A few weeks ago, several posters told me I had no right to discuss a hypothetcal situation in my post. They claimed I HAD to cite a specific post or I would be out of order or lying. They seemed to assume that examples were invalid unless they were proven in RfM posts. Someone actually said I was claiming fact when I was clearly doing no such thing.


I encountered a similar accusation when I talked about resignation yesterday. Someone claimed I'd sprayed a mormon with a garden hose because I was angry and had refused to "properly" resign. I also mentioned warding off mormons by using a finger. Mormons overreact to that but it's something that would never occur to me but might help others. I was using another hypothetal and did not cite particulars.

I encourage posters to change their names and situations to preserve privacy. I also think there's no need to specifically embarrass or discuss a poster when using a made-up example can work just as well.

Perhaps those with extremely literal and linear thinking patterns need to save their ire for actual real situations that arise. There are plenty of these to go around and it would be an easy way to avoid frustration.

All well and good, but without rules that I make up as I go along, how can I attempt to control the narrative?!

Thanks Cheryl. Although not everything is covered by rules, there are always the rules of good taste. Of course, some of what I write is pretty tasteless.

Literal thinkers are why I’m starting to appreciate Christianity more. Any idiot can understand Jesus, and they do. That’s better than the alternative. Church leaders only care about the hump of the bell shape curve. That’s the important thing in their world. They’re happy to chop off the tails and throw them away. Secular society values the tails, so secular society will win. It’s not about what is “true”, it’s about what is inclusive.

There are much more abstract ways of looking at the vagaries of being. It’s part of why RfM is so much fun. Conjecture is not preaching.

Let’s say (hypothetically) that I were to make a hypothetical post that (hypothetically) referred to a hypothetical situation. Let’s also say that some hypothetical poster had a hypothetical objection to my use of a hypothetical situation in my hypothetical post, and (hypothetically) attempted to call me out and accuse me of breaking some non existent (NOT hypothetical) rule. What (hypothetically) should be my response?

OK, being serious: hypothetical situations are often very useful when making a concrete point.

I was recently on jury duty and spent most of one day listening to hypotheticals relating to the case. The judge allowed this as did the prosecution and the defense. Why? Because these possibilities likely impacted the case. We were told to take care of accepting anyone's interpretations but our own.

I think RfM posters can profit from an expanded focus to some extent because as CrispingPin said, "Hypothetical situations are often very useful when making a concrete point."

Thankfully, not all the mods are guys. There’s a certain sophistication to a woman’s thought process that we Neanderthals don’t quite get. We think the point is the point, forgetting to chew our food.

Listen... I'm sitting on such a hypothetical... It could blow the roof off of RfM, or at least ruffle the curtains.

Let’s hear it. No farting near open flames allowed.

I always try to keep in mind that people don't really change their spots. If they acted as jerks as mormons, then they continue that mindset as ex-mormons. It's very easy to spot here.

Thanks for this well expressed post Cheryl. I agree with you 100%. It does seem there are a few who are primarily on here to challeng others, which probably has an end result of stifling spontaneity. I personally don't post on things that I would like to because I know so and so probably would jump down my throat..so I don't. I thought the main premise of this forum is about recovery, and sometimes people just want to vent and not be challenged at every turn. It gets old where the same posters jump on the opinions and experiences day after day. I don't really care what people post. If I don't like, I don't read. A few weeks ago, some poster commented they find satisfaction in correcting/challenging posters who they spin/twist as prejudiced..pffft. Whatever...not really recovery but more of an ego trip. I love your posts Cheryl.

Kristy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

> A few weeks ago, some poster commented they find
> satisfaction in correcting/challenging posters who
> they spin/twist as prejudiced..pffft.
> Whatever...not really recovery but more of an ego
> trip. I love your posts Cheryl.


I missed that particular post, and I'm glad I did. If I wanted to experience that mentality on a regular basis, I would have remained Mormon. If I wnted to experience it while continuing not to practice Mormonisim, I could always spend more time with my oldest sister, who thinks it's her God-given mandate to shut anyone down who holds views differing fro her own by challenging and correcing them. Mormonism is an almost perfect fit for her. It would be perfect if she were male and could actually be in charge.

I, too, love Cheryl's posts.

Cheryl, the problem with not citing an actual post when attacking statements that someone supposedly made is that there is no proof that anyone actually made the statement you are attacking. We are left to trust that your interpretation of what they said is reasonable and accurate.

This is precisely what is known as a straw man fallacy. From Wikipedia: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

If people are claiming that you are doing that, citing the original post would allow people to verify that you are fairly criticizing what the other person or persons actually said.

Two posters who *always* cite a URL to a post in another thread that they are commenting on so that people can read the original if they choose are Steve Benson and poster "nightingale".

No, there is no rule requiring a poster commenting on a post in another thread to include a link to that post. But if one is being accused of fabricating statements that nobody actually made, and attacking those fabricated statements, then an actual URL or a direct quotation or both are simply good form.

Neither Steve Benson nor nightingale get accused of straw man arguments. They, and a fair number of other posters include links to posts in other threads that they are commenting on just because it is a good journalistic practice.

There's no rule about it. There is also no rule requiring that posts have white space (blank lines) to aid readability. It is simply a good idea that nearly everyone follows.

I think in this thread she is conceding that nobody actually made the statements she referred to in her prior thread.

She’s saying here that her prior that was purely hypothetical.

Thus, there is nothing for her to cite. Then again there’s no beef either. Since nobody said anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 02:36AM by jay.

No one said anything? You are citing nothing, so according to you there's nothing to discuss. Do you have some other point?

“A few weeks ago, several posters told me I had no right to discuss a hypothetcal situation in my post. They claimed I HAD to cite a specific post or I would be out of order or lying. They seemed to assume that examples were invalid unless they were proven in RfM posts. Someone actually said I was claiming fact when I was clearly doing no such thing.“


I’m accepting your statement that your prior thread was a hypothetical. You weren’t “claiming fact.” You were using a hypothetical. Thus, there would be nothing for you to cite since you were not referencing a fact (or an actual statement made by someone else).

As you point out, there are no rules against hypotheticals.

At the same time, there is no reason for anybody on this forum to feel attacked by you because your prior post was simply a hypothetical.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 12:36PM by jay.

Sorry, but there's no need for you to lecture me on posting. You're not the owner or administrator of RfM. You're welcome to avoid every post with my name on it. Lecturing me won't bring me around. I promise you.

Thank you Brother of Jerry. I appreciate your insightful post. I had never even heard the term "straw man" until I came to RFM some time ago. Good bit to understand.

If I want to open a general discussion on a topic, posters are free to join in or not.

There is no requirement that I cite one particular post on a topic when it's a long term topic of discussion and there have been dozens of examples of it over time.

"Straw man" is a mind stopper. It's meant to insult someone, drive them off, make them back down, and stop a discussion that makes a particular person uncomfortable.

You may be correct that using hypothetical a scenario is useful in a discussion. But please acknowledge the concern that others have with using a hypothesis to discuss something that doesn't require a hypothesis.

Labeling a hypothesis as a straw-man is very accurate at times. A straw-man is a misrepresentation of the argument. Something that is very easy to do when using a hypothetical.

However, and in particular. When you are discussing bad behavior any misrepresentation can derail the entire discussion. When my child misbehaves and I confront him on it I almost always am forcing him to give me a hypothetical as to why he did what he did. Because the truth is he probably doesn't know why he acted like that. He is after-all three. So do I confront him and then go down the rabbit hole with him?

Mormons do the same thing when we talk to them about our disbelief. They hypothetical assert that we aren't praying hard enough, want to sin, or were offended. Then the rest of our discussion is about why it isn't any of those things.

So since I can understand that there may be some use in hypotheticals, I question why there is the need to use them if there is a real situation that could suffice instead.

About topics of ongoing concern. If someone doesn't think it applies to them, fine. If they think it includes them, that's a chance for growth.

Fingering a poster and nailing them to the wall for what they say or do is not how I see as helping posters recover.

It isn't a straw man argument to open a topic for general discussion. That's how I see it and lecturing and berating won't change my mind.

you lecture a lot.

But she doesn’t lecture AND berate.

I'd link to the post but why bother?

We can consider it hypothetical and skip the cites.

When someone says I lack integrity, when computer techs lecture me on how to teach first grade, when they claim I must save a TR and get it back to a church official because it's church property, or I must entertain missionaries in my home. None of those accusations are appropriate and admin often deletes them. These are examples of attacks.

It is not an attack to open a general discussion and posts DO NOT have to relate to only one post or one poster as is purported by you, Beth, and others.

“It is not an attack to open a general discussion and posts DO NOT have to relate to only one post or one poster as is purported by you, Beth, and others.”

You’re right about that.

And I think if it’s a hypothetical then nobody need feel attacked! Why? Because they weren’t attacked.

Sometimes when a hypothetical is used for discussion the participant will add or subtract possibilities to the hypothetical. And sometimes they’ll compare real life examples to the hypothetical.

Again, there are no ground rules on hypotheticals and participants can tweak, contrast and compare to other real & hypothetical situations. They can also ask the person who proposed the hypothetical for examples (no rules against that) and the person can say “no.”

And there’s no rule that says anyone has to like how the general discussion unfolded. In fact, people are free to complain or point out that they don’t have to do what other people request.

As I see this discussion unfold, it seems everyone (you and all the participants) has followed any rules and, as is their right, disregarded requests that they don’t want to honor, which, again, is allowed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 05:31AM by jay.

How long, how deep, is this rabbit hole?

I'm reminded of the double helix model of DNA; the strands are close but they never touch...

I'm reminded of Ghostbusters - DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS.