The person has abandoned the discussion of ideas and is trying to win at all costs. Clearly in such a case, the ideas are no longer important.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 12:21PM by MJ.

The discussion of ideas isn't a competition.

Timothy

They move it out of a discussion of ideas into a competition to be won. They change the nature of the discussion from that of a discussion to that of a competition to be won even it it entails demeaning the other person.

Two posts from the thread in question:

"MJ, I understand where you come from. I can see the mistake in making a quick judgement about someone who had to make a difficult decision. I feel sad for him, for her family, for her children, but I am just uncomfortable with the way it all went down.

Thanks everyone for letting me talk about this.

It is over now, and she has died. Her funeral is late this week. I probably will not go, I don't think it is my place to be there."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,193710,193725#msg-193725

Should have ended right there, but someone just had to keep it going for the sake of "winning"

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,193710,193732#msg-193732

"I am not saying you are being deceitful, but it is obvious to me that you have strong negative feelings toward the man, this is a very emotionally charged time and perhaps old feelings are clouding your judgment."

Just a word of caution, MJ. That word (but) has a tendency to negate every word that comes before it. Here's how your statement actually reads:

"I am not saying you are being deceitful, BUT you are being deceitful so I'm now going to be judgemental towards you."

If one considers his or her point is not getting across, then one should likewise consider that perhaps he or she doesn't have a point to get across.

Beating it to death is usually a dead giveaway.

Timothy

Timothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Just a word of caution, MJ. That word (but) has a
> tendency to negate every word that comes before
> it. Here's how your statement actually reads:
>
> "I am not saying you are being deceitful, BUT you
> are being deceitful so I'm now going to be
> judgemental towards you."
>

I have to disagree here. The word "But" is not an automatic negation of what when before it. If I were to make the statement "She organized her work but accomplished very little." it is a statement of contrary to expectation, not of negation. That statement is NOT saying "She organized her work but she didn't organize her work" far from it. It is more like saying "Despite organizing her desk, she got little done" or "despite the OP not being deceitful, the OP was emotional...."

... "has a tendency"

You're not discussing ideas. You're pulling gnat shit out of pepper for the sake of perpetuating an argument. Go back and re-read the posts I cited. Even when folks agree to your terms you can't let it go.

You can disagree all you wish, MJ, BUT the end result is just as telling.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 01:24PM by Timothy.

To try to make a case regarding my usage of the term "but" in that context is indeed "pulling gnat shit out of pepper for the sake of perpetuating an argument" because you are trying to imply that there was something inappropriate in the appropriate use of the term "but".

Oh, and to use a challenge that you have used on others, where is the survey that supports your claim about the "tendency" of the word "but" having a particular meaning?

I will stand by my VALID use of the word "but", if you want to continue to challenge it based on some notion of "tendency" then you are continuing to pull the shit.

BUT <<sigh>> i feel for the womans family that lost a member!
thanks for the sanity Tim..... :)

Wow, you flip flop more than Mitt. "the THEY is YOU" yeah right, it wasn't about "me". The THREAD was about someone's feelings, some of you comments were directed at ME personally.

As I said, when you moved it from a discussion about ideas regarding feelings to making it about me personally, then you made the claim that you were not in a discussion, you were in a competition to win.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 01:34PM by MJ.

... nor do you debate or otherwise disagree with the points made.

Now its all about the word "but" and how its used in various contexts?

That would be a rather lame attempt to misdirect, MJ. Hardly what I call a discussion of ideas.

BUT, I'm sure you have your own definitions for that as well.

Its all about "winning" right?

Timothy

I was not the one that tried to misdirect the topic by honing in on the word "but". The definition is NOT my definition, but is indeed a standard definition of the word "but". Trying to claim that there were contextual issues regarding my use but is just plain BS.

I addressed the invalid point that you made, so, what IS it you are trying to say SPECIFICALLY?

I have a different take on those two posts, I do not see the line you quoted as being a thread ender or as prohibitive of further discussion on the subject. It is indeed a statement of reality of the situation, but it does not mean that other points in the post are not up for further discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 01:53PM by MJ.

And here you are again honing in on the word "but" while ignoring the other points I made.

And I didn't say it was a thread-ender. I noted that the OP conceded and yet you couldn't let it go.

Did you win yet? ... Check your "book"

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 01:55PM by Timothy.

And you are trying to make me at fault for pointing out that your claims in that regard are false.

Wow.

Did you win yet?

Timothy

So you can have the last word and claim victory, I am though trying to discuss ideas with you on this subject.

You win, if that was what your goal was, it was NOT mine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 01:59PM by MJ.

I was just discussing ideas.

BUT how would you know?

Timothy

Isn't that good enough for you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 02:01PM by MJ.

... yeah, I guess.

Timothy

here is what you said in the last thread:

It only indicates that you can not win based on your ideas.
HELLO!! and here:

They move it out of a discussion of ideas into a competition to be won.They change the nature of the discussion from that of a discussion to that of a competition to be won even it it entails demeaning the other person.

the THEY is YOU!! now i gotta go back to work.... sea-ya!

Yes, your moving it from a discussion of ideas to being about me was your statement that you were in it to WIN.

This is fun, wish I had a longer lunch break.

I'm the OP from the other 2 threads, and the only reason I stopped talking about ideas was that I had to go to work.

Now look who needs to stand back, take a deep breath, and examine their own emotions.

And look at his behavior.
'
Oh, and do you have a SPECIFIC issue with anything I have said or any particular point to show where I was emotional and needing to step back from my emotions?

... "emotional" MJ.

After all, your's are the only valid arguments and definitions.

Right?

Timothy

You win.

Have a nice day!

Timothy

Timothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The discussion of ideas isn't a competition.
>
> Timothy


No, retrospectively it's about achieving greater depth (and possibly some width) of perspective regarding the idea.

My own experience of course, but what is perceived as condescending, inflammatory or arrogant style and formulations (or maybe me being too sensitive sometimes) may be provoking, if one isn't aware of those things and able to restrain emotional blocking or uncontrollable escalations in ones own responses. Often there really are someone else (hopefully!) on a public discussion board that both is stronger in expressed opinions AND knows better some of the things (and even the main idea) being discussed or are better (or having better stamina) at expressing them. I am not on a discussion board primarily to seek friends, but to learn, and express my own thoughts.

That a weak-minded person often views ideas they have adopted as part of themself. As such, anything critical you say about the idea feels like a loss of self. In a self-centered culture where self-promotion is the highest goal, any loss of this illusory self is unacceptable. So the weak minded person feels compelled to descend into attack mode immediately upon being challenged.

I should know. I was such a person for many years. It was a shock to learh that I could be wrong about things, even important things, without taking it personally.

Just my .02.

"Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people."

The author is unknown and I admit that great people will often talk about other people, but I think the general idea is valid. I think it would be more accurate if the words "tend to" would be added right before "talk".

I agree with your post and I need to understand it better. I am often caught off guard when someone takes a criticism of an idea as a personal attack.

That people can perform in-depth research to challenge any of their own positions at the click of a button, but instead, Americans seem to rush to whatever corner of the web aligns with their exact point of view, and to insist on engaging with only like-minded people. This makes small-minded people even less capable of dealing with criticism, because they increasingly convince themselves that a "majority" of people agree with them.

The human creature has a tendency toward incredible insecurity, which is a damn shame. If we were willing to engage each other without going into battle mode at the drop of a hat, I believe our species could tackle some really tough problems very quickly.

Oh, well.

One where my ex would take things personally FOR OTHERS.

We had some very opinionated bishops. People I liked on a personal level. But they constantly said things about Joseph Smith, obedience, or "the world" that I disagreed with.

After church, my then-DW would ask me what was wrong. I would respond, "I don't think what bishop X said was correct, and this is why..."

She would then go into battle mode, feeling I was undermining the righteousness of these bishops. And since a mandatory part of the Mormon testimony has always been that the local leaders are "good" and "loving," I was attacking her testimony.

It was frustrating. It turned her into yet another person who encouraged me to quiet my dissent and be "good."

It also made her simple-minded.

INTP

And they swear it's my fault for being so harsh/robotic/uncaring. I just speculate that this personality style conflict may be at the root of so many people's raised hackles towards your posts.
And I don't mean you're in the wrong, I frequently see your point and watch others pile on in an outrage I don't get.
I think it's just like cats and dogs.