|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: In Praise of IngoB!
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I can't quite believe that this has gone on for ten pages! I partly don't understand why people really care that much. At times Ingo presents reasoned arguments, at worst it's like chewing through Summa Theologia. He reminds me of other dogmatics who have spent time on this ship, not least a Greek one who went the way of many others of his type.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe that this has gone on for ten pages! I partly don't understand why people really care that much. At times Ingo presents reasoned arguments, at worst it's like chewing through Summa Theologia.
Don't say that, he'll take it as a compliment!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, yes. Because they are (by and large) not assholes about respecting other people. You are.
If I make a factual claim, then I consider it fair to be asked to back it up, even if the person asking is an asshole. The standard I'm holding myself to resides in me, not in the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think (I could be wrong) you don't think you should have to defend your own person. You are a Roman Catholic; you believe the Church is what she says she is and has the authority she says she has. Any beliefs that are a direct consequence of those two key points may be explained, but shouldn't have to be defended.
You are wrong. I'm delighted to defend the doctrines of the RCC, and I have no expectation that others will consider my belief in her authority as limiting those discussions. When I say that I don't like to defend my person I mean the litany of my personal character faults, real or imagined, and my purported wrongdoings on the Ship.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
He reminds me of other dogmatics who have spent time on this ship, not least a Greek one who went the way of many others of his type.
Hope never dies, eh?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
As I recall, the Greek dogmatic just got more and more out there until he suddenly turned into an atheist one day.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe that this has gone on for ten pages! I partly don't understand why people really care that much.
We're taking turns at caring. Different people sort of phase in and out. I know I phased in for a while, and then phased right out a couple of days ago.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think (I could be wrong) you don't think you should have to defend your own person. You are a Roman Catholic; you believe the Church is what she says she is and has the authority she says she has. Any beliefs that are a direct consequence of those two key points may be explained, but shouldn't have to be defended.
You are wrong. I'm delighted to defend the doctrines of the RCC, and I have no expectation that others will consider my belief in her authority as limiting those discussions. When I say that I don't like to defend my person I mean the litany of my personal character faults, real or imagined, and my purported wrongdoings on the Ship.
But most people I meet don't separate what someone believes from what kind of person they are. Many people believe that many of the things the Church teaches are unkind, either in essence, or in effect, or both. That is bound to affect what they think of people who affirm the Church's teaching, no matter the manner in which they do it.
And unless we can be 100% sure that the Church is right about everything, then there is always a chance that we *are* affirming unkindness to no purpose.
This is the sort of thing I worry about...
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
As do I...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And given that kindness is affirmed as a fruit of the Spirit in the NT, we're left with asking why God is in the business of mandating its opposite. We can piss about arguing that Unkindess is Kindness and Kindess doesn't mean what we think it means, like we do with Love and Justice when explaining why God orders genocide and tortures people for eternity, but we might as well argue that black is white and get killed at the next zebra crossing, as Douglas Adams observed.
[ 29. April 2014, 14:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe that this has gone on for ten pages! I partly don't understand why people really care that much.
We're taking turns at caring. Different people sort of phase in and out. I know I phased in for a while, and then phased right out a couple of days ago.
And I keep writing posts, hitting "preview," then saying "screw it, too logical for this crowd" and deleting them.
Seriously people. Is it such a sin for someone trying to construct arguments valid for more than one person to want to base them on something not as subjective, personal, and valid for only one person as personal experience and fwuffy feelz?
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously people. Is it such a sin for someone trying to construct arguments valid for more than one person to want to base them on something not as subjective, personal, and valid for only one person as personal experience and fwuffy feelz?
No it isn't. But that really isn't what this thread is about.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
We should not confound "kindness" with "in line with the Zeitgeist", "deemed good by popular acclaim", or "pandering to the lowest common denominator".
Just because something sounds "unkind" to modern ears (ears which might have lost the ability to truly listen with discernment due to being stunted by neverending exposure to the discursive muzak of euphemisms and fluffytalk) does not mean it actually, in essence and effect, is unkind.
This being said, some of it might very well be. But note the "some" and the "might".
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
We should not confound "kindness" with "in line with the Zeitgeist", "deemed good by popular acclaim", or "pandering to the lowest common denominator".
I'm not.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But most people I meet don't separate what someone believes from what kind of person they are. Many people believe that many of the things the Church teaches are unkind, either in essence, or in effect, or both. That is bound to affect what they think of people who affirm the Church's teaching, no matter the manner in which they do it.
Well, for the most part people here have been more sophisticated than saying "IngoB believes what the RCC teaches, hence must be a bad person." It is rather obvious that an attack on the person is superfluous then. If the RC teaching is the problem, then the RC teaching is what needs to be attacked in a discussion forum, not the personal character of any individual supporter. And if RC teaching is truly beyond the pale, then all defence of RC teaching must be banned, not any specific effort by any individual supporter. It is simply dishonest to formally allow RC participation, but then to attack people at the personal level if they in fact support the RCC. However, I would like to stress that I do not think that this has been the case here (with some regrettable exceptions).
People are largely complaining about style not substance. I would agree that there probably is an element of confusing substance with style in this, i.e., at least to some degree people are desiring the impossible: a kind face on a teaching that they consider unkind, where I am not willing to deny the teaching. But I do not think that such confusion explains all of the critique, and I would agree that I could spend a lot more time and effort in making my posts "agreeable" without severely compromising doctrinal content. However, it simply is not my aim to write "agreeably", but rather "clearly" or even "starkly". That's the sort of post that I would like to read from others, and it is the sort of post that I consequently try to write. If others don't like that, but I stay within the rules, then I simply consider that to be their problem. It is this attitude of mine which has mostly exercised us here, not the teachings of the RCC as such. Or so it seems to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And unless we can be 100% sure that the Church is right about everything, then there is always a chance that we *are* affirming unkindness to no purpose. This is the sort of thing I worry about...
I'm 100% sure that the Church is not right about everything. She never was, and she never will be - till Christ comes again. It is also unavoidable that the human institution Church fails and sins, until she is raised up to heaven by the Lord. However, I do not share any longer the deep faith of modern people in the West in the individualist - humanist - hedonist secular philosophy (in the old sense of "rule of wisdom governing life"). I do not share the "de fide" dogma of Western society that sexual fulfilment is a human right. I do no longer believe in the doctrinal principle of Western society that consent establishes good. And so forth... In the end one has to ask what the basis is of any claim that involves faith and morals. People that proclaim the Zeitgeist always think that their ideas are the plain and obvious truth that any right-thinking person must agree to. That's exactly why it is the Zeitgeist. But it really is just one voice that can speak both evil and good. I have found something else that - if push comes to shove - I find more trustworthy. This does not mean that I think that all the Zeitgeist has to say is wrong, much of it is good and beautiful. I also do not seek conflict with the Zeitgeist at all costs, rather, where I can follow two masters I happily do. But there are points of conflict that one cannot honestly set aside, and there I take sides with the RCC against the Zeitgeist. Because I do believe that the RCC is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that in a long term and average sense at least she will endure in eternal holiness whereas the Zeitgeist flickers through transient goods.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm not.
sorry if you misunderstood this, I did not imply you did. It was just a general concern about how "kindness" is often framed. I certainly was not having a go at anyone in particular.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm not.
sorry if you misunderstood this, I did not imply you did. It was just a general concern about how "kindness" is often framed. I certainly was not having a go at anyone in particular.
I go by the Golden Rule. If I'd perceive it as unkind if someone did it to me, then it is unkind.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ohhhkay. It's beginning to get a bit glaringly patent to me by now - can I really be alone? I ask - that for some of the posters on this thread, no matter what IngoB says, no matter how or how many different ways he says it, they'll keep coming back with precisely the same criticisms of his posting as they came here to vent in the first place.
(snip)
This. Precisely this.
I'm not RC, but I value IngoB's posts and participation here highly. Even when I disagree with him.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ohhhkay. It's beginning to get a bit glaringly patent to me by now - can I really be alone? I ask - that for some of the posters on this thread, no matter what IngoB says, no matter how or how many different ways he says it, they'll keep coming back with precisely the same criticisms of his posting as they came here to vent in the first place.
(snip)
This. Precisely this.
I'm not RC, but I value IngoB's posts and participation here highly. Even when I disagree with him.
Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
And I think, inadvertently, "participation" is exactly the problem. Participation is not engagement.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously people. Is it such a sin for someone trying to construct arguments valid for more than one person to want to base them on something not as subjective, personal, and valid for only one person as personal experience and fwuffy feelz?
No it isn't. But that really isn't what this thread is about.
As other people have said, lots of shipmates actually do that- -to great effect. The disequilibrium I get is when I sense there "is" emotion in the post-- via extra provocative word choice, or indirect name-calling, or speculations about someone's character or mental state, or whatever-- and it gets projected on the person targeted.
In Purg, understand, not here.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, yes. Because they are (by and large) not assholes about respecting other people. You are.
If I make a factual claim, then I consider it fair to be asked to back it up, even if the person asking is an asshole. The standard I'm holding myself to resides in me, not in the other.
And were we talking about the dry facts of theology or whatever, that might be a reasonable dictum. But here we're talking about my personality and personal characteristics, and you have already proven yourself a total asshole in this area. Indeed, you are proud of it. I would have to be several factors of 10 stupider than I already am to enter into a conversation with you about that. And in Hell, to boot.
And here you are, treating it exactly as if it were any other disinterested discussion about non-personal facts. This is supposed to entice me to discuss personal matters with you?
Nope, in areas like this, the assholity of the interlocutor has a HUGE effect on what I am going to be willing to discuss. Slime me once, shame on you. Slime me a thousand times? As if.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Thanks for the reply IngoB.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
But we have established across many pages that 1) I have no intention to change, since I basically do not think that the complaints are justified, and 2) there is nothing in the rules of SoF that actually would force me to change.
At this point then, I think people cannot claim that they are still bitching about me in Hell to actually achieve anything in this matter. It is simply about releasing their anger unfettered, or perhaps an attempt to extract a kind of retributive justice by making me suffer, or maybe an exercise in "us vs. him" group building. I find all of these motivations rather childish and certainly not particularly Christian.
Anyway, fine. Are we done with that yet?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And I think, inadvertently, "participation" is exactly the problem. Participation is not engagement.
Your unspoken assumption is that "engagement" here has to privilege catering to the emotional state of the people involved in the discussions. I disagree with that assumption. If however you are trying to claim that I do not engage in any sense of the word, thus merely stating my opinions while totally ignoring the contributions of others, then that is just a blatant lie. I very much react to what others are saying here, and always spend considerable time in dealing directly with their contributions. That I do not do so in a mode that you approve of may be true, but does not establish a lack of engagement. (And I note with considerable amusement that "to engage" and "engagement" are words often used in describing combat, whether referring to individuals as in fencing or to groups as in war. The English language really makes a point for me there...)
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The disequilibrium I get is when I sense there "is" emotion in the post-- via extra provocative word choice, or indirect name-calling, or speculations about someone's character or mental state, or whatever-- and it gets projected on the person targeted.
But I have not portrayed myself as an emotionless arguing machine. Other people accuse me of being that, occasionally, but I simply have not claimed that about myself. As I've already explained above, to you as it happens, I consider it important to retain a level of emotional control and to stick to formal rules of engagement. This does not mean that I'm some kind of intellectual robot.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And were we talking about the dry facts of theology or whatever, that might be a reasonable dictum. But here we're talking about my personality and personal characteristics, and you have already proven yourself a total asshole in this area. Indeed, you are proud of it. I would have to be several factors of 10 stupider than I already am to enter into a conversation with you about that. And in Hell, to boot.
You said here, "I am a pompous ass, but I have a solid track record of taking criticism on board. IngoB has no such record." So you have made a personal claim about yourself in Hell, and you made it explicitly in comparison with me. It's not like I am somehow trying to trick you into making such an assertion; rather you have made it without my prompting, and I can now reasonably ask you to back it up.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
But we have established across many pages that 1) I have no intention to change, since I basically do not think that the complaints are justified, and 2) there is nothing in the rules of SoF that actually would force me to change.
At this point then, I think people cannot claim that they are still bitching about me in Hell to actually achieve anything in this matter. It is simply about releasing their anger unfettered, or perhaps an attempt to extract a kind of retributive justice by making me suffer, or maybe an exercise in "us vs. him" group building. I find all of these motivations rather childish and certainly not particularly Christian.
It's Hell. There's nothing in the rules of SoF that that require us to shut up - in fact, this is exactly the place where we're supposed to express our frustrations.
And yes, I'm sure you find all this beneath you. That's also one of our frustrations.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Since he shows no sign of changing, it's hardly surprising that the complaints don't change either.
But we have established across many pages that 1) I have no intention to change, since I basically do not think that the complaints are justified, and 2) there is nothing in the rules of SoF that actually would force me to change.
At this point then, I think people cannot claim that they are still bitching about me in Hell to actually achieve anything in this matter. It is simply about releasing their anger unfettered, or perhaps an attempt to extract a kind of retributive justice by making me suffer, or maybe an exercise in "us vs. him" group building. I find all of these motivations rather childish and certainly not particularly Christian.
Anyway, fine. Are we done with that yet?
A quick follow-up, if you don't mind. You've probably already mentioned this, but if so I missed it - what are your reasons for (continued) posting on this thread? (After all, as you note, it's been repetitious, you don't approve of the Hell board in general, it doesn't offer the sort of boxing/debate you prefer, and you doubt your opponents have any worthy motives for continuing...)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
If hopeless causes weren't permitted on the Ship, Ingo, we could downsize to a couple of canoes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If hopeless causes weren't permitted on the Ship, Ingo, we could downsize to a couple of canoes.
We could do that, but they would be paddled at 90 degrees to one another, so hosts would still be needed to sort out the collisions and arguments.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Another way of "winning" a debate is simply to be the last debater standing. As other posters, one by one, recognize the futility of continuing & drop out, IngoB may eventually be the cheese who stands alone.
Not that I'm holding my breath.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Another way of "winning" a debate is simply to be the last debater standing. As other posters, one by one, recognize the futility of continuing & drop out, IngoB may eventually be the cheese who stands alone.
Not that I'm holding my breath.
I actually found it interesting that in the thread that sparked this one, it was Ingo that left the debate first, and the thread died. But, perhaps it had run its course.
I can see the validity of quite a few of the criticisms of Ingo on this thread, but personally, I've found his presence to be stimulating and challenging (in a good way), even though we disagree profoundly on a whole range of issues. I do think that the boxing ring analogy highlights the biggest issue. I much prefer the discussion method than the battle method (and I think it is ultimately more fruitful), but then I also think it can do one good to go a few rounds with Ingo every now and then.
I think, Ingo, you walk a very difficult path. Your views, informed by your faith, are discomforting for many of us. I'm okay with the afterlife discussions with you (and even enjoy the jousting), but I've tended to stay away from the divorce/remarriage threads. For me, it's too personal, emotional and painful a topic to discuss in the very cerebral and theoretical way that you approach things. But I understand that it's difficult that when you have certain convictions. You tread a fine line between compromising those convictions, and causing discomfort and hurt. Of course, I'd want to challenge some of those prior convictions, but it's not always easy to do that. I see the non-intellectual parts (e.g. emotional) of the topic as an important part of the whole, rather than a distraction that should be minimised (seemingly your approach), so perhaps we're both starting from different places.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
A quick follow-up, if you don't mind. You've probably already mentioned this, but if so I missed it - what are your reasons for (continued) posting on this thread? (After all, as you note, it's been repetitious, you don't approve of the Hell board in general, it doesn't offer the sort of boxing/debate you prefer, and you doubt your opponents have any worthy motives for continuing...)
Good question, really. I thought there was a trickle of interesting stuff, like concerning the virtuality of online interactions. There were also some good clarifications on what I think I'm doing (cf. my exchanges with Kelly concerning just how "emotionless" I am), and some things that I will have to think about (in particular from LatA). But to a considerable degree it is a certainly a "last man standing" sort of thing, as Porridge suggests. I would say that there are some good motivations even behind that, i.e., I really do see a duty for me to stand and take the critique, and answer it best as I may, no matter how pointless I consider that to be. But there is certainly also an element of pride (the wrong sort) in being able to hang in there. Generally my Hell calls fade out before I have to question myself too seriously about my motives... This one is getting a bit long in the tooth though.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's not like I am somehow trying to trick you into making such an assertion; rather you have made it without my prompting, and I can now reasonably ask you to back it up.
And I reasonably told you "no fucking way." Reasonable because of who you are and how you act. Once again you fail to realize that not everything is a boxing match.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand that it's difficult that when you have certain convictions. You tread a fine line between compromising those convictions, and causing discomfort and hurt.
If only IngoB acknowledged the existence of that fine line and why it is important, and tried to tread it. Hurting people? They shouldn't be in the ring. DING! Let me at 'em.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If only IngoB acknowledged the existence of that fine line and why it is important, and tried to tread it. Hurting people? They shouldn't be in the ring. DING! Let me at 'em.
But I tread a very clear line. It is a line that for example does not allow me to make assertions without being willing to back them up. It is a line that makes me rather predictable in my behaviour more generally. And while occasionally some newcomer might be surprised about where that line runs, most people here are fully aware of its course. It is also a line that runs within the boundaries set by the Ship. So if you think that you might get hurt by what I do, and you can predict that with a fair degree of certainty because I am making myself predictable, then simply do not engage with me.
It is in my opinion hopeless to find a "fine line" for many of the opinions that I hold that will "hurt" nobody. There may be such a fine line for specific individuals, but they differ from person to person, and I talk to many people here at once. The only "fine line" that will do justice to all is to shut up. But I intend to say things. So I do it the other way around. I draw my line in the sand. Here it is, straight and clear. Step over it, and you will be in my ring. Whether that will mean too much hurt for you or not is for you to decide. If you do not think that you can take it, then do not step over it. Stay out of my ring.
My duty is to stay true to the that clear line. It would be a much better Hell call if someone took me to task for failing at what I myself think I should be doing. (Yes, that does happen.) If you really have grievances that relate to me hitting you with "low blows," then you do have a chance of getting an apology out of me for that. But not while you are attacking my general approach here, because I sincerely think that what I do there is good and right, or at the very least, licit.
[ 30. April 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I draw my line in the sand. Here it is, straight and clear. Step over it, and you will be in my ring. Whether that will mean too much hurt for you or not is for you to decide. If you do not think that you can take it, then do not step over it. Stay out of my ring.
I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that this was Simon's website, not yours. Everything is now clear, and I for one welcome our new Roman Catholic overlord. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
And unless we can be 100% sure that the Church is right about everything, then there is always a chance that we *are* affirming unkindness to no purpose.
Well, yeah, that is pretty much my case for "why I do not think the Roman Catholic Church is the fount of all goodness and knowledge". I think that if you look at the historical record of the Catholic Church it's fairly hard to say that you should buy a doctrinal used car from it, as it were. I suspect that most people on the Ship agree with me, wrt that one. Now IngoB would disagree with that particular position. I'm not sure how someone as obviously as intelligent as he is can sign up to that little lot, but, there you go, he does.
My objection to this Hell Thread is as follows:
1/ You can (and in my view should) disagree with a conservative Roman Catholic but being a conservative Roman Catholic is not an intrinsically illegitimate position. If Ingo starts a thread on how political correctness means that Catholics can no longer venerate St. Simon of Trent or some such then, by all means, lets get all Early Modern on his ass. But signing up to the Ship does not mean and ought not to mean signing up to liberal Episcopalian orthodoxy.
2/ Popularity is no guarantee of truth. In the event that a couple of dozen of Catholics of IngoB's kidney signed on to the Ship and started to make waves about how deeply offensive they found the expression of my Aff Cath opinions I would generally be inclined to tell them to get knotted. There's no reason why IngoB can't return the compliment.
Ingo's views don't float your boat, they don't float my boat, they don't float many boats - except Chesterbelloc's. So mote it be, and all that jazz, but if this place is supposed to be a forum for Christian unrest then people ought to be allowed to pop up and say - have you noticed any holes in your liberal Christian orthodoxy recently?
So, I have no problem with the complaint that IngoB's views are not kind or, more saliently right. I have a problem that we have a hell thread claiming that they are illegitimate.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My duty is to stay true to the that clear line.
Duty to whom? To God? To your fellow man? To the Catholic Church? Or to your own inflated ego?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Curious to profess strong and abiding faith and yet exhibit so few fruits of the spirit.
Catholic tradition lists 12 fruits: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.
Not much of that either.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Seriously people. Is it such a sin for someone trying to construct arguments valid for more than one person to want to base them on something not as subjective, personal, and valid for only one person as personal experience and fwuffy feelz?
No it isn't. But that really isn't what this thread is about.
As other people have said, lots of shipmates actually do that- -to great effect. The disequilibrium I get is when I sense there "is" emotion in the post-- via extra provocative word choice, or indirect name-calling, or speculations about someone's character or mental state, or whatever-- and it gets projected on the person targeted.
In Purg, understand, not here.
And implying someone doesn't actually believe his religion, or has a shallow faith, or must just be experiencing a soon-to-pass convert zeal, just because he takes his cues from something other than personal experience and sentimentality posited as a universal law, isn't an example of that?
I get what you say about Purg, though—there may be a line some people don't cross, but boy do they ever walk riiiight on the edge.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At this point then, I think people cannot claim that they are still bitching about me in Hell to actually achieve anything in this matter. It is simply about releasing their anger unfettered, or perhaps an attempt to extract a kind of retributive justice by making me suffer, or maybe an exercise in "us vs. him" group building. I find all of these motivations rather childish and certainly not particularly Christian.
Are your motives for posting in Purgatory particularly Christian? Are your motives for your choice of debating style particularly Christian?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Dear IngoB,
I wish to offer you a genuine apology for having started this Hell-call thread about you. Whatever my "issues" with you (which really do remain), it was simply wrong of me to make them material for Hell. In particular, I regret having made you a focus for Mousethief's vomit of abuse.
I wouldn't wish Mousethief's idiotic vitriol on my worst enemy ... and you, Sir, are very far from being my worst enemy.
You may decide that this apology comes too late and with insufficient depth. Nevertheless, I offer it ... and my good wishes.
"Thomas"
And, with that, I'm "gone".....
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Good grief, but you're a turd.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
The apology seems dubious. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that this was Simon's website, not yours. Everything is now clear, and I for one welcome our new Roman Catholic overlord.
I'm telling you what I will do, within the limits of what Simon (by H&A proxy) is allowing for his website. I'm precisely not telling you what you have to do, only how I will react to certain things that you might do.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Duty to whom? To God? To your fellow man? To the Catholic Church? Or to your own inflated ego?
I don't really know, to be honest. Facing those who are angry with me seems like an honourable thing to do. But I'm not sure on what grounds precisely, and I also am aware that this can become a playground of pride. Are you of the opinion that it would be better to ignore Hell calls altogether?
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Curious to profess strong and abiding faith and yet exhibit so few fruits of the spirit.
I've never claimed to be a particularly good Christian. I've also never claimed to be on my best Christian behaviour on the Ship. I have a basic grasp of RC / traditional Christian doctrine and a pretty decent mind, and I exercise those here. Because I like to. That's all.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Are your motives for posting in Purgatory particularly Christian? Are your motives for your choice of debating style particularly Christian?
Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that one has to be a Christian to judge much of the ado here to be childish and/or mean-spirited.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
In particular, I regret having made you a focus for Mousethief's vomit of abuse.
Your Hell call may be an occasion, but certainly is not a leading cause, for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
You may decide that this apology comes too late and with insufficient depth.
I'm not picky, and we are good.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I've never claimed to be a particularly good Christian. I've also never claimed to be on my best Christian behaviour on the Ship. I have a basic grasp of RC / traditional Christian doctrine and a pretty decent mind, and I exercise those here. Because I like to. That's all.
And this is where the confusion lies.
We tend to think that action follows beliefs - but it doesn't necessarily.
I think that's why there are ten pages to this thread. We are talking about the God of goodness, kindness and truth - so we kind of expect to see a little from his followers too - especially the really ardent followers! That is pretty unfair, I know - but very understandable human all the same.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Bingo Bingo'd: quote:
I consider it important to retain a level of emotional control and to stick to formal rules of engagement. This does not mean that I'm some kind of intellectual robot.
That's kind of been my contention from the start- rather than an emotional robot, I sense a person who is clamping down on their emotions because they get pretty volatile.
"retaining a level of emotional control" is walking away from the keyboard until you actually do feel calm and rational. Or simply stating the emotional reaction in an appropriate way. (That comment was insulting/ provocative/ hurtful/ disgusting to me, and here is why.)
Either one of the techniques above is how most people handle the fact that they are emotional beings while still maintaining conversational decorum. My sense is you have become really good at recrafting bursts of emotion into rhetoric speak, lashing out in ways that only just fall short of C3, and letting other do the reacting for you.
And them sneering at them for having the same emotions you do. This is the bit that is particularly unfair. Why should anyone try to open themselves up to someone else's point of view when opening up most likely would just provide that person with access to a whole lot more buttons to push? There HAS to be a return of respect-- and evidence of listening-- for the conversation to continue.
Just to kind of attempt to send the message that I am on your side, I will point out something-- mousethief is someone I consider one of my closest friends on the Ship-- mostly because we have weathered so many stupid arguments together, with equal fault on both sides--- and I am pretty sure I have complained about sensing a similar dynamic coming from him. And his claim that he has a "solid record of taking criticism on board" has to be amended with "after a week or so of letting it sink in." (IME)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Good grief, but you're a turd.
Agreed. I kind of liked some of the stuff he said when he first came on board, but what a chest-beating dork he is turning out to be.
(RE: Dubious Thomas)
[ 30. April 2014, 18:29: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Insightful, or what, Kelly. That phrase, 'letting others do the reacting for you', sounds right. It's some kind of relation between being hurt and being sarcastic or cutting, so that others feel the hurt, and you don't. I'm trying to think of a fancy name for it (apart from projection), but no need.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Munchausen syndrom by proxy for the internet.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
No, we had one of those, and they are a lot more scary than Bingo.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Sorry, Kelly. I forgot to attach an emoticon.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And [mousethief's] claim that he has a "solid record of taking criticism on board" has to be amended with "after a week or so of letting it sink in." (IME)
That seems fair. Maybe even a little over-generous.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I wouldn't wish Mousethief's idiotic vitriol on my worst enemy ... and you, Sir, are very far from being my worst enemy.
This from the man who called me a hysterial Nazi for disagreeing with him about the State of Israel. Consider the source.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And [mousethief's] claim that he has a "solid record of taking criticism on board" has to be amended with "after a week or so of letting it sink in." (IME)
That seems fair. Maybe even a little over-generous.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) The bottom line is that it does eventually sink in. (IME)
I think a lot of us are that way, though.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<part about mousethief deleted, due to his nice response as crosspost>
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Either one of the techniques above is how most people handle the fact that they are emotional beings while still maintaining conversational decorum. My sense is you have become really good at recrafting bursts of emotion into rhetoric speak, lashing out in ways that only just fall short of C3, and letting other do the reacting for you.
And my sense is that you are taking a rather one-sided view there of the exchanges that actually do happen. First, I manage to post quite a lot without being anywhere near a C3 violation. Second, while it is weirdly flattering to suddenly be considered as a highly skilled manipulator of people with nefarious aims, that simply is nonsense. On some topics (and indeed, with some people) things tend to get more heated, and I do go along with that rather than pulling back. That's perhaps bad enough, but a rather far cry from me being an über-ninja-troll. If I'm getting blamed now for people beating on me, because supposedly I goaded them into being nasty just so I could be nasty in return, then really there is nothing left to say but "wow."
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And them sneering at them for having the same emotions you do. This is the bit that is particularly unfair. Why should anyone try to open themselves up to someone else's point of view when opening up most likely would just provide that person with access to a whole lot more buttons to push? There HAS to be a return of respect-- and evidence of listening-- for the conversation to continue.
Once more, I consider this to be simply an unfair characterisation. It is just not the case that I run around all the time sneering at people for their emotions, whether they are like mine or not. I'm mostly busy contending propositions, not telling people that they should suppress their emotions. Certainly I have said here a thing or two about how people should stop whining about not getting their emotional needs catered to by me. But this is me getting called to Hell, this is not me calling other people to Hell over their emotions, or for that matter for powering their arguments emotionally.
And I call bullshit on the suggestion that I do not listen or have no respect for other Shipmates. I can only assume that this notion derives from the idea that listening means agreeing and respecting means accepting as true / good / beautiful. But for me, it is simply the case that I do not agree with many things people say here, and I often do not accept as true / good / beautiful where they are at. However, I very carefully listen to what people have to say and often spend a lot of time in adapting my response accordingly. Furthermore, I try to give due consideration to all responses, even where I'm getting absolutely swamped with them. That in my eyes is showing them respect.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Just to kind of attempt to send the message that I am on your side
It is difficult to imagine how you could fail even more at that ...
[ 30. April 2014, 20:32: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
