Zarove, I have conversations about these topics on the Internet all the time. I do not get offended when someone disagrees with me. I get offended when they disrespect me. You cannot see how disrespectful your word choices are. Ok. I can respect that.
Can you? Bare in mind my word choices have been the same on all threads I ever post on. They seem to offend only in these threads to you.
What I can't do is talk to you at all, because your tone is constantly insulting, and just saying, "I'm not insulting you" doesn't help.
My tone is nonexistent. This is text. My tone, that voice you hear in your head when you read what I’ve written, is what you assume I sound like, not what I actually sound like, and is a very real limitation to text media like the Internet. I can quiet imagine you thinking my voice is somewhat harsher or I’m spitting out words with anger or disgust or condescension, but that’s not really the case.
I simply write in a manner you are unaccustomed to.
More on that in a moment.
Are you willing to just consider that possibly you could learn some more effective ways of communicating?
Could it be the opposite though? Perhaps its not so much that I have an inefficient method for communication, and just that you don’t really know what my method is and your expectations get in the way.
I speak with formal English, which is not in fashion these days. Still, formal English is often seen by modern minds as stilted, cold, and harsh for some reason. But I shant change it, as this is what and who I am.
You appear to think it's just fine to attribute motives to someone, and yet you dislike it when Metacrock does it to you.
That’s because the motives he attributed to me weren’t valid, not because an examination of my motives was in and of itself wrong. His goal was to undermine my argument by exposing me as some sort of sexist, which was annoying because that really wasn’t accurate. Likewise, his depiction of me as a typical Southern Male who couldn’t let women have Equality as I felt it threatened my masculinity is obviously not driving this. I’m a Bloody Englishman
. I come off as highly British, and most people online who I talk to on the phone later express surprise that I don’t speak with a formal English Accent.
I don’t have some sort of emotional issue with women’s equality. I don’t think it makes me less a man. I have a problem with violating Scripture. Worse, he attributed that motive to me n a Thread about the specific meaning of a specific Hebrew word, in which personal feelings didn’t enter into it. If my biases were shaping my study and leading me to error, then obviously speaking of my biases would be appropriate, but depicting me as something I’m not in order to win an argument is not going to be helpful.
Which brings it back to you. You obviously have a deep seated need to counter this “Quiverful” movement, and you’ve even expressed that yourself, admitting to emotional hurt as a root of your need to vindicate your claims. You speak of how I can’t understand this or that as I din’t involve myself in hat environment, am not a woman, ect… its patently obvious that your arguments have an emotional core because you’ve admitted as much yourself and are the one who introduced the emotional aspect to the debate to begin with.
Lets not forget that I’m studying Psychology so obviously peoples motives will fascinate me, and be a chief focus.
I also really don’t think your need to vindicate yourself by discrediting the “Quiverful” lot is healthy and do think it corrupts your studies and that is dangerous. One cannot show concern for this sort of thing without confronting it. So no, its not insulting you that’s the problem, its that you are uncomfortable with the charges.
I’m not so much uncomfortable with Metacrocks assessment of me, I just note that its wrong and leads to a misassessment of my arguments. How am I suppose to overcome my southern male chauvinism that tells me women’s equality makes me feel less empowered when that’s not the case with me? Its rather like the Tea partiers who think I will overcome my Monarism if only I can see the damage my Liberal beliefs will cause, even though Im not a Liberal, don’t like Obama’s policies, and am actually more conservative than they are.
But the real question I put to you is, what if I’m right and your arguments come from a personal need rather than objective study?
And that IS a concern on my end, and I can’t be nice to you and pretend that concern is not real.
I am saying that attributing motives to someone else, rather than discussing the issues, is bad manners and not conducive to respectful conversation.
Oftentimes the motives are what counts the most though.
That said, whenever I do discuss the issues you act equally as offended.
In other words, if you want to create a hostile atmosphere, one where a person stops listening to the arguments and gets defensive-- then deciding that you know what someone's motives are, and telling them so, is the absolutely best way to go about it. And yes, I am willing to say it to both Metacrock and you, if you like-- and anyone else who falls into such behavior, including myself. When I have done it, I am wrong. I admit it, apologize, and move on.
But at the same time, motivations are often at the heart of our beliefs. If we cannot discuss motives, then we leave out the largest aspect of Humanity, and cannot truly discuss the topic since your still holding to beliefs based on a motive.
David Hume once wrote that Reason is the Slave of Passion. He meant by this that we will use reason to justify what we want, and he was using this as a counter to the Enlightenments claim of the Primacy of Reason. I believe he was right, because I see all too often people using reason to justify hat they already believe.
In Christianity though, we are told not so much to change our actions, but our Heart. We are told to change our desires and let that change our actions, not vice versa.
It is therefore motivation that is at the central aspect of all Christendom, and which is indeed at the core of the Humanities.
It is also the point in Psychology I study.
I do not merely assign motives to dismiss an argument, and when I do ascribe a motive, its base don evidence I’ve seen. While I am not infallible, I still see a discussion on motivation as something we all must do in the examination of others, and ourselves.
When it comes to the issues, we disagree. One of us may be right, or the other might-- or we both might be wrong. No one has a corner on the truth except God. But though you may not realize it, the way you address the issues is still fraught with insults. Take this word "fanciful." I am not expecting you to say "brilliant exegesis." But yes, "fanciful" is an insult because rather than taking the argument seriously and showing where it is incorrect, it simply dismisses it with a belittling label-- a label that implies something negative about the person who made the argument.
I already had the argument though.
And what I said was dismissed, and the argument repeated.
I don’ think here and now is a good time to go through the whole reason why I disregarded it.
You said this:
“When I address the arguments Im usually dismissed or accused of Sexuism though. I mean you've alreayd said I cant discuss this or that, that pretty well leaves the Hebrew and your motives. Now you wan tthta removed to. “
You misunderstand. I have not said that I will talk about my motives with you, but not women's issues. The reason I donn't want to talk about women's issues with you is that you insist on making it be about my motives, and about belittling me--
No, this is not True.
I say that, again, not to insult but in older threads you took offence when I did not say anything about your motives and did just argue the case.
Why do you think I began looking at motive in the First Place?
in short, you can't do it without being insulting. So now you think as long as you don't address the issues, you can go on being insulting?
I’m insulting no matter what I say. That was the case two years ago when I didn’t address your motive and did just address the arguments.
This told me you had emotional reasons behind the need for the arguments, and then you described why.
That lead me to discussion of motives.
Also, if your going to study Hebrew you’d better get very use to motives being discussed as that’s a large part of Jewish Argumentation.
You don't know my heart (ie, my motives), and no human being can know another's heart.
But one can see what the other says and by that know enough to make predictions of ones future conduct, and future arguments. While one cannot know for sure
one can make a reasonable assessment. If not, then it would be impossible to offer counsel to anyone in a time of need or crisis, or to provide anyone with any forgiveness.
When you say you do, that's called being judgmental.
No, its not. Being Judgemental means I am passing Judgement not assessing motives. Assessing motives is done in any Psychological testing, and by your logic this means all Psychology is Judgemental.
Come to think of it, the Church is too as its old to weight people out and determine if they need to be confronted abut sin they do, or to dictate who gets to preach aside form gender.
You confuse a discussion over motivations with judgement.
No one responds well when being judged.
An assessment is not a Judgement.
Not me, not you, not anyone. Unless you can stop being judgmental and belittling, I cannot continue to talk to you. I have a sense of self-preservation. I will withdraw from toxic conversations. This conversation is toxic.
No, this conversation is uncomfortable. But I still must do what I do because I’m not being judgements, I am b4ign concerned. And the way you approach this topic is far more harmful than what I do in asking you to consider why you hold the beliefs you hold.
Being on the Internet is something I do for fun. THIS IS NOT FUN. So please, please stop. I don't want to have to leave this forum. But I will if I can't be here without getting involved in toxicity. (All other members, and Metacrock-- sorry. I am not saying this because I want to be a prima donna and throw a fit and threaten to leave. I'm just telling the truth. In my recovery as an adult child of alcholocs, I learned to draw boundaries, and that if boundaries were continually violated, I should leave for my own self-preservation. I am getting to that point here. This isn't worth it to me.)
But what is worth it? A Place where you can claim something and have others agree? Or those who disagree at leas let you say something and never challenge why?
Again, I’m not being judgements or toxic, I am simply asking you to reassess your own reasoning for these arguments.
And again, I did try to stick to the arguments themselves.