- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116950
Originally posted by FMFI try to. I don't mind getting what I give out, but there are thresholds or unwritten rules to be observed and often these are overlooked or misconstrued.
I'd imagine most people subscribe to this 'rule'.
Do you?
How well does it work in practice in a 'public space' like the one we have here?.
That the insult "you are full of crap" for example. Pretty strong words? Well is it though? Really? Blokes in particular say this kind of thing you each other frequently and especially when talking about sport for example. Perhaps if it couched this way "you talk a load of worthless nonsense". Is a worse insult than "you are full of crap"? About the same I'd say. Others may disagree saying it's worse or vies-versa.
The difference is not the meaning it's the language. It is possible to be far far more insulting and hurtful with polite language than it is with coarseness. Sometimes this is why I use a phrase like "you are full of crap" as common but coarse slap, rather than really dig the needle in. It's just spontaneous style and we each have our own. Personally I think one Christian calling another the son of the devil, or of being worse than a murderer is far worse than "you are full of crap". The polite but passive-agressive jibes of Grampy Bobby go under the radar of many here, but are noticed by others who look at the meaning beyond the style. Either way one calls it, one has to roll with the punches and expect to get at least what one gives.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by divegeesterAt least you are inclusive. I don't know how to respond & don't have the inclination to think on it, so I don't.
I try to. I don't mind getting what I give out, but there are thresholds or unwritten rules to be observed and often these are overlooked or misconstrued.
That the insult "you are full of crap" for example. Pretty strong words? Well is it though? Really? Blokes in particular say this kind of thing you each other frequently and especially when talking ...[text shortened]... er way one calls it, one has to roll with the punches and expect to get at least what one gives.
Originally posted by divegeesterif you believe in your side of the debate there is never a reason to be abusive, i normally find the loser has to resort to petty, "my dads bigger than you're dad"
I try to. I don't mind getting what I give out, but there are thresholds or unwritten rules to be observed and often these are overlooked or misconstrued.
That the insult "you are full of crap" for example. Pretty strong words? Well is it though? Really? Blokes in particular say this kind of thing you each other frequently and especially when talking ...[text shortened]... er way one calls it, one has to roll with the punches and expect to get at least what one gives.
Being called the son of satan or a murderer is not nice, but calling JW an evil cult protecting child molesters is by far worse, do you think all muslims are isis?
the passive aggressive jibes? you say no one notices them but you and a small group on here. could it not be true you are looking for them? maybe none actually exist apart from in you're head.
The truth is GB is a more liked on here than you will ever be, that must hurt
23 Jan 16
1 edit
***************************
IGNORE THE TROLL See above
***************************
Interesting question, FMF. I find it very illuminating to think about that
rule when faced in real life with a conundrum involving other people.
Not necessarily because it automatically improves my treatment
of those I am liaising with, but because it tells me tons about myself.
Do I really want to be treated this or that way? Why? Is there a reason
behind it?
The most complex portion of learning, though, comes from the fact
that we are not always prioritizing the same principles, as they
gain or lose emphasis based on the circumstances, e.g. stress, peer
pressure, relaxation, hurry, etc.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERThe discussions about the JWs beliefs and policies have been going on for years here.
Being called the son of satan or a murderer is not nice, but calling JW an evil cult protecting child molesters is by far worse
This is worth a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/01/jehovahs-witnesses-fostered-distrust-of-secular-authority-royal-commission-counsel
I don't subscribe to religious notions of "evil", but I think if the word is going to be bandied about at all, it might well apply if the claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia received 1,066 allegations of child sex abuse against its members and did not report any of them to police turns out to be true. Covering up the sexual abuse of children or trying to defend such cover ups would surely be "far worse", as you put it, than calling those that do such things "evil", don't you think?
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFany cover up is disgusting, all deserved to be punished by the law.
The discussions about the JWs beliefs and policies have been going on for years here.
This is worth a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/01/jehovahs-witnesses-fostered-distrust-of-secular-authority-royal-commission-counsel
I don't subscribe to religious notions of "evil", but I think if the word is going to be bandied about at all, ...[text shortened]... y be "far worse", as you put it, than calling those that do such things "evil", don't you think?
but why have a go at one JW member? It's dangerous to tar all with the same brush, hence my "are all muslims in isis"? post.
was the "cover up" from the police or media? there is a huge difference
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERIf you're interested in the topic you could look at these threads:
any cover up is disgusting, all deserved to be punished by the law.
but why have a go at one JW member? It's dangerous to tar all with the same brush, hence my "are all muslims in isis"? post.
was the "cover up" from the police or media? there is a huge difference
Thread 166741
Thread 162947
Thread 148246 (from about page 13 onwards)
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFthanks i will
If you're interested in the topic you could look at these threads:
Thread 166741
Thread 162947
Thread 148246 (from about page 13 onwards)
be back in a few days, by the time i read all that..🙂
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERYes it devastatingly back fired on FMF when he attempted to state that I have defended any alleged cover up.
if you believe in your side of the debate there is never a reason to be abusive, i normally find the loser has to resort to petty, "my dads bigger than you're dad"
Being called the son of satan or a murderer is not nice, but calling JW an evil cult protecting child molesters is by far worse, do you think all muslims are isis?
the passive aggressive ji ...[text shortened]... m in you're head.
The truth is GB is a more liked on here than you will ever be, that must hurt
Not only could he provide not a single iota of any alleged 'cover up', but when repeatedly asked to provide a single quotation for his allegations that I had defended a cover up he could not do so and was forced to repeat the same allegation over and over again if it would somehow make them real. Poor guy was probably sitting with his fingers and his toes crossed hoping that they might become real.
Further to that his allegations were actually refuted was faced with a rather damning testimony from a source that he himself cited demonstrating that I had personally shown that the correct course of action is to go directly to the police if any criminality was even suggested and that secular law supersedes penitent privilege. Naturally he started to flounder around clutching at straws and frothing at the mouth and his hound divesgeester was left barfing at the wind.
Yes these are far more serious allegations and far more sinister than anything Bobs have ever done.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what do you make of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia receiving 1,066 allegations of child sex abuse against its members and not reporting any of them to police?
I had personally shown that the correct course of action is to go directly to the police if any criminality was even suggested and that secular law supersedes penitent privilege.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFIn fact most people would rather subscribe to "treat me as I wanted to be treated"...
I'd imagine most people subscribe to this 'rule'.
Do you?
How well does it work in practice in a 'public space' like the one we have here?.
In fact especially in a situation of comparable anonymity as here on the site it doesn't hold. People treat people far worse as if they would face to face (or so I hope) we have self-proclaimed prophets of all kinds and even those self-ascribing to the most humble and peaceful of ideas seem to be able to treat others with the slightest possible respect. (and no I won't name names).
In my opinion when Jesus was puitting forward the idea it was in the face of those who thought thye already were the good ones.
24 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFthere's some form of this golden rule in nearly ever text deemed holy by one person or another...
I'd imagine most people subscribe to this 'rule'.
Do you?
How well does it work in practice in a 'public space' like the one we have here?.
this also holds true as an agnostic or atheist moral compass...
i shoot for the kindness thing, myself,
but i'm told i miss a bit...
as for this public space, it is only what we make it...