What is cruel and intolerant on this message board?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

I'm just going to mention this to you and show you why it was offensive to me. Here's something you posted just a few days ago that had me seething:


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



Now, I understand that you said you never did use that term. Yet, others apparently did since it was its "popular name". Why would you bring that to this board? It just seems so pointless... I just don't understand your reasoning behind typing those words, Charity. And I'm completely sincere in trying to understand why you would put that on this board.

by the way, I want you to know that I have defended you on this board. More than Runtu, more than Liz, more than anyone. I spoke to your character, I defended you when you were called horrid, sexist names. I said that you were multifaceted and we shouldn't make judgments about you from merely interacting with you on these boards. Just you've pushed my buttons -- and now I understand a bit better why others were ruffled as well.

I wish there wasn't so much animosity on this board. I will certainly try to do better. I offer you my sincere apology and I'm going to try to PM you (if it's okay with you) if there's anything else I'd like to discuss with you. Hashing it out on the board usually isn't the best way to go.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

beastie wrote:You've studied psychology, you should know something about genuine apologies. This isn't one. You are still avoiding responsibility for your own words. You have blamed me, and then you stated that your words were "perceived" as being insulting. Then, later, you say that you don't "call people idiots or morons".


Did you read the word "snipe?" Lots of things are said in conversations which if youy take only the word, you get an insult out of it. There is repartee, you know. And in the context I was not calling you dumb. We do have a problem on a message board where we can't see faces and hear tones of voices. Things said lightly are perceived differently if we can see the person. That is one of the reasons why I lobbied for the use of smilies. Smilies do to a written message what facial expression and tone of voice can do to an oral one.

beastie, I did not mean you were dumb, an idiot or a moron. Good grief, you have your own website! I think you are probably very intelligent. Okay now?

Just to be clear, if I were serious when I told a person I would dumb down or use shorter syllables, that would be insulting. I was not serious.

beastie wrote:
In regards to your question about what's really hateful - the statement I view as the most malicious and hateful is the one in which you state, and still affirm, that people who fight against the church are satan's minions. That is not only malicious and hateful, but also incredibly narrow-minded. Let's just focus on the most obvious example of people actively fighting against the church - EVs who assert that Mormons are going to hell and try to warn others and save them.

Just like, most of the time, I assume Mormons genuinely believe their own truth claims, I assume that EV mean what they say, as well. So, in reality, although their delivery may lack expertise, if they genuinely believe Mormons are going to hell - and I think they do - then they believe they are doing God's work to help people stay away from Mormonism. These are their genuine beliefs, and if they really do believe Mormons will go to hell, they actually have a moral responsibility to intervene, just like Mormons feel they have a moral responsibility to do missionary work.

In fact, that's an excellent correlary - if an EV asserts that Mormon missionaries are satan's minions, would that be hateful and intolerant?


Any Christian denomination, if they are strict scripturalists, have to believe in the polar camps idea. It is in the scriptures. There is a war going on for the souls of men. There are only two sides. This does not presuppose that everyone understands this. But understand it or not, it is a fact.

The difference is in battle tactics. We teach the truth as we see it. Anyone who wants to believe can chose to join. Others teach hatred. There are whole mnistries who aren't FOR anything, but only AGAINST Mormons. That is what is hateful. I don't stand out on street corners and call people Satan's minions. Those people who teach their own truths have noquarrel with me. As long as you are teaching gospel truths, bringing people closer to the Savior, closer to living moral lives, doing good, you are on the Lord's side. Anyone who teaches othesr to hate is on Satan's side. That is not a hateful thing to say. It is acknowledging the situation.

Moniker claiemd it is hateful to say someone is evil. I think those who perform evil behaviors have earned it.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

charity wrote:Any Christian denomination, if they are strict scripturalists, have to believe in the polar camps idea. It is in the scriptures. There is a war going on for the souls of men. There are only two sides. This does not presuppose that everyone understands this. But understand it or not, it is a fact.

The difference is in battle tactics. We teach the truth as we see it. Anyone who wants to believe can chose to join. Others teach hatred. There are whole mnistries who aren't FOR anything, but only AGAINST Mormons. That is what is hateful. I don't stand out on street corners and call people Satan's minions. Those people who teach their own truths have noquarrel with me. As long as you are teaching gospel truths, bringing people closer to the Savior, closer to living moral lives, doing good, you are on the Lord's side. Anyone who teaches othesr to hate is on Satan's side. That is not a hateful thing to say. It is acknowledging the situation.

Moniker claiemd it is hateful to say someone is evil. I think those who perform evil behaviors have earned it.


I'd put it a different way. I'd say there are two different types of people who profess to be religious--those who are fear-based, and those who are love-based.

You tend to be more the former than the latter.

"Polar camps" sounds like an arctic expedition. Most denominations are not "strict scripturalists," even if they belong to faiths that adhere to sola scriptura.

"Warring for souls" is the motivation that drove a lot of the more violent episodes in our civilization's history.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

The difference is in battle tactics. We teach the truth as we see it. Anyone who wants to believe can chose to join. Others teach hatred. There are whole mnistries who aren't FOR anything, but only AGAINST Mormons. That is what is hateful. I don't stand out on street corners and call people Satan's minions. Those people who teach their own truths have noquarrel with me. As long as you are teaching gospel truths, bringing people closer to the Savior, closer to living moral lives, doing good, you are on the Lord's side. Anyone who teaches othesr to hate is on Satan's side. That is not a hateful thing to say. It is acknowledging the situation.


Nonsense. They are FOR Mormons, and others, being "saved". They make that abundantly clear in their materials. And they would say they aren't teaching anyone to hate Mormons, but rather to hate the system of beliefs that has entrapped them and will lead them to hell.

And, by the way, the truth you teach includes some pretty hateful teachings from Joseph Smith about other churches.

But this is a conversation that is pointless. I've had it with other believers many times. LDS believers* simply cannot conceive that THEY may be perceived as teaching negative things about other faiths (I mean, simply teaching that other churches don't have the right authority to perform saving ordinances is just the "truth", not something negative, right?), and they simply cannot conceive that the actions of EVs that seem so hateful to them might actually be based on anxiety over the salvation of others.

*some LDS, of course, do understand this, I'm speaking in generalities
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Here is a website. It won't allow me to cut and paste or even cut and paste the website.

Here it is: www.ces.ncsu.edu/fcs/pdfs/fc5482.df

Or if you still want to discuss it please take it to the off topic forum, and we can still go at it. Just let me know.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

charity wrote:Here is a website. It won't allow me to cut and paste or even cut and paste the website.

Here it is: www.ces.ncsu.edu/fcs/pdfs/fc5482.df

Or if you still want to discuss it please take it to the off topic forum, and we can still go at it. Just let me know.


That link doesn't work, unfortunately.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Moniker is right - she has defended charity more than anyone else on this board.

I also noted the "nuts and sluts" slang - so lovely to learn that those trained in psych are still enough in touch with their basic humanity to be sneering, dismissive, and judgmental.

Interesting also that the fact that a female may simply like sex, and that results in multiple partners, is unimaginable.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

MishMagnet wrote:Although you've never said anything to me personally (except once grouping me into a 'so much ignorance, so little time' comment) I do think of your comments as harsh and arrogant and not at all indicitive of a person filled with the light of Christ.

However - I do realize that others have been harsh to you so I understand it somewhat.

I feel that you are trying so hard to win people to the church with evidence and not paying much attention to what really attracts people to religion - happiness and peace.


The purpose of religion is to prepare us for happiness and peace, both here and in the hereafter. Those who forget the hereafter part are only getting half the job done.
MishMagnet wrote:I feel that you are saying those who have left the church are fighting against God. I'm not fighting against God. I do not feel, however, that God is the LDS Church.


No, I don't. Those who fight against the Church are those who. . . fight against the Church. No longer believing doesn't necessarily mean fighting against. Expressing your opinion isn't fighting against the Church. Expressing your opinion so you can influence somebody out of the Church or out of joining, that is fighting agaisnt the Church.

MishMagnet wrote: Again, I doubt I'm even a blip on your radar screen but there are probably a lot of people out there like me who read a lot but don't post. The harsh side of the church, the arrogance, the lack of empathy is something I'm still healing from.


Do you mean by the "harsh" side of the Church that it teaches the commandments and law of God? And expects people to live them? By "arrogance" that it is the only true Church? I don't understand what you mean by "lack of sympathy?"
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:Here is a website. It won't allow me to cut and paste or even cut and paste the website.

Here it is: www.ces.ncsu.edu/fcs/pdfs/fc5482.df

Or if you still want to discuss it please take it to the off topic forum, and we can still go at it. Just let me know.


That link doesn't work, unfortunately.


Sorry. The following is a cut and pasted copy of what appear on the google page.

PDF] Divorce on ChildrenFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
child. • The age and sex of the child. Long-term Effects of Divorce ... Delinquent behaviors. • Daughters of divorce are more likely to: ...
www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs482.pdf
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

beastie wrote:Interesting also that the fact that a female may simply like sex, and that results in multiple partners, is unimaginable.


This of course appears to be something quite different from the viewpoint that sex is to be reserved for marriage. Exclusively.
Post Reply