BlueDreams Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 10 hours ago, stemelbow said: I think there's a great deal to discuss about culture and traditions that permeate various societies. Both help to define diversity in this world. I'm not sure what the power point really is trying to convey at this point, thus I said, "feels like". But I do stand by my original assessment. The title of the two pages, without qualifiers, says there is a need to supersede local cultures. The second slide lists a couple of examples of traditions that whoever put this together think are problematic. They are either being rather naïve to say culture and tradition are the same, are being sloppy, or are saying culture should be superseded overall and some traditions are problematic. But in the end, the title I find unhelpful. I really do wish it was different. There's always some sadness as development scours the planet. In some ways it hurts traditions and cultures and thus some of the beauty and vibrancy of places gets negatively effected. That will always be as cultures typically shift and adjust over time. The title of the two slide, strictly put, suggests there is a need to supersede this It's always a bit concerning to me when outsiders come into a region and negative effect the local culture. Outsiders can't grasp the relevance or depth of given cultures. I get your upset by this, but I find it worth discussing. You don't care to? fine by me. Have fun. It'd have been nice if you just said it doesn't matter to you and we could have moved on. They did give both specific concerns and a qualifier of "gospel" culture. In your opinion, what thing in that description would remotely apply to being superseded by the gospel. It sure hasn't effected my family who are LDS and Nigerian. They still eat fufu, prefer goat, and have a number of Nigerian outfits. What's effected their cultural expression more has been living in UT forever and a day. I'm on my phone and about to leave town. So the following will be short. All my answers are in bold. "Simply put, I did not say what you think I said on this. I've already expressed, I believe to you, that I'd happily support anyone in poverty who wants to donate a tithe. I'd say on your criticism here, you'd have to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps consider what I did say. If not, no big deal. It doesnt' feel like you have much in the way of what I was thinking on this." I have looked over it multiple times and it still sounds overly critical. And if you're supporting others to believe what the believ about tithing, then what's even the point for the op criticism worded as it is? "Ok. I mean I was willing to move on, but since you brought it up, I had asked you to give me something anything that would give you the impression I was saying anything near what you had accused me of? You had nothing. You likely would not be able to find anything, because obviously I did not say anything near what you had accused me of. And that feels like you just want to skirt on past your terrible accusations and imputations--as if I had said something offensive. If you want to hide from it, fine. I honestly don't care. I found your effort rather petty and small minded, so I said so. I meant no particular offense, but I did feel the need to be clear" Dude. You told me I had you wrong, so I let it go. There's a reason I haven't responded, you told me that's what you meant and so I took you for your word. Even if I had doubts. I wasn't going to rehash something you told me wasn't what you meant and felt was wrong. But if you want evidence as to why I thought some of what I said (particularly about culture) this post is it's own example. The gospel does not include any commands or principles that would limit any of what you mentioned as cultural things that you're worried would be superseded. Which means I would assume that you were conflating gospel to something else. Such as church (sense you literally switched it gospel for church a few posts later) or white people or western culture or something else. Because it's pretty clear to me that eating fufu and wearing boubous were not in their list of concerns...considering they wrote down specific concerning areas. "Welcome to your lead BD. Your first response here was nothing but inflammatory, in my estimation. That you don't realize that is pretty sad. but hopefully by me having to turn it back you realize how you came off. You accused me of saying things I would never think in my life. You tried to impute motives to me that were nothing near where my heart is. You put words in my mouth that I found rather offensive. And you used incendiary language. I wish you well, and hope in the future and on other topics we don't have such issues. I'll continue to respect you and hope to get the same out of you. BUt in this thread, at least in part, I found your participation hostile and unhelpful. I think you are better than that. Have fun." yeah, this is still ridiculous. I even re-read my post to see if I was really all "guns blazing" as you put it in a later post here and my memory was failing me. I wasn't. I was strong in my words. But I also put tentative langauge in there such as "some" and "possibly" or "could be" (going off memory of what I read earlier today). I do not find it sad that I do not see things the way you do. I prefer not to be so easily offended. And really, why would my character drastically change in one thread all of the sudden to hostile? Direct and blunt at times, sure. But it wasn't meant to be hostile in the least. You're simply reading it that way. With luv, BD 2
Recommended Posts