Good Faith Discussions

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

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.

No one argued that to my knowledge. I said that definitions in a dictionary attempt to summarize main normative uses but that they don't determine the uses of a word in a particular text. This seems pretty uncontroversial. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm on the second row in the middle.

Hello BlueDreams! wow you are beautiful! Wanna go on a date with me ?

I am attractive and I haven't played video games in years I promise. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

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.

It'd be a fallacy if someone attempted to determine use based upon the dictionary. That'd cover not just discerning my intent but the full meaning of what I wrote. Of course as I said someone could well argue I'd communicate better with a different use. They might justifiably note that people were misunderstanding me and appeal to the dictionary as how I ought use the word. But I was more dealing with the debate about the meaning of the term that shan't be named in the locked thread.

 

But I think we've beaten that topic into the ground. So I'll let it lie.

Edited May 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Does that make us the female trinity? 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 I haven't played video games in years I promise. 

There was a poster with the name VideoGameJunkie.  There is some confusion with the name, any relation?

Edited May 11, 2017 by Calm

[probablyHagoth7]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the board is in a place right now where there are a lot of posters who automatically doubt the sincerity and intentions of other posters before they say anything, and that's causing drama.

Drama isn't always a bad thing. 

Heightened emotion is often a setting where the things we learn are more vividly imprinted/remembered.

(Last time I checked, BYU funds an extensive program enlisting drama tor the very purpose of helping educators become more effective teachers.)

I don't control whether people opt to doubt others' sincerity/intentions. Them defaulting to do so is *not* engaging in good faith. So I respectfully decline to take ownership of aspects of engagement that *others* control, and will instead focus on the things that *I* control.

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully things will settle down but it will probably take everyone resetting their expectations and being a little bit more neutral in posting style for a while.

Neutral posting style doesn't work for me. If we aren't advancing truth, expanding the stakes of Zion, etc., what is the point of engaging here? Isn't that stance within the stated mission of this forum?

And if such a stance makes some people temporarily uncomfortable - wonderful. I'll happily discomfit such.

That approach might not be the flavor of love some might arbitrarily prefer, but it *is* genuine love.

Fair 'nuf?

 

The standard of truth....No unhallowed hand...Calumny....[un]til...

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

Advancing patiently/faithfully through initial cognitive dissonance results in both progress *and* peace.

Will let that suffice for now. Pleasant dreams everyone.

Manana.

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Hello BlueDreams! wow you are beautiful! Wanna go on a date with me ?

I am attractive and I haven't played video games in years I promise. 

We are a lucky group to have her wisdom on this board! 

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No one argued that to my knowledge. I said that definitions in a dictionary attempt to summarize main normative uses but that they don't determine the uses of a word in a particular text. This seems pretty uncontroversial. 

I think that is the point - Normative has value and purpose.  It enables everyone to understand exactly what one means by using language.  The moment we begin to think that individual "X" has a right to redefine words at will is when chaos consumes our society.  For example, X has chosen to describe the sky as being a wonderful orange today.  Citizen Y says, no X the sky is not orange it is blue. X insists that their definition has value because when everyone else calls the sky blue it hurts their feelings; thus, the sky is definitely orange.  Society is supposed respect this individual's new use of the word orange because is assuages their feelings and all is copasetic. 

This is absurd - I am not saying you support this type of thinking; my comments are about this thread in general.  We have created dictionaries to ensure that words have value and meaning and that we can actually communicate with one another.  Societies have enlarged the meanings of words and the definitions are expanded after a long period of time.  However, what we have in this thread is a desire to use a power packed word to garner emotional impact; to slur another or to demean a church.  

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

"...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.

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...?  

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

Or artificial light? Nope. ;0)

Yes. I think everyone is entitled to his own preference, but choosing to discuss a subject based primarily on its emotional content (whether a positive or negative emotion), as reflected in provocative language, makes one vulnerable to critique from the more dispassionate poster, and even worse, contention from the poster holding a contrary passion. As irrational (in a good way) as faith is, “good faith” requires some recognition of rationality, whether one starts or joins the thread. OPs set the stage and so they generally carry the responsibility of setting the tone.

So for me, discussing subjects that are emotionally charged, both positive and negative, are perfectly fine, but a focus on (or submission to) the emotional energy as revealed by the language used quickly detracts from good faith in the exchange of ideas as well as feelings. The energy and ideas are what I mean by “light.”

[probablyHagoth7]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think that is the point - Normative has value and purpose.  It enables everyone to understand exactly what one means by using language.  The moment we begin to think that individual "X" has a right to redefine words at will is when chaos consumes our society.  For example, X has chosen to describe the sky as being a wonderful orange today.  Citizen Y says, no X the sky is not orange it is blue...Society is supposed respect this individual's new use of the word orange because is assuages their feelings and all is copasetic. 

This is absurd.

Is it still absurd if one turns to the dictionary for "sky", and is surprised to find:
Sky (noun):
1. Blue 

2. Orange

?  ?  ?  ? 

That was *and is* the reality of things that you instead choose to distort to the point of an absurd cartoon...which happens to be a very common logical fallacy. 

(Or, for the sake of other matters that come up in this forum, what if, minus any dictionary, one simply discovers that one of the disagreeing camps is colorblind, where, to them, the sky *truly is* a different color.) Color isn't a constant - it is merely how one happens to parse light - and perception of the exact same light can shift dramatically among different people (and with the same person in different settings). Perception *is* one's reality.   

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

However, what we have in this thread is a desire to use a power packed word to garner emotional impact; to slur another or to demean a church.  

Where I come from, using power-packed words for emotional/cognitive impact is called effective communication. 

Gut check:

• Is such communication only appropriate/honorable when one happens to like the message initially conveyed?
• If not, why not?
• But if not, who then is slurring whom?

Frank, honest questions. I look forward to your responses.

More importantly, from my understanding, the core desire in this thread among those apparently under attack was neither to slur others, nor to demean a church - although I do understand how things said *could* be interpreted to have that intent.

In the future, rather than fret in the dark and launch defensive barbs, would it not be more effective *to simply ask* a participant to step forward and explain what their intent/motivation is? All of us here are equipped to determine whether any such response resonates with truth.

We have been encouraged recently to motivate with love, rather than fear...and this thread has instead been a simmering cauldron of fear.

Can we please resume course?

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

31 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

...More importantly, from my understanding, the core desire in this thread among those apparently under attack...

Gonna proactively address the objections raising in some people's throats:

Objection: "No one is under attack here."

Really? Openly questioning/undermining one's intent is perhaps the most effective/ruthless attack one can make on someone's credibility/trustworthiness. It shatters the very root/foundation of civil discourse. 

Quote

Perhaps the following story, popular nearly 200 years ago, will shed some light...:

This puts me in mind of the good, peaceable Quaker who said to a poor dog which he wanted killed, “I will not kill thee, but I will give thee a bad name.” So he cried, “Mad dog! Mad dog!” And on hearing this cry the people soon dispatched the poor animal.”(1)

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/clouds-without-water-zeal-without-knowledge-a-review-of-the-kingdom-of-the-cults-by-walter-martin

Please stop it. Now.

31 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Can we please resume course?

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Gonna proactively address the objections raising in some people's throats:

Objection: "No one is under attack here!"

Really?! Openly questioning/undermining one's intent is perhaps the most effective/ruthless but most cowardly attack one can make on someone's credibility/trustworthiness. It shatters the very root/foundation of civil discourse. 

Please stop it. Now.

Really sound like you are questioning peoples intent.

Doctor, Heal thyself. (or just accept that determining  intent is a big part of any discussion)

Edited May 11, 2017 by Danzo

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Perhaps not by itself, but coupled with other contemporary sources it's a pretty good reference, especially in our internet age where they are updated regularly and you have many to choose from (The urban dictionary provides a definition of the word 'bad' that matches Michael Jackson's use of the word, for example).  If a word is used in a specific way in today's culture, there will be a record of that on the internet to support it's use.  

If someone wants to assign meaning to a word that the dictionary does not support then they need to provide other references that do support it.  That is what Juliann is saying.  In the absence of other references, a dictionary is generally sufficient to settle any disagreement on word meaning on this board.  

Edited May 11, 2017 by bluebell

[probablyHagoth7]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Really sound like you are questioning peoples intent.

I am instead directly challenging people's methods. 

*Why* they adopt such methods (their intent/motivation) is largely between them, and their mirror, and their maker.

Unless such opt to step forward and clearly reveal their why. Wanna be the first to start? :0)

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Doctor, Heal thyself.

The surrounding context *is* an initial source of healing.

Edited May 11, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If someone wants to assign meaning to a word that the dictionary does not support then they need to provide other references that do support it.  That is what Juliann is saying.  In the absence of other references, a dictionary is generally sufficient to settle any disagreement on word meaning on this board.  

Again remember the discussion was relative to the locked thread. The question is by how much can one narrow or expand from the dictionary use. Again I'm not saying dictionaries aren't useful. I'm saying they can't determine the use. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again remember the discussion was relative to the locked thread. The question is by how much can one narrow or expand from the dictionary use. Again I'm not saying dictionaries aren't useful. I'm saying they can't determine the use. 

I think I understand what you are saying.  What I'm saying is that they report the common usage and that's why they serve as a reference when there is a disagreement with the way someone is using the word.  

People can't just define or use words however they want on this board.  They have to be able to back up their use or definition with references if their use becomes an issue.

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

People can't just define or use words however they want on this board.  They have to be able to back up their use or definition with references if their use becomes an issue.

I can think of several posts I've done just this morning where I either asked someone to explain their usage or was using a word slightly different from the dictionary use. Are you saying all of those uses are objectionable?

Edited May 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Meadowchik]

  4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

"However, what we have in this thread is a desire to use a power packed word to garner emotional impact; to slur another or to demean a church."

Another way to frame it is that people genuinely feel like the word describes their experience in the church and they'd like such patterns to be acknowledged and stopped.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I can think of several posts I've done just this morning where I either asked someone to explain their usage or was using a word slightly different from the dictionary use. Are you saying all of those uses are objectionable?

No.  I'm saying two different things.  

First, on this board, no one is allowed to create their own definitions of words.  They must be able to support their use with references if it comes down to it.  

Second, if there is a disagreement about what a word means (not a misunderstanding, but a disagreement), a dictionary (or other references) is a valid way (on this board) to settle the issue.

For example, if someone wants to use the word 'anti-mormon' to mean all people who aren't mormon, and someone disagreed with that and issued a CFR, the person trying to use the term in that way would need to provide references to support it's usage or pick another word.  From my perspective, this is a part of having good-faith discussions.  We use terms that people can generally agree on the meaning of because our goal is for discussions to move forward and be productive. 

If everyone agrees on the usage of a particular term then there is no problem.  But when disagreement does arise, then sticking to the reference rule makes sense.

To use a sports analogy (I am not at all sporty but i'll see if this works), it becomes a kind of an unspoken 'no blood, no foul' situation where everyone tacitly agrees with the limits that have been set, whether they are 'regulation' or not, so it works.  When disagreement arises and the game comes to a halt because of it, then regulation rules come into play and are a valid way to decide how to move forward. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by bluebell

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Is it still absurd if one turns to the dictionary for "sky", and is surprised to find:
Sky (noun):
1. Blue 

2. Orange

?  ?  ?  ? 

That was *and is* the reality of things that you instead choose to distort to the point of an absurd cartoon...which happens to be a very common logical fallacy. 

(Or, for the sake of other matters that come up in this forum, what if, minus any dictionary, one simply discovers that one of the disagreeing camps is colorblind, where, to them, the sky *truly is* a different color.) Color isn't a constant - it is merely how one happens to parse light - and perception of the exact same light can shift dramatically among different people (and with the same person in different settings). Perception *is* one's reality.   

Where I come from, using power-packed words for emotional/cognitive impact is called effective communication. 

Gut check:

• Is such communication only appropriate/honorable when one happens to like the message initially conveyed?
• If not, why not?
• But if not, who then is slurring whom?

Frank, honest questions. I look forward to your responses.

More importantly, from my understanding, the core desire in this thread among those apparently under attack was neither to slur others, nor to demean a church - although I do understand how things said *could* be interpreted to have that intent.

In the future, rather than fret in the dark and launch defensive barbs, would it not be more effective *to simply ask* a participant to step forward and explain what their intent/motivation is? All of us here are equipped to determine whether any such response resonates with truth.

We have been encouraged recently to motivate with love, rather than fear...and this thread has instead been a simmering cauldron of fear.

Can we please resume course?

I think you knew exactly what I meant - if you want to play semantics, I am not your guy.  You will need to find someone else.

Gads, this is "pénible".  No, Hagoth, I don't have a problem with critical discussions.  Yes, Hagoth, I find non-answers to be unhelpful.  Frankly, I don't really give a rat's patutie if I am discussing a topic with someone that has a contrary opinion or position.  I just don't tolerate ignorance or stupidity well.  You may be entitled to a different opinion; but you are not entitled to your own "facts".  

Sorry, you just go into the deep end of nonsense; I don't know how to have a discussion with this approach.

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No.  I'm saying two different things.  

First, on this board, no one is allowed to create their own definitions of words.  They must be able to support their use with references if it comes down to it.  

Second, if there is a disagreement about what a word means (not a misunderstanding, but a disagreement), a dictionary (or other references) is a valid way (on this board) to settle the issue.

For example, if someone wants to use the word 'anti-mormon' to mean all people who aren't mormon, and someone disagreed with that and issued a CFR, the person trying to use the term in that way would need to provide references to support it's usage or pick another word.  From my perspective, this is a part of having good-faith discussions.  We use terms that people can generally agree on the meaning of because our goal is for discussions to move...

What happens when the term in question is the closest one a person can find to the meaning they want to convey?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

My take on the issue of this thread and the other, now closed thread, is that some have passed through some unpleasant experiences with the church and called it g__________.  That made some defenders defensive.  I think this highlights the communication problem I see between member and former member.  Former member wants validation for feeling the way he/she does and for his/her choices to leave and member feels this is an attack on the member's religion.  I don't know if there is a resolution to the problem.  Maybe it is just the nature of religion.  However, maybe former member should realize that validation is not in the cards as the leadership doesn't want to legitimize what they term as "apostasy."   Also, maybe member should not feel that he/she is being attacked for something former member claimed the church did as an organization.  If this isn't completely possible, maybe at least we can wait a few minutes prior to responding so as to keep it as civil as possible?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What happens when the term in question is the closest one a person can find to the meaning they want to convey?

If it's a legitimate use of the term then it should be easy to find references to support the way the person is trying to use it.

If it's an illegitimate use of the term then the person should probably ask themselves why they are trying to use it, what their motivations are?  Are they trying to have a good-faith discussion that is productive or are they trying to do something else (vent their anger, annoy/push buttons, pass judgement/make accusations, etc.)

If their goal is to have a productive discussion then they are much better served in choosing a different term, even if they personally liked the first one better.   It can be the difference between a thread spent discussing the issues and a thread spent arguing over semantics.  

If we know a path leads to a destination we don't want to go, we should choose another path that has a better chance of getting us there.

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it's a legitimate use of the term then it should be easy to find references to support the way the person is trying to use it.

If it's an illegitimate use of the term then the person should probably ask themselves why they are trying to use it, what their motivations are?  Are they trying to have a good-faith discussion that is productive or are they trying to do something else (vent their anger, annoy/push buttons, pass judgement/make accusations, etc.)

If their goal is to have a productive discussion then they are much better served in choosing a different term, even if they personally liked the first one better.   It can be the difference between a thread spent discussing the issues and a thread spent arguing over semantics.  

If we know a path leads to a destination we don't want to go, we should choose another path that has a better chance of getting us there.

Who decides the legitimacy? And guess what, that adaptability should be expected from both sides.

I adapted several times in the gaslighting thread only to become a subject of someone's aggressive, personally-directed ire. 

Misunderstandings can occur, but the conduct in that thread that generally agreed with the OP was mild. It seemed to me that the reaction from some who disagreed was that of attempting to remove all legitimacy from the OP and then shaming those who sympathized with it.

There are many, many ways to resolve conflict and many can even happen if a term used is somewhat vague. There are ways for caring people to work with the term and use it provisionally,  or offer alternates, rather than roadblocking the conversation for everyone.