I swear I didn’t want to beat a dead horse. I was ready to give things up, even though I had yet to get a concession from jodih on our debate as to the intent of my OP in my You’re not a good Christian… thread. The part of the OP that inflamed her is as follows:
Now then. To refresh, jodih proceeded to hijack the thread to Mars by claiming that a) I personally felt all Christians were like this, and then followed with b) I was perpetuating this stereotype.
We argued a LOT over this, and she refused to EVER see, in spite of pleas from myself and others, that neither of these were the case.
As I said, I was ready to let it go in spite of the fact that she refused to acknowledge that she was wrong. Until I saw this little quote from her on the Kansas vote on Evolution thread that was way too good to pass up, and I hope those who are SICK of this debate will indulge me this final forray. Her words are as follows:
Compare this to the wording in my OP and tell me that they’re not saying the exact same thing, just about a different stereotype! And her post was on 08-12-1999 02:06 PM, which was almost two full months before I started that OP on 10-11-1999 10:44 AM.
I should also note that nobody questioned jodih on her words either. Nobody argued with her about perpetuating stereotypes or believing them herself, and certainluy nobody kept this argument up for ages.
But she felt compelled to do this to me, for just about the exact same wording in a post two months later.
You can say you were wrong anytime you want, jodih… Unless you DO believe that all people in Kansas fit the stereotype, and you are perfectly content to perpetuate this stereotype all you want.
Touche there, Darn One. It’s good to see people on this board who choose rationality over emotion in debates like this. Getting carried away because someone disagrees amount to nothing, as was clearly demonstrated by jodih in the well-known Pit Thread regarding herself.
Oh, just for the sake of argument, I’ll throw out a distinction.
Satan, your post (arguably) damned (heh) all Christians based on the expressed views of one person. That’s condemning a few hundred million people based on one person, and where those few hundred million have no control over the one.
In Kansas there was a VOTE. Votes are supposed, generally, to represent the will of the majority, and the fact that it becomes law, or public policy, or whatever, suggests that the majority of the poeple subject to that law or policy agree with or accept it, or else they would change it.
No, Melin. The Darned One’s post was an observation of fact; that fact being the tendency of humanity to assign to a group as a whole the actions/attitudes of some of the members. A tendency, you might note, Jodih also mentioned in a thread about Kansas as said Darned One hizzelf reminded all above.
Jodih (& Temujin) immediately attempted to hijack the thread to an attack on Satan and accused him of the very thing he was not doing but was merely observing!
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the question of whether you read the threads being cited here. Just for the sake of argument, I’m going to allow you the “significance” of the distinction you alluded to.
I’m not, however, going to let stand unquestioned any implication that jodih a.)justifiably assumed that the distinction was so obvious that it didn’t need to be brought up, b.)noticed any such distinction in the first place, c.) was aware of the similarities between the two posts (they were, after all, made two months apart).
The point at hand in this thread, in my view, is whether jodih was justified in her attacks on Satan’s OP. The introduction of this piece of evidence appears to undermine any arguments that she was.
Satan, I’ll bet you wish you’d found that post of hers some time closer to October 12; that thread could have taken off in an entirely different direction (or, it could have died out from lack of anybody to disagree with ;)).
If nobody objects, I’m going to re-use a .sig line I custom created for a different thread in GD.
Of course
You say “thinking without facts is masturbation” as though masturbation is a Bad thing!
Gee Kayalsdad, how very kind of you to give me the benefit of the doubt. Here, I’ll return it to you with the assumption that you didn’t read Satan’s post in this particular thread that closely.
Satan said
And my post responded exactly to that: they are NOT saying the “exact same thing.” One is taking what one person has said and generalizing it to several hundred million people. The other is taking a look at the fact that a vote was taken, and that apparently the majority of the people making that vote felt a particular way about a particular matter, since it became law. It’s kind of like saying that apparently the people in California think that medical use of marijuana ought not to be illegal, since there was a vote on that issue a couple of years ago which came out in favor of such use.
To say that what one person says fairly implicates all, when the “all” has not endorsed that person, is a foolish, gross generalization. To say that a vote by the masses, or by the elected representatives of those masses, implicates all, is not such a leap. A more precise statement might have been to use the word “majority” or “plurality,” true, but jodih’s statement is closer to being accurate than Satan’s was.
FWIW, when I read Satan’s original comment about making “ALL” Christians look bad, I simply took it as another anti-Christian jab by someone looking to tar an entire group with a brush dirtied by one person. I thought it was an ill-considered, overbroad statement that said more about his prejudices than anything else. I considered posting a response to that effect, then decided that it wasn’t worthwhile, and never went back to that thread.
I have serious problems with people making generalizations about “ALL” the members of a group based on the statements or actions of a single member of that group. It’s called prejudice. As a matter of fact, though it may have been before your time, given your registration date, my opposition to blanket statements made against all the members of a single group cost me my job as a moderator on this board.
Oh. So you’re ignorant too. Willfully then, since you admit not going back to the thread.
Well, why don’t you go back to the entire thread. Read the entire OP - you know, the part where I mentiomned a personal friend who didn’t think this way - and subsequent arguments on that particular issue and get back to us.
No, then again don’t, because you have anything new to add to the discussion. That discussion is over - this thread is just about some new evidence I have which proved jodih to be wrong.
Now then - The vote, if you would have actually read the OTHER thread (I doubt you have, even though you didn’t come out and say it), was by school board members. It’s safe to say a majority of school board members have this opinion.
Now then, her quote clearly states that it makes people in Kansas look bad - not school board members. In fact, she says that she would feel worse if she lived in Kansas - not that she would feel worse if she was a member of the Kansas School Board.
jodih’s statement is as true as mine was - “Boy, look at this! Sure could make people look bad.” And guess what - I have no problem with that. She’s right. And she can say it makes others “look like” anything without believing it “makes all” others that way herself.
The issue is two months later, those same exact thoughts and the motives behind them bu me were questioned by her.
The crux of THIS thread was showing more evidence that SHE worded similar feelings the same way, then accused me of things and refused to give in and concede a point. And as much as I would have LOVED to have been able to bring her quote up earlier, when the debate was still fresh, the fact is I only recently found them, and as I said in the OP, they were too damning to let go.
Maybe if you read that thread you “never went back to,” you might know this.
In any event, you admit that you didn’t revisit one thread, and you probably didn’t spend much time with the second. This is called an ill-informed opinion.
People who are familiar with the thread you “never went back to” know the score. See above posts for clarification on this.
Oh, and for clarity:
No, actually, your opposition to the RULES of being a moderator on this board cost you your position. But that’s been discussed to death, I only bring this up for clarification to any newbies who might actually take your view at face value.
Well Satan, people can only judge by what you write, and the way you write it, in a forum like this, where there are no other clues – body language, tone of voice, etc. – to help interpret what is written. When somebody writes something like
with the word “all” in caps, we can only assume that you meant what you wrote. Nice of you to qualify that you knew one person who didn’t fit the mold. The next door neighbor, when I was growing up, “knew” what nasty prejudices he “knew” about “ALL” black people (though that’s not the word he used), but he would admit that one of my high school girl friends, who was black, was an exception because her family was “respectable,” she was “clean,” etc. It’s an old line, y’know? “I’m not prejudiced! Why, my best friend is [fill in the blank.]”
Maybe you didn’t mean to convey that impression, and I for one am happy to accept your statement that you don’t. That doesn’t change the way that the original post was worded.
School board members are generally elected officials. The way our system of government works it is generally presumed that the elected officials reflect the will of the majority of the voters – otherwise they don’t stay in office, and the things that they make as law or policy do not stay law or policy for long.
Hit a nerve, did I? Felt you had to resort to an ad hominem attack? Funny that you know all about it – I didn’t see your name on the rounds of emails that went back and forth amongst all the staff at the time – especially when the people who made that comment were caught out (not by me, but by others) in their various inconsistent statements they made on the entire issue.
Melin, I notice you re-posted that one line from the OP. Again, just one line. And made no mention of anything else in the entire thread, not even the rest of the OP alone. I guess you still decided to not go back. Good for your credibility…
It’s nice taking a quote out of context and not even looking at the rest… You write Chick tracts in your spare time?
Now then, your argument about them being elected officials does NOT in any way change the fact that jodih was talking about Kansas PEOPLE, not elected officials, in her attack.
Are you saying that everyone elected was done is with a unanimous decision of all Kansasians? Or are you saying what jodih meant was that it made all Kansas elected officials look bad? Either way, I’d say your pretty wrong.
And as Monty said, I was clarifying the truth that came out after you tried to martyr yourself. And when it happened, I posted my thoughts at the time in the correct thread.
Since this is not a thread for this discussion (that discussion was had a LONG time ago, Melin. You might want to get over it at some point.), I only clarified what actually happened and I refuse to get into details. If you want to start another thread on how you were so unfairly treated, feel free.
But as far as this thread goes, if you bring up something that stinks, how surprising is it that someone sprayed some Lysol on it?
Upon further reflection, you DID mention the rest of the OP (with an incorrect analogy, but I digress), but it still seems that you have not looked at the rest of the debate.
I say this because if you did, it wouldn’t be coming up again…
As I mentioned in another thread, Melin, the value of your statement here is mitigated greatly by whether or not the person speaking is a member of the group being described.
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy
I don’t think I understand your point, Phil. Do you mean that value of the statement made by the person saying “I’m not prejudiced – my best friend is [fill in the blank]” is affected by whether THAT person is a member of the group, or whether I, as the person being spoken to, am a member of the group? I find there are two kinds of people who make the statement: the first is the person who is truly a bigot and trying to pretend that s/he isn’t. The second is the person whose only experiences with individual members of the group in question have been postive ones, but for whatever reason – maybe reflecting the views they heard when they were brought up – they THINK that the stereotypes are true, except for the individuals that they know. The second person is a lot more palatable than the first.
Now, Satan seems to have been stung by the intimation that he comes across as a prejudiced anti-Christian in his statements. Can’t imagine why ANYONE would think that someone who chooses to go by the name “Satan” in this forum, and who makes blanket negative statements about “ALL” Christians – albeit attempting to qualify that statement in the next breath – would possible be preceived as anti-Christian. Just boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
No one’s going to mistake me for an impartial judge, but I am an outsider to the religious threads for the most part.
I offer the following observations:
Satan found strong similarities between a statement Jodih made several months ago, and a statement he made recently, and got blasted for from Jodih, and called her for her hypocrisy.
Satan’s statement:
Jodih’s statement:
Satan then challenges us to:
Sorry, Satan. Consider yourself told. They’re not saying the exact same thing.
On a simplistic level, they can both be reduced to:
This statement/action/position make all people associated with the person(s) who made it look bad.
Unfortunately, most of your posts prove that you’re too smart & perceptive to see things this simplistically. There are several things that do differentiate your statements.
Does the Rev. Terry Glidden represent all of Christianity? No, in fact the heads of some Christian denominations have specifically embraced evolution. The Kansas State school board IS SUPPOSED TO represent the people of Kansas.
To suggest, that the words of one extremist are believed by every Christian, and that this is why (reasonable) people are “turn(ed)…off” is different than to suggest that an official state government agency, whether appointed or elected, is making policy that a majority of state residents agree with.
You are both alleging guilt by association; the validity of the association is much stronger for the actions of the Kansas state school board.
You both attached disclaimers to your statements.
Your disclaimers amounted to the quotation marks around the word truth; and the mention of a friend who believes differently from Rev Glidden. The 2nd disclaimer was not in the OP on this thread, but was on the OP of the “not a good Christian” thread.
Jodih’s disclaimer was much more obvious - “I realize that’s an over-generalization” and she then goes on to add “so I’d be doubly dismayed if I lived in Kansas.” which clearly indicates that she, personally, does not feel this way. Your disclaimers leave the question of how you feel wide open.
I’m not quite sure how one person’s statement on evolution could make “ALL” Christians “look like mind-melded zealots.” The fact that you apparently do think that one person’s statement could logically show that all Christians think a certain way does suggest that you personally may believe that many Christians do think that way, no matter how many friends you care to mention as exceptions to this stereotype. I do see how removing evolution from the state’s official curriculum makes a state look like “backwards idiots”.
I also believe that your choice of such an inflammatory phrase as “mind-melded zealots” does much to belie any disclaimers you append to your statement. You might also consider that people may make inferences about you & your beliefs from your choice of such a provocative screen name.
This distinction I have already addressed. It does not change the fact that jodih was commenting on the PEOPLE of Kansas, and if my quote is so imflamatory of all Christians based upon this one guy, then hers has to be read as inflamatory of ALL Kansasians based upon a school board.
Does the School Board represent the people in Kansas? SUPPOSEDLY is your word. Do raving fundamentalists claim to speak for all Christians? You remember ARG, don’t you? And he was just a stupid kid. How many adults who lead flocks are like Rev. Glidden?
How is that? What demographic do you think is higher - people who think like Rev. Glidden, or Kansas School Board members?
I’d wager to guess that there are thousands of people who think like the Reverend, and many of them are in positions of relative power - i.e. spiritual leaders of some amount of people. And I doubt that there are this many people on the Kansas School Board. Do you?
Maybe the good Reverend was the only example in the OP, but do you think he’s alone? If he was, you’d have a point. But he is not.
Maybe, but as I’ve explained, jodih never gave up after numerous clarifications.
Questioning is fine. I was cordial at first. But she refused to concede this. Even you do concede that it’s there. She never got to that point after numerous posts.
When jodih posted her words, nobody questioned it.
I am saying in this thread that it is really ironic that she would battle for tons of posts about my choice of words, refusing to concede an inch on every clarification by myself and others, when she used nearly those same words almost to make a point.
You can nit-pick all you want, but can’t you see this irony?
So let me get this straight - You cannot understand why some people would stereotype Christians as raving fundamentalists, in spite of the fact that they are the loudest group of people on the planet, and the most intollerant, and the most self-righteous, but you can understand that a whole state are “backwards idiots” because of a vote by a few members of the School Board?
Okay. Whatever. Guess you’re a Christian who doesn’t live in Kansas…
Ah. The crux of the problem, brought up by several people of varying faiths.
You (and some others) stereotyped ME! You saw a user name Satan and assumed, “Well, a poster whose name is Satan MUST have problems with all Christians,” and went from there.
If Polycarp had started this thread, he could have used the EXACT SAME WORDING and nobody would have made a fuss. And yes, I could see Polycarp starting this thread with the exact same wording because it made sense, and I believe he feels the same way I do on the subject.
But because of my name, you saw something you wanted to see. Those who know me better know I don’t feel this way. A few who wondered quickly realized what I really meant upon lucid clarification. A few people refuse to do even that.
So, maybe we should start a thread about how some Christians on this board stereotyped ME!
Melin, I simply meant that, if I say, “It is absolute ‘truths’ like this that turn people off to Christianity and make ALL of its followers look like mind-melded zealots,” and if, say, Polycarp or furt or tomndebb or you say it, there are quite likely two different meanings being expressed. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I say, “It’s people like the Irish Republican Army that make ALL Irish look like uncompromising, bloodthirsty, partisan terrorists,” do I think that all Irish are uncompromising, bloodthirsty, partisan terrorists?
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy
