Does partisanship come in the way of principles?

[jym626]

<p>Oops-
Forgot my manners again.
Thanks, vyse and btm!</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Sorry, gone for several days due to DSL problems and tech support Hell, for which the CEO, president, and VP-Support are going to get blistering snail mail from me when the dust settles…one computer <em>still</em> isn’t on the household network.</p>

<p>In chron order:</p>

<p>ZM, ah good…I was hoping that you didn’t take my occasional PM as stalking.

Heck, I’ve never typed the words “oral sex” in my entire life. How 'bout that?

Well, there, now you’ve gone and done it. Having typed those words, who knows where that will lead? Probably smoking cigarettes out behind the pool hall and telling jokes from Captain Billy’s Whiz-Bang. Oh, I tell ya, ya got trouble…</p>

<p>

Well, at least we’re not beating around the bush. I’m not sure we’re actually co-religionists, are we? If you’ve been through RCIA, and been Confirmed, I’d like to welcome you to full membership in the faith.

It’s really no business of yours and in general I am extremely reluctant to bring discussion of personal religion into a political discussion, e.g., would-be ayahtollahs, except that I’ve learned to swallow and provide counterpoint when someone starts to talk about “Catholic” political positions as if we were a homegenous block. But since you are so rude and impertinent as to press the point, yes, I am a fully received member of the Catholic church. I’ve attended the same church with TheMom for more than 25 years (and TheDaughter for 21) and had vowed to not convert while JP2 was Pope, something one of my earliest catechists, a French woman who did not become an American citizen while Reagan was president, understood. As Fr. Tom, who officiated said, I certainly wasn’t hasty and, after discussing a couple of dozen personal, political, and theological issues with him, said, “I could find you a priest who would say ‘No’ but I have no problem with accepting you.” I’m not one to ever sail under false colors. Fr. Tom was one of the most authentic holy men I’ve ever known, without a scintilla of smarminess or false piety. While we were visiting him as he was dying of cancer, he said, “If one more person says something about the redemptive power of suffering, I’m going to puke.” Another priest standing nearby said, “But you’re going to puke anyway,” and Fr. Tom just smiled wanly. I hope this revelation satisfies your curiosity.

When your posts cross the line of civilized behavior i.e. “oral sex” and/or “ayatollah” I’ll point that out also. Hence, the “That’s not nice” type of comment.</p>

<p>As for your continuing tendency to tie a variety of viewpoints together, as I mentioned before, that’s generally referred to as the “Halo effect.” So if I object to being lumped in with your “ayatollahs” who are anti-BC, anti-sex education or homophobic, why should you have a problem with that? It is illogical to debate different issues as if they are one and the same.

As I remarked in my post #22, I suppose there are “moderate” and “radical” would-be ayahtollahs. Imposing one’s religious beliefs upon the public as a whole is objectionable no matter how many elements of the anti-Choice, anti-birth control, anti-fact-based sex ed, anti-teaching evolution, and anti-gay agenda are being promoted. I’ve also noted that there are many who profess to be not homophobic but are still anti-gay as far as military service, housing, and gay marriage go. (If one’s religion forbids gay marriage, one does not have to practice it or offer such a marriage but neither does one have the right to prevent those churches, clergy, and individuals who do wish to participate in same from doing so.)</p>

<p>

Finally, rationalizing coarse and vulgar commentary as being appropriate because your opponents are “Busheviks,” does not make the comments any less coarse or vulgar. In the past, you have alluded to some writing you’ve done. These kinds of comments do not improve your communication or stature as a writer. I think you can do better than that.</p>

<p>What’s the point anyway? Do you think anyone who is on the fence is persuaded to your point of view by this approach? I don’t think so.

While it’s quite endearing that you take pause to wonder if I might be more effective otherwise, tone and diction are dictated by audience and intention, neither of which I am compelled by either Geneva Conventions or CC’s TOS to share with you. Suffice to say, that I given intent and audience, I am satisfied with my own judgment on this matter.</p>

<p>

The politeness rule as espoused by some, is that a person is allowed to lie, but no one is allowed to say that’s a lie. This of course is a perfect rule for the forces of darkness; they can spread evil with no consequences to themselves.

Very true.</p>

<p>

I also do not find TheDad or ANY person here with passionately-held ideals offensive. And frankly, I do find the op just a wee bit of a ‘setup’.

Actually, LDMom, my first one-word reaction was “disingenuous.”</p>

<p>

I’ve often suspected that some posters spend so much time on CC because few people in their real lives want to interact with them.

Goodness, I don’t know if that’s aimed in my direction or not but I’ll just say that I don’t participated on CC as much as I’ve been asked to, something I feel guilty about. But between a very people-centered business, supporting not one but two local ballet companies with hours as well as dollars, still supporting the high school orchestra and acting as consiglieri on the matter of trips abroad, trying to bash out a short story now and then and currently deciding which novel to write next, I want to assure anyone who’s concerned that I have a very full life. And still feel like a slacker.

Boy, I wish I were surrounded by “like-minded” friends! Living in the bluest state in the Union, that’s just not possible. Actually, I’ve never lived in a red-state – might be interesting.

I’ve lived in Red States and it’s over-rated. You can probably get something of an effect by hanging out on NRO or RedState.org or FreeRepublic or LittleGreenFootballs for a week. Whereas I currently live in a locale where, judging by quite a few election results, I’m in the conservative half, but not most conservative quarter, of the population, an irony that amuses.

Regardless of what’s considered appropriate by the poster and/or the mods, when the opponents explicitly state that a certain expression makes them feel offended or uncomfortable, continued usage of the same expression only reinforces the assault. Those of us who work in a corporate environment are very familiar with the key concept of a sexual harassment “no means no”, meaning that any unwelcome sexually oriented conduct or verbal expressions, which has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, abusive, or offensive environment are strictly forbidden regardless of the original intent or the context.

Restating the OP doesn’t change my answers. YOUR sense of being offended is not privileged and does not trump mine and your sense of being offended does not intimidate me into silence; rather the contrary, it gets my back up. People can choose, in light of the positions I’m attacking, whether to cheer, to feel shame that they hold the positions, to be embarrassed and not change, or to sputter, be affronted, or say, “But we’re different,” as if, for example, imposing narrow sectarian Christian views on those who don’t share them were morally superior to a radical Islamist aiming for the same goal. I find many positions of the Busheviks in general and the would-be ayahtollahs in specific to create a hostile, abusive, and offensive atmosphere in their mere expression, not only to myself but to my sense of the ideals of this country. I can’t recall that I’ve ever been solicited about my offended sensibilities or received the smallest hint of an apology from such proponents and neither should anyone expect anything from me in return. </p>

<p>

TheDad and I are almost NEVER on the same page on political issues, but he has right to his opinion and a right to voice that opinion strongly if he so chooses. What one person construes as ‘mean’ another brushes off as nothing. But it’s disingenuous to give as good as one gets and then cry foul when one has had enough.

Ah, LDMom, well said. And I see that you were inspired to find the “D” word too.

I think one needs a bit of thick skin to come to this playground. If you’re going to sit and whine to the recess lady… should you be out there?

A nod of the head to TB on that one.<br>

I tend not to swim in the occasionally shark-infested political threads-- but am not surprised by the passion they evoke. Some posters are direct, some are demure.

Just so, Jym. As for me, I relate to the Colonial officer at Concord Bridge…if they want war, let it begin here. Actually, my sense ties in with something Kluge said: it’s as if the Busheviks and their supporters never thought they’d lose another election and that they could do anything they wanted, say anything they wanted, and those of us who disagreed could just stuff it. The shock of turnabout seems a little much for them and the idea that the Court of Retribution (there’s a great German word for it but I forget and I don’t have my copy of 1914 at hand) is going to exact payment seems to frighten them. See also, don’t start something you can’t finish and don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.</p>

<p>

TheDad, would you at least learn to spell your trollish buzzwords correctly please?</p>

<p>Its ayatollah, not “ayahtollah”.

Now “trollish” does seem to be a personal attack.</p>

<p>As to the other, while “ayatollah” is used more commonly in journalistic English, you will find uses of “ayahtollah” as well, including on some English-language Islamic websites. It’s the problem of transliteration from languages not using Roman-based alphabets; note, for instance, the number of spelling variants extant for the Iraqi city of “Falloujah”…particularly in the early days of the American occupation there were several. Personally, I prefer “ayahtollah” for the closer approximation, given the way I’d pronounce the two versions, to the pronunciation in Arabic as I’ve heard it. There’s also the esthetics of the typographical balance with the two h’s. And having settled upon a preference, I’m not inclined to change usage at this point.</p>

<p>You might wish to consider similar problems of transliteration from Chinese, Hindi, Russian, and Hebrew, just considering examples off the top of my head. (Just to be topical, consider Hanukkah vs. Hannukah vs. Channukkah…I favor the first for colloquial writing, the last for more formal, precise writing.)</p>

<p>Btw, it’s a fair dictum that one understand the terrain across which makes a challenge before doing so.</p>

<p>Jym #60: well I hope you found at least a couple of lines in this post to be funny.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Congratulations, thedad. Catholicism can be confusing, especially for those who have not been brought up in the faith. Here are a couple of sources that may be useful to you or to anyone interested in the Catholic Church.</p>

<p>[The</a> Teachings of the Catholic Church](<a href=“http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/index.htm]The”>http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/index.htm)
[The</a> Catholic Faith](<a href=“http://www.thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/Teachings.htm]The”>http://www.thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/Teachings.htm)
[Catechism</a> of the Catholic Church - Table of Contents](<a href=“http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm]Catechism”>http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm)</p>

<p>By the way, you are the one who brought religion into the discussion on a variety of occasions, just as you did on this thread. I find it a little hard to understand why you would join a Church whose basic position on important issues is so different from those you appear to espouse on CC, but hey, that’s your business.</p>

[ldmom06]

<h2>“As to the other, while “ayatollah” is used more commonly in journalistic English, you will find uses of “ayahtollah” as well, including on some English-language Islamic websites.”</h2>

<p>True and interesting. </p>

<p>While, on the other hand, ‘trollish’ isn’t even in my good ol’ Webster’s (which, ahem, was my point vyse. ;)) Irony.</p>

[ldmom06]

<p>sjmom - Please don’t take this as harsh criticism…it is not my intent.</p>

<p>When you question the purpose or reason or validity behind a person’s choice in church or faith, it can only offend. Personally, I am a pro-choice Missouri Synod Lutheran. Believing in choice goes against the official ‘position’ of my church, yet it is still my church. It is where I go for spiritual sustenance and I know I am welcome there. I cannot imagine a Pastor (or Priest) saying to me or anyone, “I don’t know why YOU are here…” </p>

<p>If they wouldn’t say or think it, then should we?</p>

[tommybill]

<p>sjmom2329 in post 63…… “I find it a little hard to understand why you would join a Church whose basic position on important issues is so different from those you appear to espouse”</p>

<p>Is there anything you won’t criticize others for, for doing, saying or thinking?</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>ldmom, you are right. My problem (and it really is MY problem) is that I have a hard time when Catholics publicly support positions that the Church considers to be a grave evil, like abortion. I feel that it gives people the idea that pro-choice is an acceptable position for Catholics to take. It’s not, according to Church teachings. But it is wrong of me to question anyone’s faith. And I really did mean the “congratulations” to thedad. It was my understanding, based on other posts, that he was of a different Christian denomination.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“ZM, ah good…I was hoping that you didn’t take my occasional PM as stalking.”</p>

<p>Nah. That’s not stalking. That’s conversation. The distinction isn’t the content of the posts but, rather, the relentlessness. Lying in wait to jump on every post by another poster, posting repeatedly to them despite being told you are being ignored. Coupled with other bizarre behavior like posting to yourself repeatedly on a thread that no one else is posting on, putting the same post on multiple threads. It’s a pattern, you know? You are a character but not a stalker. But I STILL can’t believe I posted the words “oral sex.” You’re right, though, that I may be headed down a slippery slope to, well, to nowhere good!</p>

[tommybill]

<p>The issue of questioning the teachings of any church or religion is as old as churches and religions.</p>

<p>Questioning teachings, secular or religious, is how mankind makes progress.</p>

[btm]

<p>I am not sure how this thread’s turned into a worldwide forum on theDad personality and life philosophy, but I certainly don’t mind; I find this very educational.</p>

<p>theDad, I’ve already explained that originally this thread was intended to dissect how people’s opinions are influenced by their political views. I find it ironic that you keep calling me disingenuous, yet just several weeks ago you’ve threatened to report the usage of a very similar term. Unfortunately, now I can’t find your post saying:

[quote]
:”call me a hypocrite one more time and I will report you to the Mods”. Should I presume that this thread was removed due to TOS violation by means of calling you a hypocrite? </p>

<p>I am not a professional writer, not even a native English speaker, but the last time I checked, the words “hypocritical” and “disingenuous” were synonyms. Not to worry, I am not going to threaten you or to report your post. I’ve also learnt from your previous post that you are not inclined to apologize for anything you’ve ever said or done. But may I borrow your own words to respond? (unfortunately, now I can’t provide a link to the exact quotation, but I’ll try my best): “feel free to think that I’ve been disingenuous and feel free to be offended by that, but don’t put any words into my mouth or any thoughts into my head.” How was that? Just to clarify, I strongly dislike this sort of response and normally I wouldn’t have chosen that, but since you strongly advocate this communication style, I feel that you’ll be more receptive to this.</p>

<p>Now, here is how I would generally respond to your post:

I find many positions of the Busheviks in general and the would-be ayahtollahs in specific to create a hostile, abusive, and offensive atmosphere in their mere expression, not only to myself but to my sense of the ideals of this country

</p>

<p>I am sorry that you spend a significant part of your life in a hostile and abusive environment. Since you find an expression of certain contrary political views personally offensive, it must be difficult for you to turn on a TV or to open a newspaper. I presume that you don’t reserve the words such as bushevick or would-be ayahtollahs exclusively for the CC forum where you are protected by the anonymity, so, I wonder, do you address people you encounter in real life with the same words under similar circumstances? Do you commonly invite people to be offended? To what extent does your philosophy applies to your professional or social circles? Do you apply the same communication standards in real life? If so, it must me a very interesting experience to carry a political conversation with you. I live in a blue state and discuss politics with many people, but, in spite of my delicate sensibilities, I’ve never felt offended by anyone in real life.</p>

[MomofWildChild]

<p>One way to surround yourself with “like-minded people” who won’t disagree with you is to start your OWN blog/message forum and only allow those on who will agree with everything you say and give you lots of kisses and hugs! That way you can say anything you like, especially those things pointed out as false by others on a more inclusive forum, with no fear of criticism or disagreement. Oh wait, has someone already done this???</p>

[kluge]

<p>More than one, apparently. Imagine that! :rolleyes:</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“give you lots of kisses and hugs!”</p>

<p>I, for one, am extremely fond of kisses and hugs in the vast majority of circumstances. The world would be a woeful place without those.</p>

[btm]

<p>MomofWildChild, thanks so much for your suggestion and support, I agree that this board could definitely use more kisses and hugs and I appreciate you sharing this concern of mine. I trust that together we can make this forum a much friendlier place for everyone, although I disagree that it requires for everyone to be like-minded. I don’t know about you, but I’ve always enjoyed diversity of opinions; this is the best way to learn and to expand your horizons. Actually, I sort of started to understand the appeal of a heated argument praised by so many posters, it does not seem so difficult and there are many examples to learn from; as I said, this thread is very educational. As a novice, I think I should start by copying the pros.</p>

[ldmom06]

<p>btm - Again, not trying to get something started… But I AM confused. I read TheDad’s statement about Busheviks and would-be Ayahtollahs and I see a general statement about the danger of extremism of ANY kind to our way of life. You see a statement about certain, specific people and read it as a personal attack. That I don’t get.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you started this thread purporting to be speaking in general terms about how we treat each other on these forums and whether common political beliefs influence that treatment; yet to anyone who has been around the block a few times, your op contained a direct jab at certain specific people. Frankly, it IS disingenuous…everyone knows exactly who you were referring to in your original post. (But hey, at least you didn’t take a thinly veiled shot at fellow poster’s child. So I guess points for that.)</p>

<p>I think you started this thread just to mix it up again with posters you don’t like. Forgive me for being plain. But I’ve had a gutful of people digging around in old postings, parsing the words of others and linking redacted comments purely for the sake of entertainment.</p>

[MomofWildChild]

<p>btm- I assume you are deliberately misconstruing what I said. If you want kisses and hugs, this isn’t the place. That’s been made clear, and my intent was not to support you. Dorothy, you aren’t in Kansas anymore!</p>

[curiousmother]

<p>Oh please…not the Kansas references again!</p>

[btm]

<p>Idmom, regardless of what theDad states, Busheviks and would-be Ayahtollahs are ALWAYS perceived as personal attacks by the posters who are addressed by these words (and, btw, I was never amongst those posters). Would you also support using the term “would-be-ayahtrollahs” as a general statement about the danger of provocative and inflammatory posts of ANY kind? As for my real world comparison, it was simply based on the TOS Courtesy rule stating: “When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone”. I have a hard time envisioning someone using these posts in a face-to-face conversation. Actually, I really like this rule and don’t find it unreasonable at all. I am sorry if I’ve made an impression that I’ve started the thread for the sake of entertainment, I don’t find this entertaining at all and I take these issues extremely seriously. However I understand how you find this discussion repugnant if you don’t see any problems with the way people treat each other on this forum. As I said, opinions differ and I do appreciate your input. And, Idmom, while we are at it, do you think that “Dorothy” is a general statement about the danger of silliness of ANY kind. (I am afraid to make the same mistake of misinterpreting a friendly post)</p>

[ldmom06]

<p>MoWC - It seems like only yesterday, when btm was throwing the following paraphrase out there…“just don’t put any words into my mouth or any thoughts into my head” …as words to live by.</p>

<p>Oh wait…</p>

[ldmom06]

<p>btm…you need to take your tos issues up with the administrator imho.</p>