Attacking someone personally for their life choices?

[_Polygamy Porter]

I am just happy to see you took down that picture of you with that beard that you called "your muff mop"

:)

[_barrelomonkeys]

Nephi, is that your child on your avatar? Cute. :)

[_Nephi]

I am just happy to see you took down that picture of you with that beard that you called "your muff mop"

Come on, I know you like the name :)

Nephi, is that your child on your avatar? Cute. :)

She's my middle kid, and yes, she is very photogenic. Thanks though, I'll tell her you said so (as if her head needs to get any bigger)...

[_barrelomonkeys]

She's my middle kid, and yes, she is very photogenic. Thanks though, I'll tell her you said so (as if her head needs to get any bigger)...

:)

[_Gadianton]

Nephi,

Everyone on these boards are on the attack whether they realize it or not. The top apologists would like it to be a sin for anyone to question their religion. As soon as a believer, any believer, no matter how sincere, gets online and tells the world what God has done for them, they've fired a shot. They didn't have to come online, they could just go one living their life with God picking up after them in silence. But they chose to tell the world. And what they've learned from their religion has implications. Those implications can either be misguided or insulting, and there is no shame whatsoever in challenging those ideas, even if it means challenging the personal experience.

For instance, let's say one guy, guy A, lives in virtual self-denial, serves others, serves his church, and painstakingly tries to live the commandments and never feels like God hives him any kind of assurance or direction and comes up at a loss on faith. Now let's say another guy, guy B, not a bad guy all things considered but, you know, hits the bong all day, does acid and crank, and while on all that stuff, God comes screaming out of the sky and gives him the full-blown revelation of his glory on the cheap. That may very well come accross as offensive to Guy A. While that's kind of extreme, there's virtually no way to be publically religious without silently screaming an array of negative things towards a good part of the planet.

[_Nephi]

Nephi,

Everyone on these boards are on the attack whether they realize it or not. The top apologists would like it to be a sin for anyone to question their religion. As soon as a believer, any believer, no matter how sincere, gets online and tells the world what God has done for them, they've fired a shot. They didn't have to come online, they could just go one living their life with God picking up after them in silence. But they chose to tell the world. And what they've learned from their religion has implications. Those implications can either be misguided or insulting, and there is no shame whatsoever in challenging those ideas, even if it means challenging the personal experience.

For instance, let's say one guy, guy A, lives in virtual self-denial, serves others, serves his church, and painstakingly tries to live the commandments and never feels like God hives him any kind of assurance or direction and comes up at a loss on faith. Now let's say another guy, guy B, not a bad guy all things considered but, you know, hits the bong all day, does acid and crank, and while on all that stuff, God comes screaming out of the sky and gives him the full-blown revelation of his glory on the cheap. That may very well come accross as offensive to Guy A. While that's kind of extreme, there's virtually no way to be publically religious without silently screaming an array of negative things towards a good part of the planet.

Thanks for the explanation. I guess I have never felt offense because of someone else's revelations or beliefs on God, or lack there of. I guess, though, this somewhat makes sense. Is guy A offended at guy B because guy B is being so sinful in guy A's eyes, and yet still receives a strong revelation? In other words, is this jealousy turned to offensiveness?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Nephi, you said:

Rarely do I find such comments outside of debate and discussion forums, and yet never do I see the benefit of such lines of attack. What are your viewpoints on such things and how does it effect your viewpoint or the viewpoint of the individual being attacked or the attacker?

A couple of points that i see: "debates" are competitive, which means they are to be 'won', which means there will also be a 'loser'. In our culture, winning seems to be everything. Who one wants to be a "loser"? Well there are those who are not threatened by silly culturated labels. Unfortunately they are the exception...

That being the case, generally, no-holds-barred is the tendency of most?many? folks. Foot-ball-mentality, unfortunately, seems to be THE lesson learned in our institutions of indoctrination that glorify Gladiators, rather than Nerds, in the eyes of the processed, gullible masses...

"Forums" are public. Going 'public' (coming-out-of-YER-closet--anonymously) among other things, makes one a target of another. To be expected, or stay away. OTOH, we each come as we truly are. Group identities are not found in colours, but in psyche states quickly revealed when the warm-fuzzies melt. Now we know each individual as they are--like 'em, or hate 'em.

In all of this, the thing to have in mind, to keep your mind: No one is conditioned by identical nurturing, nor natured by the same genetic chain. Just the way it is. To say, "...s/he can't help themselves..." maybe simplistic. But it might be a point that blunts seemingly insensitive attacks.

Like-ya-know-eh, it's really a good thing to know your adversary. Can't do that IF they don't reveal themselves... Makes it much easier to win :-) As i see things... Warm regards, Roger

[_Nephi]

Roger:

I agree with all your points, but I guess I was one of the few who was on the debate team in high school and Ad Hominem was not tolerated in your side of the debate, so when I find it online, it seems somewhat silly, almost. But I do appreciate your post here as well. Thank you.

[_barrelomonkeys]

When I did debate (was pre-law in the university setting, did take honor classes - shocking to you?- and was in mock trial) I would recognize weak sections and would cringe inwardly hoping the opposition did not notice. I was often pleasantly surprised that the opposing team (person, whatever) would not notice. So I'd carry on.

How ludicrous! To win? Even while knowing that I could blow my own position out of the water? Just to win. No truth. Just to win!

I try to avoid personal insults, they're not relevant. But I can understand how the overwhelming desire for some to win (I was disingenuous) will encourage them to do so.

[_Mercury]

I am just happy to see you took down that picture of you with that beard that you called "your muff mop"

:)

Port, He kinda looked like a trekkie. It reminded me I was attacking someone who probably watches lord of the rings at least once a month.

I dunno, Nephis an alright guy...he just needs to realise what we discuss here is Mormonism. Personal life choices are sometimes used as links to the past denoting character. And I think a character witness is a pretty strong voice.