This user has been banned.
There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin,
I thought the Shroud of Turin was proven to be not old enough, via carbon dating?
I have been wanting the ability to create polls Is this feature by any chance in the works?
I believe so - it’s either being considered by Jay - or is on his list of things to do.
ah good 😃
Re an ‘ignore’ feature? I don’t know for sure - yet don’t think it’s being considered. Personally, I hope not, anyway.
Oh well.
There is always the option to scroll past posts from members you may not wish to view.
The ignore function would work better for me than just trying to scroll past posts.
It would be nice if Jay or the mods would comment here.
I shall leave to you the last word on this subject, as your thoughtful responses generally provide some fairly interesting insights which bear reasonable consideration…
I wish I had something intelligent and thoughtful to say on the subject to end this, but I don’t. I sucked at handling bullies when I was kid and still do.
They’re not wrong though.
opinion ^
You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.
If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.
Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.
At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered.
ditto.
Then pay someone bigger to bloody them.
what kid would have the money to do that?
You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.
If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.
Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.
At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered.
ditto.
deleted.
They were pretty one-sided disputes.
It is rare that disputes are one-sided.
And bullies can be pitied.
In can be difficult to pity the bully that is bulling you.
Some of them have really shitty lives, which is sometimes why they end up becoming bullies.
It is not the fault of the bullied that the bullies have really shitty lives.
Plus, kids are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing.
Hence why we have adults to teach them when they do wrong.
It’s best to not hold too much against them.
true, but sometimes what they do can have lasting effects.
The only way to stop a bully is to violently assault the bully.
No, there are other ways. Maybe the strategy Post Praetorian suggests could be employed by those capable of doing it, but not all are good at it. Another way is for those in legitimate authority to stop them(legitimate punishment, etc).
Just one problem: it’s 2018.
Come on man.
What? I was just joking along with Sluggo.
No one can tell when you’re joking.
Sorry.
It also didn’t resemble a joke.
If you say so.
Hi Post Praetorian!
Hello, my dear Warbler…it is good to see you are still an important fixture in these parts…!
I don’t think many consider me an important fixture in these parts anymore. There have been … disputes which have caused my absence for bit. I have recently returned. I don’t know how long I will remain.
It would seem, on the whole, that the longer one allows words to retain negative power, the less progress society seemingly has made in overcoming its past…or, from another view, is not the continued giving to an opponent the absolute power of knowing precisely which words will reduce one to emotional ruin necessarily providing said rival unnecessary strength and credibility at each outcry of its usage? For imagine an instance in which an American at large might be considered to be so emotionally slain by use of some specific epithet (Yankee, or perhaps more considerately phrased as the “Y” word, for instance) that it assumes an overwhelming and unjustifiable weight: would such a society truly be ameliorated by encouraging each successive generation to yet quail at the very nearness of the word so that an opposing nation might use it with impunity and redundancy to detrimental effect? Or might it not be an improved situation to teach, instead of fear, horror, and outrage of the word, the patent absurdity of reacting in any given fashion to any mere arrangement of letters…? For most certainly a word may retain emotional weight, but how is it best to deprive it of same? Is it to encourage all to view it at its greatest weight…consistently and repeatedly underlining its ability to wound and cause irreparable harm…? Or is it perhaps an improvement to strive at all turns to instead merely trivialize those who might consider it to be yet potent in light of today’s more reasonable era?
I’d be interested in hearing you say this to the NAACP and the ensuing conversation.
If said organization is comprised of reasonable individuals with a true aim of overcoming perpetual victim-hood, then would not any such possible conversation be received in a generally positive light?
I don’t think it would be received in a positive light by the NAACP.
To clarify, if a word were to be used against my children that appeared to cause them abject misery due to its ability to recall to them their cultural suffering at the hands of some previous power, it would seem to me to be bad policy to encourage them to feel outrage and to stagger into the field of battle,
If you ask me, it is bad policy for someone to deliberately use a word with the intent of causing them abject misery due the word’s ability to recall cultural suffering.
Is it not equally bad policy for one to steal…?
yes.
And yet who among us would then consider the individual who has left his key in his front door on successive evenings in order to save time to be truly wise?
Somehow, I can’t equate leaving the key in the door with considering the n-word insulting.
Words hurt. We can pretend they don’t, sometimes that may be a good strategy(and some aren’t as good playing it as others), but words can still hurt.
For while it is fair to condemn the aggressor, do not forget that the one over whom one actually has reasonable control is oneself in a general sense. The advice is provided in order to alleviate the potential for shots fired to find their mark…for is not a soldier who is given armour in a better position to resist the piercing of an arrow than is one given only the advice to shout repeatedly at the enemy to cease firing…?
One can condemn the aggressor and give the advice you suggest.
One can give the soldier armor and give the soldier a gun to shoot the guy firing at him.
already so wounded, demanding an apology (thereby greatly exaggerating the hurt being afflicted and thereby delivering themselves directly into the power of the bully at hand)
I see nothing wrong with demanding an apology from someone that tries to insult you(to be clear, I am not saying that is was the guy from netflix did).
Which is the stronger position:
To demand an apology by admitting what was said was indeed hurtful, explaining both the depth of the wound and its long-lasting effect?
Or to look up in amusement/surprise/disappointment at the would-be assailant and shake one’s head at the futility of the attack?
I don’t know, maybe #2 but I still think the person is entitled to an apology.
In which instance has the assailant most properly landed his attack? In which instance does the victim remain so? In which instance has the assailant been affirmed in his/her position of strength? In which instance have all other would-be assailants learned any form of lesson?
Sometimes assailants can learn from being punished.
…it would seem instead a more plausible escape from the past to derail the significance of the word itself and to teach my children to laugh at each and every instance of same…stripping it of its power, removing any desire for an opponent to use it for fear that they will merely be laughed at and labeled a fool rather than being labeled a victor over another’s emotional stability…
I also think the bully/name caller should be taught a lesson too.
Agreed…yet what should that lesson properly contain? Is the bully to be affirmed in his position of dominance?
If I had had the ability, I would have kicked the bullies’ asses. If I had been able to do, I don’t think they would have been able to maintain a position of dominance afterwards.
Or is he to be instead ridiculed for his provable lack of power?
I sucked at trying the strategy you suggest.
For in an instance in which a bully might truly hate enough to call out a racial slur, expecting a given reaction and thereby reaffirming his sense of dominance, in which instance is his supposed superiority more clearly underlined? In a situation in which his words wound, or in one in which they fall flat?
What about a situation where the bully gets his teeth broken? What about a situation where those in the authority properly punish the bully?
I get kind of upset when we concentrate on how the bullied should react to the bully and as opposed to how the bully should have acted in the first place. To be clear I get upset, because I was once the bullied and instead of just simply stopping the bullies the punishing them, it seems like they wanted to concentrate more on how I reacted to them.
It is understood that those who have been bullied would have the experience and qualification to offer true empathy to any other perceived victims…yet if one knew that a bully thrived on achieving a given reaction from his victims, would one not at least caution them to avoid providing that off which their oppressor is logically feeding?
Sure one could caution the bullied, but one can all punish the bully(or kick his ass)
For even though a response from all by-standers to act in support of the victims by turning bully to the bully at each perceived instance is indeed one measure of a solution, is not an improved version one in which the victims themselves simply cease to be so permanently…?
Like I said, I sucked at ceasing on my own. And again words hurt.
For me the only way the bullying would have stopped if the adults around me had stopped the bullies.
For in which instance is the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious? The one in which the victims might yet act wounded and defeated, whilst outwardly protected by their allies…or the one in which they might find the bully to be merely an object of pity rather than that of oppression?
I’d prefer not to be the Star Wars web site that achieves notoriety for its members’ open use of that word, especially given the current climate. I also don’t want our site to trigger workplace content filters or get cached in search engine results with that content.
Please refrain from using it in the future. We have a pretty lax policy regarding “bad words” here, but sometimes decorum takes precedence over freedom of speech.
You’re just putting the kibosh on saying the word outright, correct? The discussion we are having is still okay right? and saying “n-word” and “n_____” is okay right?
Saying the “n-word” instead of n_____ when you’re referring to the word is childish and pathetic.
If you say so.
Just one problem: it’s 2018.
Come on man.
What? I was just joking along with Sluggo.
Hi Post Praetorian!
That is a subject that upsets me a lot. I don’t believe in censoring things in context, when it is obvious the context is someone saying what a thing is, not actually “saying” it themselves.
If I hear that someone called someone else a ‘n_____’, and I talk about the incident, I don’t say, “Oh my god, he called that guy an n-word!” No, I say it full out. It’s stupid and dishonest to do otherwise.
Why? Why do you have to say the full word? Why is it dishonest to say “he called that guy an n-word”? Everyone knows what you mean by “n-wood”
It reminds me a lot of when Anthony Scaramucci was recorded saying that Steve Bannon sucks his own cock, and then in all the news reporting about it, the reporters tripped all over themselves to avoid saying the word ‘cock’, using all kinds of absurd euphemisms and unclear language so they wouldn’t have to actually repeat it. It was laughably stupid and pathetic to witness. Either repeat the full quote, or only make a reference to offensive language having been used; don’t do this idiotic dance of trying to have it both ways. Just make it clear what the context is, so the use of the word can’t be willfully misunderstood.
If you just say “he used offensive language”, it leaves things unclear. People may interpret that to mean he used a racial slur or something. “offensive language” can mean a whole lot of different things. Saying “he used an offensive word for the male anatomy” or something like that is much more precise. As for why not to say the word outright, there are times and where it is widely accepted that you do not curse or at least watch your language. There are times when kids could be watching. Some people when listening to the news, don’t want to hear the bad language like “cock”.
In case it isn’t already clear, I absolutely do not condone the use of the word ‘n_____’ in any context other than discussing its use by racists.
What about saying it when playing a racist character, in something like Roots?
It would seem, on the whole, that the longer one allows words to retain negative power, the less progress society seemingly has made in overcoming its past…or, from another view, is not the continued giving to an opponent the absolute power of knowing precisely which words will reduce one to emotional ruin necessarily providing said rival unnecessary strength and credibility at each outcry of its usage? For imagine an instance in which an American at large might be considered to be so emotionally slain by use of some specific epithet (Yankee, or perhaps more considerately phrased as the “Y” word, for instance) that it assumes an overwhelming and unjustifiable weight: would such a society truly be ameliorated by encouraging each successive generation to yet quail at the very nearness of the word so that an opposing nation might use it with impunity and redundancy to detrimental effect? Or might it not be an improved situation to teach, instead of fear, horror, and outrage of the word, the patent absurdity of reacting in any given fashion to any mere arrangement of letters…? For most certainly a word may retain emotional weight, but how is it best to deprive it of same? Is it to encourage all to view it at its greatest weight…consistently and repeatedly underlining its ability to wound and cause irreparable harm…? Or is it perhaps an improvement to strive at all turns to instead merely trivialize those who might consider it to be yet potent in light of today’s more reasonable era?
I’d be interested in hearing you say this to the NAACP and the ensuing conversation.
To clarify, if a word were to be used against my children that appeared to cause them abject misery due to its ability to recall to them their cultural suffering at the hands of some previous power, it would seem to me to be bad policy to encourage them to feel outrage and to stagger into the field of battle,
If you ask me, it is bad policy for someone to deliberately use a word with the intent of causing them abject misery due the word’s ability to recall cultural suffering.
already so wounded, demanding an apology (thereby greatly exaggerating the hurt being afflicted and thereby delivering themselves directly into the power of the bully at hand)
I see nothing wrong with demanding an apology from someone that tries to insult you(to be clear, I am not saying that is was the guy from netflix did).
…it would seem instead a more plausible escape from the past to derail the significance of the word itself and to teach my children to laugh at each and every instance of same…stripping it of its power, removing any desire for an opponent to use it for fear that they will merely be laughed at and labeled a fool rather than being labeled a victor over another’s emotional stability…
I also think the bully/name caller should be taught a lesson too.
I get kind of upset when we concentrate on how the bullied should react to the bully and as opposed to how the bully should have acted in the first place. To be clear I get upset, because I was once the bullied and instead of just simply stopping the bullies the punishing them, it seems like they wanted to concentrate more on how I reacted to them.
I take it that instead of saying “n-word”, he said the word full out. Yeah, that is a no,no.
I will say I take issue with the article saying you shouldn’t say the n-word when reading from a script. Is it now wrong to have movie, plays, etc depicting racists saying the n-word? Are we know going to say all the white actors in Roots were racist cause they said the n-word when playing their parts?
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that abortion is not a huge and controversial issue, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
Ok, I am going to re-word this to make crystal clear what I meabnt here.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
I don’t even know how to respond to this. 1+1=2 is an empirical fact. “Immigration is a problem” and “abortion is a problem” are not empirical facts, they’re opinions.
Aaaactually, you cannot
oroveprove that 1+1=2. It is an axiom. And 1+1 isn’t always 2, in binary it’s 10.
*sigh* I meant in base 10.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal NewmanSomehow I doubt that.
Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.
-.-
By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.
Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.
As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.
So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.Apologies if I’m coming across as disdainful. That’s the trouble with Internet debating. A lot comes across in your words that you don’t intend to.
No, I’m not disdainful, nor do I think badly of you guys in any way. I simply feel strongly about what I believe and am trying to figure out why you guys believe what you do and why you think it’s justified. I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.
I’m itching to respond to the points you brought up in your edit, but I also don’t want to antagonize you. However, if you’re willing to debate a bit, let me know.
Just keep in mind we feel strongly in what we believe as well.
Pretty sure.