Shades' Paradox

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _Some Schmo »

Wheat wrote: That’s why I have more or less lost interest in participating here. I’ve concluded that the DAMU is a greatly overstated phenomenon, made to seem like some massive movement when in reality it is just a few hundred vocal malcontents pretending to be an insurgency.

LOL

Look everyone, it's denial personified!

Reality? You presume to speak about reality?

ROTFLMAO
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _Sethbag »

Personally I think that Shades's idea of using three degrees of glory, with increasingly strict rules about what can be said in each one, is really great. That way he can moderate posts without having to delete or lock them, simply by demoting them a kingdom. The real problem is that I think the bar is a little high for the Celestial kingdom, and perhaps a little too low for the Terrestrial. That's just a tuning thing, not a criticism of the concept, which I think is great.

I think that the real paradox here is that there's just that much to talk about between most critics and most TBMs. Most TBMs are not going to be receptive to the critical "attack" message, and most critics find the TBM hand-waving exercises to be some combination of tedious, comical, and cloying.

Seriously, what is there really to discuss?

The church is not true. Yes it is. No it's not. A testimony gets born, a personal witness gets trotted out as evidence, and the conversation is over.

Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham. No he didn't. Yes he did. A testimony gets born, a personal witness gets trotted out as evidence, and the conversation is over.

And so on.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _asbestosman »

Sethbag wrote:The church is not true. Yes it is. No it's not. A testimony gets born, a personal witness gets trotted out as evidence, and the conversation is over.

You could break the cycle if you'd only accept the testimony. ;)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _John Larsen »

Sethbag wrote:Personally I think that Shades's idea of using three degrees of glory, with increasingly strict rules about what can be said in each one, is really great. That way he can moderate posts without having to delete or lock them, simply by demoting them a kingdom. The real problem is that I think the bar is a little high for the Celestial kingdom, and perhaps a little too low for the Terrestrial. That's just a tuning thing, not a criticism of the concept, which I think is great.

I think that the real paradox here is that there's just that much to talk about between most critics and most TBMs. Most TBMs are not going to be receptive to the critical "attack" message, and most critics find the TBM hand-waving exercises to be some combination of tedious, comical, and cloying.

Seriously, what is there really to discuss?

The church is not true. Yes it is. No it's not. A testimony gets born, a personal witness gets trotted out as evidence, and the conversation is over.

Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham. No he didn't. Yes he did. A testimony gets born, a personal witness gets trotted out as evidence, and the conversation is over.

And so on.


What you describe is compounded by the fact that most regular participants on this board, on both sides, are very well versed in the controversial issues and the arguments pro and con. Most of the dialog that constitutes the majority of posts on the other boards is simply assumed by the posters. We do not have a constant influx of new blood to keep the same old posts and topic going over and over again. Many might be scared off by the level of dialog on some of the threads (not the inane ones).
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _John Larsen »

Sethbag wrote:Personally I think that Shades's idea of using three degrees of glory, with increasingly strict rules about what can be said in each one, is really great. That way he can moderate posts without having to delete or lock them, simply by demoting them a kingdom. The real problem is that I think the bar is a little high for the Celestial kingdom, and perhaps a little too low for the Terrestrial. That's just a tuning thing, not a criticism of the concept, which I think is great.


What if certain users were limited to only post in certain kingdoms? If a poster shows a long term propensity to only derail and spit out personal attacks, limit them only to the telestial kingdom until they show they can behave themselves.
_Ray A

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _Ray A »

John Larsen wrote:
Any sort of completely open communication forum, which allows for any and all opinions will allow for a small and vocal minority to have a disproportionately strong voice. The minority’s position is made stronger by their willingness to shout-down, hijack or drowned-out communication that doesn’t serve their purpose. This minority’s participation will skew the forum to their own agenda, which is not the agenda of having a completely open communication forum. Thus by having a truly open communication forum, you are not accomplishing your goal but merely creating a forum for a more shrill and abusive communication sub group.


It certainly does go both ways.

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all posters, that as soon as they get a little [freedom], as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion, hence many are called names and few are not offended. Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this forum, and aspire to the honors of other posters, that they do not learn this one lesson - That the rights of the posting are inseparably connected with the powers of reason, and that the powers of reason cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of sound debate. That reason may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our more rational thinking, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon other posters, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the credibility of that poster withdraws itself; the Spirit of the Forum is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the credibility of that poster."
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _solomarineris »

When the house rules amount to no rules at all, then those kinds of people who are accustomed to an environment of relatively well-mannered restraint and reasonable regulation will naturally avoid taking part. Or, if they do venture forth, they will adapt to the law of the jungle themselves. That’s what I’ve seen happen in this place. Beleiving LDS will either not stay long, or if they do, they will start to serve as good as they get. Sometimes even better in the case of the more capable ones like Daniel Peterson, David Bokovoy (Enuma Elish), William Shryver, The Nehor and others. Of course, when they do that they are savaged even more by the antis here. That’s one of the interesting ironies. MDB, FLAK, and RfM reserve their hihgest level of faux righteous indignation for believers who pack a rhetorical punch. It cracks me up to see them rise in unison to condemn a TBM for what they consider un-Christlike behavior.


You are so full of it!
What is exactly Christ-like behavior?
Frankly, it sounds bad, I don't adhere it, I don't care for it. The difference is free speech.
I agree that RFM is vicious in their critics of TBM's but who'se fault is that? When LDS, believe and try to convert people using Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Kolob, polygamy, Jared's Barge travels, Korihor's dropping dead...do they have a clue how ridiculous it sounds?
If they want to be the "Vilage Idiots", they open themselves up to ridiculing.
The stories are far worse than "Armageddon" type Sci-Fi" movies.
If rational people have issues with these claims, who'se fault is that?
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Ray A wrote:"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all posters, that as soon as they get a little [freedom], as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion, hence many are called names and few are not offended. Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this forum, and aspire to the honors of other posters, that they do not learn this one lesson - That the rights of the posting are inseparably connected with the powers of reason, and that the powers of reason cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of sound debate. That reason may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our more rational thinking, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon other posters, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the credibility of that poster withdraws itself; the Spirit of the Forum is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the credibility of that poster."


That was great, Ray!
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Yoda

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _Yoda »

As a Moderator for the board, I can state that I do not like personal attacks occurring from either side of the aisle. I believe that if you look at my actions as Moderator, and my in general comments where I am "speaking as a man", I give both Ex-Mo's and Church members an equally hard time about that behavior.

As far as discussions go, I think that there is a subset here that is being overlooked. There are several of us here who are members...Jason, Harmony, Moksha, myself, and a few others who are willing to look at both sides of issues, and blatantly recognize that there are a lot of organizational problems within the Church. I would be interested in having more dialogue addressing how some of these problems could be resolved.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Shades' Paradox

Post by _harmony »

liz3564 wrote:As far as discussions go, I think that there is a subset here that is being overlooked. There are several of us here who are members...Jason, Harmony, Moksha, myself, and a few others who are willing to look at both sides of issues, and blatantly recognize that there are a lot of organizational problems within the Church. I would be interested in having more dialogue addressing how some of these problems could be resolved.


We, or at least the penguin and I, are banged hardest from our fellow LDS.

I don't think they like me very much.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Post Reply