Filthy Lucre


Jojo Bags
 Share

Recommended Posts

@LiterateParakeet I haven't been able to reply for a few days due to login issues. I have been following though. I do think the discussion got off a bit. As to your broad point, I do understand, and even agree somewhat, though I think some of the details you take away are interpretive. For example, you claim the Savior would never do this or that, and I would reply, "How do you know?" But that's not really useful to debate until we clarify a bit what the point is being discussed.

For some reason when people look at the idea or question of what would Jesus do, they generally seem to compare it to such a limited model of His existence -- specifically, His mortal mission of some 30 odd years. There's two problems with that. First, that's 30 years of eternity. As Vort alluded to, Christ is Jehovah -- the same who killed the firstborn children of the Egyptians. The idea that Jesus wouldn't kill because He healed the soldier's ear is a bit short-sighted methinks.

But more importantly, the question cannot and should not be limited to what would Jesus do as Jesus on His specific mortal mission with His specific teachings, lessons, examples, etc., that were, as you point out, cultural, for His time, and very specific to why He was on earth.

I agree that Jesus wouldn't have likely done those things you use as examples in His life with His mission in His time. But that's not the question. When we are asking ourselves what would Christ do, we are (or should be) asking ourselves what Christ would do if His mission, life, and times were ours -- and yet He was still Him.

Joseph Smith's mission was not Christ's. Captain Moroni's mission was not Christ's. Nephi's mission was not Christ's. Just_a_Guy's mission is not Christ's. But if Christ's mission was to lead the restoration of the gospel in the latter days, defend the Nephites against the kingmen and the Lamanite armies, go with His family to the promised land and start a new nation, or live in modern times as a member of the church who had the obligation to provide for His family, how would He act, what choices would He make, etc.

If I decide to open a restaurant and need to make the decision as to whether to serve alcohol or not, the question is not whether Christ in His time and in His role as the one who came to establish His gospel, atone for the sins of the world, and die on the cross to rise again in three days would have sold alcohol or not. The question is if Christ lived in my day, was a lay-member of the church who has taken covenants upon Himself, had to make a living to support His family, etc., would sell alcohol or not.

Whereas I agree, also, that we still cannot "know" in every instance what choice Christ would make by reasoning it out, (though there are some things, I believe, which are obvious (and selling alcohol or not is not necessarily one of them)), we can know by the Holy Spirit, and can be guided in each of these instance.

On 2/27/2016 at 0:59 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

Here's my take away....

If you disagree with Vort or Folk Prophet, simply realize that you are wrong and get with the program. Got it.

That is hardly fair.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2016 at 1:54 PM, Vort said:

Not to criticize Ironhold: I can overlook his nose being out of joint. I think he mischaracterized TFP's posts, but they obviously offended him and hurt his feelings,

To be fair, my initial post ("That's one way to seek one's calling and election...") was said in a sarcastic tone. Whereas I think the point I was making was solid, and I stand behind it, I certainly could have done it without the sarcasm. It is a great weakness of mine.

@Ironhold I apologize for the sarcasm. I need to work on expressing myself without it.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To be fair, my initial post ("That's one way to seek one's calling and election...") was said in a sarcastic tone. Whereas I think the point I was making was solid, and I stand behind it, I certainly could have done it without the sarcasm. It is a great weakness of mine.

@Ironhold I apologize for the sarcasm. I need to work on expressing myself without it.

Thank you. 

And as I said - it's not a pleasant job, but people are quite literally counting on me to go in and give them the unvarnished truth about whether or not something is safe for their kids. I mean, when Deadpool came out, there was some guy on IMDB asking if it was OK for his 9-year-old grandchild to watch; the person thought that it had to be kid-friendly since it was Marvel, and wound up needing to have people explain - in detail - that the film was "R" for a reason. That's the kind of mentality I'm having to fight against. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

I mean, when Deadpool came out, there was some guy on IMDB asking if it was OK for his 9-year-old grandchild to watch; the person thought that it had to be kid-friendly since it was Marvel, and wound up needing to have people explain - in detail - that the film was "R" for a reason. That's the kind of mentality I'm having to fight against. 

And I contend that you simply pointing him to the MPAA rating description that is so handily provided for us now-a-days would have been entirely sufficient as an answer.

Dear some-guy-on-IMDB: Based on this, what do you think? -  Rated R for strong violence and language throughout, sexual content and graphic nudity

As to the need for members, it is my plain contention that no LDS person should be going to any R-rated movies at any time, ever, for any reason. That readily solves the need for any canaries there.

Now for PG-13, PG, and G movies, sure. I'll buy that reasoning as valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As to the need for members, it is my plain contention that no LDS person should be going to any R-rated movies at any time, ever, for any reason. That readily solves the need for any canaries there.

I agree with TFP's statements in this thread, specifically with that expressed above. If I may expand on this: I speak only for myself, but I suspect I also reflect TFP's thoughts in saying that this is not about condemning Ironhold's choices, or even his actions. This is about speaking plain and obvious (if uncomfortable and politically incorrect) truth. Ironhold has the agency to do as he chooses, and (at least in the matter of movie viewing) will get no condemnation from me.

But, for example, if watching R-rated movies ends up having a deleterious effect on Ironhold's relationship with God or with his own wife, or if his example leads others to watch movies that end up damaging them, then this will not be an innocent casualty or an honest mistake. It will be the consequence of a deliberate activity -- not necessarily a sinful activity per se, but one that we have been warned about repeatedly.

We have indeed been counseled to avoid R-rated movies. Many (though no one in this thread, as far as I know) have explained away that counsel, saying in effect that the authorities who spoke it didn't mean it like that, and that it's really all our own choice, and we should just use the Spirit to guide us in movie choices and not pay any attention to the MPAA rating. Many on this very forum have testified about how great this or that R-rated movie was and how glad they are that they watched it, no matter what some General Authority may have said twenty or thirty years ago.

It is entirely possible to watch an R-rated movie and not be degraded, just as it is entirely possible to smoke a cigarette and not get addicted. My father-in-law converted to the LDS faith and walked away from cigarettes, never missing them. (Not so with his Iron City beer, which he missed a great deal, though he never drank it again.) But the parallel is obvious and should be instructive. Do you really want to smoke -- an activity that, at best, doesn't do you any good -- and simply hope it doesn't damage you? Even if you avoid addiction, will your example lead others, perhaps those you love best, to follow suit? It's very unlikely that they will remain undamaged, even if you do.

The Lord's instruction to us is clear: He comes first. All else is secondary to the kingdom of God -- yes, even our spouse and our children and parents. We are to serve God and obey him, and ever seek after his Spirit. That is our most important duty in life. Anything -- anything -- that damages the Spirit should be spurned.

But what if it costs us our livelihood? Then we should find another way of living.

What if it costs us our friends, or even our family? This is abundantly answered by the Lord himself.

What if it costs us our very lives? Again, does anyone really not understand the answer to this?

I have no personal judgment to levy against anyone who chooses to watch R-rated movies. As far as I know, it's not a question asked when the bishop determines worthiness. I am involved enough in my own efforts at self-discipline, self-improvement, and keeping myself clean, that I have neither the time nor the interest to check up on anyone else that I'm not husband or father of. And even in that case, unless they are minors in my care, I limit myself to counsel and suggestion.

But let's call a spade a spade. We all agree that watching a porno flick is bad. I suspect we would mostly all agree that someone who watches said porno flick is very probably not spiritually worthy of going to the temple or doing the other duties of a Saint. Many of us would say that such actions constitute sinful behavior, maybe a grave sin, and that repentance must take place. But where's the line? Does it have to be rated NC-17 (which, after all, is merely another MPAA rating)? Does it have to show clear, explicit sex? Is nudity enough? What sort of nudity is acceptable? Matt Damon's butt cheeks? A little female nipple? Some pubic hair, but not much? What if we don't actually show the nudity? Body paint technically covers all those parts. What if we don't show the sex too openly, but cover the couple loosely with a sheet? Does all the moaning and screaming count? I mean, it's just moaning and screaming. Maybe they have bedbugs or something.

The whole thing is a prolonged exercise in self-deception. We are trying to do as Elder Maxwell warned us that we cannot do, live in Zion but keep a summer home in Babylon. At some point in our lives, we must make the choice. I contend that we make that choice with every action we take.

Please note that I am not speaking of any individual. This conversation is largely in response to what Ironhold has written, but I am not targeting him with what I write. He may do as he chooses with no condemnation from me, and I mean that very literally. I do not condemn anyone. But I believe my words are universally true, or at least that they attempt to point to a universal truth, and as such they apply to everyone, even if not specifically direct at anyone in particular.

The nature of our life here is to become someone. Who are we becoming? Are we becoming Jesus Christ? Each choice pushes us toward or away from that goal.

I think this is what TFP is saying. In any case, it's how I see things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@LiterateParakeet

Whereas I agree, also, that we still cannot "know" in every instance what choice Christ would make by reasoning it out, (though there are some things, I believe, which are obvious (and selling alcohol or not is not necessarily one of them)), we can know by the Holy Spirit, and can be guided in each of these instance.

That is hardly fair.

I agree that we can be guided be the Holy Ghost. I think this is particularly important because the Holy Ghost can guide us in each of out unique missions.

About your last line..."That is hardly fair." Consider this...I was mirroring back to Vort what he said. And in that way I agree with you, what Vort said was hardly fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can accept that if someone needs a job, and the only available job they can get at the moment is working in a liquor store, there is no problem with that.

They are not "pushing" booze, nor cigarettes.  The people come in predisposed to buy that.

But actually putting out money or going to the store for the purpose of buying alcohol or cigarettes for one of your friends?  No, I see that as wrong.  That's enabling them to engage in those vices.  I don't think that's pious.  It's just common sense. 

In fact about 10 or 15 years ago, a friend pulled out $20 and asked me to go across the street to the liquor store and get him a pack of cigarettes.  I refused.  Not self righteously, nor piously, just simply, no I can't do that.  I don't think you should be smoking.  It's not good for you, it's a waste of money, etc.  I told him I didn't feel that I could do that for him.

I do believe that stuck with him and helped him quit smoking.  He doesn't smoke today.

dc

Even more so, when someone knows I don't smoke, and asks, "would it be all right if I smoked here?" I always say, I would prefer if you didn't.  They usually respect that.

Drinking, I ride (motorcycle) with a lot of people who drink.  But only those who don't over do it. 

Edited by David13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And I contend that you simply pointing him to the MPAA rating description that is so handily provided for us now-a-days would have been entirely sufficient as an answer.

Dear some-guy-on-IMDB: Based on this, what do you think? -  Rated R for strong violence and language throughout, sexual content and graphic nudity

As to the need for members, it is my plain contention that no LDS person should be going to any R-rated movies at any time, ever, for any reason. That readily solves the need for any canaries there.

Now for PG-13, PG, and G movies, sure. I'll buy that reasoning as valid.

Thing is, movie ratings in and of themselves don't always accurately reflect the content of the films. 

At one end, we have situations in which films are given harsher ratings than what they merit, often because of purely subjective or even nonsensical standards. For example, consider the film "Saints and Soldiers" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_and_Soldiers . The film met none of the qualifications for an "R" rating, yet the MPAA tried to give it one anyway because of absolutely nonsense reasons. Basically, as far as the MPAA was concerned, "seeing nameless and faceless hordes die en masse" is just fine, but "seeing individual characters die because they're in a war" is shocking to the sensibilities. The production team had to fight with the MPAA just to get the film back down to the PG-13 rating it qualified for. 

At the other end of the spectrum, we sometimes have situations in which films aren't rated harshly enough. For example, consider the original 1986 "Transformers" theatrical film - http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Transformers:_The_Movie . About 20 characters are killed - often violently - and yet the MPAA didn't bat an eyelash about it because the dead characters were all robots. As such, the MPAA was looking to rate the film "G". Two curse words were inserted into the film in a desperate effort to push it into the PG range, but when one of the two was edited out the film slipped back into becoming a "G" film. In other words, a film with a shocking body count and unmistakable cursing still pulled a "G" for the US release. (Fortunately, the international release that serves as the basis for all recent home video releases was given an across-the-board PG rating or the equivalent thereof in those countries where it was screened.)

This has led to considerable controversy, especially since there's a trend with independent films getting hammered harder than studio films. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And I contend that you simply pointing him to the MPAA rating description that is so handily provided for us now-a-days would have been entirely sufficient as an answer.

Dear some-guy-on-IMDB: Based on this, what do you think? -  Rated R for strong violence and language throughout, sexual content and graphic nudity

As to the need for members, it is my plain contention that no LDS person should be going to any R-rated movies at any time, ever, for any reason. That readily solves the need for any canaries there.

Now for PG-13, PG, and G movies, sure. I'll buy that reasoning as valid.

I don't see it as black and white as this. It's fairly common for church members in the US to boycott R rated movies, and this has rippled over to the UK where LDS members often avoid the closest UK film classification equivalent, an 18.

But then we have films rated 18 in the UK that are rated a PG-15 here and vice versa. So would that make it okay for LDS members in the US to consider viewing it, but not in the UK?

Every classification board makes a decision on rating using their own criteria and it's far from uncommon for them to come to different conclusions. Therefore I research each movie individually and use the local rating as only one of several factors contributing to my decision as to whether it would be suitable or not.

 

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mahone said:

I don't see it as black and white as this. It's fairly common for church members in the US to boycott R rated movies, and this has rippled over to the UK where LDS members often avoid the closest UK film classification equivalent, an 18.

But then we have films rated 18 in the UK that are rated a PG-15 here and vice versa. So would that make it okay for LDS members in the US to consider viewing it, but not in the UK?

Every classification board makes a decision on rating using their own criteria and it's far from uncommon for them to come to different conclusions. Therefore I research each movie individually and use the rating as only one factor contributing to my decision as to whether it would be suitable or not.

 

Here in the US, there's an issue with the MPAA rating films too harshly or too loosely based on subjective decisions that should otherwise be irrelevant; I reference that in my above post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree that we can be guided be the Holy Ghost. I think this is particularly important because the Holy Ghost can guide us in each of out unique missions.

About your last line..."That is hardly fair." Consider this...I was mirroring back to Vort what he said. And in that way I agree with you, what Vort said was hardly fair. 

How was what Vort said not fair? He posited the idea that we should consider if Jesus would involve Himself in certain activities and then a whole slew of responses condemned his idea as as slippery slope to self-righteous and arrogant thinking, with a bunch of supportive ideas which were then translated by Vort to be saying that he (and those who agree with him) are wrong-headed in the matter. How is that not fair? It's pretty much exactly what happened.

Whereas your comment that we think those who disagree with us are wrong is kind of...well...duh. Most people disagree with others because they believe those others to be wrong. If not, they wouldn't disagree. Or in other words, the exact comment you made I claim to be unfair because it could be easily applied to anyone by simply inserting a different name, (including LiterateParakeet). Here, I'll show you:

Here's my take away. If you disagree with LiterateParakeet, simply realize that you are wrong...or...if you disagree with Gator simply realize that you are wrong...or.....

Let me be more clear then. Fair or not, it's a logically fallacious point that does nothing to support one position or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort - 

For the record:

1. I'm not married. As I explained elsewhere, no Mormon girl in my area will marry me because I never went on a mission (I stayed back to help care for a mentally ill relative, but nobody actually bothers to ask about that...), and no non-Mormon girl will marry me because I'm not wealthy enough. I'd need to relocate before I could even consider getting involved in any sort of dating scene again. 

2. There's only two times now that I've had any interest in seeing an R-rated movie, and that was because they were adaptations of existing franchises (specifically, "The Equalizer" and "Deadpool"). For most of the other R-rated films I've done, the film was either the only new release that week or it was the lesser of whatever evils were hitting the screen. For example, Valentine's Day 2015 left me with the choice of either seeing "50 Shades" or "Kingsmen", both of which pulled "R" ratings due to content (sex vs. violence). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mahone said:

I don't see it as black and white as this. It's fairly common for church members in the US to boycott R rated movies, and this has rippled over to the UK where LDS members often avoid the closest UK film classification equivalent, an 18.

But then we have films rated 18 in the UK that are rated a PG-15 here and vice versa. So would that make it okay for LDS members in the US to consider viewing it, but not in the UK?

This isn't relevant to the discussion as to whether seeing an R-rated movie in the US as a canary in the coal mine for members is a justifiable reason to do so. If there's no one going into the dangerous coal mines, then what's the canary for again? Don't go into the coal mines marked "DANGER". Whether the government's marking of the coal mines as dangerous or not is consistent is well beyond the point. Sure...take the canary into the coal mines that aren't marked "DANGER". But the ones that are already marked...we've already been counseled to stay out by the leaders of the church. So once again...what's the canary for? And how they mark their coal mines as to safety in England or other countries doesn't change a thing in the US as to which ones we should and should not enter.

32 minutes ago, Mahone said:

Every classification board makes a decision on rating using their own criteria and it's far from uncommon for them to come to different conclusions. Therefore I research each movie individually and use the local rating as only one of several factors contributing to my decision as to whether it would be suitable or not.

"Research" is not the concern. Viewing is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How was what Vort said not fair?

You said you read the thread, correct?  I was referring to when Vort said this:

Quote

"If people like Vort and The Folk Prophet were just more open-minded, we would recognize these important and obvious truths. Get with the program, folks."

He said this with sarcasm about me and MG. 

Then you chose to repeat it with this:

Quote

Here's my take away. If you disagree with LiterateParakeet, simply realize that you are wrong...or...if you disagree with Gator simply realize that you are wrong...or.....

So let me see if I understand you correctly...i

t's okay for Vort to say it to me.  

And it's okay for you to say it so me.  

BUT if I say it to either of you...

Quote

"that's not fair"

(again a quote from you.)  

Yeah, that makes sense.  
:confused:  Except that we both know it doesn't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

it's okay for Vort to say it to me.   

Maybe I can break this down further by removing the "tone" so you can actually understand how I interpret these two comments:

The meaning behind Vort's comment: Gator and LitPara seem to be saying that we are misguided in our thinking and missing important truths.

The meaning behind LitPara's comment: Vort and FP are insufferable know-it-alls.

That is not saying the same thing at all. Sure, the tone matched somewhat. The sentence structure and many of the words were similar. But not the same.

16 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Except that we both know it doesn't.  

I know nothing of the sort. Are you under the impression that I secretly agree with you and see things in the same way as you, but I'm just contrary because I like it? Your comment was rude in meaning as well as in tone. Vort and I have tone problems at times. We both know it. But what Vort said was not rude in content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The meaning behind Vort's comment: Gator and LitPara seem to be saying that we are misguided in our thinking and missing important truths.

Nice try, but that's not the way I took it.  

I offered an olive branch to Vort...saying that I could understand how he misunderstood my intent because of our previous interactions. But you still think I am the rude one here?  That is laughable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

But you still think I am the rude one here?

I know you were rude.

Whether Vort was or not, I'll allow, is debatable. And, of course, whether Vort was or not is really entirely besides the point -- two wrongs not making a right and all.

I'm sorry, but I'm never going to be okay with you calling me an insufferably know-it-all just because you disagree with me a lot. Now if that's not what you meant...time to clarify. I'll accept a misread if guilty. If it is what you meant...stop justifying your rudeness because of Vort. At best, apologize. At least, own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I know you were rude.

Whether Vort was or not, I'll allow, is debatable. And, of course, whether Vort was or not is really entirely besides the point -- two wrongs not making a right and all.

I'm sorry, but I'm never going to be okay with you calling me an insufferably know-it-all just because you disagree with me a lot. Now if that's not what you meant...time to clarify. I'll accept a misread if guilty. If it is what you meant...stop justifying your rudeness because of Vort. At best, apologize. At least, own it.

Did you even read the thread?  Because I already explained all this.  

You're calling me to apologize?  Ba ha ha!!!!  Seriously?  You don't see how hypocritical that is?  

I wasn't rude, you misunderstood me.  If you aren't willing to accept that, fine by me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Did you even read the thread?  Because I already explained all this.  

Where did you explain what you mean by this? What I read was that you were mirroring and responding to Vort -- which doesn't explain that the meaning of your post had any difference than what I read it to be, it only explains why you posted it. If I missed something can you please re-post/quote it. If so, I'll gladly apologize.

12 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You're calling me to apologize?

No. I'm calling for you to explain it, own it, or apologize.

13 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You don't see how hypocritical that is?  

How? Honestly...how? I pointed out that one statement you made wasn't fair and you've gone off on justifying it for the next few hours. I suggested three options: explain it with more clarity (which I'm now adding to reposting or pointing out where I missed it), own it, or apologize for it. How is that hypocritical? That implies that I'm intentionally making rude statements to you without being willing to point out the explanation, explain for clarification, own it, or apologize for it. I am willing to do all of the above if and when I'm rude.

Honestly LP, you're acting like I'm just some horrible enemy to be scorned at every turn. I'll grant that your hostility does drive mine up at times, but calling me a hypocrite, bwah ha ha-ing at me, and continuing with the sarcastic tone despite my best efforts to move into sincerity... ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 4:42 PM, Ironhold said:

Back on the "what was the last movie you watched" thread, someone pitched an absolute fit about the fact that I'd just seen an R-rated movie, claiming that my having done so was grave enough a sin to call my salvation into question. 

As I had to explain to this person, I perform many different duties for the newspaper I'm with. I'm the de facto head courier. I'm a stringer. I write a weekly column. 

And I'm also the movie reviewer. 

By virtue of my job description, I occasionally have to see R-rated movies. As you can imagine, this person was absolutely beside themselves at this revelation and practically condemned me to the abyss. 

Thing is, my branch presidency understand that I'm basically playing "canary in the coal mine" every time I step into the theater. It's my job to watch the movie of the week and sound the alert in case the film is just that bad. Thus, if something is awful, then I'll have watched it so others won't. I've actually had people tell me that they prefer my reviews ahead of the reviews from bigger names in the industry because they know I'll be straightforward about such things; I'm not beholden to the Hollywood system, and so I have nothing to lose by being honest. As a result, I have been in a position to expose some of Hollywood's darlings for the trash they were (such as "Gone Girl") while also giving a fair shake to films that Hollywood has written off as inconvenient (such as "Ender's Game"). 

In that sense, I'd say I earn my money quite honestly. 

I'm not quite sure how you think you would not be affected by reviewing R-rated movies, even if it is your job. No matter what, your spirituality will be affected.  A few months ago I saw an article on the Deseret News about members whose job was wine tasting.  Their claim was that they didn't swallow.  That really doesn't matter because they will still get just a little bit of alcohol in their system just from it being in their mouth.  Why take a chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Thank you. 

And as I said - it's not a pleasant job, but people are quite literally counting on me to go in and give them the unvarnished truth about whether or not something is safe for their kids. I mean, when Deadpool came out, there was some guy on IMDB asking if it was OK for his 9-year-old grandchild to watch; the person thought that it had to be kid-friendly since it was Marvel, and wound up needing to have people explain - in detail - that the film was "R" for a reason. That's the kind of mentality I'm having to fight against. 

This one is simple.  The counsel of the brethren is never go to an R-rated movie.  That is all you need to write in your column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@The Folk Prophet I explained it upthread to Vort.  Most everything you are asking me about is answered in my discussion with Vort.  

Quote

 

Honestly LP, you're acting like I'm just some horrible enemy to be scorned at every turn. I'll grant that your hostility does drive mine up at times, but calling me a hypocrite, bwah ha ha-ing at me, and continuing with the sarcastic tone despite my best efforts to move into sincerity... ???

 

It's so ironic to me that you would say this because this is pretty much exactly how I feel about you.  In other threads, I have tried over and over to be kind to you.  I try to ignore your jabs, your sarcasm and your rudeness, I try to look for common ground (move to sincerity) but it is never works.  Can you not see that?  Seriously?  


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I explained it upthread to Vort.

Do you mean this:

On 2/27/2016 at 1:41 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

It was not my intention to condemn either you or FP or judge either of you. I simply thought I was offering a different perspective. I can see how our past interactions may have made you think otherwise. 

If so...well...first, thanks for not bothering to re-quote it as I asked so I'm still not entirely sure...and second, this doesn't explain what you mean so much as add a "no offense intended" to the insult. It's basically saying that what I read was exactly what I think it means, and you added a "I'm not judging you though" to try and soften it after the fact. Well...okay. That being said, I will grant that I was looking for an explanation for it between you and me and did not look "upthread" to the discussion with Vort, and though I did read through that, did not remember this specific thing. So I apologize.

26 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

It's so ironic to me that you would say this because this is pretty much exactly how I feel about you.  In other threads, I have tried over and over to be kind to you.  I try to ignore your jabs, your sarcasm and your rudeness, I try to look for common ground (move to sincerity) but it is never works.  Can you not see that?  Seriously? 

Of course I can see that. How long will you justify being rude to me because of my imperfections then? I know I come across as rude. I have never, nor will I ever, justify it because "the other person started it", though I will admit that to be the reason sometimes. That never makes me right. When I am intentionally rude and sarcastic and get a sense of it I always back off and apologize. I don't always get a sense of it, I know that. And sometimes people see my comments as rude when they are not meant to be. But I never* hold onto it just because of the other person's weaknesses. And everything that's ever happened in the past shouldn't have any bearing on how we act. If you're rude to me I expect better. And I expect you and everyone to expect the same of me.

 

*Edit: insert "intentionally".

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share