Yeah i did enjoy the " sensative " threads the past few days but best left alone.
How considerate should we be when we choose a screen name... and in general?
- Thread starter thebiggerthebetter
- Start date
Yeah i did enjoy the " sensative " threads the past few days but best left alone.
No no I was just saying in general. If all of that happened I would just leave the site
Yup, i used to frequent a bunch of aquarium related sites.... all eventually got waaaaaaaay too uptight and heavy handed lmao one of them you couldnt even disagree with mods or the owner over fish related stuff hahah. As is MFK rules
koltsixx
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.
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.
I've read your posts with great interest... thank you for your thoughtful responses!
On the first point above, I don't think that this analogy works very well. I think that it confuses the difference between morality and belief.
To your second point, this is only true in your worldview, which is heavily influenced by religion. Mine is much less so, therefore I do not see the connections that you do. Purpose in life is not reserved for the devout.
Post #423 KS was considerate enough to throw in some pics for us short attention spanners
Lol, nah that's okay, I enjoy being a member here.
This I'm not sure what you mean. If MFK was neutral it would be hypocritical or if it wasn't? Or am I just missing it all together?
Again that's the source of our disagreement. lol I see hypocritical as being judged by your peers or that it would be generally agreed on that you are acting against your beliefs. While if I understand you it's based all the way down to each persons individual interpretation of every one else's actions and becomes greater the more people who agree there is hypocrisy. If what you say is true then anyone can call anyone hypocritical and it be true to a degree if they can draw any parallel no matter how thin. In essence your making even the word hypocritical subject to interpretation rather then definition since it's wholly based on an individuals thoughts and beliefs and how they interpret the world around them. Not on it's literal definition.
Ahhhh, but you had other options then violating TOS to try and effect a change. You could have contacted the Staff about it since that is not against TOS. If that failed keep trying including but not limited creating your own Logo and proposing it. You could have accepted the staff position and helped shape MFK. As a matter of fact Li asked for the staff to help him come up with a new logo but many where at a loss. Hence the new yet familiar Logo.
So you see you had other avenues but you chose this one. The one where you violate the very set of rules you want MFK to abide by. Holding MFK to a higher standard then yourself based on your beliefs. Isn't that the very definition of Hypocrisy?
Lol, I belong to another forum that throws acronyms around like water. They made me do my homework and I happily passed it on to you.
Again subject to interpretation. I don't see this as grave but I do find MFK and the Staff being called hypocrites offensive. And rather then Mod appropriately, out of respect for you and your feelings about religion which I know are passionate. I tried for us to come to an understanding. A desire which I now know won't come to fruition but my own stubbornness forces me to respond anyway.
I might also point out that you could have chosen not to join MFK for the same reason you refused a Staff position. Which I see as another hypocritical action. You chose to become a part of the community, agreed to the TOS already knowing about the Logo. Which I don't understand why you did and then bring up issue with the Logo and the TOS you agreed to abide by. You accepeted the TOS and Logo on one level but chose not too on another. But I guess you feel it's not because of the level of association you have with the site. But if we put your definition of Hypocrisy as a given then no matter what level you are in some way being hypocritical.
Again that is with all things. Regardless of one's beliefs everything is connected in some way or another and anyone can draw parallels if they so chose to. Perception is after all reality. If it's not really true it is at least true when it comes to how people perceive reality regardless of what is or isn't.
Lol, I doubt it because to me the two more or less mean the same. Though I will admit that contradictory doesn't seem as harsh as hypocritical but that's just me. And while you say no one has to agree with you, the fact that you created a public thread would seem to indicate otherwise. You may not need it but the action would seem to indicate at least a desire.
My apologies I am extremely stubborn and long winded. You are correct though the thread has gone on long enough and not really gone anywhere. So whether TBTB responds or not
this will be my last post in this thread.
koltsixx
KS: Lol, nah that's okay, I enjoy being a member here.
TBTB: You and me both!!
KS: This I'm not sure what you mean. If MFK was neutral it would be hypocritical or if it wasn't?...
TBTB: Yes, if MFK was neutral it'd be... aghem... disharmonious (?) of it to design a logo as it is.
KS: Again that's the source of our disagreement. lol I see hypocritical as being judged by your peers or that it would be generally agreed on that you are acting against your beliefs.
TBTB: Yes, I believe that the majority of people, if they paid attention to what the logo references, would say the logo... aghem... doesn't float nicely with the banning of religious statements.
KS: While if I understand you it's based all the way down to each persons individual interpretation of every one else's actions and becomes greater the more people who agree there is hypocrisy. If what you say is true then anyone can call anyone hypocritical and it be true to a degree if they can draw any parallel no matter how thin. In essence your making even the word hypocritical subject to interpretation rather then definition since it's wholly based on an individuals thoughts and beliefs and how they interpret the world around them. Not on it's literal definition.
TBTB: Yes. Wise words and I applaud your ability to cut through my muddled mumbo-jumbo. I'd also add that truth is independent of how many people perceive it, of what they think, and of their opinions. Truth is an objective reality. It is what exists. Everything else is deceit. In fact, in all times those who perceived the truth have always been outnumbered vastly by those who didn't. The camp that sees the objective disharmony can number zero or one person or ten or million or the majority. What we aim at is to make sure our subjective opinion is close to or coincides with the objective reality. I perceive our whole discussion in this light.
KS: Ahhhh, but you had other options then violating TOS to try and effect a change. You could have contacted the Staff about it since that is not against TOS. If that failed keep trying including but not limited creating your own Logo and proposing it. You could have accepted the staff position and helped shape MFK. As a matter of fact Li asked for the staff to help him come up with a new logo but many where at a loss. Hence the new yet familiar Logo.
TBTB: This thread was intended for a wordless and quick poll that, if you take note of my design of it, was religious-less at least as far as the wording goes. No mention of anything religious. No breaking of the TOS. Instead others, not me, started invoking religion. I held out long enough to the point of even being accused a coward by RD. Then the tread took over its own life. I cannot control other members. The logo was another convenient example to help us figure out our differences. I think it did help, at least to you and me. But if you want to lay the blame on me entirely or almost entirely, then I submit. Give me my first infracture or ban me temporarily as you see fit. Or take away my awards
Or reset my post count to zero KS: So you see you had other avenues but you chose this one. The one where you violate the very set of rules you want MFK to abide by. Holding MFK to a higher standard then yourself based on your beliefs. Isn't that the very definition of Hypocrisy?
TBTB: I fought the current but it was stronger. I'd not say that was my choosing but the opposite. My choice is very clear from my OP! No? But MFK and the staff, and the experts, etc. surely must be held to a higher standard. The higher one sits, the greater the responsibility rests on their shoulders, the greater the price and the consequences of their successes and blunders. You won't hold to the same expectations a bum and a President of the Academy of Science, a G.I. and a general, a king and a peasant.
KS: Again subject to interpretation. I don't see this as grave but I do find MFK and the Staff being called hypocrites offensive. And rather then Mod appropriately, out of respect for you and your feelings about religion which I know are passionate. I tried for us to come to an understanding. A desire which I now know won't come to fruition but my own stubbornness forces me to respond anyway.
TBTB: Now wait a sec, I told you that many moons ago but you had most clearly said that you don't find our pseudo-intellectual exchange (pseudo from my side) a waste of time but rather enjoyable and educational, a good exercise in logic at the very least. Excuse me a moment, my (dis)harmony detector is beeping
What's that you got there taped to your thigh, sir? Oh my, what huge piece of disharmony! SWARM! SWARM!
KS: I might also point out that you could have chosen not to join MFK for the same reason you refused a Staff position. Which I see as another hypocritical action. You chose to become a part of the community, agreed to the TOS already knowing about the Logo. Which I don't understand why you did and then bring up issue with the Logo and the TOS you agreed to abide by. You accepeted the TOS and Logo on one level but chose not too on another. But I guess you feel it's not because of the level of association you have with the site.
TBTB: Bingo!
KS: But if we put your definition of Hypocrisy as a given then no matter what level you are in some way being hypocritical.
TBTB: Double bingo! I am offended by being called hypocritical. Let's say slightly crooked.
See how much progress has been made? Oh dead horse, where art thou? (pun intended) Don't side with pessimist observers that need silly pictures so that they do NOT follow our exalted discussion Yes, they need pics so they do NOT follow IMHO KS: Again that is with all things. Regardless of one's beliefs everything is connected in some way or another and anyone can draw parallels if they so chose to. Perception is after all reality. If it's not really true it is at least true when it comes to how people perceive reality regardless of what is or isn't.
TBTB: Keeping in mind what I tried to say above about subjective and objective truth, I agree wholeheartedly. You are becoming my neo-Confucius or neo-Solomon
(pun intended)KS: Lol, I doubt it because to me the two more or less mean the same. Though I will admit that contradictory doesn't seem as harsh as hypocritical but that's just me.
TBTB: It's not just you. I agree with you. Moral or spiritual contradiction = hypocrisy is one of the worst kinds of contradiction.
KS: And while you say no one has to agree with you, the fact that you created a public thread would seem to indicate otherwise. You may not need it but the action would seem to indicate at least a desire.
TBTB: As stated above in this post, take a note of my OP. Plus as I already stated, this poll was meant to correct my thinking, not anyone else's whatsoever. I was the one in need of help.
KS: My apologies I am extremely stubborn and long winded. You are correct though the thread has gone on long enough and not really gone anywhere. So whether TBTB responds or not this will be my last post in this thread.
TBTB: I'd not give you a silent treatment. Why do you keep bringing it up? My Daddy raised me to be polite and respectful. I always say good bye so people know I left. I had tried to keep my silence and, as I alluded to above, we know what happened. In strongest terms I must dis-harmonize with you that the thread has not gone really anywhere. But it looks like mostly it's just me drawing from the well of your wisdom
The well needs time to rest and replenish. All fun comes to an end eventually. Two more members stated they found our exchange interesting to them.*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
SUMMARY
[1] My initial emotional and strong private report of the handle (unbeknownst here at the OP time) was cooled and I was shown my shortcomings, especially from the point of view of native English speakers.
[2] I maintain though that ideally, handles, avatars, signatures, etc. that may be seen by a fraction of members as offensive based on their religion should not be allowed. In this case though, it seems I am nearly alone in this and happy to be ignored, just as I will ignore the user with the handle.
[3] I apologize for breaking the TOS and dragging the MFK logo into this discussion. Two wrongs don't make it right, Koltsixx is correct. Hence, I concur with my own hypocrite label and ask your forgiveness.
[4] I thank Kolt and everybody else who chipped in. I do not change my take on the logo, namely that it is in disharmony with the TOS, but, oh boy, do I get the opposing view better, first and foremost thanks to Kolt's arguments, logic, clarity of thinking and explaining, and his long-suffering.
[5] I do repent sincerely of calling MFK and tacitly Neo and staff and my wonderful friend Joshua aka Koltsixx hypocritical. I should have trodden lighter and been more considerate especially because in this thread I have been appealing for others to be more considerate to my feelings and feelings of my brothers and sisters in faith... or so it can be read. Hence, again, I concur with my hypocrite label and ask your forgiveness.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
In the spirit of Mark Twain's famous quip, the rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated:
Last edited:
While I hate to keep beating the dead horse, I can't help but feel that I should at least respond once more to give some kind of completion to the thread. Some finality that couldn't be interpreted as anything other then acceptance on both our parts of the situation and opinions of each other. Besides if anyone's gonna beat a dead horse it should be a guy named Kolt.
The most important point which I believe I said before but can never be stated enough is that everyone's feelings are important. Including yours Viktor and I don't ever want you to feel as or be happy with your feelings or opinions being ignored. It is one thing to accept disagreement it is another to feel ignored.
As for being hypocritical while I feel one can be unconsciously be so I personally find conscious hypocrisy the greater offense. So to be called consciously religiously hypocritical stings but I accept that is your opinion of myself and MFK and will not argue the point further. And while there is a sting I none the less enjoyed having a discussion about it as should be apparent by my lengthy replies. lol
As for calling you hypocritical, I tried my best not to. lol But after pointing out where I felt your words where incongruous in my interpretation of them I didn't know where else to go with my argument. Honestly I felt any hypocrisy on your part was unconscious and thought pointing it out would help to open you up to another interpretation of MFK's rules ond Logo.
The Poll is where I felt the hypocrisy started in this thread, since you had made a report about the name and I thought you knew the report was rejected. I still have a feeling even without notification you knew more or less what had been decided. Your thread speaks of consideration in general as well which I believe was meant as a reference to MFK's TOS. The poll would help you to see if others would also deem the name offensive and therefore MFK would be contradicting it's own TOS again as you feel they did with the Logo. The mere creation of the thread about the name since it was already involved a report and MFK decision would be IMO a TOS violation. Just because the decision wasn't mentioned would be IMO the same as an omission in a statement where everyone people can more or less guess what you're referencing. IE: A woman posting on FB about what she feels people in general should do in a relationship without addressing specifically her husband whom she just had the same issue with. Many would interpret her actions as a subversive dig through omission.
But I will say that was my interpretation of the situation. Since you say otherwise I won't argue further. I merely wanted you to see where I was coming from.
As for punishment, well I could hardly do that without punishing myself now can I? lol As such in this particular instance I acknowledge my hypocrisy in this decision and chalk it up to a learning experience so I do not err in this way again.
Lastly in regard to expectations of people. I myself hold all my fellow man to a standard of moral integrity. I have been homeless, I have been poor and I personally never let it become an excuse for my actions. When I was a pathetic excuse for a man it was not because of my station in life at the time it was because of my choice to lower myself. And no one or thing bared any of that responsibility other then me. If I blamed anything else I'm sure I would find myself growing stagnant. Unable to grow because I took no responsibility for myself. As such I don't accept any excuse from anyone else.
That is not to say that as a leader one shouldn't hold themselves to a higher standard. Merely there is no real excuse for thinking less of another man or his capabilities. We all have our gifts, our strengths, our weaknesses. All of us have the same ability to shine as bright as any other in one way or another.
The most important point which I believe I said before but can never be stated enough is that everyone's feelings are important. Including yours Viktor and I don't ever want you to feel as or be happy with your feelings or opinions being ignored. It is one thing to accept disagreement it is another to feel ignored.
As for being hypocritical while I feel one can be unconsciously be so I personally find conscious hypocrisy the greater offense. So to be called consciously religiously hypocritical stings but I accept that is your opinion of myself and MFK and will not argue the point further. And while there is a sting I none the less enjoyed having a discussion about it as should be apparent by my lengthy replies. lol
As for calling you hypocritical, I tried my best not to. lol But after pointing out where I felt your words where incongruous in my interpretation of them I didn't know where else to go with my argument. Honestly I felt any hypocrisy on your part was unconscious and thought pointing it out would help to open you up to another interpretation of MFK's rules ond Logo.
The Poll is where I felt the hypocrisy started in this thread, since you had made a report about the name and I thought you knew the report was rejected. I still have a feeling even without notification you knew more or less what had been decided. Your thread speaks of consideration in general as well which I believe was meant as a reference to MFK's TOS. The poll would help you to see if others would also deem the name offensive and therefore MFK would be contradicting it's own TOS again as you feel they did with the Logo. The mere creation of the thread about the name since it was already involved a report and MFK decision would be IMO a TOS violation. Just because the decision wasn't mentioned would be IMO the same as an omission in a statement where everyone people can more or less guess what you're referencing. IE: A woman posting on FB about what she feels people in general should do in a relationship without addressing specifically her husband whom she just had the same issue with. Many would interpret her actions as a subversive dig through omission.
But I will say that was my interpretation of the situation. Since you say otherwise I won't argue further. I merely wanted you to see where I was coming from.
As for punishment, well I could hardly do that without punishing myself now can I? lol As such in this particular instance I acknowledge my hypocrisy in this decision and chalk it up to a learning experience so I do not err in this way again.
Lastly in regard to expectations of people. I myself hold all my fellow man to a standard of moral integrity. I have been homeless, I have been poor and I personally never let it become an excuse for my actions. When I was a pathetic excuse for a man it was not because of my station in life at the time it was because of my choice to lower myself. And no one or thing bared any of that responsibility other then me. If I blamed anything else I'm sure I would find myself growing stagnant. Unable to grow because I took no responsibility for myself. As such I don't accept any excuse from anyone else.
That is not to say that as a leader one shouldn't hold themselves to a higher standard. Merely there is no real excuse for thinking less of another man or his capabilities. We all have our gifts, our strengths, our weaknesses. All of us have the same ability to shine as bright as any other in one way or another.
