What good does it do to criticize?

[_beastie]

I often sit in the corner due to my cowardly aspects, and recognition that my substandard education makes me a Lilliputian amongst Gullivers. But in this case, from my personal dealings with Charity, I'm sure that she is the type of person that one would most likely be lucky to consider a friend.

I hate exposing my sissy-nanny-esque side as more than anything else, it reveals my own hypocrisy. But, I believe that our perception of posts may not necessarily reflect the actuality of the person behind the posts.

I am sorry Beastie that I singled in on this post, as I’m sure (much like I know I have done to Don, Uncle Dale, Chris Smith, Rhinomelon, and CKSalmon [amongst many others]) that there have been instances where you have been similarly categorized, and I should have spoken up (not that you need my pitiful “speak-up-ums”)… and I seem to be painting myself in a corner here, so I guess I will shut up and pray for mercy.

No doubt, the internet has special properties, and seems to allow people who may very well be decent and friendly in real life to pretend that telling someone they have to "dumb down" their posts for that individual, and use words of "shorter syllables" is not insulting, while in real life they would never imagine behaving in such a manner. I'm sure if, in real life, charity told someone that she needs to use words of "shorter syllables" with them, she would probably recognize that she had, indeed, insulted the person and perhaps even feel a twinge or two of remorse over it. So yes, the internet does bring out certain "special" behaviors in human beings, and I recognize that.

That's why I couched my statement with the big IF, but perhaps I didn't make the IF larger enough:

Here's another "truth" for you, charity - if you are as resistant to admitting your errors or flaws in REAL life as you are on the internet, you must be h**l to live with.

If, as may well be the case, Charity would never be as resistant to admitting an error or flaw in real life as she has been on this thread, then I'm sure she's quite pleasant.

But I am just guessing that you, steuss, don't really agree with charity that she needs to "dumb down" her posts for my benefit nor does she need to use words of "shorter syllables". If you don't agree with these statements charity has made about me, then would you call these statements "errors" or "flaws" of some sort? And would you agree that charity has been utterly resistant to recognizing them as such, even to the extent that she has now created a "unique" definition of "insult" - ie, as long as what you say is TRUE (of course, relying on one's own unique perception of truth), then you can say whatever the heck you want and it can't count as an "insult". Just the truth. And would you agree with me that IF Charity also demonstrated this same trait in real life, she'd be hell to live with?

[_charity]

I thought you were talking about premarital sex, not extramarital.

You realize I think the D&C is manmade, right?

To be technical, anything outside of marriage is extramarital. And when a reference is sked for, I give it. You can believe what you want about the source. I was asked. I provided the source.

[_harmony]

I thought you were talking about premarital sex, not extramarital.

You realize I think the D&C is manmade, right?

To be technical, anything outside of marriage is extramarital. And when a reference is sked for, I give it. You can believe what you want about the source. I was asked. I provided the source.

And yet in the scriptures, premarital sex is called fornication. And extramarital is called adultery. Perhaps they are different, to God?

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...] telling someone they have to "dumb down" their posts for that individual, and use words of "shorter syllables" is not insulting, while in real life they would never imagine behaving in such a manner. I'm sure if, in real life, charity told someone that she needs to use words of "shorter syllables" with them, she would probably recognize that she had, indeed, insulted the person and perhaps even feel a twinge or two of remorse over it. So yes, the internet does bring out certain "special" behaviors in human beings, and I recognize that.
[...]

I'm sorry beastie (pie-on-face), I haven't been following the thread completely (and now, this is a testament of the embarrassment that can be caused by honing in on one aspect without getting the history).

It appears my "board-nanny" skills should have been applied to the instigator. Evidently, this is a role I am not apt at playing.

[_beastie]

I'm sorry beastie (pie-on-face), I haven't been following the thread completely (and now, this is a testament of the embarrassment that can be caused by honing in on one aspect without getting the history).

It appears my "board-nanny" skills should have been applied to the instigator. Evidently, this is a role I am not apt at playing.

No problem, Steuss, it's easy to overlook things.

[_beastie]

Before I go to bed, I just want to be sure charity sees my invitation to clarify:

By now, nothing Charity can say can really shock or surprise me, but this one comes close.

Just to clarify, Charity, in the posts I quoted from you were direct comments TO me. You stated TO ME that you were going to have to "dumb down" your posts for me and use words of "shorter syllables".

So I'm giving you the chance to clarify, because it's hard to believe these words are coming out of your mouth, even though you are Charity:

Are you actually asserting that since these statements (that you need to "dumb down" your posts for me and I need words of "shorter syllables") are actually TRUE, they are not insults?

[_charity]

By now, nothing Charity can say can really shock or surprise me, but this one comes close.

Just to clarify, Charity, in the posts I quoted from you were direct comments TO me. You stated TO ME that you were going to have to "dumb down" your posts for me and use words of "shorter syllables".

So I'm giving you the chance to clarify, because it's hard to believe these words are coming out of your mouth, even though you are Charity:

Are you actually asserting that since these statements (that you need to "dumb down" your posts for me and I need words of "shorter syllables") are actually TRUE, they are not insults?

Any time someone talks about "flying spaghetti monsters" I have the right to take their words at face value. (Even if I could be reasonably sure they have a higher intelligence than that.) People who talk about flying spaghetti monsters (and aren't being sarcastic) need people to talk more slowly to them, and use shorter words. It is reality. Unless of course, I were to assume that such language was sarcastic, in which there would be the intent to insult me. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Less intelligent vs rude, and less intelligent wins out. Now, if you think saying "less intelligent" is an insult, think about who you are insulting. I would bet 90% of the population is less intelligent than you are. See, I don't think "less intelligent" is an insult. Most people are. Less intelligent, that is. IN the same way I wouldn't think that saying someone was tall was a compliment and someone was short was an insult.

I talk more slowly, with more care for diction, to children. But that doesn't mean I am insulting them. I am trying to be understood.

[_charity]

Yes, of course. Much like if someone has a fat ass, and we call them a "fat ass", it is not insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! Or if someone is born of an unwed mother, and we call them a "bastard", it's not an insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!

See how silly this position is?

So, do I see this as a tacit admission that "not all truth is useful?" Maybe people will back off castigating Elder Packer for saying that when they see how much common sense is contained in that sentence.

[_skippy the dead]

Yes, of course. Much like if someone has a fat ass, and we call them a "fat ass", it is not insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! Or if someone is born of an unwed mother, and we call them a "bastard", it's not an insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!

See how silly this position is?

So, do I see this as a tacit admission that "not all truth is useful?" Maybe people will back off castigating Elder Packer for saying that when they see how much common sense is contained in that sentence.

Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

Edited to add: that's a completely new subject. If you'd like to discuss in a new thread, I'm sure you'll have no shortage of participation.

[_beastie]

Any time someone talks about "flying spaghetti monsters" I have the right to take their words at face value. (Even if I could be reasonably sure they have a higher intelligence than that.) People who talk about flying spaghetti monsters (and aren't being sarcastic) need people to talk more slowly to them, and use shorter words. It is reality. Unless of course, I were to assume that such language was sarcastic, in which there would be the intent to insult me. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Less intelligent vs rude, and less intelligent wins out. Now, if you think saying "less intelligent" is an insult, think about who you are insulting. I would bet 90% of the population is less intelligent than you are. See, I don't think "less intelligent" is an insult. Most people are. Less intelligent, that is. IN the same way I wouldn't think that saying someone was tall was a compliment and someone was short was an insult.

I talk more slowly, with more care for diction, to children. But that doesn't mean I am insulting them. I am trying to be understood.

LOL! You just won't give it up, will you? You just can't do it, can you? You just cannot admit that you insulted me. You'd rather construct strained justifications than admit what is painfully obvious.

Since you don't think "less intelligent" or "dumbed down" is an insult, I'm going to tell you that anyone who doesn't understand why atheists use the "flying spaghetti monster" as an illustration is less intelligent than the person who was using it for a purpose. The entire point of the flying spaghetti monster is to demonstrate that the inability to "prove a negative" is, for all practical purposes, of zero utility in ascertaining the likelihood of the existence of god. The inability to prove a negative is the refuge of those who have no other argument, are cornered, and, to top it off, are "less intelligent" and can't understand why the flying spaghetti monster is invoked. The flying spaghetti monster is deliberately ridiculous in order to demonstrate the entire point. Now, a theist may not agree with this conclusion, but if a theist can't understand that is the purpose of the analogy, that theist is "less intelligent". No one is trying to "insult" you by referring to the flying spaghetti monster. They are trying to show you that despite the fact that no one can prove a negative - ie, that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist - this inability to prove a negative has no utility in terms of discussing the likelihood of the existence of 'god'.

Now, to your justification. This isn't an insult, because telling you you're less intelligent isn't an insult - but someone who thinks that the best way to deal with someone who is "less intelligent" then they are is to TELL THEM that they will have to "dumb down" their words and use "shorter syllables" to "help" them is, in fact, "less intelligent" than average him or herself. In fact, this person must not know anything about the psychology of human beings and how they interact. And if this person had, indeed, actually studied psychology, and still believed that a productive way to deal with a "less intelligent" person is to tell them:

"Ok, I'm going to "dumb down" what I say to you and use words of "shorter syllables"

that same person probably needed to take psychology courses that had "dumbed down" material of words with "shorter syllables".

Please take note that I have not insulted you in the above post, because it's all true, and besides that, you are less intelligent. I only wish I could "dumb down" my posts to help you, but when discussing complex subjects, words of "shorter syllables" can't do the job.