Alleged Mormon rudeness about homosexuality

[Gray]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When he candidly expresses his Mormon belief he offends you. When he disagrees with you he insults your intelligence. 

I guess not all of the snowflakes are on college campuses. 

More insults. Like I said, there's not a great deal of difference between the most antagonistic exmos and their counterparts among believers.  Thankfully I think this behavior is not the rule, but the exception.

 

Extremism and totalizing worldviews seem to make people think it's okay to be rude to people who disagree with you. They are the "enemy" so norms of civility seem not to apply

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Gray

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not so doctrinaire on this as I am on the use of quotation marks. They should be used for one reason and one reason only: to indicate that someone or something is being quoted directly.

They are not to be used to indicate emphasis. Doing so makes one's writing look amateurish.

That's covered in this blog post, which also explains the use of scare quotes and other matters pertaining to quotation marks.

Incidentally, I'm not opposed to the occasional use of scare quotes. I think it has a legitimate purpose. As the author in this link explains:

So when I use scare quotes in the phrase gay "marriage," I am signaling my disapproval of the ideology-driven redefinition of marriage. Thus, it is for me a "distancing device," to use the above author's phrase.

I get that, Scott, and I see where you're coming from and I appreciate your explanation.

However, the quotation marks could be seen as insulting. Referring to a marital bond as a "marriage" is no less insulting than saying the LDS "church". Marriage has been redefined long before the SCOTUS decision. Cain and Eve. Abraham and Sarah and then the help. A woman and her rapist. The redefinition argument doesn't logically stand. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on a word and it's definition. I'm not saying that you should be accepting of such marriages but be mindful of how your disapproval can spark emotive responses and backlash. Gay marriage isn't going to end civilization. Not by a long shot. Nuclear war, greed, corruption, lies, etc will destroy civilization.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Valentinus said:

No problem so long as quotation marks don't mean "not real". Let's be completely fair.

When ARE metaphors "real"? When are they NOT "real"?  

All we have are interpretations of words. 

I have been in the Mormon "cult" now 37 years.  Do you think that word scares me?

Clue: Nope.

People have opinions and offend each other.

Get over it.

Mommy's not around to coddle anyone anymore 

And nothing is completely fair.

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

More insults. Like I said, there's not a great deal of difference between the most antagonistic exmos and their counterparts among believers.  Thankfully I think this behavior is not the rule, but the exception.

 

Extremism and totalizing worldviews seem to make people think it's okay to be rude to people who disagree with you. They are the "enemy" so norms of civility seem not to apply

 

They should apply, but this is the real world. 

We can cry about it or get on with life.

Words offend.

Ever in your sheltered life have you heard "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me"?

That was life before political correctness.

That was life with free speech.

You got offended so what it ended there.

Edited July 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I get that, Scott, and I see where you're coming from and I appreciate your explanation.

However, the quotation marks could be seen as insulting. Referring to a marital bond as a "marriage" is no less insulting than saying the LDS "church". Marriage has been redefined long before the SCOTUS decision. Cain and Eve. Abraham and Sarah and then the help. A woman and her rapist. The redefinition argument doesn't logically stand. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on a word and it's definition. I'm not saying that you should be accepting of such marriages but be mindful of how your disapproval can spark emotive responses and backlash. Gay marriage isn't going to end civilization. Not by a long shot. Nuclear war, greed, corruption, lies, etc will destroy civilization.

And political correctness does not have a monopoly on a word either.

If political correctness starts a nuclear war then so be it we're done for anyway. I find the notion totally absurd.

In a nice way of course.

People have died for freedom of speech and it will happen again.

Edited July 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

... And nothing is completely fair.

 

Now you tell me??!!!  

 

[mfbukowski]

Civilization destroyed over quote marks.

Really?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Civilization destroyed over quote marks.

Really?

Well, some civilizations are more fragile than others.  

[MiserereNobis]

I don't say LDS "church." I just don't capitalize it. Is that offensive?

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't say LDS "church." I just don't capitalize it. Is that offensive?

It's a proper noun, is it not?

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's a proper noun, is it not?

No, it isn't like that.  It is when used the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", but our name isn't "Latter-day Saints Church".  He is essentially abbreviating "the Latter-day Saints' church" or even just using it like "Mormon church" which is not a name, but description.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And political correctness does not have a monopoly on a word either.

If political correctness starts a nuclear war then so be it we're done for anyway. I find the notion totally absurd.

In a nice way of course.

People have died for freedom of speech and it will happen again.

I don't disagree with you, Mark. But when one's disapproval overshadows another's human dignity? That's not refusal to be politically correct. It's being a d-bag just because one can.

I didn't bring up political correctness. You did. Having empathy for and respecting a person whose life is not like yours is not being PC. It's being human.

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When ARE metaphors "real"? When are they NOT "real"?  

All we have are interpretations of words. 

I have been in the Mormon "cult" now 37 years.  Do you think that word scares me?

Clue: Nope.

People have opinions and offend each other.

Get over it.

Mommy's not around to coddle anyone anymore 

And nothing is completely fair.

 

It is one thing to offend but an entirely different thing to seek to offend.

I don't talk to my family. I don't have a relationship with them. No one coddles me. And I don't need, nor seek, comfort from persons in either socially conservative or liberal camps. I'm probably making a huge mistake labeling any camp as socially conservative or liberal. It is equally wrong for me to assert that any person is naive or deluded enough to consider themselves socially conservative or liberal.

I've been called an apostate, anti-american, a faggot, a worthless son and brother. Do you think I give a damn about all those silly, audaciously ridiculous and irrelevant labels?

Clue: I don't. I'm better than such nonsense. And to more than a few who've called me any of the above have received a smile and a middle finger for their childish efforts.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No, it isn't like that.  It is when used the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", but our name isn't "Latter-day Saints Church".  He is essentially abbreviating "the Latter-day Saints' church" or even just using it like "Mormon church" which is not a name, but description.

As used I believe it is. Scott?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't say LDS "church." I just don't capitalize it. Is that offensive?

No.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

It is one thing to offend but an entirely different thing to seek to offend.

I don't talk to my family. I don't have a relationship with them. No one coddles me. And I don't need, nor seek, comfort from persons in either socially conservative or liberal camps. I'm probably making a huge mistake labeling any camp as socially conservative or liberal. It is equally wrong for me to assert that any person is naive or deluded enough to consider themselves socially conservative or liberal.

I've been called an apostate, anti-american, a faggot, a worthless son and brother. Do you think I give a damn about all those silly, audaciously ridiculous and irrelevant labels?

Clue: I don't. I'm better than such nonsense. And to more than a few who've called me any of the above have received a smile and a middle finger for their childish efforts.

Dude you know I love you.  Hope I didn't step over the line. I just think quote marks are no biggie.

[Glenn101]

38 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

It is one thing to offend but an entirely different thing to seek to offend.

I don't talk to my family. I don't have a relationship with them. No one coddles me. And I don't need, nor seek, comfort from persons in either socially conservative or liberal camps. I'm probably making a huge mistake labeling any camp as socially conservative or liberal. It is equally wrong for me to assert that any person is naive or deluded enough to consider themselves socially conservative or liberal.

I've been called an apostate, anti-american, a faggot, a worthless son and brother. Do you think I give a damn about all those silly, audaciously ridiculous and irrelevant labels?

Clue: I don't. I'm better than such nonsense. And to more than a few who've called me any of the above have received a smile and a middle finger for their childish efforts.

It is most gratifying to one who seeks to offend when such an one gets a rise out of the intended target. I have known a few of those types.

And then there is the person who offends without intending to do so. Maybe ignoring either type would be the better course.

Then there are those who take a physical course in their attempts to offend. I personally steer clear of those types and have been pretty successful in that area. I do understand that you are equipped to handle such an one though. 

Glenn

[Damien the Leper]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Dude you know I love you.  Hope I didn't step over the line. I just think quote marks are no biggie.

I love you too, Mark. I just hate being thrown in to the same crowd as those students whose professors babied them after the election.  I'd rather have herpes.

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Dude you know I love you.  Hope I didn't step over the line. I just think quote marks are no biggie.

Why does that remind me of this?  (Nope, never saw the movie; just the promos ...)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155056/

[Calm]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

As used I believe it is. Scott?

I have been thinking about it and it is used both ways in my opinion and experience.  Not sure if one is preferable, I would think it depends on context.