Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry. What preconceptions or biases? I admit to being a Spiritualist and I would tend to offer the benefit of the doubt to the motives of a fellow Spiritualist (which I assume from the screen name MysticPhD would be.) Very few of the Spiritualists I know harbor such dark and negative motivations. Actually GldnRule did find one by a Sanpeur (I think), but it has mysteriously disappeared or been blocked. I cannot explain how I could see it yesterday and now it is gone. But it was indeed even more specific in its desire for the death of a theist named Campbell something. Do you (generic) have the ability to block posts?
Campbell has passed on. Perhaps that is why the post was blocked.
As to MysticPhd, all I can say is that when I first came here it took me a while to get used to the style of communication he and many of the other posters on this forum use sometimes. But I chalk it up to the fact that we all have things about ourselves that are rougher around the edges than others. He's been a good friend to me, has shown me a lot of kindness and is generous with his time so, yep, I'm biased and I give him the benefit of the doubt.
I would imagine he is talking about the biases in this thread. It seems you are overly sensitive about what constitutes being rude or hostile but when a user finds a New Age Spiritualist who indicated wanting another user dead you explain it away as a "throw away comment".
In other words I think the bias being indicated here is one where the measuring stick you use to measure hostility and rudeness varies and is not consistent. Perhaps when reading a post by someone on your "side" in these debate the gaps between the markers on that measuring stick suddenly elongate. As memory recalls however the moderators did not share your opinion on the comment and they penalized the user with around 3 days ban for it.
I would imagine he is talking about the biases in this thread. It seems you are overly sensitive about what constitutes being rude or hostile but when a user finds a New Age Spiritualist who indicated wanting another user dead you explain it away as a "throw away comment".
I believe I also characterized one of your comments as throw away in this thread, Sir, did I not?
Quote:
In other words I think the bias being indicated here is one where the measuring stick you use to measure hostility and rudeness varies and is not consistent. Perhaps when reading a post by someone on your "side" in these debate the gaps between the markers on that measuring stick suddenly elongate. As memory recalls however the moderators did not share your opinion on the comment and they penalized the user with around 3 days ban for it.
I see. Then I would agree with you and I admitted as much when I said I give the benefit of the doubt to Spiritualists because I do not personally know any who "harbor such dark and negative motivations." Perhaps the Moderators do not know many Spiritualists, then.
One should not be giving the benefit of the doubt to ones own group. That is the bias we are talking about. Poor, hostile and abhorrent behavior is poor, hostile and abhorrent regardless of what group it comes from.
One should not be giving the benefit of the doubt to ones own group. That is the bias we are talking about. Poor, hostile and abhorrent behavior is poor, hostile and abhorrent regardless of what group it comes from.
I agree with you completely, but the degree of abhorrence that applies requires inference about the real motives of the poster. That is where the bias can become information, since it emanates from knowledge of the group and its typical motivations. People say all sorts of things when provoked to anger, even spiritualists who are usually very laid back. I could be wrong about this MysticPhD, but I think the probabilities are in my favor. So I will continue to give the benefit of the doubt to him/her.
No one ever knows the real motives of a poster. Just the ones they profess. Lots of people... for example... profess to be loving Christians but act like anything but that on here. Just calling yourself loving, spiritual or christian does not mean you are one and hence the biases you have are dangerous. Evaluate people by their actions and their words, not the group name they have tagged themselves on to.
If two people say the exact same hostile and rude thing then I evaluate that the same for both. If you find yourself evaluating them differently because one is a spiritualist and one is a skeptic atheist then that is a failing with you, not them.
No one ever knows the real motives of a poster. Just the ones they profess. Lots of people... for example... profess to be loving Christians but act like anything but that on here. Just calling yourself loving, spiritual or christian does not mean you are one and hence the biases you have are dangerous. Evaluate people by their actions and their words, not the group name they have tagged themselves on to.
If two people say the exact same hostile and rude thing then I evaluate that the same for both. If you find yourself evaluating them differently because one is a spiritualist and one is a skeptic atheist then that is a failing with you, not them.
If I were a machine or robot, I would probably not have that failing. But I am not. I am human. I'm sorry but your attitude denies our very humanity, which I as a Spiritualist hold sacred. We do differ in ways that matter beneath our external presentation in response to specific circumstances. You are free to mechanistically evaluate everyone identically on the basis of superficial external presentations. I will always take a more human look.
I deny nothing. I merely recognise the effects that that humanity can have on our judgement and I move to account for that in my procedures. Again: If someone is rude and hostile then they are rude and hostile regardless of what group they are in. If someone says, like in the example you were given, that they want you to have an NDE but one that is not JUST NEAR, then that is abhorrent behavior that is not excused by the person just happening to be in a group of people you personally agree with. Nor would be it be excused if the person who had said it was my right hand man who normally agrees with everything I do or say.
I deny nothing. I merely recognise the effects that that humanity can have on our judgement and I move to account for that in my procedures. Again: If someone is rude and hostile then they are rude and hostile regardless of what group they are in. If someone says, like in the example you were given, that they want you to have an NDE but one that is not JUST NEAR, then that is abhorrent behavior that is not excused by the person just happening to be in a group of people you personally agree with. Nor would be it be excused if the person who had said it was my right hand man who normally agrees with everything I do or say.
I'm sorry, do you think I am disputing that? I completely agree that it is nasty and abhorrent. But so is someone saying "I ought to kill you for that" in anger during a verbal argument. Are you suggesting that such outbursts are always genuine threats and not just an emotional release of frustration? Wouldn't that depend upon the person, circumstances, provocation, etc.?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
