I'm thinking of painting my bathroom and it might be quicker.

..... Crickets

But sometimes we generalize.

Is that ok?

For example, the beer store in my neighborhood closes early on Tues. I could drive to a grocery store or a large beer store but I was lazy, so I went to the wine store next to Starbucks where I was.

The sales girl looked bored so I lamented how I wish they sold beer here, because I LIKE beer. I like beer more than I like mixed drinks, shots, straight spirits, or wine. I then made the mistake of saying that girls don't like beer, kind of as an obvious generalization to make a point. An exaggeration, but with some truth to it.

My personal experience over the last few years is that girls like mixed drinks and shots. I would never offer to buy a girl a beer, but I would offer to buy her a drink or a shot. They try to get me to drink a shot, but I don't because they will all of a sudden hit me. I stay somewhat normal when I drink beer.

But I like beer, I like trying a wide variety of beers, but don't care about other drinks in any significant way.

So the same painting with a wide brush happens with our experience with Mormons. Of course not every Mormon is our personal observation, but sometimes our recent interactions are mostly what we are saying, or are irritating us and we remember the irritations more than the non irritating interactions.

2.5 inch cutting brush, plus a roller. Some people prefer painter's tape. The brush alone may be sufficient for a small bathroom with lots of tile.

And yes, people do generalize about Mormons, especially on this board. I noticed on two recent threads [(1) a rude, aggressive man at a McDonalds, and (2) a homicidal man who flew a plane into his wife's house] that many people assume these Utah men were Mormons. I facetiously conclude that if somebody does something bad in Utah, they must be LDS.

Last thought: Ask a lady "what are you drinking?" and offer to buy her another.

It's a tough one, 6 iron.

We're not writing a scientific treatise here. (Although with my word count sometimes, you may think so!)

Yes, we're mostly talking about our own experiences. That should be somewhat obvious but for some it isn't.

If we have to carefully parse every word, examine each reaction and balance out all our phrases so as to cover all the bases that would be a tall order, not to mention pretty non-specific and lacking in spontaneity.

My take on the recent discussion on this is that the "every member is responsible for all things bad" opinion was met with strong disagreement. Generally, it's kind of taken as given though that the founders and leaders call the shots and rank and file members are doing what they've been taught, most from birth, and it's a tough place to climb out of and get to see a different view, perhaps, and hopefully, prompting change. You can't, after all, blame someone who was born into a certain group for following what they've been taught at least until they find a different path if desirable. The only difference between a Mormon that an exmo may despise for being Mormon and said exmo is that the exmo has received incoming alternative information and it has resonated with them and their viewpoint has changed.

One of the biggest misconceptions, to me, is that because Google exists every Mormon "should" somehow "know better". If you have been brought up to believe you are in the true faith something has to occur, you'd think, to prompt you to Google in the first place. And then, even if you do, you have to come across information you can accept as being from a valid source, conveyed in a reasonable manner, that can alter how you're thinking or seeing things. For some, it's a non-starter. For others, a slow process.

So, I don't condemn, at least not too often nor too many. For as they are we once were. Or words to that effect.

As for beer. Yes, this is sure the weather for it. I have bellied up to a few bars myself in search of the craftiest of local craft beers. A nice way to pass a summer evening.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2018 03:48PM by Nightingale.

"My take on the recent discussion on this is that the "every member is responsible for all things bad" opinion was met with strong disagreement. Generally, it's kind of taken as given though that the founders and leaders call the shots and rank and file members are doing what they've been taught, most from birth, and it's a tough place to climb out of and get to see a different view, perhaps, and hopefully, prompting change. You can't, after all, blame someone who was born into a certain group for following what they've been taught at least until they find a different path if desirable. The only difference between a Mormon that an exmo may despise for being Mormon and said exmo is that the exmo has received incoming alternative information and it has resonated with them and their viewpoint has changed."

Broad brushes indicate to me lack of color choices but if you have a lot of grey I think I can see it your way.

The smoking gun that Mormonism is bad, false, a cult, dangerous, myopic, using broad brushes with two colors has the variety of a multicolored palette. Like Pleasantville, seeing colors and admitting that they exist are two different things.

I could judge my little family harshly because they have more of this palette provided by me than most Mormons.

It is painful to admit that to myself.

There may be a disconnect going on. I think we agree. But I sense you don't think so (here and on one of Cheryl's threads). I haven't had a chance yet to analyze our posts to see where it is. I must not be expressing myself clearly.

Absolutely I understand that a person would feel differently about Mormon family members than I, for instance, would as an exmo with no family in and zero pioneer genes.

As for the broad brush, maybe I misunderstood the concept. Give me time to go back and check and see if I got things backwards.

I shouldn't post under the influence of fatigue - it's been too hot, too busy, and I don't get enough sleep. And yet I keep on yakking. I should be more careful. I'll get back to you asap...

Right on!

And, of course, every generalization can be dissected and the contradictions highlighted.

I think it’s up to the individual to decide whether they want to understand somebody or whether they want to point out the flaws in their thinking, highlight the unavoidable contradictions, and disagree with them. It’s a choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2018 04:41PM by jay.

As long as it isn't wider than your paint can, you'll be fine.

no OPie ~


it is not OK ~


OPie shoud do painting with a brush smaller ~


OPie should quit bean lazy an get to the beer store in time ~


an OPie should post links to pics of the sales girl OPie failed with ~

The width of the brush is long, the length, wide.

It can be invisible and still not have to hide.

If you can't brush it out, you will probably doubt.

It you paint with a wide brush, thin the paint out.

If it comes to deep and wide, thicker can be quicker.

If you run into yourself, you're painting too fast.

I think that making generalizations is natural and part of being human. Politics uses them frequently, I think lawyers will encourage them when it suits their purpose. Scientists will combine collected data and try to generalize it to a relationship they can use (Newton dropping things to calculate the acceleration of gravity). Generalizations can be very effective and valuable when used properly.
From personal experience (I am not trying to generalize about generalizations), whenever I try to generalize I later suspect that I got it wrong.
When you paint, you can see the entire wall and even measure it by hand. Before making a generation, one should ask the question "how much of the whole picture am I seeing?" That usually discourages me enough to stop trying to make a generalization... unless I have been drinking beer, then the generalizations be a flo'in.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2018 02:21AM by chipace.

In Pointillism which is done with a small brush you can look closely at the intricacy of the details, the individual dabs and dots and smears, the raw edges but you cannot see the whole, the image. The paint itself is rich and for me often enough.

When you stand back you see the figures, the trees, the light, the umbrellas meld as a whole. A representation emerges, a story is told--but now the integrity of each blob of paint is diminished, lost it's uniqueness. Sacrificed to sell the big picture. Another brick in the wall?

Bottom line: It's good to get close enough to see the details and good to see the bigger picture. Both count. Critical to me to see that all "wholes" are still a sum of their parts. And maybe each part counts all on its own? Just one missing changes the painting.

Lovely post and analogy.

Looking at the points of paint are good to understand what the picture is made of but loses the site of the picture itself.

A broad brush is fine if you acknowledge you're using it, and you're using it to make another point.

Like, "In general, women don't like beer, so I usually offer to buy a woman a cocktail."

You're speaking about yourself. Broad-brush all you want.

When you speak solely about others, broad-brushing grates on people's nerves. You will inevitably be talking to the exception to your rule. If you say to a woman, "You don't like beer, because you're female," it's not going to go over well.

If you say to anyone you don't (or do) like X because you are a Y is a bad idea in my opinion.