, he gets what he deserves.

My secondary characteristic is Lurker:

Lurker does not participate in normal forum discourse, but he's out there...watching, reading every message. He is usually quite harmless, and more often than not his silence reflects a natural reticence rather than sinister motives. If a fight breaks out he will quietly observe to avoid revealing his position. Occasionally, however, some mysterious impulse drives him to de-lurk and attack. This totally unexpected assault is universally regarded as an ambush, and other Warriors will turn on him savagely. Lurker seldom sticks around to fight it out, however, and after a brief exchange, he once again slips out of sight.

Recently, in a locked thread, I was more like this:

For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed.

372

On respect for the belief of others. Sorry for the long post

by StarTrekAngel in

i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.

i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.

it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.

DogGone

.. if someone was willing to lie, why should they be trusted? Why shouldn't we call into question that persons character. I said if you do that, THEN we would have to call his character into question....

Exactly! You shifted from attacking the post to the poster. At least we agree on something.

Eden did lie. I never insisted. Any claim to the contrary is a lie. How much more simple can it be?

Super simple. What you did falls within the dictionary definition of insist. Even your "take down" example finds a parallel in a dictionary example of usage. Miriam Webster to be precise.

it was pressure of his own making by deciding on making claims without backing them up. I didn't make him do that nor ask him for proof.

True, you just said that his lack of proof was not "common courtesy". You don't see that as any form of "insisting" despite all the evidence to the contrary.

372

On respect for the belief of others. Sorry for the long post

by StarTrekAngel in

i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.

i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.

it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.

DogGone

If someone has to write a long, detailed explanation of "well, yeah, you didn't really do this but here is why I feel justified in claiming it anyway", it's not ignorance. It's a rationalized lie.

That makes a lot of sense. That is not how this unfolded. You disagreed with Eden's "belief" that you had "insisted". In your initial reaction to Eden you asked him to explain in detail. But, you did not leave it there, you attacked "the believer" questioning whether anyone should trust another word he says, that every word was suspect as he had "already lied". You did that before he answered your request with a detailed explanation. You can disagree with his explanation, but don't reconstruct the order of events.

As you said, at best it could have been ignorance. Why, prior to Eden going on a protracted defense did you call into question his integrity? This has been done to you several times, it is wrong. I find it entirely illustrative of the OP, of attacking the believer instead of the belief.

See, you're doing it now as well. Using a synonym of a synonym of a kinda close idea to link a word that doesn't at all mean what you're now claiming it does. Shame is in no way a synonym of "insist". Using such lazy thinking, saying "dinner's ready" is insisting someone eat.

Fair point. Words can have fuzzy boundaries. I have tied a dictionary definition of insist, namely "press", and demonstrated how repeating a request indirectly and using shame is a form of pressing. It is fuzzy, even, as you say, lazy. It is not precise language. That is not the question, though. The question is whether it is a lie. It is vernacular usage despite your insistence "it isn't". Further, the question is whether it is justified to immediately launch into an attack on a "liar" and the entire integrity of a poster based upon this expression.

Your example of "dinner's ready" to illustrate my lazy thinking is an irrelevant counter. It neither repeats the request indirectly nor uses shame as a form of press. My two examples did.

We are on topic. Some people believe it's sometimes justified to rationalize a lie if they can connect enough words together, apparently.

Absolutely agree we are on topic. And, for those still following, Viviane has only gone after my ideas and beliefs by countering my thinking as lazy and justifying a lie. That is all fair play. I concede that using insist this way is, at worse, imprecise. It is not a lie. Your post pressed Eden to answer at risk of being labeled discourteous. I submit that seizing upon a common colloquial expression used in a common colloquial manner as the foundation to call a person a liar and to call into question every word a poster writes is entirely illustrative of attacking the person and not the belief, point, or idea.

372

On respect for the belief of others. Sorry for the long post

by StarTrekAngel in

i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.

i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.

it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.

DogGone

I don't get how that is a lie. If it is "ignorance at best" why not go with that?

Since you brought up definition, the one that occurs to me is to "press or urge". Pointing out a discourtesy is, in my kneck of the woods, pressing someone. Proceeding that with calling someone out for not following through and for backing down is textbook pressing. Is this is a regional thing? Where I am "since you insist" is a pretty common term for when you are pressed or shamed into something. As an example:

A: Let's go swimming

B: No, I'd rather not

A: You are being lazy

B: Ha! Well, since you insist... let's go

It is unthinkable in my area (Western Canada) that A would reply "You are lying, I never insisted on anything, I merely pointed out your laziness.". It would be even stranger if that devolved into an attack on B's honesty and integrity. It would be beyond all comprehension if A stated that B would be dismissed until a full appeal was made and reasons why B should every be trusted again were put forth.

A: Have another cookie

B: No, I shouldn't

A: I made them special for you

B: Since you insist, I'll have another.

A: Don't lie, I never insisted, I merely pointed out the fact I made them for you. Don't put this on me. How dare you. I demand an immediate apology. Get the hell out of the kitchen and go to your room until you write me an essay on why I should ever trust you again. You damn little filthy liar.

Anyway, I don't get it. Maybe I never will. I must say, I do wonder if you aren't just having a good deal of fun playing pedantic.

But, I can see we aren't coming to agreement on a common definition. I thought I might help, I didn't.

One thing I missed, where did Eden admit his claims weren't accurate? I'm sorry, I must have skipped that entirely which does me no credit.

372

On respect for the belief of others. Sorry for the long post

by StarTrekAngel in

i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.

i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.

it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.

DogGone

There has certainly been a piling on against Viviane, which is unfortunate. And she is 100% right that questioning her mental health and dismissing her with misogynistic statements is out of line. I also had no idea what a "home truth" was.

A year ago Eden and I had an exchange with a poster named Focus. Focus had impressive historical knowledge and made powerful points but wrote with a certain bombastic style and, in my opinion, stretched the rules of logic and rhetoric to support his position. Eden and I exchanged a PM where we agreed tone is important if your aim is to persuade. Others may disagree. Personally, I admire the tone Eden uses.

On the other hand, I respect Viviane's brain, her points are always razor sharp but, much like the great Richard Dawkins, not always with a tone I find helpful. That is entirely irrelevant to anyone but me, of course. People smarter than me use a tone I don't like. Maybe I just don't like that they are smarter.

Viviane, when your past posts were selectively sliced up and posted it was a direct attack on you. This thread became a chance to settle scores, I think, and if it were me I would be feeling hurt and defensive. You said, though, that the internet doesn't bother you and I respect that. You have a stronger ability to be dispassionate and/or a stronger sense of self than I.

What I don't understand, then, is why things escalated so much over the word "insist". I went back through the discussion and I thought it a rather fair reading that you "insisted".

"you're just not backing it up or following through.
.... Urbanity would include thing like, oh, say, if you make accusations, being able to prove it. It's just common courtesy"

That is "insisting" to me. Am I also a dishonest and fallacious poster whom you will dismiss until I explain in detail why you should ever trust a word I say?

The amazing thing is, Eden actually took the time to show you why he felt you insisted and you called it BS.

Repeatedly framing what is, at worst, a misreading as a terrible reputation destroying lie is disproportionate in the extreme. Notwithstanding the shoddy way you are being treated (and you are) I rather hoped you would retract that. I think it would do you credit (I am aware you don't care).

Everyone: I entered late and uninvited into the middle of someone else's argument. It seems this has become my MO. I deserve all the vitriol you toss my way.

42

Why are GMO's bad?

by cappytan in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh4bi60alzu.

first person to say, "this scishow episode is a monsanto conspiracy," is a rotten egg..

DogGone

14

Rutherford's Hitler Letter - An Alternate History

by cappytan in

if you're unaware of the letter tinged with anti-semitism and offering tacit approval that rutherford wrote to hitler, see this article on jwfacts.. so, we all know the witnesses were persecuted quite a bit during the war years.

i personally had family that was in jail with brother schroder in the 40's for the crime of "peddling.

i'm an agnostic fader, however i still think the mob violence against the witnesses was deplorable.

DogGone

I appreciate what you are saying, but doubt exposure of the letter in the US at the time would have caused any animus in the United States toward the JWs. We tend to look backwards in history with the benefit of hindsight and mistake the mood of what people became with what they were earlier.

What I mean is that this letter was from 1933. The mood in the US was not entirely anti-Nazi in 1933 nor immediately thereafter. There was a growing anti-Nazi Hollywood league, especially after 1936, but don't mistake that for how the political and business leaders of the day spoke about Hitler and the Nazi party. On the contrary, Rutherford would have been closely in line with many other commentators of the time. Now, as you move later into the 30's and the regime becomes ever more dark, the mood changed considerably.

Had this letter been written in 1942 and there after exposed in the US, yes there would have been all manner of extra hostility toward the JWs. But that is not the reality of the chronology.