Rain2 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 And a corollary to that is there will be differing perceptions of what constitutes mere "questions or matters of discussion."Of course. Which is why we should listen and not automatically attack.
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 But so long as there are attacks, there will be defenses. I don't know how to avoid that short of giving in and allowing attackers to have free rein. Some defenses help out the opposition way more than we would like. We don't have to avoid defending our beliefs, we just have to avoid being contentious about it. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Some defenses help out the opposition way more than we would like. We don't have to avoid defending our beliefs, we just have to avoid being contentious about it. True. But we need to be aware that to some, any defense, no matter how mildly expressed, will be met with hostility.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Of course. Which is why we should listen and not automatically attack.I don't know anyone who disagrees with that.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Don't flatter yourself, Scott. I was talking about this board, not the Church. Just to set the record straight.Noted.
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. I don't think anyone disagrees with it in theory, but we've all had moments where our posts show that we are not always good at it in practice. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I don't think anyone disagrees with it in theory, but we've all had moments where our posts show that we are not always good at it in practice.Nobody's perfect.
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 True. But we need to be aware that to some, any defense, no matter how mildly expressed, will be met with hostility. I think i've only met a handful of posters who exhibited such behavior though. None that currently post here that i can think of. We can be aware that it might happen, but it's pretty low on the list of ways our discussions with each other go south.
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Nobody's perfect. Nope. As long as we aren't trying to justify our contention then we can probably keep things mostly under control. It's almost impossible to do in the moment (anger makes us blind to our part in the problem) but hopefully we can learn from our mistakes after the fact and get better. I am constantly trying, but like you said, it's hard! It's a battle with ourselves as much as it is with those who criticize us. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I think i've only met a handful of posters who exhibited such behavior though. None that currently post here that i can think of. We can be aware that it might happen, but it's pretty low on the list of ways our discussions with each other go south.I think what is more apt to happen is repetition of the same attacks without taking cognizance of answers that have already been given. Which can be galling. Edited to add: And, incidentally, is what usually results in the protracted argumentation you speak of. Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I think what is more apt to happen is repetition of the same attacks without taking cognizance of answers that have already been given. Which can be galling. Edited to add: And, incidentally, is what usually results in the protracted argumentation you speak of. Could be. I know it seems to happen on both sides of the argument with the same amount of regularity. Not many of us are very good at defending without becoming angry or prideful. It seems to be a common flaw of humanity.
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 MF, I usually really enjoy your posts but this weekend you've been quite hostile. Whenever I'm in a bad mood my wife asks me if I need something to eat so I can get my blood sugar regulated. Need a sandwich?There are no facts, just interpretations. Maybe you agree with the arguments I have criticized. Mostly what i did was point out contradictions. If you think the arguments were consistent let me know. Largely, like your comment here, they were not arguments at all, but veiled ad hominem arguments against apologists in general. I see my role as to defend the faith. It is an error to think that all contention is wrong- Christ himself showed that on numerous occasions. I recall a comment recently in fact by Bro Otterson at the Fair Conference in which he said "Jesus talked a lot about sheep, but never acted like one." I am also not a sheep. Is the suggestion that I have a blood sugar problem a reasoned argument? I don't think so, and yet this is exactly the kind of comment I have seen again and again. If one needs to resort to this kind of communication, it goes more against the person making the assertion than anything else. Good thing I am not a woman because I can imagine where those kind of comments would go if I was.
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Again and again we see promises by critics to leave the board yet they never keep them. What's up with that?
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I think what is more apt to happen is repetition of the same attacks without taking cognizance of answers that have already been given. Which can be galling. Edited to add: And, incidentally, is what usually results in the protracted argumentation you speak of.This is exactly what happens. The answer is given and the question is repeated, sometimes slightly differently, sometimes just repeated. And on it goes. 1
ALarson Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Again and again we see promises by critics to leave the board yet they never keep them. What's up with that?Who has promised "again and again" that they are leaving for good? As far as I can see, unless someone is banned, a person is free to come and go as they please (if they keep the rules of this board). Some leave and don't return, but they are free to return if they choose. It would be awful boring around here if everyone who posted agreed on all topics.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Could be. I know it seems to happen on both sides of the argument with the same amount of regularity.If an attack is repeated without cognizance taken of the rebuttal that has already been given, it stands to reason that the rebuttal will be repeated as well.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Those who so view it are typically critics who don't like being contradicted in their criticism.This is a mild illustration of how an apologist argues about not arguing.You said in a previous post that it's just a Dehlinian lie that apologetics drive people away from the church. First, there are good, reasonable, respectful apologetics and then there is the stuff that drives people away. I've seen it. I've felt it. Nothing has damaged my testimony more than FAIR. Combine some really awful excuses with some very bitter, disparaging attitudes of some apologists and you might as well just ask anyone with doubts to leave the church. You can pretend that's a lie if you want or you can choose to accept that some people are harmed by the bad excuses and bad behavior of some apologists. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Again and again we see promises by critics to leave the board yet they never keep them. What's up with that?I think you're confusing critics with Alec Baldwin. 2
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I am also not a sheep. You're also not Jesus. Is the suggestion that I have a blood sugar problem a reasoned argument? I don't think so, and yet this is exactly the kind of comment I have seen again and again. I think he was just trying to be funny. The concept of "Hangry" (combo of hungry and angry) is a popular joke right now, on both commercials and among a lot of my friends. 1
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Nobody's perfect.huh? Job 1:1 KJV: There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 There are no facts, just interpretations. Maybe you agree with the arguments I have criticized. Mostly what i did was point out contradictions. If you think the arguments were consistent let me know. Largely, like your comment here, they were not arguments at all, but veiled ad hominem arguments against apologists in general. I see my role as to defend the faith. It is an error to think that all contention is wrong- Christ himself showed that on numerous occasions. I recall a comment recently in fact by Bro Otterson at the Fair Conference in which he said "Jesus talked a lot about sheep, but never acted like one." I am also not a sheep. Is the suggestion that I have a blood sugar problem a reasoned argument? I don't think so, and yet this is exactly the kind of comment I have seen again and again. If one needs to resort to this kind of communication, it goes more against the person making the assertion than anything else. Good thing I am not a woman because I can imagine where those kind of comments would go if I was.That's because you've adopted an angry tone lately. I was making a funny. Relax a little. And I agree that not all contention is wrong. When I'm defending the right I am justified. When you defend the right, you're justified. WHen we both have different interpretations of right and contend against each other, that contention seldom leads to a change of heart or mind. So we can continue contending and thinking the other is wrong because one of us must be right...right?
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 If an attack is repeated without cognizance taken of the rebuttal that has already been given, it stands to reason that the rebuttal will be repeated as well. I meant that I have seen 'defenders' who repeatedly ask the same questions over and over and over again, or hold onto a point like a dog with a bone, when it's already been settled or everyone else has moved on. Defenders are just as good as critics in going on the offensive and attacking. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) This is a mild illustration of how an apologist argues about not arguing.You said in a previous post that it's just a Dehlinian lie that apologetics drive people away from the church. First, there are good, reasonable, respectful apologetics and then there is the stuff that drives people away. I've seen it. I've felt it. Nothing has damaged my testimony more than FAIR. Combine some really awful excuses with some very bitter, disparaging attitudes of some apologists and you might as well just ask anyone with doubts to leave the church. You can pretend that's a lie if you want or you can choose to accept that some people are harmed by the bad excuses and bad behavior of some apologists.You were starting to impress me with your point about good apologetics/bad apologetics until you put up FairMormon as an example of a purveyor of testimony-damaging apologetics. Frankly, that strikes me as crap. I'm not a member of FairMormon, but there are members who post on this board. Calm/calmoriah is one. In the past, I have seen them, in an effort to improve, ask for specific examples of poor or deficient apologetics. I don't recall ever seeing anyone come up with an apt example. Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
HappyJackWagon Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 You were starting to impress me with your good apologetics/bad apologetics until you put up FairMormon as an example of a purveyor of testimony-damaging apologetics. Frankly, that strikes me as crap. I'm not a member of FairMormon, but there are members who post on this board. Calm/calmoriah is one. In the past, I have seen them, in an effort to improve, ask for specific examples of poor or deficient apologetics. I've don't recall ever seeing anyone come up with an apt example.I'm glad your experiences are different than mine. If all were like Calm I wouldn't be making that claim. But they're not.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I meant that I have seen 'defenders' who repeatedly ask the same questions over and over and over again, or hold onto a point like a dog with a bone, when it's already been settled or everyone else has moved on. Defenders are just as good as critics in going on the offensive and attacking. Well it seems to met that critics/antagonists are more prone to it, but I suppose that's a matter of perspective that can't easily be quantified or documented.
Recommended Posts