cmfray wrote:If you will go back and look at the rules I set up - you will find some things that upset people and that offends them! This is a forum for the purpose of discussing sexual matters from LDS members viewpoints! And everyone has different viewpoints and opinions to share ! This is not a debate team - to prove things or a place where people come to find a definitive stance on church doctrine. Nor is it a class with a teacher and students. That is not to say that we don't learn on this forum - cause we do learn - we learn from each other through sharing and discussing the various topics - in a respectful manner - all on the same playing field (life) - with no one above another (in other words, we all struggle with something).
If you want viewpoints shared, you are going to get conflicting points of view and to rule out any kind of debate on those disagreements, or say that those discussing a topic can't express what they think of the opposing view and why they think that is hugely repressive. Requiring the whole board to be like that would be pretty unworkable, it fights against the natural ebb and flow of a conversation. I'm pretty sure that before I came along people at time said that some other poster was wrong about something, and how can you discuss something from an LDS viewpoint without having discussion on just what the church's position is on something?
As I see it, all of us at one time will be a student and at times a teacher. Nobody is forced to debate a point, and if somebody is going to express an opinion I don't think they should be sheltered from having it examined and commented on. I don't think it is wrong to expect them to be able to able to explain their reasons, take reasonable criticism of their ideas like a mature adult, and and be willing to give honest consideration to what others say. Name calling, mocking, insults, flaming, and trolling for flames are immature and should not be tollerated, but if somebody can't take having somebody else say their idea is wrong without taking it as a personal insult then they are not going to have fun on the Internet on any board.
When any kind of negative judgmental statements are made (no matter what words are used) - immediately a negative environment is created/ Most people generally tend to avoid negative environments because they are uncomfortable and yucky feeling. Stating that someone's argument is invalid puts the person on the defensive and makes them feel like their words are being attacked - like their words are being dismissed.
I would say that it is their own choice to react that way, and they need to take responsibility for that reaction, not retaliate with hostility because somebody dares to disagree with them. If some view is contrary to facts or based on flawed logic or is provably false then it should be judged negatively. If somebody is so afraid of offending others that they won't say anything to disabuse them of a false notion then they lack courage.
What I find most offensive about negative judgmental words like invalid, wrong, etc. is they portray the person who uses them as one who thinks they have the answers to everything, when someone uses those words, they are basically saying they are the one who thinks logical and their reasoning is valid - while the person the comment is directed at is not logical and their reasoning is invalid.
Again that is a choice to take it that way. If somebody feels they are better informed about a particular topic than somebody else that doesn't mean they think themselves to be better informed than everybody else on everything. That is a huge over reaction. And if somebody is able to point out a logical flaw in an argument that likewise doesn't mean that they consider themselves superior in all such things.
I first went on the Internet 26 years ago, before there was even such a thing as the world wide web even. I've had all kinds of conversations online, political, religious, discussions with mormons, anti-mormons, liberals, conservative, Trekkies, Whovians, etc. In all that time I have never run into even one person that takes being disagreed with so personally as some people here or who overreact in this way. If somebody went through all the posts that happened before I came along, would there not be people there saying somebody was wrong about something, that some view or claim was invalid, incorrect, wrong? People have said those things about what I've posted so it stands to reason they may have said it before me too.
Other judgment calls - like stating something is a fact or something is not a fact causes problems with other posters also. While it may be a fact that a prophet said something somewhere - defining what the prophet meant is always an interpretation. What makes one's interpretation more valid than someone else's??
How consistent it is with scripture, with other statements by that or other prophets, by the content and context of the actual quote. You can't say that it's valid to take any statement and have it mean anything a person wants. Words have meanings and while in some cases there is room for interpretation it is a limited amount of room. In some cases there really is not room for legitimate interpretation. If somebody calls a thing a fact and somebody else doesn't accept that statement as accurate whey do they have have to take offense over it or react in a negative way? Again, that kind of reaction is a choice, and I think people that choose that are the ones to be accountable for the choice.
To address the other part of your question - "Do you think there is ever such a thing as an opinion that really is invalid? If so, by what standard to you separate a valid from an invalid opinion?" As far as I am concerned - because of the purpose of this forum - we should assume everyone's opinion is valid - and that there are no invalid opinions?
It's a nice platitude, but it isn't at all practical. You run into the conundrum that you must then accept my opinion that there are invalid opinions as being valid. And my opinion that when people get their shorts in a knot when their opinions are scrutinized it is their own choice. And my opinion that they should develop a thicker skin and react in a more mature way. You can't go by that and at the same time try and tell me I'm wrong for calling something invalid and try to talk me out of doing it.
There might be opinions we don't agree with - or ones that don't even make sense to us - but to state that someone's opinions on open discussion forums like this are invalid or wrong - closes off discussions with a negative dismissal and discourages further discussion.
Somebody could take it that way if they wanted, or they could take it as an opportunity to explain the validity of their view for the benefit of those who don't understand, or an opportunity to test the validity of their view and see how it holds up under scrutiny. As long as there isn't name calling etc. why should it be a problem?
It is not helpful and does not contribute to the purpose of the forum. So in my opinion these types of words should not be used here. Instead of using negative judgment statements about others opinions or ideals - I think it is better to stick with stating your own ideals and opinions and beliefs.
Some things really are facts, some things really are false, some things really are invalid, some things really are true. I really don't think that trying to protect the fragile egos that can't bear being disagreed with or the offended feelings of people who choose to be offended when it is not justified creates a healthy climate for open discussion and learning.
and making others feel defensive and demeaned.
I don't MAKE anybody feel anything, I present an evaluation of claims and facts to support what I say. Then they choose how they will feel about it. I'm not calling name, I'm not flaming people, etc. etc.
