Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida


smac97

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Time stamp of comment please. It could just be a casual speech habit where one fills in with a generic word (these days I use “whatever” quite a bit for this purpose). Unless you can establish he makes a habit of labeling people as “things”, I don’t think it wise to assume such a bias. 

2:24. I think this a great example of @CV75 making him an offender for a word. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Curious, I searched and while I didn't find precisely what @teddyaware was referring to, because I didn't examine the entire thread, it might nevertheless be somewhere in Mystery Meat's thread "There Is No Such Thing As A Liberal Mormon" which was originally posted in August 2016. In that thread @maklelan posts this

In the same thread, he indicates that he does not believe a fetus has the status of a human life until it is actually born. Did he write exactly what Teddy said he wrote? Don't know. But it seems that does reflect his opinion.

Not that he's not entitled to his opinion. Of course he is. It happens that I'm not too favorable towards people who believe that abortion up to just before the moment of birth is OK. Which seems to be what his position is.

Not to be a board nanny, but discussing this further is probably a threadjack. Those who do wish to carry this further should perhaps start another thread on the subject. But I am pretty sure it has been talked to death here, and hasn't changed anyone's mind so far. So why bother?

I support requiring companies providing birth control, especially if they don’t provide full maternity leave both before and after the baby is born and day care help (if they aren’t going to help support a working parent, I think it is economically wise for them to help an employee not become a parent through birth control). I can’t make a decision about PP because I haven’t studied it well enough to know if it is a decent use of taxpayer’s funds plus a few things I have read bother me enough I need to do more research to make sure they are false claims as other sites report.  So the best phrasing would be I support many things PP does, but not committed to supporting them fully.
 

 I also do not believe a fetus qualifies legally as identical to “legal” personhood or as a legal human life until born or very close to birth (no sooner than being able to survive on its own without drastic medical assistance).  For example, if a mother eats poorly, drinks, or takes drugs while pregnant, I don’t believe she should be charged with assault or neglect where if she starved her living child or forced them to drink alcohol or gave them drugs, I believe she should be charged with assault or a similar crime.

And yet the way teddyaware described Dan’s position is completely wrong for me…so I don’t see your reference as fulfilling even partially my CFR.  

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Time stamp of comment please. It could just be a casual speech habit where one fills in with a generic word (these days I use “whatever” quite a bit for this purpose). Unless you can establish he makes a habit of labeling people as “things”, I don’t think it wise to assume such a bias. 

About 2:25 - 2:35 in his vidoe about weaponizing the scriptures "young men, boys, slaves and things like that"

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, provoman said:

About 2:25 - 2:35 in his vidoe about weaponizing the scriptures "young means, boys, slaves and things like that"

Having now watched it, he is using “things” as a substitute for “persons”…but I see it as just using it as a catch all rather than a bias of viewing people as objects/things.  He is recording and doesn’t want to have pauses he should edit out.  I don’t see it as any different than my “whatever”, which certainly implies nothing besides the fact I don’t want to or can’t take the time to find the word I really want to use.  It does not mean I see food or errand running or someone’s name as generic, meaningless, dismissible “whatevers”.  (These are recent memory glitches for me that I remember filling in with something, most likely “whatever” these days.)

Now if CV wants to do a search in Dan’s writings on “thing” or “thing” and that shows him using these words as substitutes for person words and pulls out a few comments where Dan treats individuals in similar ways to how he might treat a table or computer (as something for his own use or does not show empathy for others, that might be pointing toward such a bias. But to take one sentence in isolation and build a personality analysis around that is highly problematic. 
 

It also seems rather irrelevant. I wouldn’t have gone down the trail if it wasn’t a pretty hefty*** personal accusation to be making about someone in my view. 
 

***I view it as “hefty” because I agree with Terry Pratchett on this, he has a couple of variations..

”And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things.”

”Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.”

Then there is the whole mental health issue of objectification. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Time stamp of comment please. It could just be a casual speech habit where one fills in with a generic word (these days I use “whatever” quite a bit for this purpose). Unless you can establish he makes a habit of labeling people as “things”, I don’t think it wise to assume such a bias. 

Assuming that such things, even a casual speech habit, are a reflection of bias is quite reasonable: Our brains navigate 11,000,000 bits of information at any given moment, but our conscious brain can only process 50 bits of information per second, so "go figure" how much of a role bias plays. 

Start the clock at 2:19 (I transcribed it previously: "younger men and boys and slaves and things like that."

As I said, I don't want to belabor this; we have substance and style at play. I'm suggesting his bias on a couple of fronts is an Achilles heel for him as a presenter. people sharing his bias won't see the red flag.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet the way teddyaware described Dan’s position is completely wrong for me…so I don’t see your reference as fulfilling even partially my CFR.

I don't think it does, either, but I was curious so did some looking. Dan may not have said exactly what teddyaware said, but it seems reasonable he feels that way, based on his other statements. He's free to say what he feels about it now, if he wants.

My position on the topic is that it is reasonable to restrict abortion to the first trimester, in respect to life and humanity. It's not like pregnancy commonly sneaks up up on a woman without her knowing about it. Surprise! Suddenly she's 8 months pregnant? I don't think so.

Well, nobody cares what I think. Nevermind.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I won't belabor this, but I did transcribe the phrase directly from the video; it suggests a bias concerning people-as-things which some people don't mind but others do.

His point on historical context is one thing and quite valuable in my opinion; his manner and approach is another, which, as you can see, solicits different interpretations.

Your interpretation of what he said and what you think he meant seems wildly divergent from reality and good sense. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Ha-ha I was waiting for that one. No, the phraseology he uses casually or expertly, reflects his bias.

If it’s repetive, perhaps.  If not, if a one time occurrence, there are too many variables to judge global behaviour based on a micro expression.

Are you are okay with you being judged as tending to mental disorders based on one comment in your lifetime?  I can’t imagine any psychologist as thinking that was reasonable.  I find it remarkable you do.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Dan may not have said exactly what teddyaware said, but it seems reasonable he feels that way, based on his other statements.

Given he has informed one person who appears to be categorizing his comments similar to how teddy is that they are misinterpreting him, I don’t believe it is that reasonable to assume the position teddy is claiming is accurate.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74930-homosexuality-and-the-bible/?do=findComment&comment=1210122793

He may not realize this thread is also discussing his comments btw, since it is off topic from the title and much of the thread.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Calm said:

Given he has informed one person who appears to be categorizing his comments similar to how teddy is that they are misinterpreting him, I don’t believe it is that reasonable to assume the position teddy is claiming is accurate.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74930-homosexuality-and-the-bible/?do=findComment&comment=1210122793

He may not realize this thread is also discussing his comments btw, since it is off topic from the title and much of the thread.

You're right, and so I shall slither off onto another topic and not continue to help derail this one. Sssssss.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Your interpretation of what he said and what you think he meant seems wildly divergent from reality and good sense. 

Such is your bias and how things seem to you, at least for rhetoric's sake.

18 hours ago, Calm said:

If it’s repetive, perhaps.  If not, if a one time occurrence, there are too many variables to judge global behaviour based on a micro expression.

Are you are okay with you being judged as tending to mental disorders based on one comment in your lifetime?  I can’t imagine any psychologist as thinking that was reasonable.  I find it remarkable you do.

Ha ha, see Eschaton's above post to me, and yes, I am OK with that (in that it means little to me) when I consider the context and source. 

I find it very odd that pointing out Dan's bias (people-as-things) as a drawback to his presentation is taken as a diagnosing a psychiatric malady.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, CV75 said:

Start the clock at 2:19 (I transcribed it previously: "younger men and boys and slaves and things like that."

As I said, I don't want to belabor this; we have substance and style at play. I'm suggesting his bias on a couple of fronts is an Achilles heel for him as a presenter. people sharing his bias won't see the red flag.

"younger men" "boys" "slaves" are examples of labels people put on others.  Labels are things.  Calling a label a thing does not mean that one believes a person is a thing.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Such is your bias and how things seem to you, at least for rhetoric's sake.

Ha ha, see Eschaton's above post to me, and yes, I am OK with that (in that it means little to me) when I consider the context and source. 

I find it very odd that pointing out Dan's bias (people-as-things) as a drawback to his presentation is taken as a diagnosing a psychiatric malady.

My background is psychology. When I hear language that is similar to that training, that is where my mind goes.

Just think of what I can come up with for biases and disorders of yours by microanalysis of this isolated commentary of yours…and I have several sentences to work with, so sure to be dead on accurate. 😛 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

"younger men" "boys" "slaves" are examples of labels people put on others.  Labels are things.  Calling a label a thing does not mean that one believes a person is a thing.

That's one way of looking at it. I was brought up to say something more people-focused, such as, "young men and boys and slaves and others (or other people and groups) subordinate in the power differentials of the day."

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

No one seems to share your hyper-literal interpretation, which I hope would give you pause. Native English speakers all say things like Dan did from time to time. 

"Seems" being the operative word here. Literally :D .

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Calm said:

My background is psychology. When I hear language that is similar to that training, that is where my mind goes.

Just think of what I can come up with for biases and disorders of yours by microanalysis of this isolated commentary of yours…and I have several sentences to work with, so sure to be dead on accurate. 😛 

Perhaps that is why you interpreted my observation of his bias as a psychiatric disorder. What disorder is that?

What language did I use that is similar to your training? I agree that bias can suggest an underlying pathology, but that is far from what I was observing or saying. 

Who is microanalyzing my isolated expression of my observation of his bias, and why?

Link to comment
On 11/14/2022 at 4:29 PM, Tacenda said:

Only because whenever I have mentioned to someone on here or elsewhere I bring up an article mentioning how homosexual wasn't in the Bible until the 1980's and was anticipating what Dan may say about it. :)

There is a movie that is out in other places titled

1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture

The film is about a translation in 1946 of the RSV Bible that first included the phrase "homosexual".  From what I have read from various sources, the debate is unsettled as to what the "intent" of a word Paul essentially made up means.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...