What is cruel and intolerant on this message board?

[_beastie]

eww.... bad visual image now forever engraved in my frontal love

What a funny typo!!! "frontal love"

ROFL!

[_Ren]

by the way Gad - when I said I agreed with the above, including this:

I think I'm less civil than she is, for instance.

...I'll let you decide whether that means I think you are less civil, or I think that you really think you are less civil! Heh.

[_GoodK]

eww.... bad visual image now forever engraved in my frontal love

What a funny typo!!! "frontal love"

ROFL!

Oh goodness... in that case I won't edit it! :)

[_Ren]

frontal love

...Hmm - I've just had an idea for a band name...

[_Doctor Steuss]

frontal love

...Hmm - I've just had an idea for a band name...

Debut album = Bathrobe Intervention

[_charity]

I think some people have left the Church for reasons not associated with the truth or lack of it. They have learned somethng about the history or some other area that is a challenge Their intellects overwhelm them and they lose their testimonies. But deep down they still know its true.

I find this comment so very odd. I've heard this excuse from others as well. Could you give us some examples of folks who you feel might fit this description? Why do you think this? Is it so difficult to believe that people truly do NOT believe in the LDS church because it doesn't seem true or feel holy to them?

You have illustrated here one of the "problems" others seem to have with me. I often make comments which include the word "some." Posters often skip over that word and think I said "all." I only said "some" people might still know the Church is true on a subconscious level. I think there are others who don't believe for the reason you said.

But the problem is that you think I said everybody. Clearly that is a misunderstanding on your part. And I think a pervasive part of the misunderstanding.

People who can maintain their faith with the same knowledge of these issues that they have, are a threat agaisnt them. They have to fight agaisnt me to maintain their "disbelief."

I think this statement says a lot about how you view your participation here. If I understand you correctly, you think people have to fight against you to maintain their belief? This is why some folks are unkind to you?

SOME.

I think some people are put off because I express myself in absolutes. I very often say I "know" rather than I "believe" or I "think." These people are of the opinion that nobody can know anything (unless it is a scientific truth) so this makes me arrogant. But if you "know" something, it is disingenous to tone it down just to "play nice."

I agree with the idea that someone who thinks they know all truth, who is always right, who can't admit his or her mistakes, often comes across as arrogant.

This applies to LDS, non-LDS, ex-LDS, anti-Mormons. Everyone who thinks they are right. Pretty much everyone on the board.

I believe in accountability. I don't swallow the victim mentality. I frequently express the idea that people make choices and are responsible for those choices. This is very politically incorrect these days.

It is not that your black and white view of life is politically incorrect, it is that many believe there is more to the human story.

That's fine with me. Have you noticed any of my posts where I have said that God judges. I don't.

We all chose how and to whom we respond, and yes it is a matter of our own personalities. All people with psychology training and background are viewed suspiciously by those who think we can figure them out. This makes people defensive.

This is an interesting comment as well. I have considerable training and experience in this field and I have never felt people were defensive or viewed me suspiciously. I truly do not think anyone on this board is concerned with how you may view or judge them.

"By those who think we can figure them out." Not everyone. I have had people say to me on first acquaintance when I was teaching psychology and someone would ask me what I did, "Oh, so are you going to psychoanalyze me?"

Would you care to explain your problem in conversing with me? Others can speak for themselves.

As I have viewed comments directed toward you, there seems to be a consistent problem. You misrepresent people, their opinions, and their statements. In addition, my personal challenge is when you present information that can potentially be harmful to others.

I try to undesrtand. I ask for clarification more than any other poster that I have seen. Let me know when you think something I saw is harmful. And the reason why it is, please. Maybe we can clear up some of the miscommunications.

Thrive? I am still here in spite of the nastiness that has been thrown at me. I am still waiting for someone to point out nastiness on my part besides those two examples already mentioned. One of which was a mild throw off remark, and the other which is still up in the air until Moniker explains it.

Yes... the fact that you are still here is interesting to me. You do seem to enjoy the nastiness thrown your way and do not see that you also throw quite a bit of nastiness toward others.

I odn't enjoy being called names. I don't read some posters at all because of their track records.

I thought and still think that message boards are really just entertainment. Are you trying to accomplish something here? What would that be?

Just having fun. However, I do not think I would enjoy it much if I couldn't have a pleasant conversation with my fellow board members.

I find many people here quite pleasant.

Truth dancer, what I am wondering, and wish you would actually address, is what specifically I do that is mean and nasty. The dumb down remark is the only thing specifically (except for Moniker's problems with the adjustment of teenage girls following divorce which still mystifies my why she is so upset about that because she won't explain why).

So please, quote me a mean and nasty things I said.

YOU, stated you were a "mean therapist" which gave me the impression that at least to some degree you did recognize that you were not always kind on this board.

"Mean therapist" and "mean parent" are terms used to express the idea that sometimes the best thing a therapist or a parent can do is to cause temporary pain, distress, etc. in the goal of overall good. That doesn't mean that the parent takes the car keys away from the kid who is failing all his classes because he delights in seeing the kid upset. It means the parent loves the child enough to do something in the child's best interst that the child didn't like. That isn't "mean" in the sense you are using it.

You are a parent. Haven't your kids ever called you mean?


Charity... what good will it do to rehash your old comments? You will disagree that they are mean-spirited and on we go. I do not think there is a single thing I could post with which you would agree so we can just leave it at that.

So in other words, if I don't know you aren't going to tell me. I always find that argument less than useful.

You seem to be comfortable with the dynamics on this board so we can agree to disagree.

Actually I am not. I don't want to be thought of as mean and nasty. I am not that kind of person. So I would like to know what the problem is.~dancer~[/quote]

[_Moniker]

Truth dancer, what I am wondering, and wish you would actually address, is what specifically I do that is mean and nasty. The dumb down remark is the only thing specifically (except for Moniker's problems with the adjustment of teenage girls following divorce which still mystifies my why she is so upset about that because she won't explain why).

So please, quote me a mean and nasty things I said.

This might be perceived as mean and nasty, but it has occurred to me that the criticism I get is a calculated attempt to poison the well. If a charge is made agaisnt me that I am mean and nasty then the gullible will begin to read mean and nasty into what really isn't. [/color] [/color]

Charity, I believe you're being disingenuous. Notice I said "believe". Did you read my reply to you on this thread? The topic of conversation was RAPE -- not teenage girls coping with divorce. You keep trying to change it. You said WOMEN that seek male companionship in a quest for love are neurotic when they were abandoned by their fathers. I take issue with it because 1. Neurosis is not used by the mental health community for 25+ years. 2. Neurosis does not affect rational thought or the ability to consent.

I feel like I'm in bizarro land. Does anyone else have trouble following what Charity said in regards to these women, my replies, and Charity's shifting the debate? Maybe it's just me?? I don't know!
I think bringing the "nuts and sluts" remark to this board was cruel. Why? If there is a woman on this board that does believe she fits that description (TRUST ME -- not me -- my parents have been married for 35+ years) and you say people in the mental health profession refer to them as "nuts and sluts" that is not caring, not empathetic, not sensitive. WHAT was your purpose for placing those words on this board? And even WORSE is if you actually do believe these women are raped when they have sex (yet, I don't really believe you think that) is you are ridiculing them and making a rape victim (according to you these woman are rape victims) feel shamed. WHY? THIS IS CRUEL!

I have explained why I'm upset with what you've stated. You just choose not to read my replies and shift the debate. Of course children are traumatized by divorce, yet, that's not what this conversation was about.

CFR (10+ times now) that these women are not capable of consent and are therefore raped. I'd also like to know which school refers to supposed rape victims as "nuts and sluts".

Thanks.

[_Moniker]

I don't think Charity is that cruel all things considered. Whether it's intentional or not, and I haven't decided which yet, some of the extremely ignorant and silly TBM arguments she makes amplifies whatever bad behavior she's guilty of. For instance, when she argued that world hunger is a result of using grain for alcohol rather than food. It's hard to believe she's serious. But if so, simple ignorance is a part of simple bigotry. And then the whole situation is amplified yet again by the fact she calls herself "Charity". A good counterpart from the perspective of MAD might be, someone who registers as "MormonSeekingtruth" and then starts threads like, "Can Mormons be Christians when they don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible?"

When adjusting for the "annoying" factor, I think Charity comes out at about average for this board. I think I'm less civil than she is, for instance.

Then again, civility isn't a huge issue for me. Some of the strikingly uncivil apologists (and critics) I've always liked.

I don't care if she's mean and nasty. My issue was her saying that others were and elevating herself as some moral perfection of holy Christ like actions.

I'm a mean, nasty person at times. No denying it. Yet, she paints others with this term and can't turn that perception to herself. Perhaps her beliefs are just mean and nasty -- who knows?

[_truth dancer]

Charity...

I understand you do not mean every single person with your statements. No misunderstanding there.

If you are interested in a few examples of your comments that in my opinion were cruel, here are three that particular made me cringe.

"Hit me once, shame on you, hit me twice, shame on me", from the abuse thread.

Your comments suggesting abused women are “weak”.

I find these cruel to say the least. I understand you do not. We can agree to disagree.

Bringing up the "nuts and sluts" is another one. (And just to be clear, I have never heard a professional in this field use the term).

Again, I am not interested in trying to convince you that these statements are hurtful. I know, regardless of what I say you will not agree. So be it.

If you are interested in knowing which of your comments come across to me as hurtful, in the future I will alert you.

Thank you for sharing your perspective.

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

Hi Moniker... :-)

I feel like I'm in bizarro land. Does anyone else have trouble following what Charity said in regards to these women, my replies, and Charity's shifting the debate? Maybe it's just me?? I don't know!

No, it is not just you. :-)

I have had similar experinces. It can get frustrating for sure!

If it helps any, I'm right with you girlfriend!

:-)

~dancer~