wenglund wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:wenglund wrote:Were my questions to have been an attempt to shift the burden for my so-called claim, then what you just said might have some relevance and your avoiding answering my question may have made some sense. But they weren't, and so, as expected, it doesn't. I had provided evidence for my so-called claim, and my questions to you were intended to shift the burden, or even to invest you with a burden, but simply by way of querying for information. I simply wanted to know if you have evidence that Mr. D's don't exit?
Do you? Or, are you simply speculating? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Look, Wade---all I asked was if you had any evidence as to whether or not Mr. D's exist. You claim that the Mr. D role is the best model to follow, and so, can we look at this model in more detail? You know, so that we can present it to others so that it's easier to emulate? All I'm asking for is more evidence regarding Mr. D and his exit strategy: i.e., what did he learn about the Church that led to him leave? and so forth. That's not too much to ask, is it?
To be honest, I didn't anticipated your level of doubt. I had initially thought it would have been obvious that such people existed, or at the very least that it would be reason to assumed that they do. I had even thought that were there some doubt, the somewhat self-evident practicality and mutual WORKABILITY of Mr. D's scenerio would make sense to emulate even if it was just a hypothetical. However, apparently for some I way over estimated, and was too optimistic. As such, I am sorry, but my anecdotal evidence is all that I have to offer at this point. And, I will understand if that doesn't suffice for you.
So, we have to make assumptions on the basis of something for which you have zero evidence. How about that?
I am, though, still interested, by way of better understanding you, in getting the answer to my questions that you have evaded twice now. Here they are yet again:
Do you have evidence that the Mr. or Mrs. D's don't exist? Or are you just speculating?
You can't prove a negative, Wade. My evidence is that fact that YOU don't have any evidence.
Anyways, I was thinking about your OP, and I had some thoughts. You initially framed your scenario in the form of a product being sold. I wondered if it would be useful to re-think this in an analogical way:
wenglund wrote:Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.
Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.
1. Mr. A has been making pornographic films that he firmly believes are entertaining and educational, and the best product of their kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.
Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, Mr. D no longer believes in the product, but he agrees with Mr. C about Mr. A having been honest, forthright, and acting in good faith. Mr. D chalks it all up to a difference of opinion with no hard feelings either way, and suggests: "to each their own".
Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"
(alterations to the original text indicated in
bold)
Does the "dynamic and cycle" change at all if you alter the product being "sold"? What if we substituted in "cigarettes"? Or "alcoholic beverages"? Or "foie gras"? Or "Paul H. Dunn tapes"? Doesn't the nature of the product affect things somewhat? I appreciate your use of these "anonymous" sorts of schematics in order to keep the discussions rolling, Wade, but I wonder if that anonymity is sometimes a detriment, too.
I guess a further question would be: is there a way to evaluate whether or not the product itself is harmful? Is that relevant to the cycle? If the product itself is irrelevant, then my above substitution of "pornography"---or any other product, for that matter---will not affect the logic of the schematic one iota. Just curious what you thought.
There is a saying in jurisprudence that goes something like: "hard cases make bad laws".
What I understand that to mean is that the viability and efficacy of laws are undermined when drafted and/or evaluated based on the exceptions rather than the rule.
I believe the same principle applies to the WORKABLE solution that I have prosited. It is intended to cover the more gray to white areas, rather than the relatively black or exceptional areas (like what you presented) in various aspects of our lives and across a broad range of relationships.[/quote]
You consider "foie gras" an "exceptional" or "black" area?
Granted, there will be those who see the Church as "black" and "extreme" in terms of lying about what it claims to be. For those people, they are the exception to my rule.
Can "black" and "extreme" be seen as synonymous with "subversive"?
For them, the dynamic is unavoidable, and the cycle somewhat inevitable.
I disagree.
As I see it, though, the Church is not the lone recipient of that kind of uncharitable and extreme of perception. Other faiths, organizations, races, and peoples are subjected to it as well. For example, anti-Semites view Jews in those kinds of uncharitable and extreme and binary terms, and we see how that dynamic plays itself out on a daily basis (as witnessed to by the Anti Defimation League).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Yes. Such as the way many LDS---including the Brethren---view homosexuals. Would your cycle work for the Church as its treatment of homosexuals? Or the Church and its treatment of dissidents?