O.K. jodih, lets try this analogy: You are having a pool party and have invited a bunch of fellow Christians over. One of your bretheren takes a dump in the pool. When your next door neighbor says,“If that’s how Christians behave at a party, I’m not inviting any over!”, do you start a long arguement with your neighbor about the percentage of Christians that don’t take a dump in the pool, and that because he took a dump in the pool he is no longer a Christian so it doesn’t count? Or do you clean the pool first, kick the lout out, and apologize to the neighbor for the bad impression?
None necessary. Like I said, that’s what I figured.
I hate that phrase. I think it’s overused, and I don’t think it’s accurate here, at least insofar as I think I understand your intent. Saying two things that are equal is not the same as saying one thing that is interpretted two different ways (I know that the term “semantics” might be used to describe the latter situation, but I think it’s almost exclusively used to describe the former).
Rich
Just in case anyone is interested…
While it may be reasonable to say that most people in the United States know that all Christians aren’t loonies, a good portion of the world gets nearly all their information about Christianity from the media. Guess who’s getting air time.
Like it or not, those guys do make you look bad to enough people to make it worthy of your concern.
“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization
Slythe, Jodih’s apparently gone for the weekend (must be having a pool party or something), so I’ll answer your question, since I seem to be the only contestant left in The Word Game (and since I’m bored).
The answer to your question is simple: clean the pool, kick the lout out, etc. (although, personally, I’d kick him out before cleaning the pool). However, it’s not a valid analogy, because the statement made by the neighbor is conditional, not declarative. Although the outcome for the dumping Christian would presumably be the same regardless of the neighbor’s comment (at least, I hope Jodih would kick the guy out no matter what her neighbor said), the attitude toward the neighbor might be different if they were to say, “that pool-dumper makes all Christians look like pool-dumpers.” In the spirit of not-pissing-off-the-people-next-door it’s likely that you’d respond similarly to either statement, but I think the gut reaction to your example would be more like, “wow, I’d better make sure I convince them that we don’t all act that way,” while the gut reaction to the declarative statement might be more along the lines of, “what an idiot.” It would be for me, anyway. If I had a pool.
Rich
se.man.tics n. 1. The study of meanings in language.
Yep. Satan’s OP in the thread in question can be mis-interpreted, but it was taken by many of us to be a generalization. It is clear that he himself does not hold an offensive opinion of Christians; he is pointing out one way the stereotype is perpetrated. Do I need to define hyperbole?
Maybe the point wasn’t made as clearly as it could have been, but I don’t see the dichotomy here.
I know you understand what you heard me say, but what you don’t understand is what I said is not necessarily what I meant.
Veg, the trouble right now is that there are a lot of people shitting in the pool right now, and the only voices that are loud enough to reach the neighbors are saying,“If you ain’t in the pool, you ain’t cool!” There is going to have to be a LOT more pool cleaning before I’m going to want to come to the party.
Sometimes I wonder how Christianity can see at all with a mote in the eye that large.
jodih expelled:
Actually, the analogy would be correct if you used an approximation of my verbiage.
As such, let me point out something more along those lines:
“When you post like this and argue incessantly, people are going to think you’re a moron.”
Obviously, this is neither offensive nor implying that I feel that way. Only that you have made it possible for people to think that, period.
Oh, and for the record: You ARE a moron. I DO think that with all the fibre of my being. I don’t care what anyone else thinks about you, that is my opinion. Also a fact is that several other people here feel the same way about you.
You might wanna try and practice some introspection, jodih.
Oh, one more thing.
After the very first clarifying post, which was neither harsh nor aggressive if anyone wants to check, a normal person would simply say, “Fine, I misinterpereted him.”
Maybe a stickler would go so far as to say, “Okay, I trust you don’t feel this way, but maybe you might want to choose your words more carefully next time to avoid confusion.”
I’ll admit that I’m pig-headed enough to have said, “Well, I thought my words were just fine,” but also am sensible enough to have let it go as long as she got the point.
Instead, after explanations out the yazoo as to what I meant in the OP, I’m still hearing, “Why do you say that all Christians are like this guy?”
THAT is the crux of the matter…
It’s one thing to be confused about what someone says. I won’t even comment about how she immediately jumped to conclusions based upon what she THOUGHT was in the OP, not what was there.
But when someone goes out of their way to explain themself, and several people crowd around agreeing with that explanation, and the fool STILL hasn’t figured out the answer, well, I think my frustration is warranted.
Here is the OP, since I feel the need to vent some more:
Key words in the above include “according to what THIS GUY says…” Not "according to what ALL CHRISTIANS say.
Now then, I think that the word “truths” being in quotation marks shows clearly that they are not truths, but “truths.” As in, not really truths, but this guy seems to think they are.
Also, saying it makes all of his followers “LOOK like mind-melded zealots” is also a fact that almost everyone on the board agrees on. Even you did, jodih.
But here is the important thing that has not been mentioned yet, and clearly states that any confusion over what MIGHT have been said in the OP cannot be chalked up to semantics, but willful ignorance:
How can I possibly be saying that I agree with the notion that all Christians are like-minded zeaolts when in the VERY NEXT FUCKING PARAGRAPH, I mention a personal friend who is NOT like this at all?
Even IF my words were unclear, and even IF every one of my several rebuttals were equally unclear (though I do think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language), if the OP is taken AS A WHOLE AND IN CONTEXT, there is NO FUCKING REASON for there to be any confusion about my intent or feelings on the matter.
Not to a clear-thinking, logical person at any rate.
Satan:
I think I know why Jodih freaks out when you mention some of the stuff you do, although you’re not directing them (other than in one particular topic) usually at her.
Here it is: “If you throw a rock into a pack of wolves, the one that yelps is the one you hit.”
Sorry, jodih, but yet again, you think that simple dismissiveness coupled with a wretchedly poor analogy makes any kind of point. I’m beginning to think you got your law degree by mailing in those Betty Crocker points.
If I say, “It’s people like RuPaul who turn people off towards all homosexuals and transvestites, and makes them all appear to be nothing more than mincing flamers,” do you think that I think that all homosexuals and transvestites are nothing more than mincing flamers? Why or why not?
Do you think that if had been, say, Polycarp rather than Satan who was the OP, you would have had half the problem you do with it?
Do you need a guided reading? Cliffs Notes?
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy
I realize this post may be unwelcome, but if you read through the original GD thread, it appears that Brian was more interested in fighting than in discussing.
Brian, your style of posting on this board is personal and confrontational. That’s not a bad thing in itself, but sometimes, it can bring out the worst in other people. Jodi was very nice to you in her first two posts over in the GD thread, referring to you as intelligent, and ‘‘repenting’’ for her initial mistake.
Her third post was annoying, but many people would have been able to respond to the content of what she said, while ignoring the minor tweaks she tried to inflict. You, however, decided not to do this.
Instead, after Jodi’s third post, you launched into an attack against her person. You told her straight out that you were not going to respond to the content of her ideas. Here’s what you said:
(notice here that you are attacking Jodi’s person, not her ideas)
(that’s not exactly what she said. you could have found a more effective way to address her objections)
(now you are calling her illogical – not her ideas, but her. it’s another attack on her person)
You conclude with yet another attack on her person. BTW, she didn’t say the same thing over and over again. I think you missed her point, so perhaps it sounded to you as if she was repeating herself when she was simply trying to clarify herself.
If you had taken a moment to think about why she might have interpreted (or misinterpreted) your post as a perpetuation of a negative stereotype of Christians, you could have responded in a manner that would not have escalated the discussion into an argument. Instead, you decided to do the opposite. You wrote a post that was all but guaranteed to anger Jodi.
Please remember, you post as ‘‘Satan.’’ For many people, the name ‘‘Satan’’ in itself is a signal that you probably oppose Christianity – that you’re not just non-Christian, but anti-Christian (not that you are anti-Christian, but people could easily get this mistaken idea about a poster who uses the name ‘‘Satan’’). Plus, you constantly contribute posts about the silly things that fundamentalist Christians say and do. Nobody is going to expect ‘‘Satan’’ to be evenhanded about Christianity or supportive of it. But your defense of the ‘‘good Christian’’ thread in GD is that you were, in fact, seeking to support Christianity by bringing attention to a fanatic who does not represent Christianity as a whole. So ‘‘Satan’’ is coming to the defense of Christianity? Fine, but don’t be surprised if some people don’t get it at first.
Jodi didn’t get it. And unfortunately, she played along with the fight you set her up for. I guess she likes to fight, too.
In GD and other forums, Brian, I’ve noticed that you’re very quick to call people names like ‘‘troll’’ and ‘‘idiot’’ and ‘‘moron.’’ And when someone tweaks you a little bit, you are very quick to defend yourself.
It seems like you sometimes lose emotional control when someone questions something you wrote. Very often, you respond not only to what a person said, but also to the faults you find with them as people. You label people. You don’t just tell people that what they said was worthless; you tell people that they themselves are worthless.
This is your style of discourse, and it is why you and Jodi got into a big fight. You could have avoided this fight by behaving more maturely and more reasonably than Jodi. Instead, you escalated things.
That’s one reason many people are fascinated by your posts. It’s like watching the Jerry Springer show, or Judge Judy, or professional wrestling. Or looking at the scene of a bad traffic accident. People have a morbid curiousity when it comes to conflict involving others. You create conflict.
And you often call people names.
Notice that everything I’ve written here is commentary on your ACTIONS. I’ve talked about what you do. I have NOT talked about who you are or what you are like as a person. I have not called you any names. I have not launched a personal attack against you.
As far as I’m concerned, you are OK. But I wanted to help you become aware of how your behavior seems to bring out the worst in people sometimes (assuming you are not aware of this).
Since this is the pit, I realize I’m setting myself up for some personal attacks. Since you do not know me personally, I’ll try not to take attacks on my person seriously. If you or anyone has a problem with what I’ve said or done, however, I’m very willing to listen.
In that particular instance, it may have been partially my fault.
Satan, question, did you find that link in my thread about a Christian college opening?
You know what? I get frustrated when people don’t listen. The reason I started to get pissed at jodih and now you is simply because you don’t listen.
This should be a total non-issue, and you are still bringing it up.
Why?
People other than myself have said that in debates with jodih she is prone to lying, conveniently omitting points made in posts to further her cause, and twisting the words of posters to where they are not what was said.
I am not the first person to make these claims, only the most recent, and the loudest, mainly because I refuse to give in to ignorance, especially when MY THOUGHTS are taken out of context.
I notice now that, having exhausted all other things to talk about, you feel the need to bring up how rude I am towards jodih. Well, I submit I did not begin out that way, but the frustration of banging my head against the wall that is jodih brought me to that point.
I am a very patient man.
I like debates of spiritual and secular notions.
What I do not like is someone who does not respond to questions with an answer having to do with the question.
What I do not like is answering a question, only to be asked it again several moments later only worded slightly differently.
Look at my first response to her. I made a joke in it. I was figuring that would be the end of it. And of course, it was not.
Then you come in, after I explained myself 100 times, and bring forth the same allegations that I rebuffed 100 times before!
So forgive me for being frustrated.
All I know is that I answered every question that came up to the best of my ability. And that wasn’t enough for two people here.
Whatever. Feel free to believe whatever you want.
The sad thing is, they’ll believe what they want, anyway. There is no sanity clause in the social contract.
YO-HO, ME HEARTIES! ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THE MUSICAL BATTLE AT SEA!
That’s not what I did.
The ‘‘allegations’’ that I brought up were that perhaps you were not reasonable with Jodi, and perhaps you didn’t understand what prompted her initial objection.
I then tried to explain to you how someone might have misinterpeted your OP.
In effect, I said: ‘‘Here is why a reasonable person might have misunderstood you. (followed by an explanation of why)’’
In response, you said, in effect: ‘‘How can you believe those things?’’ (following by a defense to my explanation, in which you leapt to the erroneous conclusion that I was explaining my own views about your OP. I wasn’t. I was explaining how a reasonable person might interpret your OP, to help you understand Jodi’s initial position.)
Then you impugned my ability to read and lumped me into the same philosophical camp as Jodi, whom you have been referring to as a moron and an idiot. I don’t belong in that camp.
You started THIS thread in the pit to demonstrate for all to see how unfair Jodi was to you. I am responding in THIS thread because I think you were at least as unfair to Jodi.
You provoked her into a fight by attacking her person.
I can understand why you don’t like this. It’s going to happen sometimes, though. It doesn’t mean the person who responds is an idiot.
I can understand why you don’t like this, either. But did you ever think that maybe the reason it happens is because your first answer is unclear? If someone asks you a question a second time, it doesn’t mean she’s a moron.
Amen! That frustrates me to. I apologize if you think I am not listening. Sometimes, though, it seems like you’re not listening to me.
I have repeatedly said that I BELIEVE you when you say you respect many Christians. I have never said that I disagree with your OP in the original GD thread. If you are listening to me, why do you insist on lumping me together into the same philosophical/religious camp as Jodi?
Maybe your are listening to me, but you’re just not HEARING.
In any case, thank you for a thoughtful response to my post. I know the pit isn’t the place for niceties, but I do appreciate a post from you like this, which contained NO personal attacks.
Hi daniel p bostaph,
Which explains your post. 
I don’t much like “sticking up” for someone who I don’t know personally, or via e-mail, or any way other than from their Straight Dope posts, but in this case I have to say that I’ve never seen any of those things happen.
What I have seen happen is that I’ve seen Jodih paraphrase points made by the people with whom she is debating. This is not uncommon: I do it, Phil does it, Satan probably does it too (I can’t recall a specific case, but I’ve read far more posts by Phil than I have by Satan). It’s a perfectly reasonable way to try to cut to the heart of what someone is saying given your understanding of their position. If the paraphrasing doesn’t express what you meant, you’re perfectly free to point that out, but the use of the technique does not automatically imply some sort of dishonesty.
What I’ve also seen is the use of hypothetical analogies. This is another useful technique in getting points across, and has been used by all parties involved in this particular brouhaha. Again, if the analogy put forth is invalid, you’re free to point that out, but using hypotheticals or paraphrasing text does not automatically imply dishonesty.
What I’ve also seen is several exchanges where numerous – perhaps a dozen or more – points are made in one post. There are several reasons why one or more points may not be addressed in a response: the respondent missed the point in the long post to which they are responding; the respondent saw the point, but decided it wasn’t important enough to respond to; or the respondent realized the point is valid, and therefore continued arguing using different points. Even if you assume the latter, it is your choice to put the respondent in a negative light by saying, “she conveniently omitted points to further her cause.” It’s just as easy to put yourself in a positive light instead by saying, “obviously I made that point well and I was correct, because there was no response from the other side.” IOW, the lack of a response doesn’t automatically imply some sort of negative behaviour on the part of the respondent.
Having read her posts in several different threads pertaining to at least two different major subjects (and meandering into many more minor subjects), sometimes agreeing with her and sometimes disagreeing with her, I can’t imagine anyone honestly coming to the conclusion that Jodih is a “liar” or a “moron” or an “idiot.” I’ve known and respected Phil for a couple of years now, and if he really believes this and isn’t just being bombastic, I’m surprised; Satan and David I haven’t known long or well, so I don’t know how likely it is that they actually believe this. For anyone who does, I can only hope that you don’t always automatically ascribe negative motivations to potentially reasonable actions.
(I imagine the following reactions:
David B: “Hey, fine with me if you don’t agree, Rich. I still think she’s dishonest.”
pldennison: “I still like you, Rich, but you’re being a tool here.”
Satan: )
Rich
Okay, this is my last post to this thread, and having cooled off over the course of the weekend, I hope I’ve got my perspective back. Here’s the deal, as far as I’m concerned:
-
For the 90th time, I understood Satan’s post. I was only trying to clarify that the way it was phrased constituted an over-generalization that even Satan (who posted it) didn’t think was true. That’s all. I wasn’t insulted by it; I wasn’t offended by it; I wasn’t trying to insult or offend Satan in making the clarification I (clumsily, apparently) tried to make. I grasped, based upon his second paragraph, that he didn’t share the opinion he was posting, which led to my question (never answered) of why he would bother to post an opinion he himself did not agree was valid. I never “accused him” of anything greater than imprecision. He took it very personally, but there’s not much I can do about that.
-
Satan, if you feel you have been “banging your head against a wall” in dealing with me here, I assure you that I have felt the exact same way in dealing with you. I have tried repeatedly to explain that I understood your point and that I never intended to do anything more than point out that it could have been phrased better. This has, apparently, fallen on deaf ears. I would think the problem was mine alone (that I was not explaining my point sufficiently) if I was the only one explaining it, but I wasn’t. VegForLife explained my point; Temujin explained it; Polycarp explained it. If you grasped it at all, you never admitted to it – which is not a criticism but merely an illustration that you are not the only party who found this entire exchange frustrating.
-
As I said before, this entire exchange isn’t even one I broke a sweat about (I was too busy having a conniption about something else). I wasn’t (am not) pissed off at Satan or anything he said, and I can’t be too concerned about his opinion of me because I’ve never (to my recollection) had a single exchange with him prior to this one. It’s unfortunate that the whole thing just devolved into two people shouting past each other, which is what it was. I certainly take responsibility for my share in that, and I apologize for making a bad situation worse. And that’s all I have to say about that.
You’re probably right, Rich; “liar” is probably far too strong a word.
My point was supposed to be that it is wrong of jodih to assume that someone stating, “This person tends to make all Xs look like idiots” holds the opinion that all Xs are idiots. She has no basis, prima facie, for making such an assumption. In fact, the truth is greatly mitigated by whether the person making the statement is an X or not.
And I think that is where a great deal of the problem lies. Jodih will accept criticisms (both of herself and of Christianity) from other moderate Christians that she will (seemingly) not accept from more radical Christians or nonChristians.
I would think that a reasonably person could conclude that Satan was, in his way, trying to be supportive of Christianity and condemning its zealots for commanding the lion’s share of media coverage. And, as I said before, had Polycarp or tomndebb started that thread, she would never have taken issue with it.
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy