Surprising development

Page 3 of 3 (47 items) < Previous 1 2 3
This post has 46 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 308
James W Bennett | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 26 2013 4:03 AM

I read a lot of threads on these forums and have since the start of the forums. I also followed the newsgroups for years before the forums were started. Yet I rarely post unless it has to do with perceived technical issues with the software or use of the software and the resources. Because that is the purpose of the forums. I most definitely DO NOT get involved in doctrinal or theological issues (barring one fall a couple of years ago which I remember and regret).

Mr/Mrs/Ms Butters...

I would ask that you please review all posts in this thread by MJ. I think you will find that your comments were unwarranted. I most certainly did not find a "snarky" post.

I would also ask that the moderator(s) please freeze this thread because it does not follow the forum rules. It did not even begin as an appropriate forum thread as per the forum rules.

Finally, don't bother responding to my post, even if you agree with my position. I will not comment further in a thread that has nothing to deal with Logos products.

Butters:

MJ. Smith:

As a logician, I was merely appreciating the fact that I had no need to bring out the fallacy hound. As for the thread's general topic, I choose to be a non-participant for a variety of reasons including that I have nothing related to Logos to contribute.

As a logician you seem to have a poor grasp of logic.  Among other things, according to you, it's apparently okay not to abide by your "forum politeness guidelines" (which you expect other people to follow) so long as you declare yourself a "non-participant" who also has nothing to say that is "related to Logos" - but then go on to write a snarky post anyway?  

Do I have that right?  

You are so unbelievably subtle, I'm just trying to understand your position here!  Thanks!  

~Butters Smile

---

James W Bennett

http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

Posts 466
Butters | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 26 2013 4:50 AM

James W Bennett:
I would ask that you please review all posts in this thread by MJ. I think you will find that your comments were unwarranted. I most certainly did not find a "snarky" post.

Dear Mr. Bennett.  

You seem to have left out my original response post and merely focused on the word "snarky" in the last post.  Were you to read the original post, you would have context for why I called a post "snarky."  

~Butters Smile

“To love means loving the unlovable.  To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable.  Faith means believing the unbelievable.  Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton

Posts 466
Butters | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 26 2013 6:29 AM

Just in case anyone reading is not clear about this: I don’t actually think that MJ’s post was “snarky” - all I was doing was holding MJ up to her own standards of “polite forum” behavior guidelines that she posted up in another thread, guidelines to which she expects others to conform.

Indeed, I have no problem at all with feisty and spirited debate; that is what I personally grew up on, and I must say it’s a bit of a culture shock to meet people (in both the virtual and real world) who put such an overwhelming premium on being sensitive, “perspectival” etc.

And yet, that^ is not quite true after all.

What is a bit closer to the truth is that demands that people be more “sensitive” and “nuanced” and “perspectival” (and all the other ways we try to feminize what such people call “discourse”) are usually made when a person doesn’t agree with the post.  

These demands are more often than not ways of insulating oneself from penetrating analysis and rigorous thinking; as well as ways of controlling conversations and debate so that it conforms to one's own viewpoint.  

MJ merely thought she was just being “logically correct” in her post - and while I don't agree with her, I have no problem with her "mode of discourse."  What I do have a problem with is when people label a post as impolite because the post goes against a kind of unsaid consensus viewpoint.  

In other words, if a post expresses a consensus opinion content-wise, one can be as impolite (“snarky”) as one likes and it goes un-noticed; whereas, if a post’s content expresses a non-consensus position, it is perceive it as impolite, however politely written.  I have noticed (and noted) this on many threads in this forum.  

In short, it seems to me that for many people perceptions of “polite” or “impolite” posts are highly (if not almost completely) mediated by whether that person agrees or disagrees with the content of the post.

As for me, my education and upbringing was entirely conducted upon spirited debate and often in tutorials with very intimidating and able adversaries as tutors; I am very used to the rough and tumble of verbal debate and do not mind at all a bit of feistiness - indeed, I relish it.  And look on with chagrin at its loss in a verbal culture that has been so Carol Gilligan-ated and feminized.  

~Butters Smile

“To love means loving the unlovable.  To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable.  Faith means believing the unbelievable.  Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton

Posts 10178
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 26 2013 6:44 AM

Butters ... when in a hole, you're not supposed to dig down to climb out.  It may well be you don't do well with women (feminize as you put it), but they do make up a small portion of your world.  No need to expand the snarkification.


Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 26 2013 12:10 PM

Mitchell:

Patrick S.:
Re: "we as Christians have committed our own atrocities", no... by committing atrocities those persons who called themselves 'Christians' proved that they were anything but followers of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Did some atheist toss that line of reasoning at you recently? Here's some thoughts you can throw back at them as a ('true' - sorry couldn't resist Smile) Christian.

"Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on)." 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

I believe, and I think I'm in good company with the apostles Paul & John here, that there is a very clear definition, and elucidation, of what membership in the body of Christ requires — it's called the New Testament. I'm thinking particularly of 1 John with respect to this discussion.

Playing with this a bit...if we follow the line of reasoning in the 'no true Scotsman' there is a very simple criteria for membership in the set 'Scotsman', well it could be argued but let's just agree that for the purposes of this discussion that the criteria is either — being born in Scotland and/or being born to Scottish parents. Either way the 'Scotsman' is part of the set not by virtue of anything he has done. Two Scots did it and he was the result. The poor Scotsman can't take himself out of the set 'Scotsman', just as much as the leopard can't change its spots.

He can't be 'reborn' into a new set (of people), he's stuck where he is. I can just imagine the Scotsman plaintively asking “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” And the person facing him says "You must be born again". But we all know what Jesus is really saying. One of the things I really love reading about Jesus is his one on one encounters with different people, he makes what appear on the surface to be illogical statements, but he goes straight to the heart of the person — as can be seen by their responses.

People may try to be clever and espouse logic (and there is nothing wrong with logic per se) for logic's sake, but that does not change the fact that Jesus and the NT writers clearly define what membership of the group (set) 'Christian' requires.

Paul, as we all know, also goes into detail about the realities of the struggle of the Christian life in Romans. But, you know, somehow I just don't see the Crusaders while they were pillaging and raping their way through Constantinople quoting Romans 7:17-20 to themselves.

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 26 2013 12:19 PM

MJ. Smith:

As a logician, I was merely appreciating the fact that I had no need to bring out the fallacy hound.

Careful, he might turn on you and bite you for disturbing him for no reason.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This...

MJ. Smith:

I choose to be a non-participant for a variety of reasons

plus this...

MJ. Smith:

Mitchell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Big SmileYes

Is not logical — and you know it.

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 10047
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 26 2013 12:37 PM

Patrick S.:

"Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on)." 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Yes Yes and thanks for the link!

Running Logos 8 latest beta version on Win 10

Page 3 of 3 (47 items) < Previous 1 2 3 | RSS