Mormon Trolls and Trolling

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yeah, i'm sure that's why i've seen evolutionists angry at creationists before, because they were afraid and needed to protect their closely held beliefs and they had 'no other logical defense' to protect them.  

Actually, no, i don't think that was the reason. 

But if that's the point of the debate tactic, then it can easily be made without pretending to have won something to try to goad the person into changing their behavior (or just goad them for the sake of goading them).  You could easily say "Sorry. If you'd like to re-offer your last comment without the personal comments then we can continue the discussion, otherwise, i'm done."  

I believe you are talking macro and I am talking micro.  I think we're talking past each other...if not I'm about to go bang my head into a brick wall

Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Garden Girl]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well I may have missed the mark but I always thought that this was a board in support of the truth... granted we don't always achieve this lofty goal

It is a worthwhile goal, Johnnie... and one I think we reach much more than not... with the majority of posters...

from the beach on yet another gray, rainy day... I need some sun!!    GG

Edited April 26, 2017 by Garden Girl

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well Stormrider was claiming otherwise...but thanks for your agreement with my point

Kind of hard not to agree with calling someone a troll is calling someone a troll...or did I miss your point?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I believe you are talking macro and I am talking micro

You need evidence then, something beside mindreading.

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where?

Quote

That is your perspective and I understand it.  However, I don't share it and I disagree that warning others not to feed the troll is an ad hominem attack; yes, there are ad hominem attacks, but I don't think hanging your hat on that accusation works in an the absolute manner in which you are trying to force on others.  It has become a nice catch phrase to throw out, but it is rarely accurately applied.  Just reading the definition should tell you that calling someone's behavior that of a troll "CAN" be, not IS an ad hominem attack.  

Again, if the shoe fits wear it.  If it doesn't ignore it.  Each of you are grown ups and I refuse to think that your feelings are so tender that there is any damage when you are called on it.  

^^^^^Here^^^^^

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

u need evidence then, something beside mindreading.

Huh?  Read the thread I don't have the time to bring you up to date on this point

Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

^^^^^Here^^^^^

He doesn't say calling someone a troll is not calling someone a troll.  He is saying sometimes it is a good thing and therefore not an ad hom attack, meaning I am guessing either that it is not an attack, but a statement of fact or that it is not an argument fallacy (which is what is usually meant by "ad hom").

I am thinking I am not following your train of thought here...that what you said is dependent on something you previously said.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Huh?  Read the thread I don't have the time to bring you up to date on this point

You are claiming proclaiming victory when someone does "x" is a debate tactic, yes?

You are claiming that someone using "x" is a sign that they are fearful, yes?

The "micro" comment means you believe you are right  in the cases you use it even if fear is not present in all cases "x" occurs, yes?

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

That would be a shame because you say a lot of good things and share a lot of good ideas when you are not being bossy.

Ahab, you are a good fellow.  However, I think the reality is that not all people "fit" with everyone else.  There are personality conflicts to a host of other motivations for people to just not enjoy one another.  I don't take it personally when there is conflict.  Sometimes I am too sarcastic, impatient, far too intolerant of stupidity, and grouchy.  Sometimes I just get ticked off with people and their desire to wallow in unhappiness while blaming everyone else for their own predicament.  Then there are times when I just have had enough with smug, self-important, self-righteous, and those that feel infinitely more enlightened than those of us who have faith in God, in Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel.  I completely understand how others would not enjoy my comments and I see no problem with those who think anything I would ever say is beneath them and need to tune me out to maintain their sanity.  To each his own.

Me, bossy?  Go wash your mouth out with soap this instant!  Afterward, we will discuss the importance of listening to your elders.  Enjoy the evening.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

That's fine, but no need to "warn" others. Just leave the discussion (we've all needed to do this at times).

Also, if you believe that HappyJackWagon is a troll, I'm not sure you actually know what one is .   

I put people on ignore for a host of reasons - being a troll is one of the least.  The manner in which I said that Happy Jack was on ignore certainly gave the impression I may have thought he was a troll.  Nope, don't think he is.  Yup, I can see when a duck walks and talks.  Thanks again for your opinion and I will continue to share mine. Cheers,

[JAHS]

Just try commenting on a Salt Lake tribune letter that in anyway defends the church and you are called a troll or worse. 

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are claiming proclaiming victory when someone does "x" is a debate tactic, yes?

You are claiming that someone using "x" is a sign that they are fearful, yes?

NO. Within the life of a thread which often takes many turns both left and right...and as many posters participate occasionally within the life of that thread an individual poster resorts to ad hominem rather than addressing or making a counter point to the premises being discussed.  They do this to garner respect from their peer group, to deflect the flow of the discussion or to bully.  Within this mini argument and only between these two posters...the poster attacking and using pejoratives has lost the ground for their particular argument by resorting to ad hominem. **Insert to add** had the poster had a strong argument they would have used it instead of resorting to ad hominem) Is the over arching argument being made won?  no not necessarily...but the argument between these 2 posters has been yielded to the attacked by the attacker by their failing to address the argument and instead resorting to personal attacks.   This is argumentive theory 101

Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Storm Rider]

35 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The ground is not level...were I to refer to you in a similar charged fashion I would have punitive action taken against me...but being grown ups as you suggest I'm sure that we can act accordingly and choose our words more carefully and avoid offenses terminologies that some find offensive.

Does this mean that you will only use terminology that I don't find offensive also or is this just what you might find offensive?  When we start to change our manner of speech just so Mr. Brown or Mrs. Smith won't get their feelings hurt we do them a disservice.  More importantly, we set these two twits up to think that their feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.  

I won't say your behavior is trollish and you stop acting like a troll.  It really isn't hard.  I know you are bright, at times even reflective and sincere.  I don't use the term lightly and if the shoe fits, stop complaining about it; wear the thing proudly or stop acting like a troll.  Also, I won't act like a troll for good measure.

[Calm]

"They do this to garner respect from their peer group, to deflect the flow of the discussion or to bully"

And this is what I said requires evidence outside of mind-reading.  The below is how I got there.

You said:  "Anger is a secondary emotion grounded in fear and is used to protect ones closely held beliefs when they are challenged and one has no other logical defense to protect them.

the point of this debate tactic that you've quoted from my post is to get the attacker to refocus the debate back on the discussion in the OP and away from resorting to personal attacks"

Bluebell then provided an example where the anger response was not grounded in fear, i.e. anger of evolutionists at creationists for their perceived less than scientific arguments or various other tactics. You than stated she was approaching it macro and you micro.

I assumed this meant you saw these particular positions that occur on this board as fear based due to anger being present even if fear didn't occur in all anger responses.

This is mind reading unless you have evidence for that fear besides your pronouncement that is the cause.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

but the argument between these 2 posters has been yielded to the attacked by the attacker by their failing to address the argument and instead resort to personal attacks.   This is argumentive theory 101

Where can i see a description of argumentative theory?  I'm not familiar with this claim.

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Does this mean that you will only use terminology that I don't find offensive also or is this just what you might find offensive?  When we start to change our manner of speech just so Mr. Brown or Mrs. Smith won't get their feelings hurt we do them a disservice.  More importantly, we set these two twits up to think that their feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.  

I won't say your behavior is trollish and you stop acting like a troll.  It really isn't hard.  I know you are bright, at times even reflective and sincere.  I don't use the term lightly and if the shoe fits, stop complaining about it; wear the thing proudly or stop acting like a troll.  Also, I won't act like a troll for good measure.

Thank you for personifying the issue I state in the OP.

ETA- Most people do their best not to be offensive to others. Most people will at least try to use inoffensive language when they know it bothers others. It is a fairly basic social skill to accommodate others in reasonable ways such as not using a specific offensive word. I find it strange that there is a kind of glee in doing something that will offend others. It's difficult to wrap my mind around. Determination to continue doing something that is offensive isn't a sign of strength but rather a show of weakness.

Edited April 26, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Does this mean that you will only use terminology that I don't find offensive also or is this just what you might find offensive?  When we start to change our manner of speech just so Mr. Brown or Mrs. Smith won't get their feelings hurt we do them a disservice.  More importantly, we set these two twits up to think that their feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.  

I won't say your behavior is trollish and you stop acting like a troll.  It really isn't hard.  I know you are bright, at times even reflective and sincere.  I don't use the term lightly and if the shoe fits, stop complaining about it; wear the thing proudly or stop acting like a troll.  Also, I won't act like a troll for good measure.

I am trying to build a bridge of understanding but what I sense is that you prefer to tear that bridge down rather than to help join the 2 sides in the middle.  Am I wrong?

Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I am trying to build a bridge of understanding but what I sense it that you prefer to tear that bridge down rather than to help join the 2 sides in the middle.  Am I wrong?

Why a bridge? Why not just walk or swim over to where he is?

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Does this mean that you will only use terminology that I don't find offensive also or is this just what you might find offensive?  When we start to change our manner of speech just so Mr. Brown or Mrs. Smith won't get their feelings hurt we do them a disservice.  More importantly, we set these two twits up to think that their feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.  

Nope!  No name calling here 

And, it's more than just two members here who find this type of behavior offensive (as evidenced by those expressing that on this thread).

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Me, bossy?  Go wash your mouth out with soap this instant!  Afterward, we will discuss the importance of listening to your elders.  Enjoy the evening.

Eh, sorry, I should have said "when you do not appear to be bossy". Categorizations are always on a subjective level and may not necessarily square with objective reality.

And I will! Thank you for ordering me!

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Nope!  No name calling here 

And, it's more than just two members here who find this type of behavior offensive (as evidenced by those expressing that on this thread).

At the time of this post you had 1500 posts and 1400 Rep Points. I love round numbers !!!!

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

That is your perspective and I understand it.  However, I don't share it and I disagree that warning others not to feed the troll is an ad hominem attack; yes, there are ad hominem attacks, but I don't think hanging your hat on that accusation works in an the absolute manner in which you are trying to force on others.  It has become a nice catch phrase to throw out, but it is rarely accurately applied.  Just reading the definition should tell you that calling someone's behavior that of a troll "CAN" be, not IS an ad hominem attack.  

Again, if the shoe fits wear it.  If it doesn't ignore it.  Each of you are grown ups and I refuse to think that your feelings are so tender that there is any damage when you are called on it.  

In other words, you reserve the right to be rude.  Got it.

Edited April 26, 2017 by ttribe

[bluebell]

I think that one thing that might be helpful to remember is that, generally speaking, no thinks they are the bad guy.  Their actions seem rational and reasonable to them.   

So coming at this discussion from the point of view of 'obviously if you do this (or disagree with me about how morally wrong this action is) you are in the wrong' isn't going to get anyone anywhere.  

We sometimes have this idea (that we've probably gotten from the movies we've watched and fictional books that we've read since childhood) that bad guys know they are bad guys.  That's not how people typically work.

Here's an article on the issue written by a psychologist-

Why Bad Guys Think They are Good Guys

In a conflict, each side sees itself as good and justified and the enemy as evil. In fact, you can argue that the only real thing that differentiates a protagonist from an antagonist is that the author is taking the protagonist’s side and showing his or her justifications rather than the justifications of the antagonist.

Being aware of this tendency in ourselves and the person we are having conflict with (the tendency to view ourselves as the obvious good guy in the conflict) might help us to discuss things more effectively and stay off of our high horses (which we all like to get on, on occasion).    

[Johnnie Cake]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where can i see a description of argumentative theory?  I'm not familiar with this claim.

Its an actual area of study...google argumentative theory of reasoning

[Johnnie Cake]

45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why a bridge? Why not just walk or swim over to where he is?

ugggg