Church to go forward with Boy Scouts

[Guest]

I'm really having trouble following your thought process.  It may be that you're carrying your argument with Annie to me.  Let me clarify something to you.  I don't agree with Annie's position on homosexuality.  I agree with yours.  I was simply calling you out on HOW you did it.

 

You bolded the following of my words:

 It was all the personal comments and assumptions you made about Annie--personal attacks.

Did your wife "snap out of it" by having you yell at her that you cant stand her "playing the victim" all the time?

 

Then the portion of your response that seemed to address the bolded lines was:

 

Pot meet kettle. 

...

As for my wife, nope she did it all by herself. Thanks to her fortitude, grit and the grace of God.

 

You basically illustrated my point.  But then called me the pot.  I believe this may be because you misinterpreted my motive.

 

My point in recalling your wife was not to insult you or your wife. My point was to show that telling someone to stop playing the victim in the tone you did was not the way to accomplish such a goal.  I'm sure that someone in your wife's life showed her Christ-like love to help her get through that and finally succeed in standing on her own.  She didn't accomplish it because someone was standing there angrily accusing her of playing the victim card.

 

I hate people always being the victim just as much as you.  But the only way to get people out of that spiraling mentality is to show Charity while firmly rooted in truth.  While I believe your heart was in the right place as far as standing for truth on homosexuality.  Your brutality on the subject of Annie's history was what I believe went over the line.

 

Emotionally charged rhetoric was used to illustrate her point-I threw emotionally charged rhetoric right back at it.

 

On this, I'll have to concede a point.  She did.  You did.  It was escalation in an emotional debate.  Unfortunate.  But probably an accurate description.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Guest

[yjacket]

My point in recalling your wife was not to insult you or your wife. My point was to show that telling someone to stop playing the victim in the tone you did was not the way to accomplish such a goal.  I'm sure that someone in your wife's life showed her Christ-like love to help her get through that and finally succeed in standing on her own.  She didn't accomplish it because someone was standing there angrily accusing her of playing the victim card.

You certainly have a lot of good points.  I've found many times in life, people don't like to hear the truth-sometimes hearing the truth spoken by a non-involved third party (whatever the source) makes all the difference.

 

On this, I'll have to concede a point.  She did.  You did.  It was escalation in an emotional debate.  Unfortunate.  But probably an accurate description.

Yes, I agree definitely unfortunate.

 

You might not approve of my methods, but this isn't my first rodeo.  I'll sling emotional rhetoric around with the best of them if necessary :-). I generally prefer spirit, scriptures, logic and science-but sometimes I'll throw overweight emotional terms around.

 

As to her history, it wasn't so much the fact of her history that I was pulling out; it was the fact that she was using her history to push for an agenda. And if one is going to do that-especially in a highly charged debate such as this then one needs to be prepared for being called on it.

 

Having seen the after-effects personally of abuse, what happened is absolutely horrible. Words cannot describe how absolutely devastating it is. And certainly if someone is looking for comfort in that area, I can completely understand it. There is a difference between that and trying to use such a horrible event to gain sympathy for a viewpoint.

Edited November 4, 2015 by yjacket

[LeSellers]

Young Men do not need to learn how to swim, shoot, camp, or use knives at all.

Why do you claim this?

Lehi

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

As to her history, it wasn't so much the fact of her history that I was pulling out; it was the fact that she was using her history to push for an agenda. And if one is going to do that-especially in a highly charged debate such as this then one needs to be prepared for being called on it.

 

Having seen the after-effects personally of abuse, what happened is absolutely horrible. Words cannot describe how absolutely devastating it is. And certainly if someone is looking for comfort in that area, I can completely understand it. There is a difference between that and trying to use such a horrible event to gain sympathy for a viewpoint.

 

 

 

We all use our own history, our experience, to gain sympathy.

Sharing painful experiences is one way people bond and form feelings of solidarity.

 

There is no difference between "someone looking for comfort" and "using a horrible even to gain sympathy."

Sympathy provides comfort. So does compassion. 

 

LIsten to people talk after they first meet.

"I had surgery last week."

"I did TOO!"

"I'm in so much pain right now, I can hardly walk."

"I am TOO!"

"My surgery cost a million dollars!"

"Mine did TOO!"

"You want to come over for dinner?"

 

People usually share their "war stories" because they're looking for compassion, not so they can be cut to pieces.

 

My only "agenda" was to help people try to understand how someone coming from my life experience might feel and look at this very emotional issues 

 

Some people were compassionate.

It felt good to know even though people may not agree, they recognized my feelings as being valid.

 

You were not compassionate.

Rather, you attacked.

I should have just stopped talking then.

 

I recognize the fact that people who attack are generally suffering, themselves.

 

I apologize if anything I said hurt your feelings.

You are in my prayers now.

 

But dinner is out of the question! 

Edited November 8, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[The Folk Prophet]

Why do you claim this?

Lehi

 

Because there are many who have not learned some or all of these things who were good, righteous people and have well qualified themselves for exaltation through adherence to those things that are requisite.

 

Not being able to swim has no bearing on one's salvation.

[Guest]

Because there are many who have not learned some or all of these things who were good, righteous people and have well qualified themselves for exaltation through adherence to those things that are requisite.

Not being able to swim has no bearing on one's salvation.

Well, in that same token, a High School diploma, or Elemetary Diploma for that matter, has no bearing on one's salvation either.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well, in that same token, a High School diploma, or Elemetary Diploma for that matter, has no bearing on one's salvation either.

 

Correct.

[yjacket]

We all use our own history, our experience, to gain sympathy.

Sharing painful experiences is one way people bond and form feelings of solidarity.

 

There is no difference between "someone looking for comfort" and "using a horrible even to gain sympathy."

Sympathy provides comfort. So does compassion. 

That is not what I said; please use my words in context. I said "using a horrible event to gain sympathy for a viewpoint."

That part you left off is in bold. There is a big difference between just looking for sympathy that you have a child who is homosexual or sympathy for sexual abuse survivor vs then using that sympathy to push for an outcome. One looks for that sympathy by posting to topics that are confined to issues about sexual abuse (or starting a topic about it as you have recently done) rather than enter into a fairly narrowly confined topic to open up about it. 

 

What you have called me doesn't offend me-you've called me rude, insensitive, lacking compassion, cruel a hardened heart, etc. A whole slew of personal insults.

 

The worst that I have done is been insensitive and maybe condescending; but I have not called you rude, cruel or any other laundry list of names. For any condescending remarks-I do apologize.I have called you out on using a horrific experience 40+years ago to push for sympathy towards allowing homosexuals into BSA.

 

You were not compassionate.

 

Rather, you attacked.I recognize the fact that people who attack are generally suffering, themselves.

Pot met kettle.

 

Look, I don't know you from Eve, but I do know emotional subterfuge and passive aggressive psychological warfare. 

Edited November 8, 2015 by yjacket

[The Folk Prophet]

I do know emotional subterfuge and passive aggressive psychological warfare.

So you've been on Facebook then?

[AnnieCarvalho]

That is not what I said; please use my words in context. I said "using a horrible event to gain sympathy for a viewpoint."

That part you left off is in bold. There is a big difference between just looking for sympathy that you have a child who is homosexual or sympathy for sexual abuse survivor vs then using that sympathy to push for an outcome. One looks for that sympathy by posting to topics that are confined to issues about sexual abuse (or starting a topic about it as you have recently done) rather than enter into a fairly narrowly confined topic to open up about it. 

 

In either case, whether I'm trying to sort out my feelings on a viewpoint or not, 

I believe sympathy provides comfort. So does compassion. 

 

What you have called me doesn't offend me-you've called me rude, insensitive, lacking compassion, cruel a hardened heart, etc. A whole slew of personal insults.

 

I have.

And I've also apologized.

And I apologize again.

I should not have called you names.

 

The worst that I have done is been insensitive and maybe condescending; but I have not called you rude, cruel or any other laundry list of names. For any condescending remarks-I do apologize.

 

Thank you.

 

I have called you out on using a horrific experience 40+years ago to push for sympathy towards allowing homosexuals into BSA.

The experience which was actually over 50 years ago is slightly less painful today - however, as any abuse survivor will tell you, certain issues being brought up, such as pedophilia, do pull at the scab and bring it to the forefront of my attention, yes. 

 

Pot met kettle.

Yes. Nice to meet you.

I like your outfit.

 

Look, I don't know you from Eve, but I do know emotional subterfuge and passive aggressive psychological warfare. 

And here we go again... I wonder, does this invalidate your apology?

Accusing me of emotional subterfuge and passive aggressive psychological warfare?

 You just can't help yourself, can you?  

 

LIke I said, you're in my prayers.

 

And I sure hope we're done now?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[Crypto]

It is always fascinating when looking at different personalities, communication types, bias, and even language and seeing how people fail to understand what is being trying to be communicated. (Anatess addressed this in another thread)

It would be interesting to try and identify different communication styles and how to 'translate' what you are trying to communicate through a different style. An example of which is a logic style form to a feeling style form, but i'm sure there are many many many more.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Crypto

[LeSellers]

Because there are many who have not learned some or all of these things who were good, righteous people and have well qualified themselves for exaltation through adherence to those things that are requisite.

Not being able to swim has no bearing on one's salvation.

"In the long run, we are all dead." So spake the economist.

While one might agree that an Arab in the Sahara might not need to swim, even he'd be better for the skill. No one lives his life in a cocoon, and there will be a time when having an unknown skill might have made all the difference. We live in an uncertain world. If all we were here to do was to die, then it would be true that no one needed to swim, tie, or whatever.

We might not need to know how to tie a bowline or a sheep shank, but even with Velcro, it's still required to tie one's shoes from time to time.

How many flood victims could have saved themselves had they known how to swim?

The Rbt Heinlein quote will be mangled beyond belief, but it remains true at its essence: A human being should be able to rope a cow, set a leg, paint a sunset, write a will, discourse on politics, build a fence, wire a radio, ... and recite poetry. Specialization is for insects.

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2015 by LeSellers

[Capitalist_Oinker]

On Thursday I attended a regional training meeting with a member of the General YM presidency, a member of the YM General Board, and an Area Authority Seventy. The training was (obviously) in regards to young men, and concentrated on how to keep them active and how to prepare them to serve honorable missions. 

The thing that struck me was that the Scouting program was only mentioned in passing, while the Duty to God program was mentioned and discussed numerous times. 

I'm not suggesting this means anything, but I've attended numerous such meetings and the fact that Scouting was barely mentioned is unusual. 

[The Folk Prophet]

"In the long run, we are all dead." So spake the economist.

While one might agree that an Arab in the Sahara might not need to swim, even he'd be better for the skill. No one lieves his life in a cocoon, and there will be a time when having an unknown skill might have made all the difference. We live in an uncertain world. If all we were here to do was to die, then it would be true that no one needed to swim, tie, or whatever.

We might not need to know how to tie a bowline or a sheep shank, but even with Velcro, it's still reqired to tie one's shoes from time to time.

How many flood victims could have saved themselves had they known how to swim?

The Rbt Heinlein quote will be mangled beyond belief, but it remains true at its essence: A human being should be able to rope a cow, set a leg, paint a sunset, write a will, discourse on politics, build a fence, wire a radio, ... and recite poetry. Specialization is for insects.

Lehi

Well yeah...the more stuff you know the better. Not my point though.