Stoning people to death

[Not Sure]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

"Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements"

For the second time, the reference for memes is the Selfish Gene.  For second time, it is the book that COINED THE TERM and thus is by definition the most appropriate reference for memes.  I don't know that it is possible to be any more clear about it for that.   

If you get the moderators to change the moderators to change to following statement:

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

to:

Refusing to provide appropriate multiple sourced references including page numbers to support your statements

Then I will comply but I call BS that this is necessary for concept of memes.  A simple google search will lead you to the wikipedia page on the subject of memes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme.  There is a second source, there are no page numbers in wikipedia pages.

[Not Sure]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it your hypothesis (removing one stimulus of a particular type will always decrease that type of behaviour as opposed to allowing the rest of that type of stimuli---either specific or general---to have greater influence and thus no change on net influence so behaviour remains unchanged even if input changed) or part of someone else's meme theory?

I am glad that you are asking what my hypothesis is rather than just telling me what I meant   Much appreciated 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

For the second time, the reference for memes is the Selfish Gene.  For second time, it is the book that COINED THE TERM and thus is by definition the most appropriate reference for memes.  I don't know that it is possible to be any more clear about it for that.   

If you get the moderators to change the moderators to change to following statement:

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

to:

Refusing to provide appropriate multiple sourced references including page numbers to support your statements

Then I will comply but I call BS that this is necessary for concept of memes.  A simple google search will lead you to the wikipedia page on the subject of memes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme.  There is a second source, there are no page numbers in wikipedia pages.

I am not talking solely about the concepts of memes, but how you are applying them.  The idea that removing religion will automatically result in decrease of behaviour.  What in meme theory supports this?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

I am glad that you are asking what my hypothesis is rather than just telling me what I meant   Much appreciated 

Is it your hypothesis or not?  If it is, how do you support it?

[Not Sure]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Generally speaking moderators don't accept pointing to a whole book and saying 'read that' as sufficient for a CFR (see below) Specific quotes are generally required, preferably with links, both for further information and so others can judge how accurate your interpretation is for themselves to the best of their own ability.

But this was NOT what you where asking for in this statement:

4 hours ago, Not Sure said:

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you have anything besides the book to support your ideas?

You were asking for a second source, not a specific quote.

14 hours ago, Not Sure said:

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Call for reference

Which point would you like a reference to in the sentence you quoted? 

Also, you didn't respond to this question until your last post clarifying that it was the aggressive territorial part?  Or is it the stimulus/behavioral response part?  Or the meme part?  Or do you want references for all three?.   But initially,  had no idea what you were actually looking for a reference for!  I gave you memes just but you appear to be looking a reference for a different part of my statement.

It is your forum, but just recommendation.  First ask for clarity for what the person's position is.  Once it is clear that it something that a source can be asked for (such as non-anecdotal evidence proposition), then go ahead ask for it and be clear what you are asking a reference for.  Otherwise, it looks like you are trying to suppress conversation.    I would like to assume that is not your intent. 

In summary, just be careful of "crying wolf" when it comes to the moderation rules.  That the violation is unambiguously clear.  Just my two cents.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Not Sure said:

But this was NOT what you where asking for in this statement:

You were asking for a second source, not a specific quote.

Also, you didn't respond to this question until your last post clarifying that it was the aggressive territorial part?  Or is it the stimulus/behavioral response part?  Or the meme part?  Or do you want references for all three?.   But initially,  had no idea what you were actually looking for a reference for!  I gave you memes just but you appear to be looking a reference for a different part of my statement.

It is your forum, but just recommendation.  First ask for clarity for what the person's position is.  Once it is clear that it something that a source can be asked for (such as non-anecdotal evidence proposition), then go ahead ask for it and be clear what you are asking a reference for.  Otherwise, it looks like you are trying to suppress conversation.    I would like to assume that is not your intent. 

In summary, just be careful of "crying wolf" when it comes to the moderation rules.  That the violation is unambiguously clear.  Just my two cents.

The CFR rule is that if a statement of fact is made and a CFR issued, the person must provide a reference or retract the statement. 

If all the person has to support the statement is anecdotal evidence, then the statement must be retracted.

It is not the reader’s job to make sure a statement can be supported before asking for a CFR. It is the writer’s job to make sure they have references for statements of fact before posting them.

Also, posters don’t need to make sure a violation is unambiguously clear before reporting it. Posters report what they believe to be violations of board rules, and the leave it in moderators hands. 

 

[Not Sure]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If all the person has to support the statement is anecdotal evidence, then the statement must be retracted.

Only if the original claim is statement to be non-anecdotal either explicitly or implied!!! This forum is literally fill with personal testimony/sources.  This isn't Wikipedia which bans that.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Also, posters don’t need to make sure a violation is unambiguously clear before reporting it. Posters report what they believe to be violations of board rules, and the leave it in moderators hands. 

Sure, and it is up to the moderators to determine if it is inappropriate flagging.

[Not Sure]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The CFR rule is that if a statement of fact is made and a CFR issued, the person must provide a reference or retract the statement. 

Which I did immediately!  It just was not up calm's satisfaction.  I think gave a second source, which who knows where calm was satisfied with.  I do not feel it is reasons to say there wasn't a good faith effort to comply.  In fact, I would argue that calm really should be asking for a summary of what are memes and then ask for a source for the summary.

Also, you should be able to deny CFR request that are overly broad!!!  Which I would argue what Calm's first two CFR request where.  Shouldn't that be reported to the moderators?  In a court of law, asking for evidence without being specific to about what is an objection.  It is reasonable to determine if the request for evidence is reasonable then reasonable requests if denied are in violation.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Not Sure

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

Which I did immediately!  It just was not up calm's satisfaction.  I think gave a second source, which who knows where calm was satisfied with.  I do not feel it is reasons to say there wasn't a good faith effort to comply.  In fact, I would argue that calm really should be asking for a summary of what are memes and then ask for a source for the summary.

Also, you should be able to deny CFR request that are overly broad!!!  Which I would argue what Calm's first two CFR request where.  Shouldn't that be reported to the moderators?  In a court of law, asking for evidence without being specific to about what is an objection.  It is reasonable to determine if the request for evidence is reasonable then reasonable requests if denied are in violation.

Welcome to the board Not Sure...I love you name!!

Edited December 2, 2017 by Jeanne

[Not Sure]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Welcome to the board Not Sure...I love you name!!

My name is not "Not Sure"  Welcoming is very nice of you to say!  It is nice to feel welcome and not being felt to be an outsider.

Since calm was calling for reference without being specific to what.  I'll give a reference to what my name means for the people that don't know.  Side note:  I think the YouTube videos could be bigger in this forum (sarcasm).

 

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Not Sure

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

Which I did immediately!  It just was not up calm's satisfaction.  I think gave a second source, which who knows where calm was satisfied with.  I do not feel it is reasons to say there wasn't a good faith effort to comply.  In fact, I would argue that calm really should be asking for a summary of what are memes and then ask for a source for the summary.

Also, you should be able to deny CFR request that are overly broad!!!  Which I would argue what Calm's first two CFR request where.  Shouldn't that be reported to the moderators?  In a court of law, asking for evidence without being specific to about what is an objection.  It is reasonable to determine if the request for evidence is reasonable then reasonable requests if denied are in violation.

It helps to remember that CFRs aren't about good faith efforts.  You can say whatever you want if it's your opinion, but if you state something is a fact, then you open yourself up to a CFR, and the rules for CFRs are fairly specific.  You can't just give a book name, you have to provide the actual quote.  You can't just site something on the internet, you have to provide an exact link.  That kind of thing.

Just like Calm, you are free to report whatever you want to to the mods.  Nothing is stopping you.  It doesn't mean the mods will agree but you can report away.  This isn't a court of law, the rules are different.  You can definitely ask for clarification if you don't understand what the CFR was issued for, but you don't get to decide if the request was reasonable or not.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Not Sure said:

Only if the original claim is statement to be non-anecdotal either explicitly or implied!!! This forum is literally fill with personal testimony/sources.  This isn't Wikipedia which bans that.

Sure, and it is up to the moderators to determine if it is inappropriate flagging.

If a mod decides the report was unnecessary then it will be ignored, that's all.  And, you need to understand the difference between something couched in 'this is my belief/opinion' language and stuff that's written as if it's a fact.   Like I said, you can say whatever you want if you make it clear that it's your belief.  The second you imply that your belief or opinion is a fact, then CFRs are valid.

The rules are what they are.  If you feel like you aren't being treated fairly, then report it and move on, waiting to see what if anything comes of it.  

Also, i'm not sure how to interpret the tone of your post when you use so many exclamation marks?  Are you yelling?  Angry?  

 

[Not Sure]

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

10 hours ago, Not Sure said:

I am glad that you are asking what my hypothesis is rather than just telling me what I meant   Much appreciated 

Is it your hypothesis or not?  If it is, how do you support it?

I was just trying to compliment you on a good behavior and I mean that honestly

 But keep calm, the conversation was heavily derailed so might take me a little bit to give you a response.  

[Not Sure]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Also, i'm not sure how to interpret the tone of your post when you use so many exclamation marks?  Are you yelling?  Angry?  

Frustrated

[Not Sure]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The rules are what they are.  If you feel like you aren't being treated fairly, then report it and move on, waiting to see what if anything comes of it.  

Ok, I will report the abuse of an overly board CPR.  Let's move on.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Not Sure

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Not Sure said:

Frustrated

I understand, it can be really frustrated to come into a place where no one knows you and you don't know anyone.  For reference, calm is one of the longest posters to this board, and she's also one of the most well respected (among believer and critic/non member alike).  Sometimes it's best to tread softly until posters get to know you better.

Some of the stuff you've said is hard to read right i think, because it comes off kind of condescending or passive/aggressive (likely because no one knows you yet and so they don't know how to read your tone).  For example, telling someone that you were complimenting their good behavior can come across like a teacher giving a student a gold star for finally following directions.

Something like "I was sincerely thankful that you let me speak for myself" might come across better.  

[Not Sure]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some of the stuff you've said is hard to read right i think, because it comes off kind of condescending or passive/aggressive (likely because no one knows you yet and so they don't know how to read your tone).  For example, telling someone that you were complimenting their good behavior can come across like a teacher giving a student a gold star for finally following directions.

Ironically, that was the point I was making about aggressive territorial responses in my hypothesis before the conversation got derailed.  Thanks for the suggestions though, I appreciate it  I've reported the incident, let move on.

[Hestia]

Not Sure, CFRs are answered with references, not directions on where to find a reference.  Everyone move on.  

[Gray]

On 12/1/2017 at 11:50 AM, Not Sure said:

I agree with this statement especially as it is concerned with the main topic of this post "stoning people to death" and the treatment of people who are gay.   Territorial responses are common in human behaviors and territorial responses can be stronger than the Altruistic response option.

I especially like the part about specific beliefs.  But now we need to identify the beliefs that are associated with aggressive territorial responses.  I'll give an example, the belief in a chosen people.  Is there a belief that you where thinking of?

Any ideology that scapegoats or demonizes a certain class of people for starters (usual targets being Jewish people, immigrants, black people, gay people, etc)

[Not Sure]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Any ideology that scapegoats or demonizes a certain class of people for starters (usual targets being Jewish people, immigrants, black people, gay people, etc)

I have similar feelings.  For me the belief that there is a chosen people is another. What about those beliefs do you feel causes what I am calling aggressive territorial responses?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Not Sure said:

I have similar feelings.  For me the belief that there is a chosen people is another. What about those beliefs do you feel causes what I am calling aggressive territorial responses?

I disagree that the "chosen people" belief automatically contributes to territorial responses, aggressive or otherwise.

I have noticed a number of people, both LDS and non, who define themselves as part of a chosen people interpret that as being chosen by God not to inflate their own value, but to go out and be a servant to others.  In this group, humility and openness are a result in many, many cases with little territorial expression.  Instead they see everyone as belonging to their community, they are simply chosen for one role just as some become teachers, police, doctors, home caregivers, or other service oriented careers.  Sometimes this means living a different lifestyle in order to be better prepared for serving.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Calm

[Not Sure]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I disagree that the "chosen people" belief automatically contributes to territorial responses, aggressive or otherwise.

I have noticed a number of people, both LDS and non, who define themselves as part of a chosen people interpret that as being chosen by God not to inflate their own value, but to go out and be a servant to others.  In this group, humility and openness are a result in many, many cases with little territorial expression.  Instead they see everyone as belonging to their community, they are simply chosen for one role just as some become teachers, police, doctors, home caregivers, or other service oriented careers.  Sometimes this means living a different lifestyle in order to be better prepared for serving.

I am not sure I have heard "chosen people" to include having a service profession as a job as part of its core definition.  That sounds lovely  The part about being a "servant to others", I am not a big fan of phrase   Even if it is meant to be voluntary helping others - it has too much baggage for me.

Are there some that after being told that they are chosen of good use it to inflate their own value?  Is there any historically significant examples of that?

[Not Sure]

58 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

The part about being a "servant to others", I am not a big fan of phrase   Even if it is meant to be voluntary helping others - it has too much baggage for me.

Did members of the LDS church own slaves?  It's a question that I don't think I ever asked as member or post-member.  Obviously, most members know about the blacks and the priesthood, but I don't remember this ever being brought up.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

Did members of the LDS church own slaves?  It's a question that I don't think I ever asked as member or post-member.  Obviously, most members know about the blacks and the priesthood, but I don't remember this ever being brought up.

Yes, there were a few. One, Green Flake had chosen to stay with the owner's family, who freed their slaves when they became members and moved to Nauvoo. For some strange reason, they only allowed him to stay with the family if he stayed a slave, which he chose to do.  I haven't studied in depth to find the reasoning

 At least one slave was used to pay tithing iirc. He was freed and then employed by BY, again iirc. 

Details are not provided, but slavery in Utah and then servitude is mentioned in the Gospel Essay

-------

I did not intend to imply that those in service professions see themselves as a chosen people, merely that some of those who do see themselves as a chosen people see that chosenness as just one of their roles in their lives just as a doctor may define being a doctor as one role of many that she plays (friend, family member, teacher, etc among the others).  Thus there is no inherent reason for this belief to create territorial feelings any more than many other beliefs or attitudes. 

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

The scriptures and teachings of the prophets are full of positive views of choosing to be servants to others, especially God.  I use it in that way, not with any of the baggage of lower class or forced indenture.  Christ, our God, is even described as choosing to be a servant.  

If you have a better term for being in chosen service to others, you can certainly suggest it.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/be-a-friend-a-servant-a-son-of-the-savior?lang=eng