Kudos, Shades!

[_Sam Harris]

Wade, just out of curiosity, do you treat others as you would like to be treated?

Also, to help me understand your perspective here...

To your way of thinking, is name calling and labeling (bigot for example) only a cognitive distortion if the name is not objectively appropriate, but if the label "fits" then it is not labeling but just an observation? If so, how does one determine if the label is appropraite or not? Who is the one to determine the truth of the label/observation?

I'm not sure how you see this so please clarify for me. Thanks,~dancer~

In answer to your first question, I make a concerted effort to do so.

Then obviously you are a masochist, Wade.

[_beastie]

Wade, clueless as ever.

I realize that to your mnoumentally ego-centric mind that when you have come to a conclusion then the discussion is settled for all parties concerned, and the thinking stops.

Please quote the exact phrases from my post that led you to this conclusion.

It's amazing that you pulled this out of my post. But since you pulled it from the same place you pull everything else, it's not surprising.

But just in case I'm wrong and really did say something that would cause a sane person to draw the conclusion you did above, please provide the phrases from my post that support this conclusion.

From my perspective, though, your thinking never really was much of a factor. Your emotions rule what you have concluded, and you mistakenly assume your emotions rule everyone else.

Once again, please provide the exact phrases from my post that led you to conclude that my emotions rule what I have concluded, and I assume the same of everyone else.

In other words, your belief that on personal issues, critics are above and beyond criticism, while certainly self-serving, is logically incorrect (i.e. your feelings are based, ironically, on a cognitive distortion, and it is reasonable of me to correct that cognitive distortion, and thus I will do so below).

I didn't say that critics are above and beyond criticism on personal issues. I said that you cannot state that someone's statement about their own experiences are false unless you were living in close proximity to that person during the specified time period.

Are you capable of understanding the difference between what I just said and what you thought I said? If so, please demonstrate as much.

[_wenglund]

Wade, clueless as ever.

I realize that to your mnoumentally ego-centric mind that when you have come to a conclusion then the discussion is settled for all parties concerned, and the thinking stops.

Please quote the exact phrases from my post that led you to this conclusion.

You are, as usual, falsely assuming that my conclusion was based solely on an "exact phrase from your post". It wasn't. It was based on years of interacting in "close proximity" to you on various discussion boards. Get a clue!

It's amazing that you pulled this out of my post. But since you pulled it from the same place you pull everything else, it's not surprising.

But just in case I'm wrong and really did say something that would cause a sane person to draw the conclusion you did above, please provide the phrases from my post that support this conclusion.

From my perspective, though, your thinking never really was much of a factor. Your emotions rule what you have concluded, and you mistakenly assume your emotions rule everyone else.

Once again, please provide the exact phrases from my post that led you to conclude that my emotions rule what I have concluded, and I assume the same of everyone else.

In other words, your belief that on personal issues, critics are above and beyond criticism, while certainly self-serving, is logically incorrect (i.e. your feelings are based, ironically, on a cognitive distortion, and it is reasonable of me to correct that cognitive distortion, and thus I will do so below).

I didn't say that critics are above and beyond criticism on personal issues. I said that you cannot state that someone's statement about their own experiences are false unless you were living in close proximity to that person during the specified time period.

Are you capable of understanding the difference between what I just said and what you thought I said? If so, please demonstrate as much.

Your question contains a false premise. I didn't understand you differently than what you said. I was speaking to your statemtent in a way that you apparently can't comprehend (precisely because your emotions have settled your mind elsewhere, and the thinking is no longer a factor, if it ever was).

You can be mentally or physically in a separate planet from where I live here on earth (I am not sure which it is--perhaps Uranis?) and there are certain things about your own experience that I can in fact reasonably know and induce as false, particularly if your experiences relate to me and our shared membership in an organization, and even more particularly if you publically disclose, in "close proximity" to me on a discussion board, the nature of your experiences. Again, get a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

Of COURSE you weren't actually constructing your strawman called beastie on my actual COMMENTS. HA HA HA, what a silly notion.

So, tell me, oh omniscient one, if someone lives in the United States, as you do, and speaks about their personal experiences about living in the United States as a foreigner, do you have the prerequisite knowledge to declare their statements "falsehoods"?

[Gadianton]

Wade,

Of COURSE you weren't actually constructing your strawman called beastie on my actual COMMENTS. HA HA HA, what a silly notion.

So, tell me, oh omniscient one, if someone lives in the United States, as you do, and speaks about their personal experiences about living in the United States as a foreigner, do you have the prerequisite knowledge to declare their statements "falsehoods"?

It depends on the statement. For example, if a former U.S. citizen felt, due to their experience living in the U.S., that terrorist attacks against the U.S. are warranted, then certainly I am in a position to question the verity of that feeling. If a former U.S. citizen felt that it was appropriate and perhaps even therapeutic to vent in anger and grief about the U.S. for months and years on an anti/ex-U.S. message board because they now believed that Jefferson had fathered an illegitimate child by a black women, then I believe I may reasonably challenged the falsity of the cognitions behind what I see as a dysfunctional emotional reaction. I don't need to live near a member of the KKK in order to consider as false some of the cognitions related to their personal experiences that lead to his/her prejudices/bigotry towards Jews.

In other words, contrary to what you emoted, one does not have to live in "close proximity" in order to deem certain things as false regarding a persons personal experiences.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

Wade, I have to disagree, you are still hurting about being banned from FAIR and much of your anger toward that banning has been aimed at GIMR who you are angry toward as the cause of your banishment. Her 'Kudos to Shades' simply released the pressure valve. Look, here is the skinny: I care about you and I understand your desire to defend the Church, but is it not best to do so with a cool head and with no need to react so strongly off of each thing that is said? I mean, when we get down to the underlying reality of all our interactions, we are all the shining Children of God seeking our return to His presence. It is not our ultimate task to counter everything that is said and done. I would suggest that ultimately we are to love God and each other and leave well enough alone.

In life, we all have our individual experiences. They make us unique. They make us who we are. If you set out to invalidate someones experiences, by telling them they are not true and they never happened, then you are taking away a part of that person. I know you related the story of the schizophrenic person who yelled at you, but we are not talking about that when we speak about GIMR's experiences. Why argue with what she has been through? Must the Church be justified through denying her pain and invalidating her existence? I would suggest that the Church can survive on its own and perhaps thrive even more by accepting all that we have been through, both as individuals and collectively. Sweeping problems under rugs and them sending out PR minded individuals to insist that raised area under the carpet does not exist, is not the best way to go. There is nothing forcing you to be that type of individual. If you really want to help people, it is best to accept them as they are.

Wade once again, I want you to know that I like you and I am supportive of you.

[_wenglund]

Wade, I have to disagree, you are still hurting about being banned from FAIR and much of your anger toward that banning has been aimed at GIMR who you are angry toward as the cause of your banishment. Her 'Kudos to Shades' simply released the pressure valve. Look, here is the skinny: I care about you and I understand your desire to defend the Church, but is it not best to do so with a cool head and with no need to react so strongly off of each thing that is said? I mean, when we get down to the underlying reality of all our interactions, we are all the shining Children of God seeking our return to His presence. It is not our ultimate task to counter everything that is said and done. I would suggest that ultimately we are to love God and each other and leave well enough alone.

In life, we all have our individual experiences. They make us unique. They make us who we are. If you set out to invalidate someones experiences, by telling them they are not true and they never happened, then you are taking away a part of that person. I know you related the story of the schizophrenic person who yelled at you, but we are not talking about that when we speak about GIMR's experiences. Why argue with what she has been through? Must the Church be justified through denying her pain and invalidating her existence? I would suggest that the Church can survive on its own and perhaps thrive even more by accepting all that we have been through, both as individuals and collectively. Sweeping problems under rugs and them sending out PR minded individuals to insist that raised area under the carpet does not exist, is not the best way to go. There is nothing forcing you to be that type of individual. If you really want to help people, it is best to accept them as they are.

Wade once again, I want you to know that I like you and I am supportive of you.

I could understand your presuming, against my ULTIMATE AUTHORITATIVE declaration to the contrary, that I was hurting from my banning at FAIR were I to have, to your knowledge, ever over the past year or so since I was banned, said anything about being hurt (or something to that effect) by the banned, or gone to other boards to complain and whine like so many here and at MT have. But, I haven't. In fact, I have said just the opposite on numerous occasions.

But, don't let those important facts get in the way of your false presupposition. I understand that you, in your own likeable way, need to view it that way. And, I am fine with that--particularly since you want to like me and be supportive of me. Who wouldn't want that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

In what is perhaps one of the most ironic events out of too many to count in interactions with you, you display an inability to comprehend the difference between events that occur to an individual, and their emotions regarding those events.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

To everyone else on this thread who came to my defense, thank you.

Wade, you need to get a grip. Seriously. My journey through the church was a very painful and emotionally debilitating one, mainly because of the deception involved. I made it clear what my issues with organized religion were, INCLUDING RACISM (but from a black against white POV, how ironic, WADE), and those elders lied to my face and told me the church was the end of all my problems.

Five painful years later, including three just trying to get my name removed, I am free.

Wade, you didn't get booted because of me. You got booted because you have some personal problems, and even FAIR couldn't stand being embarrased by you. If your behavior towards me warranted banning, then folks like Kemara wouldn't still be there.

I love you Avatar GIMR

I know what being FREE means to you...I hope to be free very soon myself....I see organized religion the same as you

A long time ago PHIL DONOHUE...I miss his talk show.... basically stated on his show that organized religion promotes hate and dissent and divides and from that day one I started to see organized religion in a different light and in a different way...some people are afraid to be free...and that is sad

[_moksha]

Wade, I have to disagree, you are still hurting about being banned from FAIR and much of your anger toward that banning has been aimed at GIMR who you are angry toward as the cause of your banishment. Her 'Kudos to Shades' simply released the pressure valve. Look, here is the skinny: I care about you and I understand your desire to defend the Church, but is it not best to do so with a cool head and with no need to react so strongly off of each thing that is said? I mean, when we get down to the underlying reality of all our interactions, we are all the shining Children of God seeking our return to His presence. It is not our ultimate task to counter everything that is said and done. I would suggest that ultimately we are to love God and each other and leave well enough alone.

In life, we all have our individual experiences. They make us unique. They make us who we are. If you set out to invalidate someones experiences, by telling them they are not true and they never happened, then you are taking away a part of that person. I know you related the story of the schizophrenic person who yelled at you, but we are not talking about that when we speak about GIMR's experiences. Why argue with what she has been through? Must the Church be justified through denying her pain and invalidating her existence? I would suggest that the Church can survive on its own and perhaps thrive even more by accepting all that we have been through, both as individuals and collectively. Sweeping problems under rugs and them sending out PR minded individuals to insist that raised area under the carpet does not exist, is not the best way to go. There is nothing forcing you to be that type of individual. If you really want to help people, it is best to accept them as they are.

Wade once again, I want you to know that I like you and I am supportive of you.

I could understand your presuming, against my ULTIMATE AUTHORITATIVE declaration to the contrary, that I was hurting from my banning at FAIR were I to have, to your knowledge, ever over the past year or so since I was banned, said anything about being hurt (or something to that effect) by the banned, or gone to other boards to complain and whine like so many here and at MT have. But, I haven't. In fact, I have said just the opposite on numerous occasions.

But, don't let those important facts get in the way of your false presupposition. I understand that you, in your own likeable way, need to view it that way. And, I am fine with that--particularly since you want to like me and be supportive of me. Who wouldn't want that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, of course you are the ultimate authority in yourself. It just seemed like you were stuffing your anger and then denying its existence. I thought it would be worthwhile to examine that "false presupposition" of anger, as well as reexamine the need to defend the Church in such a way as to engender ill feelings in others. No harm done if you think otherwise.