Uncommon common courtesy
British columnist Michael Deacon is worried about the state of common courtesy around the world today. “More and more last year,” he writes in a Telegraph article, ”it seemed that many of us thought it our right to offend or inconvenience others. We considered consideration beneath us.”
Take for example, individuals who continue conversing on their cell phones while checking out at a store; seated subway riders who seem oblivious to the senior citizen standing next to them the entire trip; or web users who think nothing of posting insulting comments on blogs and other Internet pages. But how did culture become so discourteous? Deacon says technology is largely to blame for bringing us “innumerable new opportunities to be rude.”
However, these new means of communication have succeeded in achieving one thing: they have given us the impression that we are entitled to get whatever we want, as quickly as we want it. Listen to music, check your emails, make some telephone calls – whenever and wherever you like. Being spoilt in this way means that, when we find ourselves experiencing the least inconvenience, we feel affronted, as if our rights were being trampled on.
A long queue at the cash machine, being kept on hold when telephoning the bank, waiting more than 10 seconds to cross a busy road – it’s almost a reflex, these days, to take such trifles personally. A phenomenon of the Nineties was road rage. Today, I’m sure that more and more of us feel pavement rage. There are too many people and they’re in our way.
But Deacon says what is perhaps most disturbing is that people no longer seem ashamed of rudeness, which nowadays is almost applauded on TV reality shows and sitcoms. So before matters get any worse, Deacon has a challenge for the world: “This New Year we should try to make common courtesy rather more common.” Agreed?














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top211 Comments to “Uncommon common courtesy”
And it starts with kid shows, where rudeness is often portrayed as tough, edgy and cool.
Report comment to moderator
And will we start in WMB?
Report comment to moderator
You’re planning to back off the snark, Musing?
Report comment to moderator
Seriously though, as we go down in this current financial climate, a little more thought to the next guy we pass on the street might be a good thing. He may look prosperous, but could have lost his job and all his savings.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 3,
based on your post, my guess is WMB posters will not stop being rude.
You could have phrased this in other ways, you did not. Are you going to invoke Lynn’s do over?
Report comment to moderator
We are still working on teaching our four-year-old granddaughter to say “Please,” and “Thank you,” without prompting.
One problem is that people who are rude, like many people at worldmagblog, think they are perfectly polite in the way they talk to others. It’s something like people’s inability to smell their own body odor.
Another thing people could do as a New Year’s resolution is to stop using words like “lefty,” which have very little denotation but lots of connotation. One could post comments about political philosophy from a liberal or conservative point of view that make serious points, but around here, words such as “lefty” and “liberal” are used mostly as insults and mean “people I don’t like” and I can use here because almost everybody tolerates and encourages it.
My New Year’s resolution is to get banned from wmb.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that with the explicit posting policy of “debate as a contact sport” combined with the apparent explicit belief on the part of certain posters that they are correct and no logic or evidence to support their positions is required, combined with if you don’t support their positions you are being [fill in the blank], it would seem unlikely that this board will ever be polite.
Lynn in particular has done an excellent job of depersonalizing the posting, but this has taken perhaps 1 – 2 years of effort and is always on tender hooks.
If we as a blog decide to now stop being rude, it will take a long time and will require persistent efforts on our parts to achieve.
My sense is that the majority do not want this to be achieved.
An interesting possiblity given the lead in to this discussion.
Report comment to moderator
One of my great delights in WMB is how well my debate opponents seem to work at making my points for me.
ree made the point about the plain meaning of the text not being nearly so plain.
yeah has been nicely demonstrating why conservartives have trouble with minorities.
And now NJLawyer has nicely demonstrated one of the classic manners in which posters in WMB are rude.
Report comment to moderator
I worked for an international ministry in the Deep South. We had people from all over as well as a lot of locals. One thing I learned is that rude is often a matter of culture. What sounds rude to a southerner is just being honest to a New Yorker and what is just good manners to a southerner sounds sneaky and insincere to the New Yorker.
Report comment to moderator
kbells,
and this I suggest is an important insight.
I once heard it suggested that perhaps the golden rule shold be phrased:
Do unto others as they would like to be treated.
In assuming they would like to be treated as we would like to be treated, we perhaps make an unreasonable and unsupported assumption.
But then do you have a suggestion on how we mediate between these different perceptions of rude?
Report comment to moderator
No, Musing. My smiley face meant I was teasing you. But I forgot, Leftys have no sense of humor, isn’t that right?
And please do go back to that Christians have to do everything perfectly — or what WE (the left, the non-Christians) say is perfect for them. That is garbage to me, and that sort of “religious correctness” is over.
Report comment to moderator
My husband worked with a guy from New Jersey recently. He called the first day and said this was the most obnoxious guy he had ever met. The next day he called and said the guy wasn’t as bad as he had first thought. by the end of the job they were the best of friends. The engineer geek aspect won over the culture problem or maybe it is just a matter of getting to know people a little better.
Report comment to moderator
NJlawyer post 11,
ah yes and the word snark?
I carefully kept my language explicitly neutral with minimal connotation to ensure that someone else would fire the first shot.
I knew I could depend on someone and the probability would be that it would be a Christian conservative.
You did not let me down.
And I do not believe you will find any where that I argue that Christians must do it perfectly: my sense is you are imposing your own suppositions on my postings. I do perhaps argue that in many instances professed Christians do not do [variety of toipics] but I nearly always include qualifiers because essentially all categorical statements are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 11,
P.S. and of course I suggest that adding a smiley face does not mean it is not rude, it just means you are smiling while being rude.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 12,
my sense is that in general your comment:
“it is just a matter of getting to know people a little better”
is the key.
People are different, cultures are different.
At the end of the day, the majority of most people are basically decent people just trying to get by.
Report comment to moderator
“Lefty’s have no sense of humor.”
What does your use of the word “lefty” mean except someone I don’t like?. Please explain what the word “lefty” means to you. Thank you, in advance.
Report comment to moderator
The newspaper I work for opened up our web site for comments on stories perhaps 2 years ago and it’s been a constant source of frustration for many of us.
While occasionally some helpful dialogue and comments are posted, so often the “anonymous” threads deteriorate into extremely rude and ugly name-calling rants about everything from illegal immigrants to, well, you name it. It’s often almost shocking. Some threads simply have to be shut down, they become so vile.
I’ve been bullied in print by a couple of participants on a fairly regular basis (who use cutesy ‘nicknames’ but whose identity I pretty much know). They are rude and vicious and frankly just mean-spirited.
They rip us personally, they rip the newspaper (which, interestingly, they’re obviously reading — but for free in this day of the wed). I often wonder how people turn out like that, who has raised them to be so hateful. What about that behavior do they think is OK?
And trust me, even the sharpest comments here pale next to the ones we usually get posted on our web site. I think most folks here are generally respectful. But maybe it’s just because I’ve been regularly exposed to so much worse.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 17,
I suggest that left to its own devices, blogs tend to deteriorate quickly
Success in depersonalization of WMB (as opposed to improving courtesy) is almost completely due to Lynn’s dedication and selective use of sceptre bonks. Indeed the quality of this blog seems to be strongly inbfluenced by the level of her oversight.
While it is possible for blogs to self-police, it requires a concerted and concentrated effort. Most posters do not have the stamina or discipline.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 11,
and I am a bit confused at your comment about non-Christians in your response to my posts.
I am a Christian and I believe in God.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding #16, while we’re at it, how about we call a moratorium on the idea of “_______ correctness.” (Usually political, in this case, “religious.”)
Just as “lefty” usually means “someone I don’t like,” an objection based on “correctness” usually means “I think I’m entitled to be insulting and I don’t like your asking me not to.”
Report comment to moderator
From what I understand, the legal types at newspapers have determined that the best way for us to avoid libel lawsuits is to let the comments “be” as much as possible — when you try to regulate them, taking some down, you open yourself up more to legal action.
We do have a ‘report abuse’ feature on comments, however, and I’ve been known to click on that a few times. And we’ve banned a couple people, although they just resurrect themselves under new anonymous names using different computers.
Report comment to moderator
#16 – “Lefty” used to mean Steve Carlton or Phil Mickleson. However, in political terms I would describe it as uber-liberal as is found in a great number of Obama supporters, all MSM editorial boards, the AP & Reuters, CNN. This is opposed to old liberals who in the modern political world are now center-right. The old rigt is now labeled extreme right since the advent of “leftys.”
However, on this blog is seems what is taken for rudeness, at least by Musing, is simply various forms of humor – sarcasm, irony, hyperbole. NJLawyer asks if the left has a sense of humor. My observation is no, they do not. Rudeness would be name calling, obscenities (not allowed in here), and certainly more than snarkiness.
I have found over the last 20 years that people are no longer able to debate, and in debate people are not longer able to separate arguments about ideas from a personal attack. On the other hand, some are not able to debate ideas but only do personal attacks.
Happy New Year
Report comment to moderator
Musing said, ” One of my great delights in WMB is how well my debate opponents seem to work at making my points for me…. [Y]eah has been nicely demonstrating why conservartives have trouble with minorities.“
Right. If anyone’s interested, the thread Musing alludes to is here. That’s the thread where he makes the argument that conservative disdain for minorities accounts for failure to win minority votes. I didn’t start participating until post 103, so the smackdown Musing’s been giving me would have happened at some point thereafter.
Report comment to moderator
Random are words like Bushie or Fundie any better. What would you suggest when referring to people who have a political view that is a lot more conservative than your own. I am not offended by being called a conservative because that is what I am.
Report comment to moderator
I have also noted an increasing lack of consideration. It is just a matter of degree, but is a disturbing trend. Refusing to use turn signals to change lanes and other driving rudeness, for example is a symptom of out of control selfishness.
Focus on self is the poison that kills our witness and harms all our relationships.
Report comment to moderator
Strange: That link goes somewhere else entirely. Here’s the whole thing: http://online.worldmag.com/2008/12/30/barack-the-magic-negro/
Report comment to moderator
Arrrg, not using turn signals. Don’t get me started…..
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 21,
this matches myu understanidng. Once one starts editing the posts, one also appears to incur some liability for all posts.
However, it does seem that one can selectively edit certain posts for clear violation of posting policies. And a few “executions at sunrise” can do much to focus one’s attentiuon.
Report comment to moderator
One impetus to the general rudeness on the roads and elsewhere is a misplaced sense of entitlement. Daily I see people driving past lines of traffic to cut in at the last minute, not realizing or caring that the car that concedes a space to them has hindered everyone else waiting patiently in line behind them to do so.
I once waited at an intersection in rush hour traffic for a space to open before driving across the intersection, not wanting to be caught blocking cross traffic if the light changed. As I started to move, a motorist attempted a right turn in front of me, only backing off when I honked and crossed. Mind you, it is not lawful to make a right turn on red when traffic with the right of way is approaching or at the intersection. Nevertheless, being summer and driving with open windows, I was able to hear every obscenity he directed at me for interfering with his illegal and rude impatience.
This past Christmas Eve, my wife and I needed to stop briefly at a grocery store before attending a candlelight service. Traffic was backed up for several blocks. We waited through three light changes to reach the entrance to the parking lot. A small green car drove past the entire line of traffic, turned in front of the line from the center lane, and when it got squeezed in the entrance between lawfully entering vehicles and exiting cars, the passenger jumped out of it, shouting, and stood in front of the lead car in line to allow his driver to enter. My wife and I saw the couple inside the store, and my wife heard the man we recognized as the one who jumped out to block traffic repeatedly asking his wife if different shoppers were possibly the one who had “cut them off.”
While it is occasionally courteous and appropriate for a motorist to allow another driver to enter the roadway before them, it is never a necessity, and occasionally the traffic context renders the action a discourtesy to everyone else. Letting someone else in line ahead of you, you let them in in front of every one else in line behind you, granting something you are in no position to give.
Courtesy is a two way street but its habitual practice has allowed too many inconsiderate people to expect every courtesy be given automatically to them, while demanding nothing of themselves in return.
Perhaps humility and gratitude that recognize courtesy when it is offered will go a long way in returning it.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 23,
actually I suggest you miconstrue my comments. I suggest that the present disdain for minorities is keeping conservatives and Republicans from being able to rebuild their elctoral base. Newt Gingrich apparenlty agrees at least in the specific case of the thread.
And in your defense of the incident, I suggest you do indeed nicely demonstrate my point.
All I have to do is let you keep talking.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Your debating skills stand on their own merit. You don’t need to claim victim status, as post #2 implies.
OR…
“You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.”
(Random’s New Year’s resolution is to get banned from wmb; mine is to work in as many Princess Bride quotes as possible.)
Report comment to moderator
Musing: And how is my 23 a misconstrual of your comments?
I must thank you, though, for the opportunity to use the term ‘misconstrual’, although I doubt it’s an actual word.
Report comment to moderator
My Irony Meter is dangerously close to explosion.
A thread about seeking more courtesy in the coming year very quickly broke down to veiled (and not-so-veiled) insults and condescending remarks. :\
My favorite debaters, authors, and teachers have always been people generally gracious to those who disagree with them. I think it’s a sign of a robust argument that you can admit your opponent raises good points and still present a convincing case against them. This is a standard I fail to meet far too often, but it’s still one near and dear to my heart.
Report comment to moderator
scott robinson post 31,
since I never intended to imply victim status (I used the words with the least conotations which I could find to avoid implications, and if you look at my posting history I admit that I tend to be rude at times), I suggest your post actually demonstrates that it is nearly impossible to know in advance what one person or another will consider rude.
And now I invoke Nietzschean slave mentality argument and suggest that since I will be accused of being rude no matter what I post, there would seem to be no sense in trying not ot be rude!
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 32,
I believe you keep demonstrating my point!
Report comment to moderator
Musing: I’m sure you do!
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 33,
indeed it is ironic, suggesting perhaps that this blog has little regard for civility.
Which I believe is the point I raised in post 7. I think it may in fact be endemic in how this blog was structured originally.
Report comment to moderator
#18 Musing
“Success in depersonalization of WMB (as opposed to improving courtesy) is almost completely due to Lynn’s dedication and selective use of sceptre bonks. Indeed the quality of this blog seems to be strongly inbfluenced by the level of her oversight.”
and
“NJLawyer post 11,
and I am a bit confused at your comment about non-Christians in your response to my posts.
I am a Christian and I believe in God.”
Many of the Christians on WMB have gone over the edge on comments and have either apologized and/or taken some time off from commenting. This comes from our Christian beliefs about living the Golden Rule and tyring to be a good example.
Report comment to moderator
Lets look at the original constructiuon of thie blog.
It is based on “todays news, Christian views”, and has as a clear implication that the traditional venues do not provide fairness in the debate. As a followon implication, this blog appears to attempt (and generally succeeds) in being “fair”.
It specifically anticipates that there will be sharp disagreement with biting responses in the comment that “debate is a contact sport”.
And while it regularly polices personalization of comments, it makes no effort at civilizing comments.
Under these circumstances, when we look at the background of partisanship in this country particularly in the “cuilture wars” it is perhaps to be expected that posting in here from any perspective in some sense similar to stepping into the arena with the lions let loose.
And yet as noted by Donna J, this is among the better blogs.
So perhaps the question then becomes, is there a need or justification for common courtesy in this blog?
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 38,
I will stand by my comment that it is sceptre bonks which provide the primary mechanism for depersonalization.
Those who personalize their comments come from Christians and non-Christians, the left and the right. And banning has included members from all groups.
The self-policing, while it does occur, is, I suggest, relatively infrequent.
Report comment to moderator
Ah selective reading! Did I not put “the left” in my response? Sure did. And Musing is no conservative. I note, however, that he doesn’t respond to the point I make that he and and his supporters want to define Christian behavior, then look down on Christians with their leftist “present disdain” when we don’t agree with them. We let the left do that with respect to abortion. Until we fought back and used the “salt” argument — and that’s what we are supposed to be — the lefties had free reign to kill. And make no mistake that fighting back was part of Jesus Christ himself. Let’s not forget him telling off the Pharisees in the temple. He let them have it. He also told the 70 disciples the bottom line, what they had to do, and they left Peter to say for those who remained “where shall we go?” He let people have it about Hell, too. If you can’t say the hard sayings, you’re not doing your job as a Christian. Hard sayings are not necessarily rude, but to a lefty who doesn’t want to hear what he doesn’t want to hear, they are defined that way.
Yes, I am from New Jersey, and I am a lawyer, but what I do is read comments as they are. I have always found it odd that so many of you non-lawyers pick on a particular word and find evil intent and twist them all about, all the while ignoring the fundamental meaning of a post. I also think that all of us make assumptions. If you read through the posts about the Magic Negro, you will find that SteveG was arguing that he didn’t want to be lumped in with a generalized left, just as some Christians and/or conservatives didn’t want to be lumped with a general opinion of Christians and/or conservatives. That’s actually a normal thing to do, but he was finally able to get his point across as were those who felt they were being called racists.
I don’t assume that everyone comes here looking for a fight, but many do make that assumption. Perhaps I am just used to people vehemently disagreeing and I don’t take it personally because then we go out to lunch together. My best friend and I disagree on abortion and the death penalty, but we don’t assume the other has evil intent, just that the other is wrong. Victoria is often accused of saying something rude or offensive when, if you read her statement without all the preconceived baggage, you get a completely different view of it. Just as Musing speaks of the “present disdain” of Republicans, he won’t admit to the “present disdain” of the Dems and the left for those who disagree with them. See the Magic Negro thread. And Musing won’t admit to “snark” either. Instead, he says he was very careful — well, careful in his own mind perhaps because maybe he was presently disdaining and playing the snarky lawyer gain. I wouldn’t have done what Saltsman did simply because I would have known that there are idiots our there who would scream racism straight off, so why go looking for trouble?
Perhaps when he says that people misconstrue his statements, he shouldn’t assume people are being rude to him, but rather that he wasn’t concise.
Report comment to moderator
snarky lawyer gain should be snarky lawyer game.
Report comment to moderator
I think it is funny when people use the
to excuseswhat they say in front of it. You know like… “I think you are an idiot
” Kind of like the Internet version of “bless her heart”.
Report comment to moderator
let me try that again. I think it is funny when people use the
to excuseswhat they say in front of it. You know like… “I think you are an idiot
” Kind of like the Internet version of “bless her heart”.
Report comment to moderator
Let it go . . .
Or as one of our friends used to say, “After I’ve turned the other cheek, I ask if they’d like the first one back.”
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 41,
in post 13 I explicitly addressed your comment that I want to define Christian behavior.
I suggest that a review of my actual posts (as opposed what you appear to want to believe I post) will show I make no such efforts.
I find that the Christians in the blog are more than happy to define Christian behavior, sometimes in minute detail. Fortunately and perhaps amusingly, beacause Christian is a very broad term, such generalizations tend ot be false.
Report comment to moderator
NJLOawyer post 41,
one of the amusements in this blog are the number of people who are concise, but very very imprecise.
It does result in very convoluted arguments at times.
Even when one attempts to be precise, the arguments still ensue based on clear and in some cases simple misunderstanidngs, but at least there is a written record to show an honest attempt at being precise in the discussion.
And I do find that the misunderstandings are very often due to preconceptions of the poster. And under these conditions an exploration of the issue can frequently show the misunderstanding based on these preconceptions. Right now, yeah comes most to mind.
Report comment to moderator
Right now, yeah comes most to mind.
Howzat? Can you add some supporting detail there?
Report comment to moderator
If Musing chooses to respond to my request at 48, here’s what it will look like:
I suggest the comements youv’e alreydy made demonstate my point quite nicley. I could contiune, but ther’s really nos more that needs be said, based on the undweniaable verity of what I’ve alreday said.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another little bit of snark from yesterday’s WV from RN:
“Global warming…
The religious believers here believe so many ridiculous things, they figure if they pooh pooh global warming it makes up for all the other credulous behavior.”
But as Christians, we’re supposed to take these insults to our beliefs and not respond, though one wonders why he used the word “credulous.” The same thing goes for RN’s “ultimate swindle.” And then has asks us why we post here.
This thread is no longer about courtesy, it’s about how we can manipulate words to tell each other “I’m not really insulting you though I am” or “I’m smarter than you because I can twist your words better that you can.”
Talk about disdain.
Report comment to moderator
yeah posr 48,
yes, your entire argument regarding “Barack the Magic Negor”, conservatives and Republicans appears to be based on the preconception that what you or I think on this issue matters in the political dynamics. It does not.
Hence “proving” to me that conservatives do not have disdain for minorities serves no useful end: the minorities appear to believe they do have disdain (New York Times data), and there is circumstantial evidence to support this (c.f. the Barack the magic Negro CD).
It does however, demonstrate nicely the failure mode conservatives are having with minorities.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: What in the wide world of sports are you talking about:
I just love your subsequent use of the terms “Hence” and “proving”.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 50,
but Christian belief says nothing about global warming.
The arguiment for global warming is a scientific argument based on the scientific data. We can go into this here, but I suggest that it would be off topic.
What we are showing here is a problem with “concise” again: in this blog it would appear that all sides tend to confound Christians and conservatives. Not all, in fact it would appear that the majority of, Christians are not conservatives.
Denying global warming is a conservative belief based on a conservative model of interpreting scientific evidence.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 52,
you have not been trying to prove to me that conservatives and Republicans do not have a disdain for minorities?
My apologies then, if you believe that conservatives and Republican do have a disdain for minorities, I must have misunderstood you.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: are you being deliberately obtuse? This is not about global warming. See if you can find the insult to the beliefs of Christians:
“The religious believers here believe so many ridiculous things, they figure if they pooh pooh global warming it makes up for all the other credulous behavior.”
I submit you’ll find it in the first phrase of the sentence.
Report comment to moderator
And so you know, your post at 50 perfectly illustrates the nonsensical “play on words” games you play. You’re not advancing an argument, you just play a different version of RN’s games.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
so perhaps I can help you out here.
It is effectively tautological that certain conservatives and Republicans have disdain for minorities (which right wing blogs do you want me to quote from, there are so many options here).
The New York times data shows cleary that conservatvies and Republicans are loosing support form minorities.
You now have two plausible lines of argument:
1) not all conservatives and Republicans show disdain for minorities leaving the following sub-arguments
- show clearly that this is not all conservatives and Republicans (doable, but requires care: you must avoid the RINO problem)
- show how these non-disdainful conservatives and Republicans are going to dominate the conservatvie and Republican message to win these minorities back
or
2) show that the New York Times data is not based on a percevied sense of disdain for minorities on the part of the conservatives and Republicans
- this is much more challenging since it is clear that a measureable number of conservatives and Republicans show such disdain
I note you chose neither argument, but instead choose a frontal attack against an entrenched enemy. Very bad tactics unless you have overwhleming force. I am looking for signs of any force whatsoever on your part.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you ask me:
Yeah, that’s a part of what you and I have been discussing. Of course, I never claimed there was no racism among some conservatives. What I have said is that racism is no more common among conservatives than liberals (this is why it’s absurd to conclude so much from this one simple magic negro incident), and that any conservative racism, real or perceived, is remotely down on the list of reasons conservatives lost the previous election. I also made the point–and I have no idea why you haven’t gotten it–that it’s entirely unnecessary to assume that conservative policies (immigration, opposition to minimum wage, the other stuff in your list over on the magic negro thread) are based on “disdain” for miniorities.
Report comment to moderator
No Musing, that’s atrocious reasoning.
Pointing to “certain conservative and Republican” websites (go ahead and provide some links, if you want) does not necessitate concluding that *all* conservatives harbor disdain for minorities.
You really don’t need to keep bringing up the strategic aspect of “winning over minorities.” That’s never been a part of my side of the conversation with you.
Also, you wrote:
LOL!
Report comment to moderator
I think it is odd that someone who is the most consistently rude of posters to this site (Musing) is worried about how rude the rest of us are. LOL
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 58,
now you enter raqcism again.
I am not discussing racism and am unsure why you keep entering it. I have not argued that conservatives are racist.
Report comment to moderator
RES post 60,
I am not worried at all. In fact, I have provided what appears to be reasonable arguments that as constructed, this blog of necessity will be rude.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 59,
but I never said all conservatvies are disdainful. As I keep noting essentially all categoricals are false.
I have said, however, that the minorities perception of conservatives is that they are disdainful and the “Barack the Magic Negro” and associated material suggests this.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 60,
I did, however, allow a conservative Christian poster to be the first to be rude, demonstrating that this is far flung behavior in this blog which is not confined to any given group, in contradiction to Bob Buckles apparent position.
Report comment to moderator
Is it me, people?
Musing: if I were to accuse you of harboring disdain specifically for minorities, would it be unreasonable to conclude I was calling you a racist?
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 65,
but as I noted specifically and repeatedly, I have not called you a racist nor entered race into the discussion.
You appear to consider that all minorites are racially based.
Ignoring the obvious problem that race is a social, not objective construct, I used examples of Gays and Irish as minorities, neither of which are races in the typical understanding.
Now one may be bigotted, a discusable topic, but I most specifically did not call you a racist and provided examples of minorites which were not race based.
Racism would therefore seem to be yet another preconception on your part which has been hindering your effectiveness in this conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: In a thread titled ” ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ ” (there’s the first clue), you wrote,
You’ve said conservatives disdain minorities. If conservatives disdain blacks and latinos, on what basis, aside from race, are you “suggesting” they hold this disdain?
Report comment to moderator
Somebody stop me!!! Why do I keep responding to this guy?????
Report comment to moderator
Yeah post 67,
and repeatedly I clarified the poinbt ot make it clear I was not speaking of race. It turns out that Blacks and Latinos are part of the New York times data, and they are critical groups.,
Your taks which you have failed to achieve is did intend these in a racial context., Since I repeatedly said I did jnot, I believe the case is closed.
It would perhaps help, however, if you would respond to what I said and not what you think I said or wanted me to say. And when I correct you, it would help you if you would accept the correction.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 68,
it would seem that you keep answering becuase you would prefer to persist in your errors rather than admit your mistakes.
Repeating the same errors over and over will not make them correct.
Report comment to moderator
KBells 24-
You asked about the term Bushie.
The term became prominent during the investigation of the controversial replacement of several U.S. Attorneys when it was revealed that Justice Department official Kyle Sampson suggested in an e-mail to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that
“we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys — the underperforming ones . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.”[3]
Report comment to moderator
Alright, here goes.
Musing, the New York times did not say the following, you did:
You have said conservatives disdain blacks, latinos, etc. I’m willing to accept that you don’t believe conservatives are racist. Really, I am, and I do. But you still have to explain yourself by answering this question:
If conservatives disdain blacks and latinos, on what basis, aside from race, are you “suggesting” they hold this disdain?
What you also need to demonstrate is that conservative policies are a reflection of conservative disdain for minorities. You do realize that’s a different question than whether those policies affect minorities adversely, right? Secondarily, it would be nice for you to show that this or that isolated case of “disdain” has had a significant effect on conservative success with minorities. The New York times data is entirely irrelevant to supporting either of these issues.
And why don’t you try Firefox? It has a built-in spellchecker.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 72,
and I repeatedly noted that I was referring to minorities not race per se.
Did I not raise issues of Gays and Irish?
Good try but if I made any effort to explcitly say that I was not referring to race, you are shgowing your preconceptions again.
Since I said numerous times I was referring to minorities not race, I think you have a severe logical error here.
Report comment to moderator
Lefties have no sense of humor and are insane. They have no self control, no shame and can never be satisfied. They are never to be trusted, especially with your life or money.
I would appreciate it when someone quotes me that they would not take a small part of what I said out of context, like NJL just did with her so sense of humor quote. I’m still lurking
Happy New Year again to all.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 72,
horray, we seem finally to be mnaking progress when you say:
“What you also need to demonstrate is that conservative policies are a reflection of conservative disdain for minorities.”
But of course you are still working under a misconcpetion that I need to prove anything or that propving something to me matters.
Rather you need to demonstrate to minorities that conservative polciies do not show disdain for minorities, and “Barack the Magic Negro” makes your arguments here very unconvincing (hence I suggest Newt’s comment)
But you are now fianly into the argument.
So on what basis can you show that minorioties do not in fact consider conservative policies and actionsey do, particularly for Latinos. Do you have refutation of how minorities view conservative actions?
My sense is this will have to be statistical data, not annecdotal. And your data?
Again note that the New York Times sustains at least a prima facia case for minorities considering conservative actions disdainful.
P.S. there is one other eye of the needle to thread, but be careful that you do not find yourself quibbling over words!
Report comment to moderator
llamnam post 74,
and Happy New Year to you to!!
It would perhaps have helped if you posted earlier, but at least we are now completing the rudeness circle!
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You see, there can be different nuances to the term “need.” A person may have a legal requirement to show up for jury duty: he “needs” to show up. A person may “need” air to breathe: he “needs” air to breathe. In a discussion of ideas, when making a proposition, it’s generally agreed that a person “needs” to be able to support said propositions. He’s not legally “required” to do so, no, but for the sake of being intellectually responsible, he “needs” to be able to do so.
And so we come to the application part: You made the proposition that conservatives disdain minorities. You “need” to back up that assertion.
But see how you’ve changed the subject? You now ask me to show how conservative policies don’t give the appearance of disdain. Different. Issue. Entirely. Completely unrelated to your claim that conservatives have disdain for minorities.
Also: “Barack the Magic Negro” does not constitute “conservative policy.”
LOL!
Report comment to moderator
Inconceivable!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah–Somebody stop me!!! Why do I keep responding to this guy?????
Stop!
There–did that help?
I’ve spent more time than you have so far in debating with Musing, and I can absolutely guarantee you that it won’t get any better. This is what he does, and like a toddler flinging his excrement at the walls, he gains immense satisfaction in doing it. And if at some future time I’m foolish enough to let myself get pulled into his games again, I’ll expect you or someone else to step in and knock some sense into me as well.
Report comment to moderator
I do not mean to pry, but you don’t by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?
Report comment to moderator
#76 Musing
“It would perhaps have helped if you posted earlier, but at least we are now completing the rudeness circle! “
Report comment to moderator
Something terribly sad: a little (I think he was 6 or 7) friend of ours (his mom told the story) once held the door open for a lady and the lady got mad at him and said she didn’t want his help. He was devastated. ):
And here you guys are, sitting and arguing and insulting each other. You ought to be ashamed, every one of you, conservative and liberal and what do you call it alike. ^_^
Report comment to moderator
RPN,
You’re on a roll!
“And remember, this is for posterity, so please, be honest.”
Report comment to moderator
The following post is silly, sarcastic, and snarky.
NJ Lawyer, in several posts, but culminating in #50, indicated that I am snarky. This apparently has become her favorite word of 2009. I thought I should investigate what it really means.
First I went to the urban dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/ .
It showed forty different definitions. For example, #8:
Chiefly British Slang. Testy or irritable; irascible. Sarcastic or disrespectful; snide. Sarcastic humor.
This describes me. I am snarky. I am perhaps the snarkiest comment poster on worldmagblog. Unfortunately, being snarky is not against Terms of Service, so it is unlikely to get me banned from worldmagblog.
However, it is frequently useful to go back to the original classics. I am not much of a scholar, but even I know that the word snark comes from Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark. It’s too long to quote much here, but it is easy to find this great poem online. It’s a cautionary tale. Because if you go hunting snarks, which NJL certainly seems to be doing, you are likely to find them, and if you do, they are likely to be Boojums. If you are going to outsnark me (which is certainly in the realm of possibility) then you should be very sure that you are generally snarkier than I am.
NJLawyer has also described me as “condescending” and just now has implied I am disdainful. Again, are you prepared to out condescend and out disdain me?
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 77,
actually I think you need to back up one step.
Perhpas the first question is is disdain the right word?
I can easily show with “Barack the magic negro” and the comments about immigration policy for exaple that there is a gulf between certain conservatvies.
I have used the word disdain. What word would you use for such insensitivity?
Report comment to moderator
The following post is serious
Several people here (including NJLawyer at the moment) seem to get very upset and describe me as “anti-Christian.”
I consider myself a “high agnostic”; that is an agnostic who is very close to atheist. I believe Judaism and Christianity are probably myths. I don’t believe the human race began with the Garden of Eden. I don’t believe the Bible is “inerrant.” I am not sure if the person we call Jesus Christ actually existed. If He did, I don’t believe He was born of a virgin; I don’t believe He was the “Son of God; I don’t believe He rose from the dead.
I am very atheistic (if that is the right word) in that I don’t believe that humans have a “soul” or “spirit” that survives after we die. As Ernst Becker indicated in Denial of Death, our mortality is one of the most difficult concepts human beings have to face. Humans react to the horrifying prospect that we will cease to exist in a variety of ways.
One common reaction is to say, We won’t die; we have a soul that separates us from animals; it will survive after death. There is little evidence for this; I believe it is based on fear and wishful thinking. I don’t like the idea that I will cease to exist, an prospect that becomes more “real” to me as I approach the age of 65 next month, but in my value system, I think I should face it responsibly (for example, by putting my affairs in order—such as by making my will, which I did recently) and calmly (by contemplating this unpleasant fact with as serene a frame of mind as I can on a daily basis), while still trying to enjoy life and use what portion of it as I can in a positive and constructive manner, for example, by being a loving husband, father, and grandfather, and by posting snarky comments on worldmagblog.
I think the historical record of Christianity is a mixture of good behavior and evil behavior, contributions to civilization and impediments to civilization. If most of the messages here had to do only with religious belief, I would not be very interested in reading or commenting on them. However, the religious comments are mixed in with a lot of political and social comments. The conservative Christians here feel a desire to participate in our civic life in various ways, not all of them (in my opinion) useful and constructive, I comment on their opinions, arguments, and initiatives.
If you find my comments above (or any others on worldmagblog) to be “anti-Christian” or otherwise unpleasant or improper, you have every right to tell me to “go away” (as one person did) or criticize me or argue with me, and so on. Until I am found in violation of Terms of Service, I probably won’t. There is an obvious tension between the stated position that this is a web site for tough “debate” (as silly as that word is) and the evident wish that secular people here be polite and respectful of conservative Christians.
There is a horrible war going on in the Middle East right now between Hamas and Israel. As far as I can tell, Israelis are sincere in believing they are only “defending themselves” against Palestinian attacks such as rocket attacks and suicide bombing attacks. As far as I can tell, Palestinians are sincere in feeling they are “defending themselves” against Israeli aggression.
The situation in Israel and Palestine is far graver and more serious that the bickering and squabbling that goes on here at worldmagblog, but I suspect the principle is similar in terms of people in different cultures and groups having different perceptions of reality and communication.
Liberals, atheists and homosexuals write comments they consider reasonable, polite, respectful, and truthful that conservative Christians see as “attacks” and falsehoods.
Conservative Christians write comments that they consider reasonable, polite, respectful, and truthful that liberals, atheists, and homosexuals see as “attacks” and falsehoods.
These misunderstandings and conflicting perceptions are unlikely to change for the better.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 77.
ah still trying to duck “Barack the magic Negor”?
I suggest that part of your propblem lies here.
there is no real defense.
A correct response is perhaps that it was stupid and insensistive and one apologizes.
In pretending that it was not stupid, one merely demonstrated the error and my use of disdain becomes completely justified (and I have just satisfied your need to statement
).
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Musing. I’m outta this one. It’s been several posts since you’ve mentioned anything I haven’t already spoken to. Not that anyone else is interested, but they can check the threads if they want to confirm.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah – 88
Yep you’re right, the merry-go-round!
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 88,
you were arguably out of this until you entered the conervative policies demonstratig disdain.
You really needed to follow th is up, because there was some potnetial here.
But you seem to have given in early.
and you still seem to be ru7nning under the misconceptions:
1) that you can prove anything here to your self or others
2) that Brack the Magic Negro did not aleinate the minorities
Good luck, I wish you all the best in the world with your approach: as I noted, we need a durable Obama majority and you are doing your bit to help!!!
Report comment to moderator
Musing get off the merry-go-round – the last post (90) has so many misspelled words, not to mention scrambled sentences
Report comment to moderator
#91
Victoria, I have dyslexia. I suspect Musing does as well. Only very superficial people without much of an intelligent comment to offer would seize on trivial details such as that instead of offering an reasoned and informed rebuttal. I am glad you are not such a person as that.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, 90: Oh huh.
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
actually it is a compound problem of what appears to be a strange dyslexia and poor small motor copordination. I literally look at the material and do not see the errors, and my small motor coordination problem introduces many errors.
My wife takes great delight in how I can mispell the same word three times or so in a single paragraph.
So I don’t think a speller would help.
MIM suggested alternate browsers with spell checkers. I use spell checkers incessantly in other environment (and still mix up from and form!) but the computers I work on for a set of technical reasons must use Internet Explorer, and IE does not have a spell checker.
And yes it will vary with time and how tired I am etc.
But more to the point it now allows me a lovely very sensitive test:
- if you are interested in the topic but have no valid answer you complain about my spelling
- if you are interested in the topic and have a valid answer you answer me in spite of the spelling problems
So I will make an advantage of a neccessity and let it tell me how solid you believe your arguments to be!
And Happy New Year victoria!
Report comment to moderator
There is perhaps an amusing story of how I dealt with this problem to complete my thesis.
My advisor was perhaps the victoria of the department: a stickler on spelling and syntax.
I knew that this was potentially not stable and I might never graduate.
Fortunately high qaulity text processing tools with equation editing had just become available.
Using automation I could produce a draft in less than 24 hours.
It took 48 hours for my advisor to read a new draft.
So I was able to produce drafts faster than he could critique them
He finally just got tired and gave up.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
Your spelling changes from post to post from day to day – one moment its perfect, the next your comments and questions completely scrambled – it appears selective –
YOU WRITE: “- if you are interested in the topic but have no valid answer you complain about my spelling”
No Musing this is another mistake you make – there is no reason to answer your questions when you choose to make the rules, avoid any sort of answer to other posters questions. I have tried many times to tell you why I don’t bother to respond to you, so has Ree and Yeah, and many others, however your excuses are endless as to why you ask all your nonsense questions and why they are scrambled -
Report comment to moderator
Allow me to validate what Musing is saying about this form of dyslexia. It sounds like a friend of mine who was diagnosed about 20 years ago with something called “dysgraphia”. She described it to me as like dyslexia in the opposite direction, affecting how words came out on paper instead of how they were perceived coming in.
Before her diagnosis, this could get very discouraging. She would get back papers from instructors on which they’d written in big red letters, “Don’t you proofread?!” She had indeed proofread, but she hadn’t seen the errors. There was always this nagging feeling lurking in her mind that she was somehow not as intelligent as she thought she was supposed to be. The dysgraphia diagnosis produced a happy reaction that’s common for people who find out there’s a reason they struggle with things like this: “I’m not dumb after all!”
And her writing was definitely better some days than others.
A word processor with spell check helped her writing improve and helped get her through her master’s work.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a link to some information on dysgraphia: http://www.dyslexia-ca.org/dysgraphiadefinition.html
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 97,
as I say, it varies from day to day and throughout the day.
And of course I make no rules. Since I have absolutely no power here.
I can do the following:
1) work off the rules you hold for yourself
- there is a peculiar inconsistency in a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible which provides interesting room here
2) address subject you care about
Observationally you do respond. Observationally there are certain forms of arguments which you can not contest.
And you are, in your area of expertise, very knowledgable.
And I have confidence that you will respond when I get on your nerves too much.
Report comment to moderator
kevinb post 99,
sounds suspiciously close, but I have never had any professional diagnostics.
I did fail handwriting consistently in school: it was simply impossible for me to make consistent letters.
Now I find that the sequence in which I hit the keys is often out of order.
Be that as it may.
Thanks for the link!!
And have a Happy and prosperous New Year!
Report comment to moderator
Some people have dyslexia and variations thereof.
Usually they can work around it, and the people who read their writing can pay attention to the interesting and intelligent things they have to say (if they do) and not get hung up on trivial details. I think Musing has interesting and intelligent things to say, and I just chuckle when I see an odd spelling or phrasing, in part because mine isn’t perfect either.
Other readers may have perfect or near perfect spelling and typing but not many interesting and intelligent things to say. I am not sure what can be done in that situation, but perhaps they can pray a lot.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 100
YOU WRITE: “And I have confidence that you will respond when I get on your nerves too much.”
Musing when your posts make no sense, when you don’t answer other peoples questions, except to skip them, add two more questions of your own, its not a matter of your getting on my “nerves” – I believe it to be a waste of time to continue discussing anything with you –
When you re-phrase other peoples posts you lose credibility – it is a simple task to copy paste something someone has posted, and ask a question regarding their statement, its another to re-word someone’s thoughts to suit your argument – for that reason, some people on this blog avoid your posts.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 103,
sure victoria, sure,
You seem to actually have a very clear grasp of what others are saying. As I said, when you care, you answer, and you often are surprsiingly deep in how you have parsed their posts.
Report comment to moderator
kevionb,
I looked more closely at the symptoms pages and it describes my elementary through high school experience nearly exactly. It also describes how my hand writing looks today.
Thanks very very much!!!
Report comment to moderator
random name post 103,
thanks for your kind words.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t often get to agree with Random and Musing, so I will jump at the chance while I can, at the same time staying on topic.(Y’all remember the topic, right) I think it is rude to correct a posters grammar or spelling just as it would be rude in a face to face conversation or correct or make fun of someones grammar. And I’m not just saying that because I am a bad speller, typist and proofreader.
Report comment to moderator
“INCONCEIVABLE!”
I happen to agree that nit-picking at spelling and grammar is an admission that one has nothing to contribute. It’s ironic that Victoria, who makes many glaring mistakes herself, would criticize anyone in this area. Now, if they use bold font incorrectly, she may be justified, but never for spelling, punctuation, or grammar.
I admit I have nothing to contribute today. Well, except for Princess Bride quotes.
“We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.”
Report comment to moderator
RPN You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Report comment to moderator
I live in an area where ‘common courtesy’ is still very much the norm. Strangers hold open doors for me, and when my hands aren’t full, I do the same. I always say ‘Thank you’, they do too. Road rage is unheard of here.
However, for all that, amongst the younger teens and children, my courteous and polite children are starting to stand out. Everywhere we go, people comment on how very polite and respectful my youngsters are. It’s sad really, because it ought to be normal for children to be that way. A little ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ go a long way.
Report comment to moderator
Contented-joy – 110
I will understand if you don’t want to reveal where you come from, but if you would I would like knowing, also maybe the state where you live now. I’ve always wondered who you are.
Most children don’t say thank you – its refreshing to know that your children are so polite. You must be a wonderful mother – I’ve followed many of your posts.
Report comment to moderator
“Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam… And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva… So tweasure your wuv.”
Report comment to moderator
Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning.
Report comment to moderator
AS… YOU… WISH.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
since I assume you are referring to me.
I quote directly from what a person says OR I ask if this is what you mean.
My most famous discussion with you on such an issue perhaps is when you argued that providing supporting evidence and using logic broke up the flow of a discussion.
And I double checked to make sure I had truly understood you.
I have always found this to be a wonderful statement on your part.
Report comment to moderator
Oy. A cautionary post has the opposite effect.
I think we have just seen the first identified instance of dysbloggia – not the first time it has occurred, but the first time it has been identified by name.
(spelling police note: the double G is to try and keep the G hard, and to keep the new term from sounding like “dis bloj eeya”.)
(neologism police note: I know neologism but chose to use “new term”. My post, my terms. Go make up your own word.)
(capitalism police note: You got me. I’m busted, and throw myself on the Mercy of the Court.)
Report comment to moderator
steveauberey,
and does this disfunction refer to problems with Illinois governors?
Report comment to moderator
RPN #112- You misspelled “twu wuv” as “tru wuv”, a common mistake.
Seriously, folks, I believe this thread needs to be published by sociologists as an example of how we all– conservative and liberal, professing Christian and non-Christian– could use a few lessons in courtesy. Musing and Yeah go back and forth repeating the same arguments presented on another thread. Neither one convinced the other over on the other thread, so why continue it here where we are supposed to be discussing courtesy? Or are they acting as laboratory rats in the control group, which have not been given the experimental “courtesy drug”?
As for spell checks: I have to have one because I type too fast for my brain. If you cannot use Firefox because you have to have IE, then download the free Google menu bar with its own spell check. It is not automatic, but has been very helpful to me when I remember to use it. And if you must nitpick about someone else’s spelling or grammar, then consider changing your career to be an elementary school teacher. Perhaps then you can influence future generations to be perfect grammarians and spellers. (Now, as a high school teacher, I can correct you guys all I want so as to stay in practice!)
Report comment to moderator
I think I want to go live where Contented-Joy lives.
Report comment to moderator
PeterL. Spell check only works if you pay attention. My work place once got an E-mail from the IS department apologizing for any “incontinence” the computer problem may have caused.
Report comment to moderator
There is a certain person who’s soul identity is wrapped up in trying to prove to everyone his superior intellect and wordsmith skills. He does this by not only commenting on every subject posted, but also commenting on everyones comment. So my only comment would be that I no longer am interested in any of his comments.
Not once did I mention his name.(Just trying to show a little common courtesy)
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, winner of the best post so far. That is just too funny!!!(courtesy is just flowing from my being today)
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
Yes, I helped pollute this thread. But it’s poor form to criticize, by name, a participant with whom one was interacting in another thread…that was Musing did that. You could say it lacks courtesy. When you believe your comments are being mischaracterized, behind your back, no less, it’s hard not to jump in and correct the mischaracterizer.
And no, I don’t really care all that much, considering we can remain as anonymous as we wish here; but I’m just sayin’.
Report comment to moderator
This thread provides me with the perfect illustration of why, for the most part, I have opted to remove myself from the conversation altogether here on WMB.
A lack of common courtesy, condescention, every comment being met with “prove it” (Musing, you say that you are a Christian, I shall ask you to prove it, because although I am not the Holy Spirit who can discern what is in the hearts of men, the evidence that you provide is lacking – I can say this because as the Bible, which you claim is fallible says that “You shall know them by their fruits.” I’m seeing all kinds of fruit around here from those who claim to be Christians. Your only proof can be subjective – and that’s not very scientific.)
I see disdain and people who come here to pose as Christians and to mock Christians. I see people goading Christians into unchristian behavior.
I see a distinct lack of moderating on the part of the moderators of this blog. Paeople are allowed to troll and flame and I have had enough of it. I join a long list of those who would rather spend their time in more profitable pursuits than to continue on this not-so-merry-go-round.
I’m sure that I will not be missed, so my deparute will be no great loss to this blog. Thank you, Random for causing me to take a good hard look and to see that I too can overcome my blogging addiction.
Those of you with whom I correspond outside of the blog, I will continue to do so. Then I can have decent and courteous conversation without all of the snark, the condescention, the mocking and the unpleasantmness to which we are usually exposed on WMB. I just don’t have the time to talk to people I would avoid in other situations. My avoidance is to prevent my exposure to the toxic and fertile ground that allows the root of bitterness to grow in my heart.
The oft quoted “Debate id a contact sport,” is an excuse for all manner of unsavory conversation, and I for one have had enough of it.
Happy New Year to all and I’m sure mine will be happier without WMB, more’s the pity.
I will not be back.
Report comment to moderator
“or web users who think nothing of posting insulting comments on blogs and other Internet pages.” – *laughs*
Report comment to moderator
Klasko #126, understood. Sad situation, but understood.
Report comment to moderator
I just thought of something (dangerous thing to think sometimes, I know). “Debate is a contact sport.” But so is football, which has all kinds of rules as to what kind of contact is and is not allowed. So, friends and adversaries, let us play by the rules.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
#126 Klasko
You will be missed.
To others, “Please don’t feed the Trolls!”
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
happy to: because I am a follower of Christ. The definitional requirment.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
and the rules as clearly spelled out are to attack the post and not the poster.
I try very hard to stick to that. As I have noted many times, I have no idea whether any otf thgese individuals are nice/good people or not, notr do I try to detemrine this or comment on this.
But the rules explicitly allow for very strong criticism of the post and it would seem based on the commenhts, that I do indeed do this.
Remember the post is fair game, the poster is not or so it has been said many times in this thread.
And as you see, many do not give me any quarter on my posts: I likewise generally give such people no quarter either.
You can also find exception where my arguments have been quite contained even with violent disaqgreement. It is perhaps useful to compare the two types of discussion.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 130,
shall I being back some of your black and white staments about debating in these blogs?
How about how one can use early Christian authors to reconstruct what are argued as missing portions of the Biblical text (Marki 16:19 comes to mijnd)?
Black and white is indeed black and white. It is written and in many cases impossible to erase as one poster discovered several years ago.
Report comment to moderator
And if you must nitpick about someone else’s spelling or grammar, then consider changing your career to be an elementary school teacher.
Oh come on. It’s not just that Musing makes an editing mistake now and then. It’s that there’s an undeniable irony in a poster who believes himself to be outsmarting all of his debate opponents all the time but who fairly consistently produces almost unreadable posts.
The contrast between his smug attitude and the obvious sophistry and unintelligibility of most of his posts is certainly striking. And I don’t think pointing this out is necessarily discourteous.
Report comment to moderator
And if you must nitpick about someone else’s spelling or grammar, then consider changing your career to be an elementary school teacher.
Oh come on. It’s not just that Musing makes an editing mistake now and then. It’s that there’s an undeniable irony in a poster who believes himself to be outsmarting all of his debate opponents all the time but who fairly consistently produces almost unreadable posts.
The contrast between his smug attitude and the obvious sophistry and unintelligibility of most of his posts is certainly striking. And I don’t think pointing this out is necessarily discourteous.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm. Not sure how that happened.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t say as I’ve greatly missed this blog during the last week when I had limited computer access. I wouldn’t have said it’s the rudeness, more a lack of productive discussion. But perhaps the rudeness precludes much of the productive discussion, either by clogging threads with trading veiled insults, or driving away people who might have had better comments to contribute.
As to why it happens, someone mentioned early in this thread the difference it makes knowing people personally. None of us here (with a very few exceptions) know each other personally. In our “real lives” many of us have moved several times and consequently only get to know people for a few years and then move again. Most of the people we have contact with over the course of a day (in traffic, at work, in stores, etc.) are people we know only superficially if at all.
Added to that, I think that people like my mother had a fair amount of influence in shaping how people today view the whole concept of courtesy. My mother thought it was silly to have to say “excuse me” if you did something natural like burping or even farting, or to say “God bless you” when someone sneezed if you really didn’t wish God’s blessing on that person. She never bothered to teach me to say “please” and “thank you” and “you’re welcome.”
She though it was far more important to teach me to be a generous person and grateful for what I had and to be considerate of other people’s feelings. She didn’t like it when we said “gonna” or “wanna” or “hafta” because she wanted speech to be clearly understood, but she freely used words that would be considered profane or obscene because they expressed the strength of her feelings about things.
I would guess that my sister and I were hardly the only ones of our generation to be raised that way, and some people will have learned that the old rules about what to say and do, or not say and do, don’t really matter, without having learned the importance of courteous attitudes. And those who still do see those old rules as important may see me as discourteous if I sometimes forget the right thing to say or do because I wasn’t raised with those habits and had to try to learn them as an adult.
Report comment to moderator
pauline,
I suspect that the proverbial 80/20 rules perhaps applies here.
At least 80% of what is said is dross.
The question of course is is the remaining 20% woirth the effort. And everyone has to make that call for themselves.
We can say with some degree of confidence that all posters who poster here on a regular basis and return have concluded that it does.
At intervals true pearls appear in these materials, Bethd’s all the machinery to be born is a recent one that comes to mind. This is succinct, operational, and does indeed provide useful new perspective.
But yes, humans are perhps 2% DNA different from chimpanzees, and it is no wonder then that behavior is seldom to the level we might wish we were able to achieve.
Report comment to moderator
#138 Pauline
I do understand you and do get that you, and I, have to learn different rules in different areas of our lives
I have to learn to not be critical of others. Whether it is a learned response or a natural response, it is not accepted by most others that I know so much more than they do and can do things better than they do. I have to remember that I am often not right or correct; I don’t really know it all. My way is not always better. I can be and often am wrong. I agonize over this dilemma often, but usually after making a stupid statement or after being wrong, so wrong.
Take heart, we are not “old dogs” so “Yes, we can!” learn new tricks.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – 138
YOU WRITE: ” My mother thought it was silly to have to say “excuse me” if you did something natural like burping or even farting, or to say “God bless you” when someone sneezed if you really didn’t wish God’s blessing on that person. She never bothered to teach me to say “please” and “thank you” and “you’re welcome.”
I must say after reading this paragraph, your life as a child and mine are very different, and that would include almost everyone I knew and went to school with (public) – Even teachers made sure everyone learned the courtesy of “thank you” – “please” and “you’re welcome” —– if you didn’t remember it was pointed out in class in front of your peers – as far as making bodily sounds, everyone who heard such noises would say something to remind you how rude you had just been – so to continue such practices would have labeled the child/adult as uncouth, that was the word which was used as I grew up.
A child can learn to have proper manners and at the same time learn to be grateful and giving as well – it doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to learn these things all at the same time – one does not need to negate one and choose the other – in other words, one can learn to have manners, and be grateful for all they have, helping and giving to others at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
Bye Klasko!
Report comment to moderator
RPN: LOL!
Report comment to moderator
It’s interesting that the one who was not raised to think normal bodliy functions and sounds are to be apologized for, or “excused,” is so much more polite and kind than the one who thinks they necessitate acknowledgment. Just an observation.
Report comment to moderator
Just being polite, yeah
Report comment to moderator
Vicky, bless your heart, dear, but the Lord has mode no one “just like” me. Or you, thankfully.
Report comment to moderator
#143 RPN
“Bye Klasko!” with a wide mouthed smile after.
The title of this thread is
“Uncommon common courtesy”
“British columnist Michael Deacon is worried about the state of common courtesy around the world today. “More and more last year,” he writes in a Telegraph article, ”it seemed that many of us thought it our right to offend or inconvenience others. We considered consideration beneath us.””
Report comment to moderator
I find that common courtesy is becoming very uncommon in younger generations. I think technology does have an affect on this, but I don’t think it is due to more opportunities. I think it is because of how impersonal technology is. I know many people who are very rude and forceful on a blog, but would never stand up for themselves in the way they do online, in person. But they do progressively get more arrogant and rude in person as they talk more online.
I also think it is because of the teaching philosophies in public schools. It is very “don’t tell them they are doing anything wrong it will hurt their feelings.” Some teachers won’t even grade in red pen anymore for fear the it will traumatize someone for doing bad on a test. It is a philosophy that doesn’t punish below average performance, but rather rewards it. So kids never think what they are doing is wrong so they get arrogant. Many parents adopt this “don’t punish your kids philosophy” and in return they have arrogant kids who don’t ever think they are doing anything wrong and that they always know best. instead of self esteem issues (which in my opinion are not because of punishing children, those kinds of issues in most cases are just a part of growing up) you get a bunch of weenies who think the world revolves around them and that they know best and never mess up. And what else would you get if you never really tell them they are messing up? Thus, why would they ever do anything for anyone else if the world revolves around them? And if you never make a mistake or anything of that nature doesn’t that make you pretty important? So why should one ever do anything for someone else if they are so awesome!? you get a bunch of people who think everyone owes them something so not many people do much for anyone.
Obviously there are more factors that figure into this problem but I believe that these are two large ones.
Report comment to moderator
Bob-
Saying good-bye to a friend who is leaving is the courteous thing to do. I’d do the same for you, Bob.
Report comment to moderator
I want to support Yeah and other targets of Musing’s sophistry. Nobody has ever won an argument against him here, and I doubt anyone ever will.
I have tried being reasonable. I have tried being cooperative even and have posted the same exact comments many times per his request.
He asks for a definition. You give him a definition. He says, “That’s not a definition.” You look up the word defintion to show that what you provided was indeed a definition, because it matches the definition of definition. He says, “You still haven’t provided me with a definition. All you have done is shown me a definition of the word defintion.” On and on and on and on it goes. . .
Please, people, it’s a trap. It’s a trick. Don’t fall for it.
Report comment to moderator
condor,
is the sense of courtesy uniform across all cultures?
Has it been consistent across all time?
Report comment to moderator
I believe that it has indeed changed. But for the better in a lot of areas. I believe we are beginning to take a step backwards.
And I don’t think courtesy is the same in all cultures. But I was specifically meaning the American culture. I am not in another culture and have never lived outside of the USA border so I would not truly know what another culture is like in that sense of things.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Other people have hinted at something that I think is important. The people who hold WMB’s worldview are expected to have perfect manners, to never get angry, to never sound disagreeable, to back up everything with three valid sources, to argue in perfect logical syllogisms, and to submissively accept the exquisite wisdom and knowlege of those who do not share that worldview.
Whenever we don’t quite cut the mustard, our opponents cry something like: You guys are pathetic. We aren’t the ones who resort to name-calling. It’s you idiotic, hateful Fundie wingnuts. You’re the ones who killed witches and heretics in the Middle Ages. You’re the ones who are too stupid to understand that the world is round and is getting destroyed by rising temperatures.
When called on the carpet the response is something like: That wasn’t rude. It was just stating the facts. You’re the one who called me a lefty, and even though I do hold leftist ideas, it is highly insulting and offensive for you to call me that. If [insert name] should be banned for telling you to commit certain acts on yourself, then you should be banned for calling me a lefty.
I’m exaggerating. A little.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle said: Other people have hinted at something that I think is important. The people who hold WMB’s worldview are expected to have perfect manners, to never get angry, to never sound disagreeable, to back up everything with three valid sources, to argue in perfect logical syllogisms, and to submissively accept the exquisite wisdom and knowlege of those who do not share that worldview.
Kyle also said:
I want to support Yeah and other targets of Musing’s sophistry. Nobody has ever won an argument against him here, and I doubt anyone ever will.
I have tried being reasonable. I have tried being cooperative even and have posted the same exact comments many times per his request.
He asks for a definition. You give him a definition. He says, “That’s not a definition.” You look up the word defintion to show that what you provided was indeed a definition, because it matches the definition of definition. He says, “You still haven’t provided me with a definition. All you have done is shown me a definition of the word defintion.” On and on and on and on it goes. . .
Please, people, it’s a trap. It’s a trick. Don’t fall for it.
I disagree with both of these quotes by Kyle. In the first one, he says people “are expected to…” By whom? So what?
In the second one I read the tone (very vague term) as extreme irritation with Musing’s style of writing and thinking. Again who is evaluating? I’ve said that the term “debate” is almost meaningless because just about everybody is sure he or she “won” each debate that occurs here. Only God really knows who won a debate. (If there is a God.)
I will also say I have mixed feelings about Klasko leaving. I have pointed out that many people here are addicted, so it feeds my vanity to have someone say thank you for alerting me. I found many of her posts interesting and stimulating.
She said that if I were attacked (I was being hyperbolic) she would be one who would come to my house and defend me. I appreciated that. However, when Peter Leavitt said, “Go away,” she did not say “There is no reason for anyone who is not in violation of terms of service to ‘go away’ for disagreeing with Christianity or Christian right conservatism.”
She may not have read it. It’s not real important. But there is an immense amount of self-righteousness among the conservative Christians here. (I speak as a very self-righteous person, myself) and to those of us who do not share their world view, they are a bit selective in how they apply it.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle 152 and 156
I agree with BOTH your posts except where you say —- “Nobody has ever won an argument against him here, and I doubt anyone ever will.” —-
I believe that this individual most always takes a loss, and so do a few others when they/he/she posts – most of the posts are so garbled, it doesn’t take much reading to know they are unknowledgeable in most areas, it’s clearly sophistic mutterings, which are ignored on many occasions with good reason.
Report comment to moderator
The inability for some here to follow along logically isn’t Musing’s fault, nor is it a shortcoming.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Could I trouble you with the same questions you asked me in 153? Just curious.
Report comment to moderator
But there is an immense amount of self-righteousness among the conservative Christians here.
A self-righteous Christian is an oxymoron.
Report comment to moderator
kevinb,
I can’t thank you enough for your link.
My daughter was with us for dinner and it appears that we both suffer the mental and motor coordination aspects of dysgraphia.
We spent the evening bonding otelling stories on how we had compensated for the problem as we went thorugh school.
We have not had such a great bonding experience in some time and I gained many new insights in what school had been like for my daughter.
I can’t thank you enough for your kindness in posting the link.
Have a great 2009!
Report comment to moderator
condor,
and is courtesy even the same across all the United States?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A,
I don’t believe I have ever complained about the debate as contact sport aspects of the posts say Peter Leavitt or victoria, or evne llama for example.
When I first arrived here in fact I was greeted quite discourteously by many conservatvie Christinas on the blog. I concluded based on thier example that indeed debate as contact sport was indeed the norm (although being called heretic does I think step outside the blogs posting rules).
Peter Leavitt in particualr observed that he was an ex-mnarine and specifically intended to treat me as an ex-marine would.
And for Peter, I have been more than happy to reciprocate.
Report comment to moderator
codor,
happy to answer.
Courtesy I suggest is a social construct and varies dramaticaly across cultures and over time.
Each culture develops its own models of courtesy and styles for exhibiting such courtesy. What is courteous in one culture can under extreme cases get you killed in others (considder perhaps the arguable French custom of men kissing men as a sign of respectful greeting).
WMB is indeed a cultural microcosm of its own. And it has developed its own style.
A look of almost all posters Christian or otherwise will show their lack of what is generally thought of as courtesy. Peter first pointed out the debate as contact sport standard to me and has lived by it relentlessly for the times I have been interacting with him.
Lynn has been able to just barely and observably inconsistently managed to minimize direct personal attacks (although a look at llama’s post in this thread is informative here).
Very harsh attacks on the quality of the posts however continue to be the norm on all sides.
Perhaps peculiarly, since I received what amounts to 27 years of education in environments with very harsh debating standards, I do not find this a problem. It is what I grew up with and what I have been trained in.
Now we as a blog can indeed change the culture if we all as a group choose to.
But to change this culture we will actually have to respect each other for real: Christians will actually have to be willing to accept that non-Christians can be civilized and humane (comments that one can only be moral if one is a Christian does not help here and calling pro-choice supporters as murders is probably not useful) AND non-believers will have to respect Christians and not assert that they are being purely supersticious etc.
And quite literally as exmplified by post 3 on this thread, it is not at all clear to me that the posters are willing to make this personal leap.
But if we as a blog are not willing to make this leap of truly respecting each other, then I suggest that the probability that we will match any typical American model of courrtesy is quite small.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
then there are any number of posters calling themselves Christians who would seem by your definition to be poseurs.
I always foilow the “Only God knows who is truly a Christian” model, however, so I am unsure how you can make such a generalization.
Report comment to moderator
#24
KBells wrote:
Random are words like Bushie or Fundie any better. What would you suggest when referring to people who have a political view that is a lot more conservative than your own. I am not offended by being called a conservative because that is what I am.
I believe that is in context of my criticizing NJL for using words such as “lefty”.
KBells, this is complicated because there is a lot of context.
First, words such as “liberal” and “conservative” require a lot of context. There are many types of liberals and many types of conservatives. Conservative and liberal can refer to ideas about economics, about religion, about social values, such as marriage, and so on. There are libertarian conservatives and religious conservatives. I have no problem with you calling yourself a conservative because a) you are describing yourself and not insulting anybody else and b) you are generally courteous in how you address other people here. Most conservatives are also strong religious believers, but not all are. Ayn Rand was politically and economically very conservative, but also vehemently anti-religious. Christopher Hitchens was a political and economic liberal who became quite conservative, but remains vehemently anti religious.
In the discussions here, terms such as “lefty” are often clearly used as insults and not part of a serious discussion of political, economic, and social ideas. Not everybody converses in that fashion, but many of the loudest and most frequent commenters do. #22 by Ivan makes an effort to explain what he is talking about, but quite a few people rant and rave and assume everybody understands and agrees with them.
llama is perhaps the worst offender. #74 is a prime example:
Lefties have no sense of humor and are insane. They have no self control, no shame and can never be satisfied. They are never to be trusted, especially with your life or money.
I would appreciate it when someone quotes me that they would not take a small part of what I said out of context, like NJL just did with her so sense of humor quote. I’m still lurking
Happy New Year again to all.
My lights are flickering so I will post now. (We have our second blizzard.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I got my main point on. To be fair, some Christians have criicized llama because he is so over the top. The post I quoted is pure insult. Just substitute “black” for lefty and it would turn into something like you might hear from a racist bigot.
Not everybody here converses like this, but many do and have no idea why anybody is offended or consider it discourteous. This discussion and this web site is a prime example of culture clash and cultural non-communication. Everybody thinks they have no “body odor” (meaning tendendcy to insult) and the person on the other side “stinks.”
As a non-Christian, it seems to me that just about anybody here can say just about anything as long as they stick a “conservative Christian” label on themselves.
NJLawyer feels the same way about me. She chastized first Musing for being snarky and then me. I thought about it and after a while I said to myself, “She caught me. I am being snarky.” If NJL wants me to be “non-snarky” I would consider it if a) she suggested it politely and b) agreed to restrain what I consider her snarkiness which is as bad as mine, but as far as I can see she is oblivious to it and is no more aware of it than a fish is aware of water.
OK, our power is going to go out and my wife wants me to go to bed. So I will leave the discourteous debate about courtesy to everyone else. Be nice. Hey, be nicer than me, at least.
Report comment to moderator
then there are any number of posters calling themselves Christians who would seem by your definition to be poseurs.
My working definition of a Christian in that statement is the person to whom whose sin is imputed to Christ and to whom Christ’s righteousness is imputed. Of course, everyone’s so-called righteousness, as Scripture informs is “as filthy rags” (women’s menstrual cloths), so no one really has any self-righteousness except God alone.
I always foilow the “Only God knows who is truly a Christian” model, however, so I am unsure how you can make such a generalization.
My statement is true by definition and it has nothing to do with my knowledge of the particulars of who and who isn’t a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
There are some who deny the validity of Scripture, who deny that Christ arose from the dead – the Scripture below makes clear who will be saved, it certainly isn’t those who believe Christ wasn’t raised from the dead –
Report comment to moderator
Our electricity didn’t go out. (Mine will one of these days, as will yours.)
As I am getting old, I think about death more often. Perhaps it is only coincidence; perhaps it is a sign from God, that Victoria posts 171.
I see very little evidence that there is life after death. Most religious believers, particularly Christians and Muslims, seem to believe it. I consider this wishful thinking.
Two arguments for it come to mind. First there is the Near Death Experience, often called the “Going to the Light” experience. One of my aunts told me she had such an experience during open-heart surgery in Taiwan a number of years ago. I am fond of this aunt, but I think she is a nut about living forever.
A comment from a blog post discussing NDE’s:
My NDE. . .
I remember seeing an intensely bright light in front of me, but it didn’t hurt my eyes. It also didn’t seem to go away as light might during normal blinking. I also remember it being warm, but not hot. In the light, I could see figures moving around and I could hear voices but I couldn’t really make anything out. The one thing I remember most clearly was the feeling of euphoria. I felt very calm, almost sedated, but with a dream-like quality to my perception. It was an impressive feeling and quite comforting. The feeling didn’t seem to last long though and soon went away.
The reality. . .
I awoke from a coma to find I had been in a horrific car accident a few days prior. It was 1983 and I was 14 at the time and an unrestrained, back seat passenger of a stationary car that was hit by an elderly, unlicensed driver doing 80MPH. I suffered severe head injuries, broken femur and tib/fib, neck and arm injuries, and lots of blood loss. Thanks to some outstanding paramedics and fast trauma intervention, not to mention several months in traction and a year of therapy, I survived to be an obnoxious teenager, later a college grad, and a normal (? ) adult.
My take. . .
I always think of my NDE as severe head trauma, deep shock, and who knows what kind of brain chemistry-cocktail resulting from what I had just endured and was still wading through. I figure (from a patchwork of stories told to me) the light and people moving about were the sunlight and the accident survivors and later the EMTs working on me. The warmth was a dulled sense of the hot pavement and even hotter Northern California summer sun. The voices were most likely the shouts of the ambulance and fire personnel shouting at me to remain still while they stabilized me for transport.
Of course, I’m an atheist, a skeptic, and a scientist, so my views of things might seem a little cold and calculating of my whole event. Even as a 14-year-old, I was pretty realistic about life and not at all religious. It could be argued that my survival was a “miracle,” but I just figured I had great help very early in the trauma process, was near a decent trauma hospital, and I was a very healthy and active teenager.
Sounds familiar. . .
A few years after my accident, I saw a talk show where people were talking about their NDEs. I remember listening to them describe precisely the feelings, visions, and situations that I had been through. Only theirs were full of stuff like “I saw angels” or “it was heaven’s bright light” and of course, “I saw all my deceased loved ones around me,” “the hand of god,” etc. I had been through the same life-threatening events as them, though some of there’s were heart attacks, or gun shot wounds, but some were car accidents too, only my interpretation was substantially different. I could EASILY tell my exact same NDE story and throw in woo-woo stuff like angels, dead family members, or talk of “going to the light,” but it’s not what I perceived to have happened. Maybe it did and I’m a poor story teller, and as a scientific person, I’m open to possibilities if they later prove to be true, but for now, I was in shock and heavily concussed.
This seemed like a good place to share my experience. Love this blog – you guys are outstanding!.
There is no place in the universe where mileage is going to differ more than with “life after death.”
Report comment to moderator
The other argument, most loved around here, is that Jesus rose from the dead. Apparently Jesus’ resurrection provides proof that humans will live forever, either in Heaven or in Hell. There are variations on the details, but I would suggest that most people who read this web site believe (or wish to believe) that there is some sort of life after death.
Victoria states it about as baldly and certainly as it can be stated. Victoria is indeed bold.
The argument, made by a few others, is that there is so much evidence that Jesus rose from the dead no sensible person can deny it.
From a typical web site (there must be a million stating the same stuff):
So Why Should You Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead?
Because His death is confirmed by many sources.
Because a high official secured the gravesite.
Because there was no body in the grave.
Because many people claimed to see Him alive.
Because the apostles changed from confused wimps to courageous proclaimers.
Because witnesses of the resurrection were willing to die for their claims.
Because the Bible and Jesus clearly predicted the resurrection of Christ.
(This is the short version. Go to the web site if you want to see the expanded argument. However, everyone here has heard it over and over and over and over….)
I do not consider these arguments “proof.” I consider them wishful thinking. Our knowledge of what happened 2,000 years ago is not certain.
For example, the most studied historical event of the 20th Century may be what happened at Dealey Plaza in Dallas in 1963. With all this study, we now know exactly what happened at that time and place. Everyone agrees completely. As far as Jesus rising from the dead, piece of cake telling us what really happened compared to telling us who assassinated John Kennedy.
So I will patiently wait for someone to summarize in 100 words that everyone else here will accept with no argument what happened in Dallas in 1963.
Hate to tell you this, Victoria. One of these days, you will stop living, just as I will stop living, just as everyone reading this will stop living. Perhaps believing otherwise makes it easier to deal with.
Report comment to moderator
As most on this blog know, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant inspired Word of God. Prophecy bothers/troubles many un-Believers, they can’t line it up with their view of unbelief – understanding that many prophecies were written long before Christ was born is important.
Because more than 350 Prophecies have come to pass, which were Prophesies given in the Old Testament and New Testament, I have no problem believing the Bible to be inerrant. The ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ are a point in fact, they were identical to what we already had when compared. This fact, along with Prophecy which has come to pass is PROOF that the Bible is truth. The ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ were found in 1948. The scrolls were hidden in caves, a child found them, which was the most wonderful discovery to PROVE the Bible to be true. The scrolls were found in eleven different caves.
The Scroll manuscripts of the OT Books were one thousand years older than any in existence before the find, AND THEY MATCHED. God took care of those ancient writings, and preserved them for us, to compare and examine to what we already have as the Old Testament, with that PROOF, and the Prophecies fulfilled, I HAVE NO DOUBTS about who God is, His Son or the Holy Spirit. God is who HE said He was, and IS and so is His Son.
When a prophecy was given, and then fulfilled hundreds and several thousand years later, its LITERAL.
Report comment to moderator
#174 Victoria
We live in a world where scientifc laws seem to work in a reliable way.
Apparently, God didn’t think of inventing scientific laws until modern times. In the days of the Old Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls, God used magic and prophesies. Perhaps once he invented science he said, “Tastes better…less filling” and never looked back.
It would truly be amazing if the Bible contained a DNA sequence or a calculus equation or an electronic circuit. I suppose the heads of the Old Testament Prophets would have exploded if one of those those visions had appeared instead of Bible Verses intended to inspire Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 170,
ah so you appear to be saying:
“My working definition of a Christian in that statement is the person to whom whose sin is imputed to Christ and to whom Christ’s righteousness is imputed. ”
and hence do not appear to be talk ing about what is typically called self-righteous behavior of individuals.
So you indeed would seem to be correct. However, it is not clear that this is relevant to reviewing the nature of posts and posters.
Report comment to moderator
Vicky dearest is having a tough time with “lose” and “loose” today. Such misspelled, scrambled and unreadable comments…. Their and there were the issue the other day. Musing has company.
Report comment to moderator
what would they do, where would they go for comfort?
Think about it, ask WHY you can’t check out the Prophecy, what are you afraid of, what do you have to lose? Your soul?
I think these two statements get to the essence of the discussion. As Ernst Becker discussed in Denial of Death, we are the only animal who is aware that we will cease to exist. This is a difficult realization for all of us. Humans cope with this in a variety of ways. We are the only animal that commits suicide. (The lemming story is a Disney myth.) So some people give up. I have suffered from clinical depression, so I understand the feelings there.
Becker argues in Escape from Evil written as he was himself dying, that much of the evil some humans do (genocide being a prime example) is rooted in our fear of death. (Too complex an argument to put in one or two sentences.)
A lot of people anesthesize themselves with drugs and distractions of various sorts, including drugs, alcohol, television, sex, making little copies of ourselves (children), “he who dies with the most toys wins,” and so on. Some of these are good things, but even good things can be in part rooted in fear and despair.
On this web site, the standard method is denial. We don’t die! Jesus arose from the dead! We will rise from the dead!
I am not especially intelligent, or brave, or special in any way. I have no program to fix the ills of humanity (which are multifold–I sometimes wonder how we can stand ourselves).
I have long have had a distaste for wishful thinking and denial of what seems obvious to me. We are animals who can think. We have the ability to do great evil and great good. We imagine reasons to live so most of us do. In our evolutionary biology we have drives for selfishness and lust and cruelty and we have drives for love and caring for our young and for empathy and kindness. I don’t know how the universe began and I don’t know if there is a God or not. Your arguments (which are fairly simple) and the arguments of many others here (some of which are a little more sophisticated) are not convincing to me and the behavior (mostly posting comments) and the historical record is not good enough.
Roger Williams was a Christian who acted better than many of the other Christians of his time. His instincts were better than his beliefs. When others feared and fought with the Indians, he learned their languages and made peace with them. Supposedly he did not try to convert them. Supposedly he said something along the lines of Live so well as Christians that they will want to be like us.
If Roger really said something along those lines (I haven’t found a corroborating quote), much as I love him, he was naive. But it’s a better idea than the discourtesy often shown here. (I am on topic.) I’ve talked about a “race to the bottom,” a tag many here acknowledge. I suggested without much hope engaging in a “race to the top.” It didn’t much catch on. Posting a lot of Bible verses does not do it for me.
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
we do know that this is your belief:
“As most on this blog know, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant inspired Word of God.”
what is not so obvious is whether you can maintain your assertions of this belief in a logically consistent and fact based manner.
The argument is difficult to make tenable on a variety of measures:
1) ability to assess integrity of the texts
- our discussion over mark 16:9-20 are instructive here
2) ability to assess the actual authorship of the texts
- Moses most plausibly did not write all of the first five books for example and you have provided evidence that some of them were in fact written much earlier than dates atributed to Moses
3) the objective inerrancy is difficult to sustain
- the Exodus as traditionally understood is the simplest and clearest example: as traditionally understood it is difficult to see how it can be matched up with the available objectvie data
It is possible to coherently sustain a strong inerrant model of the Bible. Tt, however, requires as a specific corrollary the abandonment of objective analysis of objective data.
You appear to insist on what are contradictory positions:
- the Bible is inerrant in a strong sense
- you can sustain this position while discussing the data objectively and basedon objective data
And I suggest that this position is logicaly untenable.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 177,
because quite simply there is no valiatable prophetic materiasl form the Bible to use prophcy as a validating tool.
The texts are latter than any presupposed prophecies of the period prior to the Babylonian exile.
The nominal messianic prophecies are contaminated with the plausibility that the New Testament materials were written, well after the fact I might add, to specifically demonstrate the nominal fullfilment of the prophecies. Indeed the entire corpus of event material on Jesus is highly suspect.
And arguing for modern prophetic fulfillment is highly interpretational at best.
Report comment to moderator
Just curious, Musing. Do you believe in the resurrection?
Report comment to moderator
ree,
as I have noted many times, Mark ends at Mark 16:8 with an empty tomb and the women afraid. As I read it it ends in a mystery and I leave it as a mystery. I will accept the tomb is empty but I am not so confident that the Gospel materials are consistent in what it means.
And in large measure it does not matter to me: whether Jesus was or was not resurrected would not change my position regarding Jesus.
I have asked in the blog many times why the resurrection is important, and the usual answer is because it provides the promise of everlasting life.
I don’t need the “bribe” of everlasting life to follow Jesus and in fact cnosider it a bit insulting that it would be offerred. If one truly believed in Jesus one would follow Jesus even if it meant eternal damnation.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
I once did a study of the post-resurrection sightings as recorded in the Gospels.
I observed at that the that sightings of Elvis would appear to have better corroboration that post-resurrection sightings of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
there is of course the aside that if you assure me that it did happen, I can not prove that it did not.
Of course I suggest you can’t really prove that it did, so I think we are in a draw.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
now as I look over the record, it appears that we may have had one chance to possibly develop objective data here: it can be argued that at one point we may possibly had had the bones of Christ available for study.
If we had the bones of Christ and if it showed signs of crucifixion and if these signs of crucifixtion had showed signs of healing we would have had some truly interesting evidence indeed.
Alas, it appears that this chance slipped passed us.
Report comment to moderator
Of course I suggest you can’t really prove that it did, so I think we are in a draw.
End what? I have no intention of starting anything or trying to prove anything to you. I’m aware of your methods, and I have better uses for my time. As I said, I was just curious.
I find it ironic, too, that you consider yourself a “follower of Jesus,” when you have no confidence in the written records that tell us who Jesus was and what he taught. You can’t follow someone when you don’t know where he’s leading. And if you only accept the teachings in Scripture that are aligned with what you’ve pre-determined are right and true, how is that “following Jesus” and not just following your own ideas and inclinations?
Report comment to moderator
Musing’s comments here answer in part some questions I asked him in another thread.
I have encountered quite a few Christians both in “real” life and in virtual communication. I find quite a bit of variation among them.
I think some people are drawn to Christianity because they are “good” people and find in Christianity an inspiration and a vehicle for expressing their goodness. Other people are drawn to Christianity for reasons of fearfulness and despair. For example, some people struggle with their own sexuality or their fear of death and their Christianity (much on display at worldmagblog) expresses itself with anger, condemnation, etc.
There are a hundreds of difficult assumptions and postulates in this comment. For example…what is “good,” and what is “evil”?
As I’ve said a thousand times, I don’t think there are “absolute moral laws” in the universe.
I think my idea of good is based in part on “empathy.” I can imagine what it would be like to be killed or have someone I love be killed. This helps motivate me not to kill people.
I know what it feels like to experience pain. I consider this a motivation not to inflict torture. I know what it feels like to be rejected. If I am in a situation where people are excluded, I try to include them. And so on.
However, if someone revealed intent to kill me or someone I love, I would be motivated to harm or kill that person in self-defense. This seems credible to me without assigning these values to a High Power or a moral law of the universe.
Some of the conservative Christians at this web site to my eye are seriously deficient in their capacity for empathy. They are very empathic when they hear of other Christians being persecuted and suffering. Some people here are empathic to non-Christians suffering, but his capacity drops off quite quickly for some, especially when it applies to a group they disapprove of.
There is a great outburst of empathy in regard to fetuses subject to abortion. Abortion is a difficult topic, and I think a desire to reduce the number of abortions is commendable. However, in the overall context of human suffering and misery. the obsession with abortion (in contrast, say, to the issue of genocide) reveals to me that the empathic capabilities of some people here is…to put it quite bluntly, rather infantile.
It is amusing to me in a bitter way to read many messages telling homosexuals that they are not really persecuted in America today (and expanding on this theme to a considerable extent).
Not very far from from comments of that nature, I will read comments about how Christians may soon be persecuted in America.
I think comparing the degree of “persecution of homosexuals” and the degree of “persecution of Christians” in America would make an interesting doctoral dissertation research project for some sociologist, if a person with enough detachment and objectivity could be found to work on it. As usual, I suspect only God has the objectivity to really evaluate this controversy. [I don't believe in "objective" God any more than I believe in "absolute moral laws."]
To most of the people reading this: I don’t take your word for it on this matter.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I am not saved. I will die. Perhaps five minutes from now. Perhaps five years from now. Perhaps twenty years from now. After I die, I will cease to exist. In my system of values, my obligation is to prepare myself properly by preparing my will, cleaning up the affairs in my life, acting in a loving and constructive way toward the people I love, and as much as I can preparing myself to leave this life in a calm and positive manner.
Although my wife and I have not been all that demonstrative in saying “I love you” to each other, during this last year, as I leave for work, I say, “In case I get hit and killed on my way to work I want to say to you, ‘I love you.’ Be careful.”
She says something similar to me.
Perhaps as you die you will crie, “Hallelujah! I am going to Jesus.”
We will both be dead and we both will not exist any more. In the meantime, live your life as well as you can.
I will see my granddaughter this weekend. When she arrives with her mommies, I will tell her, “Random Granddaughter, are you going to behave yourself at the dining table and eat the very nice food Grandma fixes for you in a loving way? Because if not, you will have to sit out here on the porch and hope the chickadees and the squirrels bring you some seeds.”
Actually, I won’t, though I am sorely tempted some times. But I don’t want a mean Grandpa to be the last thing she remembers about me.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
but of course when you say:
“I find it ironic, too, that you consider yourself a “follower of Jesus,” when you have no confidence in the written records that tell us who Jesus was and what he taught. ”
I have already noted that I have faith in what it is understood that Jesus taught.
I find it odd that given the early Christin evidence you would consider the obejctive events, as opposed to the subjective teachings, as something you would have confidence in.
But since there is no objectvie evidence to refute you, you are most certainly free to do so and if it helps your faith, well all the more power to it.
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
but as I have already noted with you several times, I do not consider the writings of Paul canonical. As such a reference from Romans proves no such thing to me.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name–I think comparing the degree of “persecution of homosexuals” and the degree of “persecution of Christians” in America would make an interesting doctoral dissertation research project for some sociologist, if a person with enough detachment and objectivity could be found to work on it.
I’m not one to claim that Christians are persecuted in America, but I would definitely say that they’re suppressed in a way that homosexuals are not. A teacher in a public school who told the class that Christianity was morally good and that “homosexual marriage” is immoral would be disciplined and, if it were at all possible to do so, fired. A homosexual teacher in a public school who told the class that homosexual marriage is morally good and the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality was immoral would be tolerated and, in some schools, commended.
Of course, four or five decades ago, this situation was the opposite of this, and things gradually shifted over the course of time so that they’ve now been exactly reversed. It just goes to show, though, how the idea of universal “tolerance” is a lie. In any society, some things are tolerated to the exclusion of other things. The issue isn’t about tolerance, but what it is that ought to be tolerated.
I suppose intolerance isn’t necessarily equivalent to persecution, but it can certainly lead to it.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
I believe I demure on this point:
“A homosexual teacher in a public school who told the class that homosexual marriage is morally good and the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality was immoral would be tolerated and, in some schools, commended.”
Saying that homosexual marriage is both legal and part of society would indeed be tolerated and encouraged under many diversity plans.
I suggest that any mention of the Bible here (either pro or con) would be inappropriate and my sense in working with our local schools would not be either encouraged or condoned.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I have already noted that I have faith in what it is understood that Jesus taught.
Is there anything that Jesus taught that you consider to be unique to Jesus? You mentioned somewhere what you considered to be the similarity between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Jainism. So why do you call yourself Christian and not Jain? Why do you claim to be a follower of Jesus and not a follower of Mahavir?
Granted, you may not follow the Jain traditions or believe in the entirety of the Jain worldview, but neither do you do those things in regard to Christianity. So why the label Christian?
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You certainly don’t strike me in any way as demure.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
why yes, as Jesus himself is reputed to have said, Love your enemy, and that this made the followers of Jesus different.
NOw as I understand it this is found in Jainism and apparently not many other religions.
Resurrection is a fairly commn theme. As is forgivenss of sins and propritiation for the sins of others (Prometheus comes to mind). In fact most of the supernatural aspects and beliefs of Christianity can be found to be presaged in most other religions.
But the love of ones enemy is relatively unique.
And as I read the mateiral form Jesus I find it speaks to me, which is perhaps more than sufficient.
But are you perhaps suggesting that Jainism is superior? On what basis to you make this argument? Have you studied it in detail?
And what do you mean by the entirity of Christinity? Do you say the rosary? Do you go to confession? How often? Do you go to high eucharist or low eucharist? And was your marriage consecrated in a temple?
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
Jon Rowe goes to a lot of trouble to argue that America was not founded as a Christian nation. I think he has some points, but I am much more radical than he is. I don’t care if America was founded as a Christian nation.
Some of the ideas that Christians put into the mix of our country were useful and contribute to the welfare of our society. Some of the ideas they put into the mix of our country are deservedly not well admired today.
Our nation was founded on noble sounding statements of liberty and equality. At the same time as we were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we were taking the land from the Indians and committing genocide against them and building much of our agricultural economy on slave labor.
Puritans in Massachusetts were hanging Quakers because they didn’t like how they preached. One Quaker matron was hanged twice. First they pretended to hang her while they hanged two of her fellows in the hope that she would be scared enough she would stop preaching. When she didn’t, they hanged her again, this time for real.
Roger Williams had to flee to the Indians becuase his fellow puritans didn’t like the way he preached.
If the noble Christians were so wise and so virtuous on how to operate a country, how did things get so away from them so that now our country is going to suffer the abomination of “gay marriage?”
You founded the country you tell us? You had good solid values, you tell us? How did things go so wrong? How did things get away from you? Is it all Satan? Was it letting the Irish in? Was it not killing enough Indians, and letting a few surveve on reservations? Was it freeing the slaves (who certainly begged to come here in the fist place), or was it forcing schools to integrate?
Where did it all go wrong. Weren’t you watching the store?
Ree said:
I’m not one to claim that Christians are persecuted in America, but I would definitely say that they’re suppressed in a way that homosexuals are not.
I am 64 years old. I can remember when homosexuals were suppressed and I have seen and experienced a change in our society. I will say again that conservative Christians easily have empathy for other Christians and conservative Christians easily have empathy for preborn fetuses and their ability to experience and demonstrate empathy for other groups of people seems to drop off quite quickly.
I have trouble having as much empathy for your feeling that you are subject to intolerance. As I said again and will probably say quite a few more times, what you experience as “intolerance” to many of us looks like “we are not as deferred to” as we once were.
The real question is: do you deserve to be so deferred to any more?
I will say again, you are willing to blame everyone else for your loss of being admired and deferred to but yourselves.
Report comment to moderator
If you haven’t read what the Jain thirthankaras teach, then how do you know that they don’t “speak to you” at least as much, if not more so, than Jesus?
My point is that liberal theology is so watered down and non-distinctive, there’s absolutely no reason for a person who holds to it to even identify as a Christian. It strikes me that it’s may just be done to try to dilute the faith in an effort to extinguish it. Not that you could ever succeed, of course.
But the fact that you think I’m suggesting that Jainism is superior to Christianity is proof enough that you really don’t read for comprehension which explains a lot about why it’s impossible to get anywhere in a discussion with you.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
I don’t but apparently you do. Please inform me, I am curious.
Excuse me, I thought you were3 asking me why I did not choose jainism. Given that religions are a choice and I have made a choice, if you are arguing for another choice it is reasonable to assume that you concluded that Jainism was superior.
If you did not think it superior, why did you waste bytes suggesting it???
Report comment to moderator
I have trouble having as much empathy for your feeling that you are subject to intolerance.
I’m not looking for empathy. I’m just stating a fact. I already knew that you defend and applaud this intolerance. And prior to my conversion, I would have too.
I will say again, you are willing to blame everyone else for your loss of being admired and deferred to but yourselves.
The Lord told us not to expect admiration, and I don’t. But I agree with you that Christians bear most of the blame for the widespread apostasy and secularism in our country. I believe that we’re under God’s judgment for the sins of the church, not the sins of unbelievers. We wouldn’t necessarily be in agreement, though, on the ways in which Christians have failed.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
and perhaps I am confused, but it would appear that gratuitous uninformed dismissal of Christinaity is a key concern of a number of Christians here.
Given this history in this blog is there a reason why you decided to gratuituously dismiss the religion of another?
It seems strange behavior given the demand for Christians to not be dismissed by this society.
Report comment to moderator
If you did not think it superior, why did you waste bytes suggesting it???
I think I explained my argument quite clearly. I can’t think, offhand, of how to clarify further, but even if I could, no doubt you still wouldn’t follow.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
wait a minute. Are you:
“I’m not looking for empathy. I’m just stating a fact.”
about intolerance of Christians? But you just demonstrated intolerance of the religion of another. Given your behavior why would you expect you deserve different treatment than you are willing to give???
Report comment to moderator
ree,
no actually ree as this discussion shows you appear to demonstrate a high degree of hypocricy in your posts.
And yes, if you did not think that Jainism was superior, suggesting it was purely gratuitious.
And it further suggest your complete disdain and insensitivity for the religon of others.
Yes there is a lack of understanidng here, ree, but it would not appear to be on my part.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not looking for empathy. I’m just stating a fact. I already knew that you defend and applaud this intolerance. And prior to my conversion, I would have too.
There is an air of being aggrieved that pervades this website.
We condemn homosexuals because we love them.
They don’t experience it as love.
For many reasons, I don’t condemn homosexuals, unless they are doing something else I consider harmful.
On the other hand, I do condemn adults who have sexual relations with children.
There are pederastic adults who will argue that they are just as entitled to their expression of love as as adults who love each other.
There are commenters here who allege that a large proportion of homosexuals are pedarists.
Assertions of values and facts fly back and forth here. I have read posts and comments on this web site for perhaps four years.
I have not been convinced of many of the statements asserted as truthful and factual.
I have not been convinced of many of the values asserted here as virtuous and good as always being so. These are very difficult issues. Everyone is struggling with these problems. Those who claim there is no need to struggle and that they have the answers for sure are the ones who scare me the most.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone is struggling with these problems. Those who claim there is no need to struggle and that they have the answers for sure are the ones who scare me the most.
Christians and atheists both struggle with answers. The difference between us is in regard to the foundational assumptions from which we begin to work through the struggle.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
this is indeed a true statement:
“The difference between us is in regard to the foundational assumptions from which we begin to work through the struggle. ”
But some Christians take the next step and assert that their foundationals assumptions are objectively better than others.
This can not be demonstrated to be generally true and in some specific cases (depends on the big question) I suggest can be demonstrated to be not true.
Report comment to moderator
Based on your epistemological assumptions, the very concept of moral virtue and vice cannot be “demonstrated to be true.”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!