How considerate should we be when we choose a screen name... and in general?
- Thread starter thebiggerthebetter
- Start date
koltsixx
In that case I guess it all comes down to what one sees in the logo. I see what I see and hence my conclusion. You don't see what you don't see and hence your conclusion. I say most or a lot of people see what I see in the logo. You say they don't. Short of poll, this is the end of discussion. No?
***************************************************
KS: ... Hypocrisy : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
I think we can agree MFK doesn't fit the first part of the definition.
As for the second again because MFK is not alluding to it's belief one can not call MFK's actions hypocritical. Unless are calling MFK's rules a belief or it's Logo a belief.
TBTB: Yes, IMHO and for the sake for the argument, the TOS is the equivalent of the belief in this case... also it is what MFK wants members to follow.
************************************************************
KS: That is unless you can say for a fact that you know everyone in the world automatically associates adding horns and a pointy tail creates the religious symbolism you are referring to.
TBTB: See above.
************************************************************
KS: Now if you could say that, then Neo/Li created the avatar/logo knowing it was or could be perceived as a religious symbol and accidentally created a rule that contradicts his symbol.
But again that would be based on you being able to state Neo's/Li's frame of mind when creating the Logo or the rules.
And that would further have to rely on the rules or the Logo being based on a belief.
TBTB: I am not stating "everyone" and "automatically" but I think most people will recognize the symbol and its meaning. I don't have to think / care about what Neo thought or didn't think in this analysis. In my humble view there is a problem now and here regardless of Neo's consciousness past and present, as I tried to explain. I grant Neo likes his symbol and doesn't see it the way I see it.
****************************************************************
KS: Now you mention a much larger definition. If you can provide one then I can be enlightened by seeing how it pertains to this situation. Thus far you have only provided your wider interpretation but provided no definition or source for said wider interpretation.
TBTB: You already agreed to my wider definition or rather said yours was always wide. If you wish can read this and similar treatises: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
****************************************************************
KS: I also noticed you avoided much of what I said which included that you are calling MFK hypocritical for not following a set of rules you yourself aren't respecting.
TBTB: In my view, I didn't start it. I am reacting, not acting. In your view it is the opposite. Nothing else to say at present, I think.
******************************************************************
KS: Everything can be interpreted differently. Anyone can take things out of context. If you don't answer anything else I said, please answer this. Where do we draw the universal line?
TBTB: Not everything can be interpreted with the same degree of certainty or uncertainty. The handle in question is more subject to personal interpretation versus the logo IMO.
TBTB: The universal line is the truth. The truth is what exists, the reality. Everything else is deceit.
thebiggerthebetter
As I stated in prior posts, several members in this thread have addressed your interpretation of the Logo and said there's wasn't the same. Some even went as far as describing they're first thoughts about it such as what it did call to mind for them. There where some who said after you gave yours they can see what you're talking about but that's hardly the same. So If you want to create a poll you can but since the same people will probably answer, is there really a point?
So any set of rules to you is a belief? So the rules in Pokemon is a belief system? And if I'm correct the terminology "for the sake of the argument" means to pretend something is true. Since whether the rules or Logo need to represent a belief saying let's pretend it is you feel lends credence to your case? I'm sorry but I don't see how because that means even in your eyes you're stretching things hence the use of that terminology.
For those with short attention spans
I merely agreed to it being capable of being a subconscious or unwitting act. Nothing more and that still doesn't make The Logo or the Rules hypocritical.
As for your definition here it is according to your link Hypocrisy: is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.[1] According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold.
Is MFK or Li giving a false appearance of virtue with respect to religion? Since nothing is mentioned positively or negatively about religion I can't see how.
Or is that you feel MFK criticizes others for an activity they engage in? Again I don't see it. If MFK's Logo was a definitive symbol such as let's say the devil himself as a Logo then yes. But we're talking about a letter with horns and a pointed tail which again is subject to interpretation.
Again for the spanners
So one can't be hypocritical if they weren't the first person to be hypocritical in a given instance? Is that your point? I'm genuinely sorry because I feel like I'm missing something? Because if it is your point, isn't that the equivalent of saying two wrongs make a right?
If the rest is TL;DR please see below
Again I believe this is the third time I ask and last time asked if you answered nothing else to please answer this, yet I continually get no response. Since you are sitting in Judgement of MFK and it's rules enlighten me with a better way.
Where does it begin and where does it end?
Would having an option for smileys with Halo's or horns be wrong, should it be considered against TOS? What about the world hell? Or damn? What if someone posts H-E double hockey sticks? We still know what they meant and it's a reference to religion right? Should someone be banned over these things or simply infracted or just there post deleted? What if they post a picture of a letter with a halo? Or wings? What if someone post "oh my god" is it just an expression? Or is it a religious statement? I mean isn't God a definitively religious statement. And if it is can people still use the acronym OMG? What is someone is a New Jersey Devils fan and use the Logo as their avatar? Should MFK take action? The Logo has horns and a pointy tail and we know it's referencing a religious figure because the team is named after said figure. What about the name Joshua? It's generally considered a religious name. If someone has that name should they be banned because someone or many people might know it's a religious name?
My point is to be as literal as you're trying to be when it comes to the rules is superfluous.
As I stated in prior posts, several members in this thread have addressed your interpretation of the Logo and said there's wasn't the same. Some even went as far as describing they're first thoughts about it such as what it did call to mind for them. There where some who said after you gave yours they can see what you're talking about but that's hardly the same. So If you want to create a poll you can but since the same people will probably answer, is there really a point?
So any set of rules to you is a belief? So the rules in Pokemon is a belief system? And if I'm correct the terminology "for the sake of the argument" means to pretend something is true. Since whether the rules or Logo need to represent a belief saying let's pretend it is you feel lends credence to your case? I'm sorry but I don't see how because that means even in your eyes you're stretching things hence the use of that terminology.
For those with short attention spans
View attachment 1246432
I merely agreed to it being capable of being a subconscious or unwitting act. Nothing more and that still doesn't make The Logo or the Rules hypocritical.
As for your definition here it is according to your link Hypocrisy: is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.[1] According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold.
Is MFK or Li giving a false appearance of virtue with respect to religion? Since nothing is mentioned positively or negatively about religion I can't see how.
Or is that you feel MFK criticizes others for an activity they engage in? Again I don't see it. If MFK's Logo was a definitive symbol such as let's say the devil himself as a Logo then yes. But we're talking about a letter with horns and a pointed tail which again is subject to interpretation.
Again for the spanners
View attachment 1246438
So one can't be hypocritical if they weren't the first person to be hypocritical in a given instance? Is that your point? I'm genuinely sorry because I feel like I'm missing something? Because if it is your point, isn't that the equivalent of saying two wrongs make a right?
If the rest is TL;DR please see below
Again I believe this is the third time I ask and last time asked if you answered nothing else to please answer this, yet I continually get no response. Since you are sitting in Judgement of MFK and it's rules enlighten me with a better way.
Where does it begin and where does it end?
Would having an option for smileys with Halo's or horns be wrong, should it be considered against TOS? What about the world hell? Or damn? What if someone posts H-E double hockey sticks? We still know what they meant and it's a reference to religion right? Should someone be banned over these things or simply infracted or just there post deleted? What if they post a picture of a letter with a halo? Or wings? What if someone post "oh my god" is it just an expression? Or is it a religious statement? I mean isn't God a definitively religious statement. And if it is can people still use the acronym OMG? What is someone is a New Jersey Devils fan and use the Logo as their avatar? Should MFK take action? The Logo has horns and a pointy tail and we know it's referencing a religious figure because the team is named after said figure. What about the name Joshua? It's generally considered a religious name. If someone has that name should they be banned because someone or many people might know it's a religious name?
My point is to be as literal as you're trying to be when it comes to the rules is superfluous.
Nicely worded kolt. My fear is some sort if change in how perceived offenses are policed. One of my favirote things about mfk is the freedom to discuss, disagree, and even argue. I know that if i get "talked" to i pretty much deserve it. Other sites are far less liberal in their rules. Thread will get locked at the very sign of a disagreement...put simply those sites suck lol
Simple view and said a million times already but wouldnt it just be easier to not look at, discuss, or comment on things that someone doesnt agree with or finds offensive since its already been proven that some are more sensative than others.
koltsixx
Thanks, bro.KS: As I stated in prior posts, several members in this thread have addressed your interpretation of the Logo and said there's wasn't the same. Some even went as far as describing they're first thoughts about it such as what it did call to mind for them. There where some who said after you gave yours they can see what you're talking about but that's hardly the same. So If you want to create a poll you can but since the same people will probably answer, is there really a point?
TBTB: Sure there is. I'd like to get 100-1000 votes, not half a dozen. Are you giving me a blessing, pun intended, to create the said poll? If yes, I will. We'll get banned together, haha... go out swinging...
***************************************************
KS: So any set of rules to you is a belief?
TBTB: A set of rules an entity forms for itself to behave by is analogous to a belief of a person, I imagine. Rules we follow have their roots in our beliefs.
KS: ... And if I'm correct the terminology "for the sake of the argument" means to pretend something is true. Since whether the rules or Logo need to represent a belief saying let's pretend it is you feel lends credence to your case? I'm sorry but I don't see how because that means even in your eyes you're stretching things hence the use of that terminology.
TBTB: Agree. But this phrase is also used when people simplify things for the sake of having a clearer conversation and based on a supposition that their analogy holds water.
*********************************************************
KS: As for your definition here it is according to your link Hypocrisy: is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.[1] According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold.
TBTB: I guess the most fitting passage could be "Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles."
KS: Is MFK or Li giving a false appearance of virtue with respect to religion? Since nothing is mentioned positively or negatively about religion I can't see how.
TBTB: If you added the word "neutrality" at the end of the question, I'd reply yes.
KS: Or is that you feel MFK criticizes others for an activity they engage in?
TBTB: Yes. Overall no biggie but since we are talking about a matter of principle here, then yes.
KS: Again I don't see it.
TBTB: I know, bro!
KS: If MFK's Logo was a definitive symbol such as let's say the devil himself as a Logo then yes. But we're talking about a letter with horns and a pointed tail which again is subject to interpretation.
TBTB: Agree wholeheartedly. Inasmuch as the logo can be interpreted as the reference to the devil, that's the measure of the degree of the alleged "hypocrisy". If 0.1% of people interpret it as such, that's one degree, a tiny negligible degree. If 1%, still negligible. If 10%, that's getting significant. And so on.
That's measuring the societal degree, which is decided democratically. Personal degree is independent of the opinion of the majority. Majority can be wrong and often is.
*********************************************************
KS: So one can't be hypocritical if they weren't the first person to be hypocritical in a given instance? Is that your point? I'm genuinely sorry because I feel like I'm missing something? Because if it is your point, isn't that the equivalent of saying two wrongs make a right?
TBTB: My point is that one can't challenge the rule without talking about it or about it being broken in their opinion. Perhaps I am dense but I don't see any hypocrisy in that. Once the rule is upheld or amended (whoever wins), after that it can again be used to detect hypocrisy.
*****************************************************
KS: If the rest is TL;DR please see below
TBTB: haha, at first I thought it was abracadabra... you make me do homework: A) "Too long; didn't read.", meaning a post, article, or anything with words was too long, and whoever used the phrase didn't read it for that reason. B) Also used by someone who wrote a large posts/article/whatever to show a brief summary of their post as it might be too long.
******************************************************************
KS: Again I believe this is the third time I ask and last time asked if you answered nothing else to please answer this, yet I continually get no response. Since you are sitting in Judgement of MFK and it's rules enlighten me with a better way.
TBTB: IMO we are talking about an issue here that's not as important as this passage of yours makes it sound. But because it became a matter of principle, it slides toward sounding all the more grave than it really is.
KS: Where does it begin and where does it end? Would having an option for smileys with Halo's or horns be wrong, should it be considered against TOS? What about the world hell? Or damn? What if someone posts H-E double hockey sticks? We still know what they meant and it's a reference to religion right? Should someone be banned over these things or simply infracted or just there post deleted? What if they post a picture of a letter with a halo? Or wings? What if someone post "oh my god" is it just an expression? Or is it a religious statement? I mean isn't God a definitively religious statement. And if it is can people still use the acronym OMG? What is someone is a New Jersey Devils fan and use the Logo as their avatar? Should MFK take action? The Logo has horns and a pointy tail and we know it's referencing a religious figure because the team is named after said figure. What about the name Joshua? It's generally considered a religious name. If someone has that name should they be banned because someone or many people might know it's a religious name?
My point is to be as literal as you're trying to be when it comes to the rules is superfluous.
TBTB: Very good points. That made me think. I guess when someone doesn't like a particular member's choice of handle, avatar, words, and smileys, etc., it is easy to ignore. MFK logo is a letterhead on every page, it's a bit harder to ignore. That also says that MFK then is called to adhere to a higher standard than an average member, just like mods are held to a higher standard by MFK than an average member.
TBTB: In general, I agree with you because it is easy to see for a religious person (not an atheist) that everything has to do with God if distilled far enough because everything was created by God. Hence, God, religion, faith, spirituality all became intractably tangled up with our everyday life. They cannot be rooted out. One will be left with nothing to say or to do.
TBTB: Perhaps I didn't use the word hypocrisy wisely. I could have said contradictory. IDK if it changes it for you. Does it? But in any case, to me the logo is an issue enough that I had to turn down an offer of moderatorship extended to me a couple of years ago not in the least based on this issue. I am ok being a lowly member under this logo but not a staff. Just personal. No one has to agree with me.
I know bro...trust me i want no part of this. Just think kolts making a great point. How far does it go, say cheesez changed his name, say neo changes the logo, say every word is scrutinized....site would suck.
Ya but there will always be someone that is not happy no matter what you do. Best life lesson I have learned is that trying to make everyone happy only end up with being personally miserable. I love my life now and if it does not immediately effect me I do not go out of my way to involve myself. Unless it's to start **** with certain sensative people when i feel like it. Sounds kinda stupid when I read what I just wrote
