What good does it do to criticize?

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:


Likewise, for someone who thinks that criticism is just plain wrong, she sure does engage in a lot of it. My personal favorite Charity criticism was when she told me God didn't answer my prayer about Joseph Smith being a prophet because I bugged him by asking too much, although her criticism of victims of abuse comes a close second.



Ask yourself the question--"Do I see personal attacks under every bush?"

Not under every bush, just in quite a few of Charity's posts.

Like these:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... ght=insult

My previous post on Charity's insults:

Oh, for heaven's sake. I can't believe you are still wallowing in your hypocrisy.

Charity's insults - or, in her own words, "exposing the flaws in my reasoning", from this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=126

Charity's insults bolded.


Quote:
beastie:
I have to remember this is the lady who thinks that telling me I need "words of one syllable" and I need "dumb down posts" and am one of "satan's minions" is a way to demonstrate "flaws in my argument".



charity replied:
This is a good example, old girl. Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting on purpose. So, what is it? Dense or deceptive?


beastie:
Hmm, I vote for door three, in which Charity seems to be oblivious to her own words.

I painstakingly cited your insults, and asked you if these insults meant you had lost the argument and was frustrated. Your reply was that you were “just revealing the flaws in my argument”.
My earlier post:

beastie:
by the way, you have ignored two issues:

1 – whether or not your insults mean you’ve lost the argument


Charity replied:

1. I am merely calling attention to flaws in your argument.


beastie:
Now charity can’t claim she didn’t know which insults I was referring to, because I had listed them in response to her demand that I “tone down” the arrogance. My earlier post:

Quote:
Charity’s earlier statements on this thread:
charity:
Until you get on the other side and see the condemnation you will be under if any of your family follows you out of the true Church.

charity:
You really had to reach on that one. I was referring to genealogy as you very well know. So this little sideswipe is really dishonest, beastie. I am embarresed for you. It shows a weakness in your own belief in your argument.

charity:
Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(


charity:
You must need words of shorter syllables.

charity:
marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

beastie:
Seriously, are you having memory problems, Charity? It’s bizarre, it’s as if the only thing that registers with you is the post in front of you – you seem to completely forget all the other posts that went before, even right on the same thread.



Charity, a word of advice. Complaining about how insulting critics are while obviously ignoring your own insults and the many other insults launched by believers only works at MAD, where the moderators collude with this hypocrisy. It doesn't work here.

[_beastie]

Unfortunately, too often, we are loathe to do that, and choose instead to focus our criticism externally.

Yeah, church leaders are notorious at that.

[_charity]

I don't think we should demean those that live with cockroaches (how many current LDS missionaries are in Japan -- and they are HUGE there!) or those that are promiscuous until you give it a try. ;)

Here's my problem with this entire thread. I find no problem with criticism. Yet, when one criticizes me I'd like to take the issue on and discover if it's something that is actually something that does impact me and I can work on it. Yet, this being a lecture from Charity on how to do it just strikes me as absurd because often it is just some sort of superior morality (apparently women that have nookie with more than one men suffer from a mental disorder -- still waiting on that CFR, by the way) that is thrust down my choking throat. If it's constructive, fine. Yet, so much of it just appears vindictive and bordering on lunacy.

My intent was not to try to determine "how" to criticize, but to defend Elder Oakes' statement. I am not lecturing anybody. It is interesting that you perceive it as a lecture.

by the way, So let's get this mental-disorder-promiscuity thing out of the way, which I already answered in the thread it belonged in. Women who suffered a loss of their fathers just prior to or at adolescence, whether through death or parental divorce or abandoment, VERY OFTEN become sexually promiscuous. Psychologists talk about "father hunger" both for boys and girls, but for girls it VERY OFTEN is expressed in "looking for love in all the wrong places." One of the ways in which behavior is considered abnormal is to determine if the behavior is accomplishing the goal of the individual. Some young woman engage in promiscuous sexual activity trying to find love and acceptance. The relationships they get into do not accomplish that purpose as men use them selfishly for their own needs, but have no intention of considering the woman and her needs. When the young woman repeatedly enters into these kinds of relationships, that is a sign of abnormal behavior.

I never used the term mental disorder. I said abnormal behavior.

Oh, and I never did refer to the Abnormal Psychology class by its popular name, "Nuts and Sluts."

Now, she apparently wants others to refrain from doing precisely what she's doing. I just bristle from the double standards.

I am defending the idea that Church members should not criticize the Church leaders. I don't criticize the Church leaders. No double standard.

[_harmony]

I am defending the idea that Church members should not criticize the Church leaders. I don't criticize the Church leaders. No double standard.

Neither have I. I have never criticized their appearance, their choice of clothings, their personal hygiene, or their choice of marriage partner. I criticize their decisions, their behavior, and their unending inability to prophesy or reveal anything of importance to the world today. Nothing personal, of course.

[_beastie]

Some young woman engage in promiscuous sexual activity trying to find love and acceptance.

Part of the problem with your assertions is that you consider someone who has had THREE sexual partners to be promiscuous.

[_charity]

beastie wrote:


Likewise, for someone who thinks that criticism is just plain wrong, she sure does engage in a lot of it. My personal favorite Charity criticism was when she told me God didn't answer my prayer about Joseph Smith being a prophet because I bugged him by asking too much, although her criticism of victims of abuse comes a close second.



Ask yourself the question--"Do I see personal attacks under every bush?"

Not under every bush, just in quite a few of Charity's posts.

Like these:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... ght=insult

My previous post on Charity's insults:

Oh, for heaven's sake. I can't believe you are still wallowing in your hypocrisy.

Charity's insults - or, in her own words, "exposing the flaws in my reasoning", from this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=126

Charity's insults bolded.


Quote:
beastie:
I have to remember this is the lady who thinks that telling me I need "words of one syllable" and I need "dumb down posts" and am one of "satan's minions" is a way to demonstrate "flaws in my argument".



charity replied:
This is a good example, old girl. Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting on purpose. So, what is it? Dense or deceptive?


beastie:
Hmm, I vote for door three, in which Charity seems to be oblivious to her own words.

I painstakingly cited your insults, and asked you if these insults meant you had lost the argument and was frustrated. Your reply was that you were “just revealing the flaws in my argument”.
My earlier post:

beastie:
by the way, you have ignored two issues:

1 – whether or not your insults mean you’ve lost the argument


Charity replied:

1. I am merely calling attention to flaws in your argument.


beastie:
Now charity can’t claim she didn’t know which insults I was referring to, because I had listed them in response to her demand that I “tone down” the arrogance. My earlier post:

Quote:
Charity’s earlier statements on this thread:
charity:
Until you get on the other side and see the condemnation you will be under if any of your family follows you out of the true Church.

charity:
You really had to reach on that one. I was referring to genealogy as you very well know. So this little sideswipe is really dishonest, beastie. I am embarresed for you. It shows a weakness in your own belief in your argument.

charity:
Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(


charity:
You must need words of shorter syllables.

charity:
marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

beastie:
Seriously, are you having memory problems, Charity? It’s bizarre, it’s as if the only thing that registers with you is the post in front of you – you seem to completely forget all the other posts that went before, even right on the same thread.



Charity, a word of advice. Complaining about how insulting critics are while obviously ignoring your own insults and the many other insults launched by believers only works at MAD, where the moderators collude with this hypocrisy. It doesn't work here.

beastie, can you focus on the discussion, or do you need to make this an ad hominem fallacy response?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

My intent was not to try to determine "how" to criticize, but to defend Elder Oakes' statement.

Why do you feel the need to defend Oaks's statement? Is it your apologetic instincts kicking in? Do you have any defense for Hinckley's statement in my sig?

[_Moniker]

My intent was not to try to determine "how" to criticize, but to defend Elder Oakes' statement. I am not lecturing anybody. It is interesting that you perceive it as a lecture.

by the way, So let's get this mental-disorder-promiscuity thing out of the way, which I already answered in the thread it belonged in. Women who suffered a loss of their fathers just prior to or at adolescence, whether through death or parental divorce or abandoment, VERY OFTEN become sexually promiscuous. Psychologists talk about "father hunger" both for boys and girls, but for girls it VERY OFTEN is expressed in "looking for love in all the wrong places." One of the ways in which behavior is considered abnormal is to determine if the behavior is accomplishing the goal of the individual. Some young woman engage in promiscuous sexual activity trying to find love and acceptance. The relationships they get into do not accomplish that purpose as men use them selfishly for their own needs, but have no intention of considering the woman and her needs. When the young woman repeatedly enters into these kinds of relationships, that is a sign of abnormal behavior.

I never used the term mental disorder. I said abnormal behavior.

Uh, you also said neurosis. And you ended up backtracking since "depression" is under the term neurosis and not even a clinical diagnosis anymore. Anyway, Charity - you're just repeating the same things you said above without a reference.

Oh, and I never did refer to the Abnormal Psychology class by its popular name, "Nuts and Sluts."

I'm a proud nut. And a proud slut.

Anyway, this is what you said:

Then another idea: Since you believe that mentally challenged people cannot give consent, and are therefore raped, how is that different from a neurotic woman who has multiple sex partners? Can a really neurotic person give consent?

I pointed out that the term "neurosis" includes depressed women, anxiety ridden women, etc.. and isn't even in the DSM anymore. I asked you for specific references and you cited 3 names which I found NOTHING on.

I am defending the idea that Church members should not criticize the Church leaders. I don't criticize the Church leaders. No double standard.

Well, if these good folks on this board aren't Church members then what is your beef? They can criticize all they want, eh?

I might make The Joys of Being A Nut and Slut thread so this thread is no further derailed.

[_charity]

Some young woman engage in promiscuous sexual activity trying to find love and acceptance.

Part of the problem with your assertions is that you consider someone who has had THREE sexual partners to be promiscuous.

What number would you suggest? According to the following link, in the US the average number is 9 partners. That seems excessive to me. Of course, the culture I know best believes in chastity before marriage and mongamy after. That means there are many who have a lot more partners than 9 in order to boost the average.

http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005Content.asp?intQid=764


Or we could use the CDC defintion of "promiscuous" for gay male sexual behavior. That number is 500 partners or more.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Some young woman engage in promiscuous sexual activity trying to find love and acceptance.

Part of the problem with your assertions is that you consider someone who has had THREE sexual partners to be promiscuous.

I think I've discovered Charity's true identity.