Damnation

[The Folk Prophet]

And...btw...calling me a snowflake?

[brlenox]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Edit: for the sake of not just coming across as...whatever it is that I come across...let me explain: A "snowflake" is not someone who is bothered by being told they're [insert insult here], even by implication. That's called a "person". A "snowflake" is someone who takes offense at principles -- like those who can't stand to hear right-winged views because it "triggers" them and gives them emotional trauma. "How dare you say that the gender-wage gap is a myth! That's so offensive. I need a safe space to get away from your harmful views!"

from Wiktionary

Noun. special snowflake syndrome (uncountable) (derogatory) The conviction that one (or often, one's child) is, in some way, special and should therefore be treated differently from others.

special snowflake syndrome - Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/special_snowflake_syndrom

 

I'll agree with you that that definition is not exactly what I intended.  I guess I should have stopped at easily offended.  Nonetheless, I think the challenge is you will justify implication as you

read it the same as if they actually said what you are claiming and in my case that is absolutely incorrect.  I have said exactly what I meant and non of your "implications" are fair or correct.

But hey, at least you were right about the definition of a snowflake.

 

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

It's not a matter of where you failed or anything like that.  It's a matter of coming to an understanding.  TFP and I go a few rounds.  It can get a bit frustrating, I know.  Patience is a virtue.  But this is always true with him (and most people here, actually) - I kinda have to figure out where his perspective is going in response to my statements.  Then if he shows that he misunderstood me in his response, then I just tell him, you misunderstood me here.  And we iron it out.  Or if he understands but disagrees I try to convince him to go on my side, he tries to convince me to his side and that's how the conversation goes.

Where it goes bad is when you take offense where offense is not intended.  TFP can sound like he's condescending but he's not.  He simply doesn't bother with niceties when he wants to express something.  I like that about him actually.  But when you respond to him like he's being contentious then he gets contentious because... it is frustrating to be accused of something when you simply want to engage in serious discussion.  I've done that to him too.  And we go a few rounds.  And we become friends again.  Hah hah.  I love Mormonhub.

 

You are absolutely correct and I said essentially the same thing to him when I mentioned I had taken a tour of the forum to get a perception of his demeanor and found:

On 11/9/2017 at 6:16 PM, brlenox said:

I'm doing all the heavy lifting here and you want to be taken seriously for a few moments of critique? After your last couple of posts, I took a little tour around the forum and I see that actually I am not being treated any differently than anyone else in your engagements. You do not evince a spirit of conciliatory tone but seem more confrontive to combative just as a natural manner of interaction.  Had I realized I probably would have withheld engaging you in conversation at all as that attitude can seldom learn anything from anybody.

Plus you are manifesting a bit of a familiarity bias.  Read his second post to me and then you'll see that the waters stream downhill from there.

As Far as taking offense, I have no clue where that is coming from.  Because of my stoical nature I tend to say exactly what I think simply because I would not be offended and generally cannot be offended.  However generally if anyone is going to be offended it is manifest just the same way that TFP initiated his response to me.

[The Folk Prophet]

55 minutes ago, brlenox said:

...easily offended.

I'll just quote @anatess2 by way of response.

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

you are wrong

 

55 minutes ago, brlenox said:

 Nonetheless, I think the challenge is you will justify implication as you read it the same as if they actually said what you are claiming

So when you say "I am sensing that wave of the hand of dismissal" you don't expect me to interpret that as an accusation of hand waving by way of dismissal?

When you tell me to "drop the John Wayne and just be a decent guy", you think I'm wrong to infer that you think I am not a decent guy?

Edited November 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Plus you are manifesting a bit of a familiarity bias.

Haha. Right. When someone knows another well and what their character actually is it's "bias".

Edited November 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Haha. Right. When someone knows another well and what their character actually is it's "bias".

Ah, my good man.  Let us leave off this witty repartee.  I have no grief with your demeanor.  Let's get back to the important things at hand.  If you wish to encapsulate any questions you felt my material failed to answer for you then please feel free to ask.  Or if you have some material of worth to consider to the contrary I welcome that as well. Please let us speak of things that matter.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

Ah, my good man.  Let us leave off this witty repartee.  I have no grief with your demeanor.  Let's get back to the important things at hand.

No offense, brlenox, but there are no important things under discussion here. Speculation about signs of the times is just that: Speculation. In my experience, the failure rate of such speculation approaches 100%.

I am confident that when our prophets and leaders talked about using our intellect, they were not referring to wild-eyed speculation about matching up Politician X with Antichrist Y. That sort of behavior is never reflected in scripture, at least that I can recall. Not one instance in scripture portrays men of God engaging in inspired discussion about whether thus-and-such event is a fulfillment of prophecy or not. The closest I can think of is John's disciples asking Jesus if he was the one they awaited, or if they looked for another. The discussion at hand is a far cry from such.

The signs of the times are and will be obvious to all who have the Spirit. I feel confident that we never need wonder if So-and-so is the fulfillment of Some Evil Guy. In my opinion, such exercises are futile at best, and normally constitute a wresting of scripture. I think we do much better to stick to discussion of principles and leave the sign-seeking to the Left Behind crowd.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Vort

[brlenox]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

No offense, brlenox, but there are no important things under discussion here. Speculation about signs of the times is just that: Speculation. In my experience, the failure rate of such speculation approaches 100%.

I am confident that when our prophets and leaders talked about using our intellect, they were not referring to wild-eyed speculation about matching up Politician X with Antichrist Y. That sort of behavior is never reflected in scripture, at least that I can recall. Not one instance in scripture portrays men of God engaging in inspired discussion about whether thus-and-such event is a fulfillment of prophecy or not. The closest I can think of is John's disciples asking Jesus if he was the one they awaited, or if they looked for another. The discussion at hand is a far cry from such.

The signs of the times are and will be obvious to all who have the Spirit. I feel confident that we never need wonder if So-and-so is the fulfillment of Some Evil Guy. In my opinion, such exercises are futile at best, and normally constitute a wresting of scripture. I think we do much better to stick to discussion of principles and leave the sign-seeking to the Left Behind crowd.

Ah Vort...no offense in return but there has not been one mention of signs of the times in anything I have posted. In fact nothing you mention comes to mind as being related to this thread at all.  I kind of derailed the thread into a discussion of justice and the atonement.

If you go down to my second post on this link:

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2

That is about where the important parts of the discussion begin becoming increasingly more specific and interesting as your read on.  If you are one who can tolerate a dense post lengthy with myriad supporting quotes from apostles and prophets to prevent exactly what you are accusing this thread of being - speculative, then please read as many as you can bear of my primary posts and I assure you you will reconsider your observations.  As it is I am thinking you only got a couple of posts down on the first page and may have missed the transition to the more quality material.

Edited November 15, 2017 by brlenox

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, brlenox said:

I'm just a little beyond middle aged fat guy who is seldom accused of doing anything fast anymore. So what is your native language. 

I'm a fat lady so I won't hint at my lofty (whoops) age.  Filipino born and raised so I had to learn Filipino - which is not my native tongue because I hail from the Visayas - and English in elementary school.  If my argument fails I always have the - well, I'm multi-lingual, are you? - puff response. 

 

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well...I wouldn't go so far as to say never.

Just out of curiosity, what would "niceties" include in your mind? Because the first post where I really engaged included the following:

"So you are saying that...." -- A clarifying question before accusing inaccuracy.

An attempt to clarify the definition of "justice" so we could better understand, including, "Do you agree with these definitions?" (vs. "That's the definition and if you think otherwise then you're making something up!" or the like).

A request for him to expound on things.

And even my very first post preceding that was written as a question rather than a statement of "you're wrong".

Are these not niceties?

TFP, niceties are like... "That's an interesting viewpoint.  I'm not sure I agree though because... "... heck, I don't know.  I don't do niceties either.  Ask @MormonGator.  He's expert at it.

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, brlenox said:

You are absolutely correct and I said essentially the same thing to him when I mentioned I had taken a tour of the forum to get a perception of his demeanor and found:

Plus you are manifesting a bit of a familiarity bias.  Read his second post to me and then you'll see that the waters stream downhill from there.

As Far as taking offense, I have no clue where that is coming from.  Because of my stoical nature I tend to say exactly what I think simply because I would not be offended and generally cannot be offended.  However generally if anyone is going to be offended it is manifest just the same way that TFP initiated his response to me.

This response.  

Really.  You and TFP will get along very well.  You are like twins.  You think he's offended.  You say you're not offended.  He called you out on your combative responses, you called him a snowflake.  Yep.  You're gonna have fun.

I admitted my familiarity bias on my very first sentence to you.  That's why I butted in.  I've gone a few rounds with some people here on MormonHub.  After a few of those, you tend to build a feel for their online persona even as you've never met them in person.  I was trying to help you out.

[anatess2]

Oh, by the way, @brlenox, @Vort is another one you're gonna have fun with.  I used to shake in my boots when he challenges me - like my university professor asking me how I got to my answer after I wrote down my homework on the board.  But lately, he has been taking it easy on me.  Either he's mellowed out or he gave me more confidence. 

Anyway, when I say fun, I meant... you won't get away with crappy logic and speculation devoid of doctrinal foundation with these guys. 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You and TFP will get along very well. 

44 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You are like twins.

45 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

  You're gonna have fun.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I knew you'd like that. 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

there are no important things under discussion here.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with the rest of your post (I expect you'll clarify), but this statement is still truth. (Though I would like to think that some of what I was trying to get at in the OP had some level of importance...but that may just be hubris).

I was thinking about this a bit last night and meant to ask @brlenox regarding what he's shared: What do you consider is important, practically speaking, about what you've offered beyond conceptual interest?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, anatess2 said:

I knew you'd like that. 

 

Let me be clear: I know people often take my ideas, questions, and comments as personal attacks when they are merely ideas, questions, and comments. But I strive very, very hard to not make it personal and to leave the discussion about the subject matter at hand. I do stray over that line at times when I am being personally attacked and feel the need (pridefully) to defend myself. But I generally don't tell people they're being lazy, just confrontational, have a poor bedside manner, and are just John Wayne-ing about. A) Personal attacks are against the rules. B) Personal attacks are unkind. C) Personal attacks don't prove anything about the subject matter at hand (unless the subject ends up being the personal attack, I suppose). D) Personal attacks are CLEARLY never going to help you get your point across. (How many people do you know when accused of having a bunch of nasty characteristics perk right up and engage more with clarity and interest?) So when someone says that another who seems to have jumped straight to personal (all about TFP's shortcomings) responses because I had a few points I questioned is just like me and we'll get along famously ---------- 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This response.  

Really.  You and TFP will get along very well.  You are like twins.  You think he's offended.  You say you're not offended.  He called you out on your combative responses, you called him a snowflake.  Yep.  You're gonna have fun.

I was waiting for the proverbial army shoes comment any minute.  As I've said before, it make much more sense to say "Army boots."  But @zil tried to disavow me of that notion.  But that really doesn't rank well on the "insult meter."  I wonder why that is the thing I keep going back to.  I think the modern "Yo Mamma" comments are much more effective.  But you really have to get the feel for the art of insult to make it work.  Consider:

Yo mamma's so fat.... This is easy to take anywhere because insulting physical features is pretty common.  But it's cheap humor.  

vs.  You mamma's so tough to buy shoes for...  (what?) That's an insult?  This person needs some professional help.  We really have to step up our game here if we're to engage in a repartee.

How about: You mamma's so cheap... OH!!! insulting a man's mother's honor.  Now, now... That's going over the line.  But it really gets the emotions flared.  Them's fightin' words.

So, we keep it to the individuals in hand instead of the character of their progenitors.  "You're so stupid..."  fairly easy beginning.  But to finish it requires some creativity or it just sounds trite and passe'.  "...that you couldn't pass a first grade English test."  Well, this was good, Howard.  But you'll notice the number of syllables overruns the receiver's attention span.  It was a good pass, well executed.  But the receiver just couldn't run that far.  A different tactic might be to break it up and go one step away from the "you're so stupid" archetype:  "Wow, that's quite the vocabulary you got there.  You must have had advanced English."  This has sufficient pauses and breaks to allow the receiver to catch the ball, process, and throw it back.

That's the end of today's class on "how to sustain a repartee as long as possible."

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let me be clear: I know people often take my ideas, questions, and comments as personal attacks when they are merely ideas, questions, and comments. But I strive very, very hard to not make it personal and to leave the discussion about the subject matter at hand. I do stray over that line at times when I am being personally attacked and feel the need (pridefully) to defend myself. But I generally don't tell people they're being lazy, just confrontational, have a poor bedside manner, and are just John Wayne-ing about. A) Personal attacks are against the rules. B) Personal attacks are unkind. C) Personal attacks don't prove anything about the subject matter at hand (unless the subject ends up being the personal attack, I suppose). D) Personal attacks are CLEARLY never going to help you get your point across. (How many people do you know when accused of having a bunch of nasty characteristics perk right up and engage more with clarity and interest?) So when someone says that another who seems to have jumped straight to personal (all about TFP's shortcomings) responses because I had a few points I questioned is just like me and we'll get along famously ---------- 

Yes, yes, I get what you're saying.  Buuuut... I think our new friend is just suffering from - oh crap! newbie syndrome.    No?  I think you'll get along famously as in - sparkly.  I have high hopes! 

 

 

[zil]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

matching up Politician X with Antichrist Y.

I think you're thinking of this thread:

 

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

As I've said before, it make much more sense to say "Army boots."  But @zil tried to disavow me of that notion. 

Erm, no:

 

 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I think you're thinking of this thread:

You are correct. My apologies, brlenox. I obviously got my threads crossed.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

You are correct. My apologies, brlenox. I obviously got my threads crossed.

You're not the first!

PS: I think we should require unique avatars - I think it would make mix-ups like this less likely.

Edited November 15, 2017 by zil

[brlenox]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm a fat lady so I won't hint at my lofty (whoops) age.  Filipino born and raised so I had to learn Filipino - which is not my native tongue because I hail from the Visayas - and English in elementary school.  If my argument fails I always have the - well, I'm multi-lingual, are you? - puff response. 

 

Well I can still do conversational Thai from my mission.  My son served in the Tacloban Filipino mission.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Erm, no:

 

Dang it.  Mixed up again.  You're like that big sister who always corrects her baby brother.  Only, you do it with floral colored fountain pens.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Dang it.  Mixed up again.  You're like that big sister who always corrects her baby brother.  Only, you do it with floral colored fountain pens.

Apparently I'm remembered in reverse...

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

Apparently I'm remembered in reverse...

That's right. I'm older.  You're the baby sister who always corrects her older brother.  Or something like that.