removed by Alan

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Alan McDougall
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:42 am
@xris,
xris;143020 wrote:
Alan is your view of god open to scrutiny, with respect? It appears to be a statement of facts rather than an open debate on possibilities.Your friend Xris..


Respectfully xris I don't have a God that god I wrote about is the result of a lively imagination, why people get so hot under the collar about it perplexes me. What I wrote could be my version of Genesis chapter 1
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:44 am
@Twirlip,
Don't worry about it Twirl I retract all previous posts in a totally Emotionally non- manipulative manner. This isn't worth fighting about.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:46 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;142853 wrote:
the holy ghost chain rattling comment is still disingenuous emotional manipulation

As I understand it, "emotional manipulation" means something like taking advantage of people's better nature by acting the part of a victim when one has not in fact been victimised. How do you understand the term, and how do you make out that I have been manipulating anybody?

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 03:47 PM ----------

Alan McDougall;143036 wrote:
Respectfully xris I don't have a God that god I wrote about is the result of a lively imagination, why people get so hot under the collar about it perplexes me. What I wrote could be my version of Genesis chapter 1

No-one got hot under the collar about it. I made fun of it. There is a difference.

A piece of creative writing does not become exempt from criticism, or even from mockery, just because its topic is religious.

Of course, a piece of writing should not be criticised or mocked just because its topic is religious.

But that is a completely different point, and the difference between these two points is a simple point of logic.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:55 am
@Alan McDougall,
Ugh:

Alan McDougall;142840 wrote:
This is how I perceive God

back before anything was conceived , I was "infinite pure "mind" and "thought"



I am the boundless Mind, Original Self-Awareness the cause of everything, relative to nothing I am "This" I am "That" I "Was" and I "Am" and I always will "Be" I am "Eternal Awareness" I am "Every Where" I know "Everything" I am
"Everywhen" I am the "Ever Existing One"


This is a metaphysical question/ and a philosophy of mind question of ulimate self awareness, even if the post relates it to "God's" awareness how is this question only limited to a religious forum

Alan McDougall;142840 wrote:

I am the Prime Mover and there was no proponent to my "First Cause". I am the "Immovable Rock" and the" Alpha point". I took these first numbers and weaved them into the fabric of the reality, creating all the limitless universes on the infinite timeless foam of nothing, which now makes all up existence. Indeed, I am the Almighty One. If you are, wise.


This is a cosmological question of primary cause.

[QUOTE=Alan McDougall;142840]
I am mystery and all mystery is mine to reveal when I open the book of minds

I AM the Ceaseless Creator of all things

I AM LIGHT

I AM LOVE

I AM LIFE[/QUOTE]

The first person presentation, although intimated that God is speaking is also a valid existential series of statements.

Ugh: Simply because it has God in the title does not relegate it to religious only forum sections, and I have always wondered why people are so keen to drop the religion out of philosophy considering for 1200 or so years the primary philosophers we have on record were religious scholars. they although being monks, priests, imams, yogis, and whatnot were also concerned with many non-religious and time honored philosophical pursuits.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:55 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;143038 wrote:
Don't worry about it Twirl I retract all previous posts in a totally Emotionally non- manipulative manner. This isn't worth fighting about.

I see you have now removed your post #12 (which accused me of posting in a way which was not genuine), and replaced it at 3:44 p.m. today with something like "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".

This is trolling.
 
wayne
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:56 am
@Alan McDougall,
Twirlip,
I guess Iwas reading something into it that wasn't there. I have since read you're bio and understand your position much better. I also lied, I do understand why people do that ,I was once very offended by the mention of god. But have since developed a different understanding of the difference between god and religion.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:03 am
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;143044 wrote:
I see you have now removed your post #12 (which accused me of posting in a way which was not genuine), and replaced it at 3:44 p.m. today with something like "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".

This is trolling.

GoshisDead has now also removed and replaced his post #10, the editing having occurred at 3:45 p.m. today (GMT).

Ditto post #7.

Here is the original text of GoshisDead's post #7:
Quote:
Why should you be hopping mad? Doesn't one transparent emotional manipulation deserve another?
Here is the original text of GoshisDead's post #10:
Quote:
Twirl:
I was refering to your comments on the Holy Ghost. Unless the OP said something specifically like "I dare you to take a sacred thing and make fun of it" your comment was also transparent emotional manipulation aimed at making a certain segment of the population feel uncomfortable and/or stupid. Like i said above one trans... blah balh deserves blah blah.
Here is the original text of GoshisDead's post #12:
Quote:
Oh i wasn't and am not offended by what you said, I just wonder why you would be upset at someone pulling a post when yourpost was not genuine itself
The editing facility of these forums is being abused by two posters to this thread in order to rewrite history and inflame controversy.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:08 am
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;143039 wrote:
As I understand it, "emotional manipulation" means something like taking advantage of people's better nature by acting the part of a victim when one has not in fact been victimised. How do you understand the term, and how do you make out that I have been manipulating anybody?

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 03:47 PM ----------


No-one got hot under the collar about it. I made fun of it. There is a difference.

A piece of creative writing does not become exempt from criticism, or even from mockery, just because its topic is religious.

Of course, a piece of writing should not be criticised or mocked just because its topic is religious.

But that is a completely different point, and the difference between these two points is a simple point of logic.



As I understand it emotional manipulation is any sort of action intended to manipulate the emotions. Mockery, and sarcasm are included. Is not mockery an outright attempt to expose the stupidity of that being mocked? Is not mockery an outright attempt to make the person being mocked feel bad? in mocking the emotions have been manipulated.

As to the point of mocking being valid commentary, this depends on the venue. It is generally expected here that if someone disagrees with a post they will lay out the reasons why they disagree with the post. I may be wrong but I have assumed that outright mockery of a post was a forum faux pas.

This would have been a faux pas no matter the subject matter of the OP. Religion should not be exempt from criticism. My issue is with the presentation and maintaing of decorum in the forum. In fact I thought the Holy Ghost post was inventive and entertaining especially the reference to capital letters. That was a stroke of comic intuition, however was it appropriate to mock a forum member and his/her possible beliefs outright?

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 09:08 AM ----------

ha I guess i retract my previous retractions, It was worth fighting about.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:08 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;143043 wrote:
This is a metaphysical question/ and a philosophy of mind question of ulimate self awareness, even if the post relates it to "God's" awareness
No it's not, it's a set of bizarre assertions that dont appear to convey anything lucid.
GoshisDead;143043 wrote:
This is a cosmological question of primary cause.
No, it's another assertion written in some kind of acid-flash style of incomprehensible gobble-de-gook.
GoshisDead;143043 wrote:
The first person presentation, although intimated that God is speaking is also a valid existential series of statements.
It's pure rubbish, and this guy's habit of posting this crap, almost daily, is quite irritating.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:16 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;143054 wrote:
As I understand it emotional manipulation is any sort of action intended to manipulate the emotions. Mockery, and sarcasm are included.

If that's your definition (which I do not think accords with how anyone else uses the phrase), then the OP falls squarely under it, by adopting the very voice of God and trying to inspire awe, therefore it fully deserved to be deflated, by your own (specious) criteria.

Here are the first two hits delivered by Google:
Psychological manipulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spotting Emotional Manipulation
If you have contrary and better references, let's see them.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:50 am
@Alan McDougall,
Quote:




Many of us don't recognize manipulation when it occurs, mainly because manipulation violates our basic assumptions about how people should behave. We simply don't expect it. Manipulators engage in "covert aggression." They hide their anger toward the world in subtle ways and gain power over us in ways that are not obvious.
- We may sense, however, that we are on the defensive in their presence - and this serves as our first clue. We feel somehow that they are trying to overpower us.
Emotional manipulators are experts at playing on your emotions. If they sense that you respond easily to guilt, then they will try to make you feel guilty ("I feel embarrassed for you when you play with Dora's kids as if they were your own - and it's all because you've never had children"). Manipulators also play on our sympathy by playing the role of victim ("All I do is work, work, work - You'll be sorry when I have a heart attack"). Or they might blame you for your anger, even though they have induced it ("Look, you're the one who can't control your emotions, not me"). Emotional manipulators have difficulty in expressing their desires or emotions directly, but by playing on the emotions of other people they covertly get their way.


Many of us don't recognize manipulation when it occurs, mainly because manipulation violates our basic assumptions about how people should behave. We simply don't expect it. Manipulators engage in "covert aggression." They hide their anger toward the world in subtle ways and gain power over us in ways that are not obvious.

- We may sense, however, that we are on the defensive in their presence - and this serves as our first clue. We feel somehow that they are trying to overpower us.
- They come across as caring, hurting, defending, vulnerable - almost anything but fighting - and these tactics obscure their real motives. You might pay attention to your need to take care of them, but you don't recognize that they are trying to take advantage of you. "I care so much about you and now I've twisted my ankle. Can't you give up your afternoon to drive me around?"
They negate what you say by outdoing you. If you want to talk about what a rough day you've had, they'll come back with an account of their exceedingly brutal day, which makes your experience look like a day in the park. "Well, if you think that's bad, listen to what I've been through today." They bring attention back to themselves so that you find it difficult to feel any degree of validation. This is how emotional manipulators distance themselves from you and gain the upper hand. They lack the ability to relate to others with healthy boundaries and maturity.

Spotting Emotional Manipulation
Emotional Manipulation : Drfibus.com


It seems to me that "I'm mocking you but its all in the name of humor" and " by adopting the very voice of God and trying to inspire awe, therefore it fully deserved to be deflated, by your own (specious) criteria" as the excuse for the mocking fall directly under 'violate assumptions about how people should behave in a sitiation, and puts people underservedly on on the offensive with the feeling the manipulator is trying to overpower them'

Quote:
http://www.mentalabuse.org/images/public.gif

http://www.mentalabuse.org/home.asp
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 11:06 am
@GoshisDead,
Ignoring the manipulation performed by Alan when he pulled the OP, blaming this move on my "silly response" (which was the occasion for my original use of the term "emotional manipulation"):

Ignoring also the even worse manipulation performed by Alan when he then calculatingly replaced the OP with a doctored version (I had anticipated this, as the most obvious likely next move in the game of a manipulator, but it still shocked me when he actually sank so low as to do it, and when you instantly played along with him so eagerly - although you may honestly have been taken in by it, as it is hard not to be when the OP is not in view):

Ignoring your own manipulations, including pulling and replacing several of your own posts in the same manner as Alan, a move transparently calculated to annoy me, and to further muddy the waters:

And ignoring the fact that both you and Alan will shortly be on my Ignore List, because I have better things to do than play your silly games:

And just, for one post at least, attending solely to your disingenuous allegation that my initial response to the OP was itself an instance of "emotional manipulation":

I have no doubt that my post #2 violated Alan's assumptions as to how we should all respond to his (original) post #1.

The question is whether #2 as a response to the original post #1 violates reasonable expectations as to how we engage in a dialogue with one another on these forums.

That question cannot be judged without the original post #1 being in evidence, and I will not debate it at length, certainly not with you, because you have done anything but demonstrate good faith.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 12:00 pm
@Twirlip,
You know, this forum has been helpful to me in a lot of ways. I've learned how much more there is to philosophy than I realized. Plus there are a lot of fascinating people on this forum.

You can't sharpen a knife in mid-air. This forum is a good stone. Plenty of times I've posted things I later realized were pretty stupid.

So as the dude in Fight Club says: part of the path to enlightenment is learning to let that which does not matter... truly slide.

You can't fake that though. You have to look at why something was bothersome... why it's important. Name it and see it. As the Buddhist says:

See, but act
Grow, but stand firm
Love, if only to grieve
And lose nothing
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 12:23 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;143106 wrote:
part of the path to enlightenment is learning to let that which does not matter... truly slide.

You can't fake that though. You have to look at why something was bothersome... why it's important. Name it and see it.

Fine. I have never said that either the original post #1, or my response #2, or my response #3 to Alan's removal of the original post #1, matters.

I did not get angry, or in any other way emotionally worked up, over any of these four things (and I am extremely tired of having to explain that).

What has got me emotionally worked up is being repeatedly accused of being unreasonable, intolerant, bigoted, and even abusive, when not one single poster other than myself has said a single word about the fact that two posters to this thread have deliberately, consciously, and calculatingly altered the public record of the conversation, in such a way as to induce well-meaning people to blame me for some sort of non-existent religious bigotry, and other offences against reason and decent behaviour, when it is this deliberate fabrication of the public record and this alone which has all along been the cause of my anger.

Now, are you prepared, or is anyone else prepared, to say that such deliberate fabrication of the public record "does not matter"?

If so, then I'm out of here, because this cannot be a healthy forum, for me or for anyone else who values their sanity, or who values honesty.

To the administrator(s):

Either:

(1) bring back the original version of post #1 - in which case, I'll stand up and take any criticism which is truly coming to me for my immediate response to it, and for all my subsequent behaviour (all a matter of public record):

Or else:

(2) let this thread be permanently terminated and closed to any further posts, so that I (and everyone else) really can leave it behind.

I meant to add, but I forgot: I do not have the complete text of GoshisDead's original message #15, which he deleted and replaced with a string of dots and 'z's at 3:46 p.m. (GMT) today, but here is the part of it to which I replied (in two separate articles, #20 and #23):
Quote:
Imagine that,the OP is back up[, and] the holy ghost chain rattling comment is still disingenuous emotional manipulation
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 12:51 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;143115 wrote:
Fine. I have never said that either the original post #1, or my response #2, or my response #3 to Alan's removal of the original post #1, matters.

I did not get angry, or in any other way emotionally worked up, over any of these four things (and I am extremely tired of having to explain that).

What has got me emotionally worked up is being repeatedly accused of being unreasonable, intolerant, bigoted, and even abusive, when not one single poster other than myself has said a single word about the fact that two posters to this thread have deliberately, consciously, and calculatingly altered the public record of the conversation, in such a way as to induce well-meaning people to blame me for some sort of non-existent religious bigotry, and other offences against reason and decent behaviour, when it is this deliberate fabrication of the public record and this alone which has all along been the cause of my anger.

Now, are you prepared, or is anyone else prepared, to say that such deliberate fabrication of the public record "does not matter"?

If so, then I'm out of here, because this cannot be a healthy forum, for me or for anyone else who values their sanity, or who values honesty.

To the administrator(s):

Either:

(1) bring back the original version of post #1 - in which case, I'll stand up and take any criticism which is truly coming to me for my immediate response to it, and for all my subsequent behaviour (all a matter of public record):

Or else:

(2) let this thread be permanently terminated and closed to any further posts, so that I (and everyone else) really can leave it behind.

I meant to add, but I forgot: I do not have the complete text of GoshisDead's original message #15, which he deleted and replaced with a string of dots and 'z's at 3:46 p.m. (GMT) today, but here is the part of it to which I replied (in two separate articles, #20 and #23):
We have noted your objections and in time I will expect it will be settled but lets not get this out of hand. We are human , dont expect perfection or you will be sadly disappointed.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:14 pm
@xris,
xris;143130 wrote:
We have noted your objections and in time I will expect it will be settled but lets not get this out of hand. We are human , dont expect perfection or you will be sadly disappointed.

It is hardly expecting "perfection" to ask that at least one other observer take objective note of tendentious alterations to the public record of events in this forum.

Whether there exists a perfect Recording Angel is a question of theology, which I am not qualified to address, and am not trying to address.

What I do know is that:

We do have software for retaining traces of our conversations, which appears to work almost perfectly, but which has been programmed to allow alterations to the record.

And:

In this case, these alterations have gone far beyond editorial changes (to which in general I have no objection, and which I often make myself).

And:

Even we mere human beings can attend quite truthfully (even if not perfectly truthfully) to the reality of our dealings with one another (both online and offline, and both private and public); and that dire consequences attend a failure to do so; and that so far no-one but myself has attended to the alteration of the truthful record of what has been happening in this thread.

The silence on this matter, when I have repeatedly, reasonably, and accurately drawn attention to it, is no mere "imperfection".

Anyway, do I now understand you to be informing me that some official note has been taken of the actual problem - and not just my personal "objections" - on which I note you carefully refrain from expressing any opinion of your own, even though some of the empirical evidence for my statements has in fact surely passed before your eyes, while you have been following the thread?
 
wayne
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:19 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;143143 wrote:
It is hardly expecting "perfection" to ask that at least one other observer take objective note of tendentious alterations to the public record of events in this forum.

Whether there exists a perfect Recording Angel is a question of theology, which I am not qualified to address, and am not trying to address.

What I do know is that:

We do have software for retaining traces of our conversations, which appears to work almost perfectly, but which has been programmed to allow alterations to the record.

And:

In this case, these alterations have gone far beyond editorial changes (to which in general I have no objection, and which I often make myself).

And:

Even we mere human beings can attend quite truthfully (even if not perfectly truthfully) to the reality of our dealings with one another (both online and offline, and both private and public); and that dire consequences attend a failure to do so; and that so far no-one but myself has attended to the alteration of the truthful record of what has been happening in this thread.

The silence on this matter, when I have repeatedly, reasonably, and accurately drawn attention to it, is no mere "imperfection".

Anyway, do I now understand you to be informing me that some official note has been taken of the actual problem - and not just my personal "objections" - on which I note you carefully refrain from expressing any opinion of your own, even though some of the empirical evidence for my statements has in fact surely passed before your eyes, while you have been following the thread?


I hope to reserve the right to change my mind and my misstatements.
Must we humiliate by forcing people to eat their words publicly. :Glasses:
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:31 pm
@wayne,
Quote:
Must we humiliate by forcing people to eat their words publicly.
If (if!!!) it comes to a choice between that and me being held guilty of religious bigotry by a kangaroo court in the absence of evidence: then yes, Alan must eat his words.

But it is not a matter of expecting Alan to disavow anything he wrote in the original post #1.

(How many times must I patiently explain that that is not the issue?)

Even less is it a matter of anyone trying to "humiliate" Alan.

But we are answerable for our words in public. Do you disagree? Does anyone?

An attempt to evade such responsibility may be forgivable - but not if it means that someone else (me!) is pilloried for their words in response.

I'll take justice (even if I'm the one who ends up being found the villain in a fair trial), but not this absurdity, not this Orwellian rewriting of history.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 07:35 PM ----------

wayne;143146 wrote:
I hope to reserve the right to change my mind and my misstatements.

Of course, that's what dialogue is all about! This is so crucial!

But changing one's mind (who hasn't? - Plato, Wittgenstein, Russell, over and over again - we're all in good company there) and correcting one's misstatements is not the same as rewriting history, not the same as denial that one ever said what one said before.

It's even arguable that God has been known to change His mind!
 
wayne
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:38 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;143150 wrote:
If (if!!!) it comes to a choice between that and me being held guilty of religious bigotry by a kangaroo court in the absence of evidence: then yes, Alan must eat his words.

But it is not a matter of expecting Alan to disavow anything he wrote in the original post #1.

(How many times must I patiently explain that that is not the issue?)

Even less is it a matter of anyone trying to "humiliate" Alan.

But we are answerable for our words in public. Do you disagree? Does anyone?

An attempt to evade such responsibility may be forgivable - but not if it means that someone else (me!) is pilloried for their words in response.

I'll take justice (even if I'm the one who ends up being found the villain in a fair trial), but not this absurdity, not this Orwellian rewriting of history.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 07:35 PM ----------


Of course, that's what dialogue is all about! This is so crucial!

But changing one's mind (who hasn't? - Plato, Wittgenstein, Russell, over and over again - we're all in good company there) and correcting one's misstatements is not the same as rewriting history, not the same as denial that one ever said what one said before.


I am agreed, Alan should speak rather than imply his retraction
 
Khethil
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:07 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;142444 wrote:
This is how I perceive God

There is no cause to my existence I simply "was", "were"...


Thanks Alan,

You know, I'd like to respond, but I haven't anything in common with what you've shared. I am curious to know - to feel - what it'd be like to see things like this, but it is completely outside my understanding.

Congrats on your faith and kudos on your sharing.

Thanks
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:56:28