Good Faith Discussions

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Actually, I do. 

I also understand how message board debates work. There has to be accepted usage if meaning is disputed. That is why we have a CFR. You may not want the dictionary but you do have to come up with something besides "feelings" or "no it doesn't."  Generally, in short post debates, the dictionary will work. Not too many of us do term papers that we are turning into profs. (Who also required standard English last I was involved.)

Accepted usage doesn't necessarily mean the dictionary use. Again to use the example of the apologist speaking of Joseph's translation that's not typical contemporary use. But it's a defensible use and I don't think anyone would misunderstand me here if I talk about Joseph's translation of the Bible.

Now I think it's completely fine to critique someone as not explaining how they are using a term. If you look through the discussions I've been in since I starting chatting here, I ask people to explain their terms fairly regularly. People ask the same of me. That's part of the back and forth of a dialog. There's no reason that can't happen on a Forum discussion. Sometimes that's because I've come in late to an already long underway discussion. It's unreasonable to expect people to read pages to catch up to the discussion. Sometimes it's because of typos. (Quite regularly in my case - I seem to make a lot especially when typing on my phone) Sometimes it's just because I didn't delineate my usage well enough. Often it's because the same term has very different meanings depending upon the context -- that's particularly common when appealing to terms that arise in science or philosophy.

But back the topic at hand, if I've made a good faith effort to explain a narrowed sense of a term and you come and quote the dictionary to me, you've just engaged in a logical fallacy.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Danzo,

The topic of good-faith discussions is pretty relevant to your accusation here.

How can there be a good-faith discussion when some (including you) insist on seeing frank/polite posts only through jaundice-colored glasses?

There was zilch in her post to assume she has "a complete lack of respect...for members of the church." (I'm reasonably sure she respects her son, and she has engaged nicely here with a broad range of members.) If you two have a prior posting history that involved bad blood, I'm hoping we can move beyond that.

As to the assertion that some on the board have a complete lack of respect for church members, in the hopes of getting to the point of good-faith discussion, specifically who else are you referring to?

The problem I have is I don't really see it as a polite post.

When I read this board I see way to many "the church abuses people", "the church is abusive" or "the church (insert word we are not suppose to use)".  I am told, "well you mean well but you just can't help being abusive"; "I know you can't see it, but I am here to tell me how bad you are".

Abuse (with all of its various synonyms) is a serious accusation, not something to be taken lightly.  Way too often on this board I don't see abuse as even an accusation, but a forgone Judgement, we are convicted without a trial.

Instead of "are we abusing someone?" I see more of "Why are you continuing to abuse"

One is a question that people can disagree with and have various opinions about, one is just judging.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Danzo

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

The problem I have is I don't really see it as a polite post.

When I read this board I see way to many "the church abuses people", "the church is abusive" or "the church (insert word we are not suppose to use)".  I am told, "well you mean well but you just can't help being abusive"; "I know you can't see it, but I am here to tell me how bad you are".

Abuse (with all of its various synonyms) is a serious accusation, not something to be taken lightly.  Way too often on this board I don't see abuse as even an accusation, but a forgone Judgement, we are convicted without a trial.

Instead of "are we abusing someone?" I see more of "Why are you continuing to abuse"

One is a question that people can disagree with and have various opinions about, one is just judging.

 

 

I believe you're mostly right if we substitute the church for members, the members don't abuse those that don't believe. But I do believe that the faith is strong in members of the church and they may not feel they can relate to those that leave and feel they need to distance themselves. And they believe Satan is working on those that do, so even worse.

[probablyHagoth7]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

...Not too many of us do term papers that we are turning into profs. (Who also required standard English last I was involved.)

Yanks can't do standard English. They jettisoned that ability along with accents *and* being subject to a king. 

Speaking of such: is the 12th article of faith a quiet nod to eventual restoration within the commonwealth?  ;0)

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But back the topic at hand, if I've made a good faith effort to explain a narrowed sense of a term and you come and quote the dictionary to me, you've just engaged in a logical fallacy.

How should we handle it when someone wants to define a word in a way that is not supported by the dictionary and isn't the typical accepted use of the word?

Do we have to accept the way they use it as being valid regardless, or is there recourse to settle the disagreement?

I think that's what Juliann is speaking to.  This board functions on the principle of the CFR.  If you can't find a reference to support your statement of fact, you must retract it.  How do we mesh that principle with what you've posted?

A dictionary is an acceptable source on this board if the argument is over the meaning of a word, for example.

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The problem I have is I don't really see it as a polite post.

When I read this board I see way to many "the church abuses people", "the church is abusive" or "the church (insert word we are not suppose to use)".  I am told, "well you mean well but you just can't help being abusive"; "I know you can't see it, but I am here to tell me how bad you are".

Abuse (with all of its various synonyms) is a serious accusation, not something to be taken lightly.  Way too often on this board I don't see abuse as even an accusation, but a forgone Judgement, we are convicted without a trial.

Instead of "are we abusing someone?" I see more of "Why are you continuing to abuse"

I think there's some truth to that. (Again speaking generally rather than of any particular comment)

It might be helpful to say why something is likely to be interpreted as abuse rather than to just say the Church is being abusive. I say that because clearly the brethren are very sensitive to these issues which is why they removed certain masonic elements from the endowment that were causing some to have a negative experience in the temple. There are, I think, limits to what they can do though. Some people might feel as abusive elements that one can't really do much about. (Say the lack of strong female role models in the Book of Mormon, Paul's sexist language, the very nature of polygamy in our history)

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When I read this board I see way to many "the church abuses people", "the church is abusive" or "the church (insert word we are not suppose to use)".  I am told, "well you mean well but you just can't help being abusive"; "I know you can't see it, but I am here to tell me how bad you are".

I think they are just trying to provoke the rest of us out of our so-called naivete through this kind of so-called "dialogue." They seem to forget that when they walk in the light of their fire and in the sparks they have kindled they shall lie down in sorrow (as if they aren't doing this in some misdirected form of sorrow already).

[probablyHagoth7]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe you're mostly right if we substitute the church for members, the members don't abuse those that don't believe. But I do believe that the faith is strong in members of the church and they may not feel they can relate to those that leave and feel they need to distance themselves. And they believe Satan is working on those that do, so even worse.

Such a default stance doesn't bode well, should any ever venture to leave the ninety and nine... 

Edited May 10, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How should we handle it when someone wants to define a word in a way that is not supported by the dictionary and isn't the typical accepted use of the word? Do we have to accept the way they use it as being valid regardless, or is there recourse to settle the disagreement?

Well with pejorative terms we can just point out that the term is being misinterpreted. For instance I mentioned a few pages back that the term that shall not be named had so much negative connotation that a different term or phrase might be wiser to use. It seems that particularly with terms that have these offensive connotations that making a request to use a different term is completely fine. That's true even if we're using the term close to its dictionary sense.

I also bring up the problem of use when someone is equivocating with a term. (Using a term in an argument but with two meanings used at different points in the argument that undermine the logical consistency of the argument) Equivocations are particularly pernicious since they can hide major problems with ones argument. Again just going by my experience grading papers, often the people making equivocation errors aren't aware they are doing so.

 

Quote

I think that's what Juliann is speaking to.  This board functions on the principle of the CFR.  If you can't find a reference to support your statement of fact, you must retract it.  How do we mesh that principle with what you've posted?

A dictionary is an acceptable source on this board if the argument is over the meaning of a word, for example.

A dictionary certainly is a great source for common ways the word is used. I don't think it can determine what a word means in any particular use.

Now when a word is being used in an unfamiliar way, I'd say explain that use with reference to the sources in which it's used that way. That's what I tried to do in my philosophical threads. Although a few took exception to me explaining so much. <grin> I'm fine doing whatever it is people want with regards to how much explanation I give. But with respect to some text, an appeal to the dictionary is just a bad way to determine the meaning of the word. If you need I can give you examples from pretty major texts where words aren't used according to dictionary use. (A philosophy podcast I listen to just used Michael Jackson's "Bad" as an example today)

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Yanks can't do standard English. They jettisoned that ability along with accents *and* being subject to a king. 

Speaking of such: is the 12th article of faith a quiet nod to eventual restoration within the commonwealth?  ;0)

[probablyHagoth7]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think they are just trying to provoke... They seem to forget...as if they aren't doing this in some misdirected form...

They?

Again?  An us-vs-them, circle-the-wagons mindset?

If that approach works for you great, but asserting such things publicly, with such a tone/context, erodes *the very foundation* of good-faith discussion, making it *more* difficult to repair breaches - and instead widening such and creating *new* breaches.

Rather than resort to such dismissals, those who don't wish to engage in a specific topic *can simply refrain* from entering such topics - (which is what I do with most topics here).  Not sure what happened to the recent apostolic counsel to listen with love. Vanished? Like the sun and moon?

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Danzo]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there's some truth to that. (Again speaking generally rather than of any particular comment)

It might be helpful to say why something is likely to be interpreted as abuse rather than to just say the Church is being abusive. I say that because clearly the brethren are very sensitive to these issues which is why they removed certain masonic elements from the endowment that were causing some to have a negative experience in the temple. There are, I think, limits to what they can do though. Some people might feel as abusive elements that one can't really do much about. (Say the lack of strong female role models in the Book of Mormon, Paul's sexist language, the very nature of polygamy in our history)

Oh i agree some people can feel they are abused in the church, we can discuss practices cause people to feel that way

My problem comes when the conviction comes before the trial.  

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I believe you're mostly right if we substitute the church for members, the members don't abuse those that don't believe. But I do believe that the faith is strong in members of the church and they may not feel they can relate to those that leave and feel they need to distance themselves. And they believe Satan is working on those that do, so even worse.

Often, what is being discussed isn't an accusation that members abuse those that don't believe (there will always be friction between believers and non believers) 

Often the judgement is that we members abuse those that do believe. That we are actively harming our own, believing members (although of course, bless our hearts, we can't see it)

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

The problem I have is I don't really see it as a polite post.

....a serious accusation...a forgone Judgement....convicted without a trial.

One is a question, one is just judging.

Danzo, I understand your concern. As part of that, I invite you (and others) to seek a wee bit more charity/patience/longsuffering when engaging with others who might differ from a preferred viewpoint. Successful businesses learned long ago that actually listening to customer feedback (both happy customers *and* displeased customers) is one of the best feedback loops to make their teams better at accomplishing their mission....and as we all probably know, most now host customer-facing sites and discussion forums....funded and manned *for the very purpose* of harvesting frank customer input to hone their effectiveness/competitiveness/profitability. 

The customer in a forum such as MD isn't always right in the doctrinal sense, but so what. This isn't about doctrine but rather about compassionate ministry. Their valid perception of their experience within the church family *is* generally true and reliable, so it would typically benefit all if we simply listen with a bit more love, and a bit less prejudgment. It actually can/will help build Zion. Unless we somehow deem recent apostolic counsel irrelevant?

Fair enough?

 

We see the world not as it is, but as we are.

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[juliann]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Accepted usage doesn't necessarily mean the dictionary use. Again to use the example of the apologist speaking of Joseph's translation that's not typical contemporary use. But it's a defensible use and I don't think anyone would misunderstand me here if I talk about Joseph's translation of the Bible.

 

But back the topic at hand, if I've made a good faith effort to explain a narrowed sense of a term and you come and quote the dictionary to me, you've just engaged in a logical fallacy.

The key word being defensible use.

I suspect this board is a logical fallacy of its own. I am trying to explain to you, having been here decades, that a "good faith attempt" to explain away a documented (and sorry, the dictionary is considered documentation) doesn't fly unless it can be documented with something else. That did not happen in the instance at hand. (The translation issue isn't comparable. Not to mention that one of the first things used for anything to do with that time period is a contemporary....dictionary.)

[probablyHagoth7]

27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Often the judgement is that we members abuse those that do believe. That we are actively harming our own, believing members (although of course, bless our hearts, we can't see it)

If we reject such a claim without granting it a fair hearing, then if such a thing does exist (and it at times does), we will *never* see it while there is time to do something constructive about it. If, within domestic families, actively harming one another but being initially blind to it can be true (where we are hurt most by the [hopefully-unintentional] slights of those we love most deeply), why wouldn't it be true in the dynamic of a church family? Or God's larger family?

Please. Lower your sword. You and the faith you love are not under attack in this thread. 

While I commend your vigilance, and your desire to defend what you value, your friend/foe detector might benefit from a wee bit of calibration.

Thoughts?

[probablyHagoth7]

33 minutes ago, juliann said:

...I am trying to explain to you...that a "good faith attempt" to explain away a documented (and sorry, the dictionary is considered documentation) doesn't fly unless it can be documented with something else. That did not happen in the instance at hand. ...

? There was some other discussion of such things?  Who knew? ;0)

If there was some attempt to explain away any given definition recently I missed it. In this thread, it was instead reiterated what we all know - that words generally have more than one valid definition. That wasn't an attempt to explain away any valid definition, but was simply to remedy the errant Highlander assertion that *there can be only one* definition.

(input from a wee lowlander)

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...if I've made a good faith effort to explain a narrowed sense of a term and you come and quote the dictionary to me, you've just engaged in a logical fallacy.

Such would only be true if you explained *your* intended use of a word and someone then oddly tried to disprove your intent by appealing to a definition you never had in mind.

Most every other appeal to a dictionary wouldn't be engaging in a fallacy...at all...but would instead be conducting due diligence.

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[CV75]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

They?

Again?  An us-vs-them, circle-the-wagons mindset?

If that approach works for you great, but asserting such things publicly, with such a tone/context, erodes *the very foundation* of good-faith discussion, making it *more* difficult to repair breaches - and instead widening such and creating *new* breaches.

Rather than resort to such dismissals, those who don't wish to engage in a specific topic *can simply refrain* from entering such topics - (which is what I do with most topics here).  Not sure what happened to the recent apostolic counsel to listen with love. Vanished? Like the sun and moon?

I am using "they" to very specifically refer to what I imagine to be a very few individuals that Danzo describes as using such terms and tactics. "Most" or "many" don't use them, but "some few" do, and "they" is an appropriate pronoun for either and for anyone else using various approaches to open up a conversation. I can still listen and respond with love to someone who begins the conversation in such a negative way, and still engage in my own way without rewarding a poor approach. There are many ways to approach such an OP other than to refrain from participating. Is not the light welcome to shine in darkness?

[probablyHagoth7]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

...I can still listen and respond with love to someone who begins the conversation in such a negative way, and still engage in my own way without rewarding a poor approach. 

"...asserting such things publicly, with such a tone/context, erodes *the very foundation* of good-faith discussion, making it *more* difficult to repair breaches.."

Hmm. Just realized I was being *more* than a bit hypocritical...

I apologize if I caused offense.

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are many ways to approach such an OP other than to refrain from participating.

Agreed. Not suggesting that people decline to wade in if they feel inclined to engage. I simply prefer threads that focus more on what people love, rather than what they hate/fear...if that makes my meaning more clear...?  

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is not the light welcome to shine in darkness?

Usually welcome. Sunlight? Moonlight? Starlight? Truth? Love? Yep.

Or artificial light? Nope. ;0)

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't post much anymore. That is due in large part to the subject of this thread and the inability of the site's posters to operate in good faith, myself included at times. We recently had a thread about gas lighting, a term with a very specific meaning in practice. The OP and subsequent posters completely ignored the commonly accepted definition and used their own (despite being corrected by a professional). These folks were so determined to get points in about the church that they used that they changed the definition to fit their own needs. None of this is to say that the criticisms they had were unfounded, but if we can't even agree to the underlying facts or definitions of important terms, we should probably just shut the site down.

And to be fair this goes both ways. Everyone should concede facts and validate where possible. For example, I can validate that some posters did not feel like they were taught an accurate history of the Church at Church because they probably weren't. At the same time, I can validate those who say they were aware of more complex issues in Church history for years or decades. They showed a certain level of intellectual curiosity that I (and others like me) didn't. Two things can be true at the same time. 

To expand on this and as it relates to Church history, I can agree that Joseph Smith was accused of soliciting William Law to what amounts to as a wife swap in today's parlance. However, this stipulation in no way means that I have to accept that Joseph Smith actually did what he was accused of or that if he did that that disqualifies him as a prophet. If we could identify underlying objective facts and find out where we can agree, our conversations could then expand to include the more subjective points of discussion. For example, using the above example, if we could agree that Joseph Smith was accused of such things but that we cannot prove such things we could then discuss why we believe William Law or his wife to be reliable or unreliable. 

That would be a much more beneficial conversation and one that I would be more inclined to participate in.

 

Not surprisingly it took your rather reasonable, initial post to become totally dismissed in favor of a rehash of gaslighting; what it means and why everyone is entitled to their own definition and everyone else must respect those new definitions.  Gotta love humans!

Then we entered into the rather novel approach that a dictionary does not really contain the actual definitions of words?  Read that twice and then explain it to me again because that description has no correlation with reality.

There was one noteworthy post about our rather poor perceptions of each other and how that influenced a tense, combative environment on the Board.  With these types of distorted threads that have nothing to do with the initial post my guess is that we are on the road to hell and to the absurd to boot.

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I appreciate the sentiment of the OP but I don't think it's realistic. If we all were in agreement about facts and terms there would be very little discussion. Discussion helps us to hammer out the language we use. For example, the gaslighting term turns out to be highly offensive to many people yet it wasn't my intention to offend people. I felt like the term had applications to my relationship with the church and then there were hundreds of comments afterwards where we attempted to hash out the differences of opinion.

Were opinions changed? In this case, mine has changed to some degree. Not about the behaviors I find objectionable, but rather about how to use language to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that calling it "gaslighting", whether or not I think it applies (which in common usage I still think it does to some degree), is not productive. Using the word was trying to establish a kind of shorthand language but it clearly didn't work  

Regarding your claim that "posters completely ignored the commonly accepted definition and used their own (despite being corrected by a professional)" I think this claim is unfair even though I think I understand your POV. As was determined in the thread, there are multiple definitions, some are clinical and some are common usage. That's partly what we were trying to hash out. But saying that we wouldn't listen to a "professional" is a problematic statement for a couple of reasons. 1- Who posted and cited their expert, professional opinion? I assume you're talking about BlueDream, but are we all supposed to accept a professional opinion just because someone claims credential (please don't read that as me doubting BlueDreams) but you can see how problematic that would be for any internet poster to claim anything they choose. It can be taken into consideration but it doesn't trump everyone elses opinion and shut down conversation. 2- Does every professional share BlueDreams opinion? Maybe, maybe not. Again, granting privilege to an opinion based on a claimed (or unclaimed) credential opens up a lot of cans of worms.

IOW- Discussion boards are about sharing differences and working through differences in use of language as well as determining what facts are truly reliable. We can all probably be more kind to each other in our differences but that doesn't mean we should expect those differences to disappear. There are very few things we will all agree on, and that's ok. That's what makes this discussion board interesting.

ETA- I didn't request the thread be locked. I think it was a natural decision by the mods based on the direction and developing hostility in the thread.

I saw my name 3 times mentioned in a paragraph so I figured I should say something without hopefully delving way too much into the other thread and keeping this relatively on track. 

first, I'm glad your opinion changed a little...it really isn't productive to describe it as such. 

Second, I figure you shouldn't take my word as a "professional" for its own. I obviously have biases and opinions of my own. But I hope it does come off in threads (particularly about sexuality, which is basically my home court) that I give room to acknowledge when that's definitely in play. Appeal to authority isn't enough, but at the same time I would generally lend more credit and weight to opinions that are based in greater experience or research. When it's a history topic and if someone who is well studied in the topic comes in, I would give them greater clout. Because that's simply not my forte. Similarly if a climatologist came into the middle of a discussion about climate change...I would listen more. It is what it is on that note. Expertise and training has to have some impact and meaning. I would hope that it wouldn't shut down all discussion, but it should effect it. Likewise, knowing people can fake just about anything, I would understand reticence. Though at some point I would hope some level of trust could be found. Considering I've been on this board for just over 13.5 years and some of the old members have watched me from a distance grow up to become that professional, it seems like a pretty safe bet that I am who I say I am. The concern for varification makes sense, but at some point you can probably assume it's a safer bet to assume than to not. It's a good hypothetical but it falls apart when you realize the specific person being placed as an example.

But just for future reference, because I doubt this will be the last time I will talk about psychological stuff. Here's my profile on the company's website There's little personal information, so I feel comfortable giving it. I'm on the second row in the middle. So at least there's one professional that you can be pretty sure of. If you need more, both Calm and Juliann have met me IRL. They could both individually verify that that's me.  Again, I know you weren't specifically questioning my credentials. But I figured I'd let you know for sure.  

On point 2. I've stated this before. Therapists rarely entirely agree 100% on everything. But we're pretty territorial about having at least basic words cover what they're supposed to cover. And the OP is talking about basic definitions. At some point basic definitions should matter. In the specific example, no matter where you look, the term isn't a lightly used word. It's tied to describe serious concerns in abuse and actions found in behaviors of those with clinical personality disorders such as narcissism. Things like that. Even with layman uses, the phrase still has serious implications. At some point definitions probably should mean something and have a general consensus to that meaning. They can't be ham-stringed so hard that they lose their relevance beyond this message board. I agree with MM on that point at least. Finding agreement on basic concrete terms would be helpful. I do think at times that's easier said than done. But still, it's a good goal to reach for.

 

With luv,

BD    

[Calm]

Oh yes, that is Bluedreams.

And Juliann can confirm that I am me.

And I can confirm her reality since we are one, after all.

[Calm]

"It's tied to describe serious concerns in abuse and actions found in behaviors of those with clinical personality disorders such as narcissism"

And in the article linked to in that thread's OP, it gave examples that were in line with this.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

The key word being defensible use.

I suspect this board is a logical fallacy of its own. I am trying to explain to you, having been here decades, that a "good faith attempt" to explain away a documented (and sorry, the dictionary is considered documentation) doesn't fly unless it can be documented with something else. That did not happen in the instance at hand. (The translation issue isn't comparable. Not to mention that one of the first things used for anything to do with that time period is a contemporary....dictionary.)

I certainly agree with the point about defensible and making an argument based upon something to conclude use. My point is just that a dictionary can't serve that role. Now of course we could argue based upon clarity of communication that we should hew closer to the dictionary. I'm fine with that. My point is just that there are rather common justifiable reasons to narrow or broaden use and that doesn't even get into more figurative use.

I'd disagree that the discussion of the term "translation" isn't comparable. Also while a 19th century dictionary will get one part way there, it typically functions as the first step to orient one rather than explicate the use.