Answer the question without preaching July 29, 2006 8:20 PM Subscribe
I'm going to totally ignore your question, but I am going to pimp my religion.
I don't see what the problem is, honestly. He is addressing the question. You may not like the answer, but it is an answer.
And I've randomly clicked on his AskMe responses, and I don't think it supports the "drop of a hat" assertion. Does he pimp his religion? Yup. But honestly, he does it a lot less than some people around hre.
posted by dw at 8:26 PM on July 29, 2006
And I've randomly clicked on his AskMe responses, and I don't think it supports the "drop of a hat" assertion. Does he pimp his religion? Yup. But honestly, he does it a lot less than some people around hre.
posted by dw at 8:26 PM on July 29, 2006
Well, it does answer the question in this case... at least more than "ignore so and so" does.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:32 PM on July 29, 2006
posted by Krrrlson at 8:32 PM on July 29, 2006
Really, the problem is that Rinkjustices answers usually involve god or church bullshit. Like the question asking for english translations of religious texts. His answer? The book of Mormon. Good job, jackass.
Unfortunetly, his answers are tangibly related to the question, even if they aren't helpful and add nothing.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:33 PM on July 29, 2006
Unfortunetly, his answers are tangibly related to the question, even if they aren't helpful and add nothing.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:33 PM on July 29, 2006
I've gone through his last 50 AskMe comments (all since July 1), and three are overt proselytizing. In every case, they're germane to the question.
And the other 47 make me think he's contributing to the overall community pretty well.
posted by dw at 8:33 PM on July 29, 2006
And the other 47 make me think he's contributing to the overall community pretty well.
posted by dw at 8:33 PM on July 29, 2006
dw: He asks about what steps he should do to make sure his kid is taken care of if he goes off the deep end. Things that even good lawyers might forget. He didn't ask what church would do for him.
You need lots of friends and support from good people. Consider going to church. Regular church attendance will help to stabilize you and make it easy to meet people and network (as well as being socially and spiritually nourished).
You need God on this one buddy.
posted by rinkjustice at 9:33 PM CST on July 29 [+fave] [!]
Nothing to do with his question.
posted by bigmusic at 8:34 PM on July 29, 2006
You need lots of friends and support from good people. Consider going to church. Regular church attendance will help to stabilize you and make it easy to meet people and network (as well as being socially and spiritually nourished).
You need God on this one buddy.
posted by rinkjustice at 9:33 PM CST on July 29 [+fave] [!]
Nothing to do with his question.
posted by bigmusic at 8:34 PM on July 29, 2006
Nothing to do with his question.
By that definition, these replies are also not germane.
posted by dw at 8:37 PM on July 29, 2006
By that definition, these replies are also not germane.
posted by dw at 8:37 PM on July 29, 2006
Sounds to me like the guy still has it together enough to realize that the usual legal documents may not adequately cover his situation. Kind of like Alzheimer's; how many people expect someone young enough to have kids to get it?
Checking how his son feels about religion probably wouldn't hurt, though.
posted by mischief at 8:41 PM on July 29, 2006
Checking how his son feels about religion probably wouldn't hurt, though.
posted by mischief at 8:41 PM on July 29, 2006
"Go to church" would be a great answer to the question "Where can I go to learn about Jesus?"
And that is about all.
posted by Jimbob at 11:04 PM on July 29, 2006
And that is about all.
posted by Jimbob at 11:04 PM on July 29, 2006
Also, I'm pretty sure this is the first question asked about how to get your afairs in order before you blow your head off.
Yes, the title says "Who will take care of my kid if I go nuts?" but it definitely sounds bad.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:05 PM on July 29, 2006
Yes, the title says "Who will take care of my kid if I go nuts?" but it definitely sounds bad.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:05 PM on July 29, 2006
bigmusic, this is a lame callout. The question is from a person with a life unraveling, looking for help so they don't lose their son. Having a support network would help someone in that situation, whether that's from a World Of Warcraft Clan or the Mormon Church.
And you say "but he does this at the drop of the hat." but you provide no links to back that up. As dw said, if rinkjustice is mentioning it a lot, it's usually helpful and germane to the question being asked.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:07 PM on July 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
And you say "but he does this at the drop of the hat." but you provide no links to back that up. As dw said, if rinkjustice is mentioning it a lot, it's usually helpful and germane to the question being asked.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:07 PM on July 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
Jimbob: ""Go to church" would be a great answer to the question "Where can I go to learn about Jesus?"
And that is about all."
I was born in a Jewish family, and personally waver between agnosticism and outright atheism. I am most certainly not Christian - but I disagree with this. Strongly.
Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/etc. often form very tight-knit communities.... whose members can often be very helpful in looking out for one another.
Which isn't to say that any congregation would automatically be beneficial. But if someone finds the right community, they can find a lot of helping hands. Might even find caring people who would help keep an eye on a family should something awful happen.
Anon, for what it is worth (atheist prayers being by definition sort of pointless), my thoughts go out to you, and I hope you find your way through.
posted by John Smallberries at 11:15 PM on July 29, 2006
And that is about all."
I was born in a Jewish family, and personally waver between agnosticism and outright atheism. I am most certainly not Christian - but I disagree with this. Strongly.
Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/etc. often form very tight-knit communities.... whose members can often be very helpful in looking out for one another.
Which isn't to say that any congregation would automatically be beneficial. But if someone finds the right community, they can find a lot of helping hands. Might even find caring people who would help keep an eye on a family should something awful happen.
Anon, for what it is worth (atheist prayers being by definition sort of pointless), my thoughts go out to you, and I hope you find your way through.
posted by John Smallberries at 11:15 PM on July 29, 2006
So that I don't have to start a new callout, why are folks assuming the poster is contemplating suicide? Matt's been very clear that he won't post anon questions where he believes suicide is being considered; there's nothing in the text that speaks to it - just the first comment. What am I missing here, and why would Matt post it if it were likely that the person is planning on harming himself?
posted by aberrant at 11:38 PM on July 29, 2006
posted by aberrant at 11:38 PM on July 29, 2006
bigmusic, why do you have to impose your hate for religion on everybody?
Rinkjustice's answer was certainly germane to the question. Becoming part of a caring community, religious or otherwise, might even help anon, although I think anon needs stronger measures in the short term.
posted by caddis at 11:38 PM on July 29, 2006
Rinkjustice's answer was certainly germane to the question. Becoming part of a caring community, religious or otherwise, might even help anon, although I think anon needs stronger measures in the short term.
posted by caddis at 11:38 PM on July 29, 2006
And you say "but he does this at the drop of the hat." but you provide no links to back that up. As dw said, if rinkjustice is mentioning it a lot, it's usually helpful and germane to the question being asked.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
And before you say that it's 12 out of 157 please note that alot of his comments are me-tooisms or replys to his own questions.
Although really, he does seem to have real answers in his head besides "find god", particularly dealing with fitness (he's a personal trainer) and divorce (he's divorced) so he shouldn't be banned or anything. But really, the jesus answers solve nothing and help no one.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:40 PM on July 29, 2006
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
And before you say that it's 12 out of 157 please note that alot of his comments are me-tooisms or replys to his own questions.
Although really, he does seem to have real answers in his head besides "find god", particularly dealing with fitness (he's a personal trainer) and divorce (he's divorced) so he shouldn't be banned or anything. But really, the jesus answers solve nothing and help no one.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:40 PM on July 29, 2006
The problem with the answer it it seems santimonious. And it gives the impression rinkjustice isn't really listening to the question, but is listening for an opportunity to prosyltize. He appears to be taking the opportunity to advertise his church more than the opportunity to help the person asking.
It would be like me answering a programming question with "sounds like you need a consultant to help you. My hourly rate is...." While I may have been tempted to do that at times, I haven't because it seems to me to go against the spirit of community. (Full disclosure: sure, you can hire me, and some have. But I'm not going to bring it up in the askMe thread, anymore than I'd post a self-link in the blue.)
posted by orthogonality at 11:41 PM on July 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
It would be like me answering a programming question with "sounds like you need a consultant to help you. My hourly rate is...." While I may have been tempted to do that at times, I haven't because it seems to me to go against the spirit of community. (Full disclosure: sure, you can hire me, and some have. But I'm not going to bring it up in the askMe thread, anymore than I'd post a self-link in the blue.)
posted by orthogonality at 11:41 PM on July 29, 2006 [1 favorite]
Actually, just about all of the responses to the question were just as unresponsive/derail-itive as "go to church." The guy actually posted looking for legal advice regarding potential custody issues with respect to his child. Everyone (including me) read his post and thought "this guy is planning to kill himself" and so ignored his actual question and instead gave him advice on how to deal with his depression. I cannot fault people for wanting to prevent a tragedy, but neither can I pretend that they addressed the poster's question.
If the question had been "what do I do to prevent myself from committing suicide," then I have to concede that "go to church" would have been a legitimate response. I would argue, though, that by not allowing for the possibility that the poster was a non-believer or a Non-Christian of some description (something like "Go to church or, if you're not into religion, find some other community that will offer you support."), rinkjustice exhibits a lack of tact.
posted by Clay201 at 11:44 PM on July 29, 2006
If the question had been "what do I do to prevent myself from committing suicide," then I have to concede that "go to church" would have been a legitimate response. I would argue, though, that by not allowing for the possibility that the poster was a non-believer or a Non-Christian of some description (something like "Go to church or, if you're not into religion, find some other community that will offer you support."), rinkjustice exhibits a lack of tact.
posted by Clay201 at 11:44 PM on July 29, 2006
This is a hair trigger call out at best. rinkjustice appears to get community and spiritual fullfilment out of his church so it's one of the big tools in his kit but I don't see anything that justifies the pitchforks. Even his Book of Mormon recommendation in the religous thread appears to be a simple misreading of the question. A mistake I've made more than a few times.
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 PM on July 29, 2006
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 PM on July 29, 2006
bigmusic, why do you have to impose your hate for religion on everybody?
I don't hate religion. I have a deep respect and awe of religion. I don't believe in god the manner alot of other people do, but I do believe that having a spiritual life can enrich a persons life. As for the defintion and path of spirituality, that is for an individual to persue.
Rinkjustice's answer was certainly germane to the question. Becoming part of a caring community, religious or otherwise, might even help anon, although I think anon needs stronger measures in the short term.
I agree that having a support network is valuable whether it comes from a church or close friends is extermely valuable and helpful, I even wrote as much in my response to the question.
posted by bigmusic at 11:54 PM on July 29, 2006
I don't hate religion. I have a deep respect and awe of religion. I don't believe in god the manner alot of other people do, but I do believe that having a spiritual life can enrich a persons life. As for the defintion and path of spirituality, that is for an individual to persue.
Rinkjustice's answer was certainly germane to the question. Becoming part of a caring community, religious or otherwise, might even help anon, although I think anon needs stronger measures in the short term.
I agree that having a support network is valuable whether it comes from a church or close friends is extermely valuable and helpful, I even wrote as much in my response to the question.
posted by bigmusic at 11:54 PM on July 29, 2006
bob sarabia writes "But really, the jesus answers solve nothing and help no one."
I have a lot of problems with organized religion but many people seem to gain measurable benefit from their faith. It may not be a net gain overall but there are some positives. Heck Mel's predicament wouldn't nearly as funny if he was so batshit religious.
posted by Mitheral at 11:54 PM on July 29, 2006
I have a lot of problems with organized religion but many people seem to gain measurable benefit from their faith. It may not be a net gain overall but there are some positives. Heck Mel's predicament wouldn't nearly as funny if he was so batshit religious.
posted by Mitheral at 11:54 PM on July 29, 2006
I suppose there is some merit to religious answers, maybe, in very, very few cases. I guess I wouldn't mind the "find god" business if it wasn't the same person doing it again and again.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:04 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 12:04 AM on July 30, 2006
Having myself been on the receiving end of this kind of public dissection and having some idea of what it feels like, may I express the opinion that it is both unseemly and pointless to engage in this witch hunt? The point has been raised for Matt to see, and now it's up to him to make a decision. So let it go already.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:25 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:25 AM on July 30, 2006
The flagging system is too blunt for this kind of thing (even if the call out had been justified), the pattern wouldn't be noticable in the volume.
posted by Mitheral at 12:33 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by Mitheral at 12:33 AM on July 30, 2006
Steven C. Den Beste writes "Having myself been on the receiving end of this kind of public dissection and having some idea of what it feels like...."
But without that Den Beste dissection, I'd never have learned about cat-maidens. So maybe Steven has a point.
posted by orthogonality at 12:33 AM on July 30, 2006
But without that Den Beste dissection, I'd never have learned about cat-maidens. So maybe Steven has a point.
posted by orthogonality at 12:33 AM on July 30, 2006
Perhaps you will like my answer better? I didn't see this MeTalk thread until I had posted it. But I speak from experience.
I don't see how he's pimping his religion when he doesn't even say which religion it is.
posted by IndigoRain at 12:34 AM on July 30, 2006
I don't see how he's pimping his religion when he doesn't even say which religion it is.
posted by IndigoRain at 12:34 AM on July 30, 2006
It isn't like rinkjustice is browbeating people with his answers. In fact, even in the face of a lot of provocation, he appears to be very tactful.
posted by Chuckles at 12:35 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by Chuckles at 12:35 AM on July 30, 2006
I've had enough with the proselytizing; the only reason why I was willing to cut rinkjustice some slack was his OCD (though I have found other sources much more informative than his link in the thread where he mentions it), but the camel's back is broken. FWIW, I shared a writing class at Emerson with Chris Bigelow (though I don't agree with everything he writes in his blog).
posted by brujita at 12:50 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by brujita at 12:50 AM on July 30, 2006
I don't see how he's pimping his religion when he doesn't even say which religion it is.
you must have missed the link in his post.
lame call-out, though.
posted by jimmy at 12:54 AM on July 30, 2006
you must have missed the link in his post.
lame call-out, though.
posted by jimmy at 12:54 AM on July 30, 2006
Lame callout because it focuses on that one post. Please see my above comment.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:58 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 12:58 AM on July 30, 2006
Anonymous appears very much at the end of his rope. Rinkjustice has something (his church) that he genuinely feels will help (and has helped many people in similar situations). What else is he supposed to do? You may not agree with his answer (I don't agree with certain aspects of it either), but it's just as legitimate as any of the other answers in the thread. He clearly isn't acting insincerely or maliciously - it doesn't seem that our objection is based on anything other than your dislike of his opinions. Quite frankly, I think that these kinds of callouts hurt the site by discouraging people with minority opinions from participating.
posted by concrete at 2:38 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by concrete at 2:38 AM on July 30, 2006
The question was from a person implying he might end his own life, or at least take drastic actions that would affect others. Sure, the main point involved the welfare of his son, but the tone of the question invokes such desperation that it's only natural that many people will respond with ways to improve anonymous' own life.
Religion seems like a critical part of Rinkjustice's life from the limited comments I've read, and I think the response was his honest attempt to give the OP some hope and perhaps direction. The hyperlink to the Mormon Church was really tacky, but it doesn't seem to be worth a callout about. (It's not like Rinkjustice is benefiting financially from pimping his church.)
Sure, the best answers to the question would involve making a checklist, getting legal help, etc. But calling out someone because their opinion of how to gain perspective involves God seems rather closeminded.
posted by Happydaz at 3:38 AM on July 30, 2006
Religion seems like a critical part of Rinkjustice's life from the limited comments I've read, and I think the response was his honest attempt to give the OP some hope and perhaps direction. The hyperlink to the Mormon Church was really tacky, but it doesn't seem to be worth a callout about. (It's not like Rinkjustice is benefiting financially from pimping his church.)
Sure, the best answers to the question would involve making a checklist, getting legal help, etc. But calling out someone because their opinion of how to gain perspective involves God seems rather closeminded.
posted by Happydaz at 3:38 AM on July 30, 2006
"It would be like me answering a programming question with "sounds like you need a consultant to help you. My hourly rate is....""
It's not at all like that. In fact, many of your answers to programming questions are exactly "proselytizing". I think you've conveniently equated proselytizing with self-interest in this guy's case but distinguished it in yours. How nice for you.
The fault I see in his answer is that he doesn't make it clear how he's claiming that church will help his kids if he goes off the deep end. There's a lot of ways we can infer that he actually intended to answer the poster's question, but given that I agree with orthogonality that he seems eager to proselytize, the answer isn't completely convincing in its integrity.
Even so, it's clearly at the very least an indirect attempt to help him with his underlying problem, if not to answer his specific question. Most such answers are usually acceptable on AskMe. The only ones that are controversial are the ones that are not politically correct to a sufficient number of mefites.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:41 AM on July 30, 2006
It's not at all like that. In fact, many of your answers to programming questions are exactly "proselytizing". I think you've conveniently equated proselytizing with self-interest in this guy's case but distinguished it in yours. How nice for you.
The fault I see in his answer is that he doesn't make it clear how he's claiming that church will help his kids if he goes off the deep end. There's a lot of ways we can infer that he actually intended to answer the poster's question, but given that I agree with orthogonality that he seems eager to proselytize, the answer isn't completely convincing in its integrity.
Even so, it's clearly at the very least an indirect attempt to help him with his underlying problem, if not to answer his specific question. Most such answers are usually acceptable on AskMe. The only ones that are controversial are the ones that are not politically correct to a sufficient number of mefites.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:41 AM on July 30, 2006
Is citing the Book of Mormon so bad in a question asking for religious texts? I'm not suggesting it deserves a hint of credibility, but I question the idea that older and more widely revered texts do simply because they are older and more widely revered. So Jesus is the Son of God, turned water into wine, fed lots 5,000 people with a few breadsticks and fish fingers - but going to America? THAT'S JUST BATSHITINSANE!
Further, I have to question the idea that religion can provide a harmless support network like any other. It isn't only the small, apparently batshitinsane "cults" that prey on the weak: it's the established religions that are the masters at this. Judging by the degree of sincere feedback in that thread, the poster may have a support network available little closer to home.
posted by nthdegx at 3:50 AM on July 30, 2006
Further, I have to question the idea that religion can provide a harmless support network like any other. It isn't only the small, apparently batshitinsane "cults" that prey on the weak: it's the established religions that are the masters at this. Judging by the degree of sincere feedback in that thread, the poster may have a support network available little closer to home.
posted by nthdegx at 3:50 AM on July 30, 2006
Is citing the Book of Mormon so bad in a question asking for religious texts?
Well, the question was about good english translations of religious texts.
The Book of Mormon was originally written in english - unless you count the "translation" from "angel speak" or whatever was supposed to have gone on.
posted by Jimbob at 4:09 AM on July 30, 2006
Well, the question was about good english translations of religious texts.
The Book of Mormon was originally written in english - unless you count the "translation" from "angel speak" or whatever was supposed to have gone on.
posted by Jimbob at 4:09 AM on July 30, 2006
I like rinkjustice because he makes all you anti-religion types squeal.
posted by thirteenkiller at 4:36 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by thirteenkiller at 4:36 AM on July 30, 2006
squeal!
posted by riotgrrl69 at 5:04 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by riotgrrl69 at 5:04 AM on July 30, 2006
Jimbob - the book of Mormon was translated by putting magic stones in a magic hat. It's far more cost-effective and accurate than hiring translators.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 5:05 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by riotgrrl69 at 5:05 AM on July 30, 2006
I don't like rinkjustice's "go to church" answers more than I like some people's kneejerk "go to therapy" answers or other people's "you HAVE try yoga" anytime someone asks a question about anything body-related. I don't feel that they're really clueing in to what the question is asking in a specific way, just seeing a person in crisis and saying "what helped me will help them!" It's not that church or therapy or yoga might NOT help, it's just that it's valuable to the community to maybe say why you think your solution would help and, in this community, why church might work even if you think it might not.
There are a good amount of people on MeFi who are able to suggest that people seek spiritual help with whatever's bothering them without it seeming like a blunt one-size-fits-all solution to any emotional/personal problem. rinkjustice is not one of those people. His tendency to just offer church as an AA-type solution to depression and lonliness does make it seem like AskMe is the place he's chosen to proselytize. I'm not saying these answers should be removed, just that they're sort of "eh" from my perspective and they seem to be offered without a lot of perspective into the community he's offering them into.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:08 AM on July 30, 2006 [3 favorites]
There are a good amount of people on MeFi who are able to suggest that people seek spiritual help with whatever's bothering them without it seeming like a blunt one-size-fits-all solution to any emotional/personal problem. rinkjustice is not one of those people. His tendency to just offer church as an AA-type solution to depression and lonliness does make it seem like AskMe is the place he's chosen to proselytize. I'm not saying these answers should be removed, just that they're sort of "eh" from my perspective and they seem to be offered without a lot of perspective into the community he's offering them into.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:08 AM on July 30, 2006 [3 favorites]
I think I may also have read the question wrong and I totally answered it with my own experiences in mind. I find it hard to talk about these topics over the internet, when you cannot see the person and cannot talk with them. I also gave advice that did not answer the question. I kept it to a minimum, but I know how hard depression is. What if my suggestion did help him?
That said, as someone who suffered from depression, I can say that those "go to church" answers (that I also got in real life and over the internet back then) were not only unhelpful, they were actually hurting. My own church at the time was not really interested in me once I stopped going to bible study and I was increasingly aware that there was no simple solution. And there were the Jesus preachers with their ready made solution to all my problems.
I feel very strongly that if you think your church is the answer to someones problems, you should first connect to that person. Engage them into a conversation, offer to talk, repeatedly ask how it is going, etc. Show that you care, without overdoing it or pushing yourself. When the time is right, you can choose to mention your church. You do not evangelize your church to desperate people in two sentence answers without even the offer of follow up or any other sign of real care for the person involved.
posted by davar at 5:30 AM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
That said, as someone who suffered from depression, I can say that those "go to church" answers (that I also got in real life and over the internet back then) were not only unhelpful, they were actually hurting. My own church at the time was not really interested in me once I stopped going to bible study and I was increasingly aware that there was no simple solution. And there were the Jesus preachers with their ready made solution to all my problems.
I feel very strongly that if you think your church is the answer to someones problems, you should first connect to that person. Engage them into a conversation, offer to talk, repeatedly ask how it is going, etc. Show that you care, without overdoing it or pushing yourself. When the time is right, you can choose to mention your church. You do not evangelize your church to desperate people in two sentence answers without even the offer of follow up or any other sign of real care for the person involved.
posted by davar at 5:30 AM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
But the crux of what I'm saying is anon needs to pray to God for help.
Rinkjustice's advice is all fine and good if anon is religious, but if he's an atheist, it's probably going to make him feel a lot worse.
It reminds me of all the questions from permavirgins which people answer with "dude, just get laid".
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 5:43 AM on July 30, 2006
Rinkjustice's advice is all fine and good if anon is religious, but if he's an atheist, it's probably going to make him feel a lot worse.
It reminds me of all the questions from permavirgins which people answer with "dude, just get laid".
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 5:43 AM on July 30, 2006
but I am going to pimp my religion.
Dude, this one time Xzibit came to my church and I was all like 'No Way!' and he's like 'Yeah, Dog, what's up!' and then the guys at West Coast Customs took My Faith in God and added racing stripes, XM Satellite Radio, red leather seats and a 32 inch Plasma TV in the trunk. Bitchin'!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:07 AM on July 30, 2006 [3 favorites]
Dude, this one time Xzibit came to my church and I was all like 'No Way!' and he's like 'Yeah, Dog, what's up!' and then the guys at West Coast Customs took My Faith in God and added racing stripes, XM Satellite Radio, red leather seats and a 32 inch Plasma TV in the trunk. Bitchin'!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:07 AM on July 30, 2006 [3 favorites]
I don't hate religion.
I actually do, and rinkjustice's one-note answers tend to bug the shit out of me, but in this case I have to agree that this is a lame callout.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:37 AM on July 30, 2006
I actually do, and rinkjustice's one-note answers tend to bug the shit out of me, but in this case I have to agree that this is a lame callout.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:37 AM on July 30, 2006
I really hate proselytizing, though I recognize that it's a tenet of Mormonism. But recommending organized religion is honest, fair advice in this case. I'd be more appreciative and respectful of rinkjustice if he recommended that the poster find a religion, not his religion.
posted by theora55 at 7:15 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by theora55 at 7:15 AM on July 30, 2006
anonymous asks: "My question is: What else should I consider that even a good lawyer could miss? Also, how much might this cost?"
rinkjustice answers: "You need God on this one buddy."
Whether or not church suggestions are theoretically appropriate answers to some question, the answer seems wildly off target in this case. On one hand, I don't think there's any reason to impose some sort of gag order on religious members; as Jessamyn hints at, they should feel free to suggest church when it appears to be a specific solution to a specific problem. In this case, though, where anonymous is asking about topics he should raise with his attorney, rinkjustice suggests that he "need[s] God on this one." Not only is that not a specific solution to any problem, it deliberately ignores the question actually asked in this case, and that smacks of proselytizing.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:30 AM on July 30, 2006 [3 favorites]
rinkjustice answers: "You need God on this one buddy."
Whether or not church suggestions are theoretically appropriate answers to some question, the answer seems wildly off target in this case. On one hand, I don't think there's any reason to impose some sort of gag order on religious members; as Jessamyn hints at, they should feel free to suggest church when it appears to be a specific solution to a specific problem. In this case, though, where anonymous is asking about topics he should raise with his attorney, rinkjustice suggests that he "need[s] God on this one." Not only is that not a specific solution to any problem, it deliberately ignores the question actually asked in this case, and that smacks of proselytizing.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:30 AM on July 30, 2006 [3 favorites]
I often think that it would be a big improvement to the mefi set of websites if metatalk didn't exist -- what with the constant running to mefi to whine about some poster and the endless dissection and parsing of "the question" in each original post like lawyers.
Folks can't seem to see the forest for all those damn tress.
...and I don't care abour rinkjustice's answer, even though I'm not religious. If somebody were holding a gun to their head, mefites would want to debate what kind of gun it was and if it was really loaded.
posted by bim at 7:54 AM on July 30, 2006
Folks can't seem to see the forest for all those damn tress.
...and I don't care abour rinkjustice's answer, even though I'm not religious. If somebody were holding a gun to their head, mefites would want to debate what kind of gun it was and if it was really loaded.
posted by bim at 7:54 AM on July 30, 2006
He's a homophobic, preachy assbite which makes it easy to want to jump on everything he posts, but he answered the question.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:35 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:35 AM on July 30, 2006
... but he answered the question.
No, he didn't. See my earlier comment. Anonymous is asking for a "checklist ... to present to the lawyer," not generalized suggestions about support networks or church.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:42 AM on July 30, 2006
No, he didn't. See my earlier comment. Anonymous is asking for a "checklist ... to present to the lawyer," not generalized suggestions about support networks or church.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:42 AM on July 30, 2006
Under that definition, most of the answers in the thread were callout-worthy.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:54 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:54 AM on July 30, 2006
Okay... yeah, on a re-read you are right. He didn't answer it at all.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:56 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:56 AM on July 30, 2006
this is the first question asked about how to get your afairs in order before you blow your head off.
That wasn't the question at all, actually. anonymous is concerned about institutionalization, committing a crime and/or other things that might happen if the illness gets out of hand. I'm with monju on this one; it's wildly inappropriate for rinkjustice to baldly state that anonymous needs God's help when anonymous is asking about a medical condition that's growing out of control.
What other illnesses will it now be ok to preach faith cures for in AskMe, Matt?
Even leaving aside the other examples, this one is exactly what monju_bosatsu called it: wildly off-target proselytizing. And, judging from many past experiences with give-an-inch-take-a-mile evangelizers, it's only going to get more common the more the site tolerates it.
At the very least, the moderators should talk with rinkjustice to clarify when preaching is appropriate and when it's not.
posted by mediareport at 9:00 AM on July 30, 2006
That wasn't the question at all, actually. anonymous is concerned about institutionalization, committing a crime and/or other things that might happen if the illness gets out of hand. I'm with monju on this one; it's wildly inappropriate for rinkjustice to baldly state that anonymous needs God's help when anonymous is asking about a medical condition that's growing out of control.
What other illnesses will it now be ok to preach faith cures for in AskMe, Matt?
Even leaving aside the other examples, this one is exactly what monju_bosatsu called it: wildly off-target proselytizing. And, judging from many past experiences with give-an-inch-take-a-mile evangelizers, it's only going to get more common the more the site tolerates it.
At the very least, the moderators should talk with rinkjustice to clarify when preaching is appropriate and when it's not.
posted by mediareport at 9:00 AM on July 30, 2006
Ethereal Bligh writes "In fact, many of your answers to programming questions are exactly 'proselytizing'."
They're all attempts to answer the question, not to promote any organization or group of which I'm a member. Nor am I asking anyone to altre their fundamental world-view. Calling my answers 'proselytizing' stretches that word more than I think i the definition accomodates.
posted by orthogonality at 9:01 AM on July 30, 2006
They're all attempts to answer the question, not to promote any organization or group of which I'm a member. Nor am I asking anyone to altre their fundamental world-view. Calling my answers 'proselytizing' stretches that word more than I think i the definition accomodates.
posted by orthogonality at 9:01 AM on July 30, 2006
I think that he's asking that if he is AT ALL taken away from his son's life -- death, death by accident, prison, etc., what sort of legal measures should he take to ensure that his child stays in the child's mother's custody, and not his parents' custody. And while the child is in the mother's custody, anon dad wants to make sure that the benefits that child is currently getting because of dad will keep on going to the child and that the child won't end up being financially hurt because of dad's legal fees.
He says "Who will take care of my kid if I go nuts?"
Sure, it is an odd thing to be concerned about, but is it that much different from parents listing in their wills that they want Uncle Bob and Aunt Mary to be their children's guardian if they happen to die? Or creating a trust for children? (Being told which aunt and uncle I would live with if my parents were to die freaked me out terribly as a child.)
posted by k8t at 9:16 AM on July 30, 2006
He says "Who will take care of my kid if I go nuts?"
Sure, it is an odd thing to be concerned about, but is it that much different from parents listing in their wills that they want Uncle Bob and Aunt Mary to be their children's guardian if they happen to die? Or creating a trust for children? (Being told which aunt and uncle I would live with if my parents were to die freaked me out terribly as a child.)
posted by k8t at 9:16 AM on July 30, 2006
Although I responded to the question in its thread, I saw at the time of my response that the question was both broad, and poorly expressed, in that it seemed to admit of many possible interpretations, which all could bear differently on the answer given. In the case of anonymous questions, there has to be a higher bar for specificity, if AskMe is to function well, since the usual opportunities for follow up and particulars are intentionally limited.
I feel sorry when AskMe posters and respondents don't connect questions with helpful, pertinent and succinct answers, because it becomes a waste of everyone's time and effort, but frankly, this is a case of the old Internet adage "Ask a question poorly, get plenty of bad answers."
posted by paulsc at 9:36 AM on July 30, 2006
I feel sorry when AskMe posters and respondents don't connect questions with helpful, pertinent and succinct answers, because it becomes a waste of everyone's time and effort, but frankly, this is a case of the old Internet adage "Ask a question poorly, get plenty of bad answers."
posted by paulsc at 9:36 AM on July 30, 2006
When the question has a title: "Who will take care of my kid if I go nuts?" then rinkjustice's answer is fair enough. You don't have to like or agree with the answer, but it's a valid response. It's not a legal document where we should be looking for infractions of perceived literal minutiae. As long as responses generally track to within the broad brush scope of the poster's question then they should be allowed. Personally I don't care about the link and I don't really see it as proselytizing but maybe I've got a higher threshold.
posted by peacay at 9:44 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by peacay at 9:44 AM on July 30, 2006
... I saw at the time of my response that the question was both broad, and poorly expressed, in that it seemed to admit of many possible interpretations ...
None of which could lead to "go to church" as a possible answer to the specific problem posed. The question might have been broad, but was not particularly poorly expressed. Anonymous clearly expresses his concern that his depression will prevent him for caring or providing for his child, and he says that he will be making an appointment with an attorney. Anonymous then asks for a checklist of topics to cover with his attorney, and provides several examples of topics he has already thought of, all of which are legal/financial. Even accepting that there are some ambiguities in the question, none render the question so indefinite that "go to church" is a legitimate answer to the question.
When the question has a title: "Who will take care of my kid if I go nuts?" then rinkjustice's answer is fair enough.
That takes the title totally out of context. Answerers should not feel like reading the title alone gives license to answer the question. Anybody who writes an answer should take the time to read and understand the question actually posed, not just the general topic. Rinkjustice certainly didn't do that, and his suggestion that anonymous become a Mormon doesn't come even close to answering the question.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:51 AM on July 30, 2006
None of which could lead to "go to church" as a possible answer to the specific problem posed. The question might have been broad, but was not particularly poorly expressed. Anonymous clearly expresses his concern that his depression will prevent him for caring or providing for his child, and he says that he will be making an appointment with an attorney. Anonymous then asks for a checklist of topics to cover with his attorney, and provides several examples of topics he has already thought of, all of which are legal/financial. Even accepting that there are some ambiguities in the question, none render the question so indefinite that "go to church" is a legitimate answer to the question.
When the question has a title: "Who will take care of my kid if I go nuts?" then rinkjustice's answer is fair enough.
That takes the title totally out of context. Answerers should not feel like reading the title alone gives license to answer the question. Anybody who writes an answer should take the time to read and understand the question actually posed, not just the general topic. Rinkjustice certainly didn't do that, and his suggestion that anonymous become a Mormon doesn't come even close to answering the question.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:51 AM on July 30, 2006
peacay, be sure to check rinkjustice's 2nd answer in that thread: "the crux of what I'm saying is anon needs to pray to God for help." I used to pull overnight shifts at a suicide hotline, so perhaps I'm a bit biased, but telling someone whose medications aren't controlling their mental illness that they need to pray to God for help strikes me very much like noise.
I do see your point, though, about responses that "generally track" the question, and agree with paulsc - it was a badly formed question. But I also don't think it's unusual that a fundamentalist evangelical might need an extra nudge to stay within the AskMe guidelines, and hope that we're not seeing a trend towards more faith-based responses to serious medical issues.
posted by mediareport at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2006
I do see your point, though, about responses that "generally track" the question, and agree with paulsc - it was a badly formed question. But I also don't think it's unusual that a fundamentalist evangelical might need an extra nudge to stay within the AskMe guidelines, and hope that we're not seeing a trend towards more faith-based responses to serious medical issues.
posted by mediareport at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2006
Never agreed with you more, monju.
Moreover, what really annoys me about this sort of thing is that it reeks of the kneejerk response many Mormon's seem to have to weakness. It's like blood in the water to those that prey with prayer. Maybe recent international events have made me overly sensitive to this sort of thing, but this answer (with its lack of nuance or insight) just made my bullshit detector go off.
posted by drpynchon at 10:18 AM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Moreover, what really annoys me about this sort of thing is that it reeks of the kneejerk response many Mormon's seem to have to weakness. It's like blood in the water to those that prey with prayer. Maybe recent international events have made me overly sensitive to this sort of thing, but this answer (with its lack of nuance or insight) just made my bullshit detector go off.
posted by drpynchon at 10:18 AM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it's a really sucky thing for him to post. It stinks of "ooh! ooh! suffering, vulnerable person! maybe I can trick them into religion!"
posted by reklaw at 10:53 AM on July 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by reklaw at 10:53 AM on July 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
Church saved my life. I'm glad someone recommended it when they did.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:58 AM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:58 AM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
I often think that it would be a big improvement to the mefi set of websites if metatalk didn't exist --
no, because all the things you don't like about the gray will be in the blue and the green, instead ... at least here, it's been isolated and a person doesn't have to deal with it if they don't want to
i don't think rinkjustice's comment was all that helpful ... but neither is the thin-skinned offence people are taking at it
things can be passed over in silence ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:03 AM on July 30, 2006
no, because all the things you don't like about the gray will be in the blue and the green, instead ... at least here, it's been isolated and a person doesn't have to deal with it if they don't want to
i don't think rinkjustice's comment was all that helpful ... but neither is the thin-skinned offence people are taking at it
things can be passed over in silence ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:03 AM on July 30, 2006
Come on people, go back and read that question!
Non says he's concerned about "legal expenses if I commit a crime" and "she has her own mental issues and I know my parents would hock their souls if given the opportunity to take him from her" and "my primary concern is my son's welfare" and then talks about "delusional territory."
I want members who are posting to this thread to forget about rinkjustice and assure themselves that non is not planning to kill his wife and leave his son in his parents custody!
And then please try to reassure me!
posted by jamjam at 11:15 AM on July 30, 2006
Non says he's concerned about "legal expenses if I commit a crime" and "she has her own mental issues and I know my parents would hock their souls if given the opportunity to take him from her" and "my primary concern is my son's welfare" and then talks about "delusional territory."
I want members who are posting to this thread to forget about rinkjustice and assure themselves that non is not planning to kill his wife and leave his son in his parents custody!
And then please try to reassure me!
posted by jamjam at 11:15 AM on July 30, 2006
"What other illnesses will it now be ok to preach faith cures for in AskMe, Matt?"
and
"...but telling someone whose medications aren't controlling their mental illness that they need to pray to God for help strikes me very much like noise."
Just like almost every other freakin' answer to an AskMe question, the answerer thinks that they're answering the question. A whole bunch of those answers are wrong. I don't see anyone asking that all those wrong answers be deleted.
I cannot understand this sort of hypocrisy. It's infuriating.
This sort of unself-critical antireligionism on MeFi is a general problem, but this specific example of it is egregious. Even if we assume that the actual truth-value of these assertions of the value of faith and prayer were not the matters of honest contention that they are, and were instead universally agreed to be false, there's nothing about AskMe that says that apparently good-faith answers to question that are false are forbidden and should be deleted.
"They're all attempts to answer the question, not to promote any organization or group of which I'm a member. Nor am I asking anyone to altre their fundamental world-view. Calling my answers 'proselytizing' stretches that word more than I think i the definition accommodates."
Answering "what can I do about my depression" with "go to church" is the same thing as answering "how should I solve this programming problem" with "use Python". (I'm not referring to any specific thing you've written.) They're both simple and earnest answers to questions about utility. Answers about utility which are controversial, subjective, and in which people often tend to have enough personally invested such that it's important to them that other people agree.
I don't have the time or interest, but I'm extremely curious as to whether or not I'd find in your AskMe answers any examples of "asking anyone to alter their fundamental world-view" to a belief you share. Given how much such behavior apparently offends you, I trust I wouldn't find any. Is that right?
And we all know that if there's one thing that we don't tolerate here at MetaFilter, it's asking people with whom we disagree to change their fundamental worldview.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:43 AM on July 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
and
"...but telling someone whose medications aren't controlling their mental illness that they need to pray to God for help strikes me very much like noise."
Just like almost every other freakin' answer to an AskMe question, the answerer thinks that they're answering the question. A whole bunch of those answers are wrong. I don't see anyone asking that all those wrong answers be deleted.
I cannot understand this sort of hypocrisy. It's infuriating.
This sort of unself-critical antireligionism on MeFi is a general problem, but this specific example of it is egregious. Even if we assume that the actual truth-value of these assertions of the value of faith and prayer were not the matters of honest contention that they are, and were instead universally agreed to be false, there's nothing about AskMe that says that apparently good-faith answers to question that are false are forbidden and should be deleted.
"They're all attempts to answer the question, not to promote any organization or group of which I'm a member. Nor am I asking anyone to altre their fundamental world-view. Calling my answers 'proselytizing' stretches that word more than I think i the definition accommodates."
Answering "what can I do about my depression" with "go to church" is the same thing as answering "how should I solve this programming problem" with "use Python". (I'm not referring to any specific thing you've written.) They're both simple and earnest answers to questions about utility. Answers about utility which are controversial, subjective, and in which people often tend to have enough personally invested such that it's important to them that other people agree.
I don't have the time or interest, but I'm extremely curious as to whether or not I'd find in your AskMe answers any examples of "asking anyone to alter their fundamental world-view" to a belief you share. Given how much such behavior apparently offends you, I trust I wouldn't find any. Is that right?
And we all know that if there's one thing that we don't tolerate here at MetaFilter, it's asking people with whom we disagree to change their fundamental worldview.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:43 AM on July 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
Seriously, I hate Christ every bit as much as we all (apparently) do here , but this is a very lame callout. If a guy constantly mentions Christ/Church/Mormonism as a bedrock of his beliefs, and he seems to be genuinely trying to be helpful, how is that worse than any of the other solutions people have posed that may or may not work for specific individuals? Freedom of religion means freedom to promote/advocate that religion, not just freedom to practice it in secret in a basement with your coven of sectarian followers.
posted by jonson at 11:59 AM on July 30, 2006
posted by jonson at 11:59 AM on July 30, 2006
A whole bunch of those answers are wrong. I don't see anyone asking that all those wrong answers be deleted.
I cannot understand this sort of hypocrisy. It's infuriating.
There's nothing hypocritical about that at all. It's merely not evenhanded.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:08 PM on July 30, 2006
I cannot understand this sort of hypocrisy. It's infuriating.
There's nothing hypocritical about that at all. It's merely not evenhanded.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:08 PM on July 30, 2006
Seriously, I hate Christ every bit as much as we all (apparently) do here..
I don't really hate Christ or Buddha or Yahweh or Allah or any other name for whatever you want to call "god" however one may (or may not) perceive it.
Now a lot of the literal minded adherents of these various religions, them I could do without. So let's not tar and feather all "religious people -- or else we'd have to chuck out Martin Luther King, William Sloane Coffin and a lot of other good folks.
But I agree with the rest of jonson's post (this is much ado about nothing as far as rinkjustice's post goes) -- which scares me a little. :>
posted by bim at 12:18 PM on July 30, 2006
I don't really hate Christ or Buddha or Yahweh or Allah or any other name for whatever you want to call "god" however one may (or may not) perceive it.
Now a lot of the literal minded adherents of these various religions, them I could do without. So let's not tar and feather all "religious people -- or else we'd have to chuck out Martin Luther King, William Sloane Coffin and a lot of other good folks.
But I agree with the rest of jonson's post (this is much ado about nothing as far as rinkjustice's post goes) -- which scares me a little. :>
posted by bim at 12:18 PM on July 30, 2006
"There's nothing hypocritical about that at all. It's merely not evenhanded."
No, the lack of evenhandedness is hypocrisy because they're explicitly or implicitly asserting a principle should be followed which they demonstrably do not follow themselves. Thus the notion of deceitfulness, which for me is the secondary definition of hypocrisy. It's also hypocrisy because it's insufficiently critical—using what I prefer as the primary definition of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, your evenhandedness is the behavior of objecting to some answers and not to others. The hypocrisy is in asserting some principle which would require the evenhandedness they don't exhibit.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2006
No, the lack of evenhandedness is hypocrisy because they're explicitly or implicitly asserting a principle should be followed which they demonstrably do not follow themselves. Thus the notion of deceitfulness, which for me is the secondary definition of hypocrisy. It's also hypocrisy because it's insufficiently critical—using what I prefer as the primary definition of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, your evenhandedness is the behavior of objecting to some answers and not to others. The hypocrisy is in asserting some principle which would require the evenhandedness they don't exhibit.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2006
Dear AskMeFi,
I have a 1994 Jeep ZJ and I've been contemplating swapping the NP249 transfer case with NP242. Will I have to modify the input and output shafts? What about the shift linkage?
You need God on this one buddy.
posted by rinkjustice at 10:33 PM EST on July 29
posted by c13 at 12:27 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
I have a 1994 Jeep ZJ and I've been contemplating swapping the NP249 transfer case with NP242. Will I have to modify the input and output shafts? What about the shift linkage?
You need God on this one buddy.
posted by rinkjustice at 10:33 PM EST on July 29
posted by c13 at 12:27 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
No, the lack of evenhandedness is hypocrisy because they're explicitly or implicitly asserting a principle should be followed which they demonstrably do not follow themselves.
They are doing no such thing. There is no explicit or implicit assertion of any principle by doing this. Don't be fucking ridiculous. One can not like something and complain about it while not liking something else and not complaining about it without being hypcritical. In fact, pretty much every time people do this, it isn't hypocritical.
What you prefer as the principle definition of hypocrisy is batshitinsane. Insufficient criticism? Say huh?
Essentially, what you're saying is that if someone dislikes a number fo things, then unless one complains about all of those things, one is hypocritical. That is fucking retarded.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:37 PM on July 30, 2006
They are doing no such thing. There is no explicit or implicit assertion of any principle by doing this. Don't be fucking ridiculous. One can not like something and complain about it while not liking something else and not complaining about it without being hypcritical. In fact, pretty much every time people do this, it isn't hypocritical.
What you prefer as the principle definition of hypocrisy is batshitinsane. Insufficient criticism? Say huh?
Essentially, what you're saying is that if someone dislikes a number fo things, then unless one complains about all of those things, one is hypocritical. That is fucking retarded.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:37 PM on July 30, 2006
Sorry c13, I can't find any good pics of the anti-christ..
posted by Chuckles at 12:45 PM on July 30, 2006
I don't see anyone asking that all those wrong answers be deleted.
Ethereal, please try to keep different responders in this thread distinct. Your rush to judge us all makes for a very confusing post; you quote me twice but end up responding to various others. I think I was the first one to bring up rinkjustice's AskMe pattern here in MeTa, but I've tried to be reasonable throughout. I'm simply asking that the moderators talk with rinkjustice to clarify when proselytizing is appropriate and when it's not, and ask him to use some restraint. I don't "hate religion," but I do think it's bad for AskMe that some fundamentalist evangelizers see every thread about depression as a chance to jump in and spread the Good News. It can be singularly unhelpful, as it clearly was in this case.
posted by mediareport at 12:47 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Ethereal, please try to keep different responders in this thread distinct. Your rush to judge us all makes for a very confusing post; you quote me twice but end up responding to various others. I think I was the first one to bring up rinkjustice's AskMe pattern here in MeTa, but I've tried to be reasonable throughout. I'm simply asking that the moderators talk with rinkjustice to clarify when proselytizing is appropriate and when it's not, and ask him to use some restraint. I don't "hate religion," but I do think it's bad for AskMe that some fundamentalist evangelizers see every thread about depression as a chance to jump in and spread the Good News. It can be singularly unhelpful, as it clearly was in this case.
posted by mediareport at 12:47 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
the most virulent proselytizers, the most uberconservative spewers of steely, unbending dogmatic decree, the most facistic final-solutionists are the rabid atheists of mefi. at the very mention of religion thier organs become engorged and purple with eagerness to march all beleivers en masse to the nearest gas chamber lest thier pristine intellectualism become besmirched by even the acknowledgement of the existence of spirituality in others. they have seen the enemy, and become him. lol!
posted by quonsar at 12:49 PM on July 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by quonsar at 12:49 PM on July 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
That is fucking retarded.
Its not fucking retarded. Its philosophical.
Here you go, Chuckles.
posted by c13 at 12:53 PM on July 30, 2006
Its not fucking retarded. Its philosophical.
Here you go, Chuckles.
posted by c13 at 12:53 PM on July 30, 2006
"There is no explicit or implicit assertion of any principle by doing this."
Both the examples I quote, and to which my accusation of hypocrisy applied, asserted (implicitly in the first case and explicitly in the second) that those answers were unacceptable because they were false. Not because they simply didn't "prefer" them.
"What you prefer as the principle definition of hypocrisy is batshitinsane. Insufficient criticism? Say huh?"
Do you have a dictionary handy, with etymologies? Use it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:58 PM on July 30, 2006
Both the examples I quote, and to which my accusation of hypocrisy applied, asserted (implicitly in the first case and explicitly in the second) that those answers were unacceptable because they were false. Not because they simply didn't "prefer" them.
"What you prefer as the principle definition of hypocrisy is batshitinsane. Insufficient criticism? Say huh?"
Do you have a dictionary handy, with etymologies? Use it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:58 PM on July 30, 2006
Both the examples I quote
It's like you live in Bizarro-world or something. Or you're hallucinating.
Do you have a dictionary handy, with etymologies? Use it.
Yeah, the OED. And you're talking out of your ass. You called out some people with the loaded label of hyporcite, I called you on it, and now you're trying to make up a new definition for the word. You lost, fuck off, and try again elsewhere.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:01 PM on July 30, 2006
It's like you live in Bizarro-world or something. Or you're hallucinating.
Do you have a dictionary handy, with etymologies? Use it.
Yeah, the OED. And you're talking out of your ass. You called out some people with the loaded label of hyporcite, I called you on it, and now you're trying to make up a new definition for the word. You lost, fuck off, and try again elsewhere.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:01 PM on July 30, 2006
at least, according to you he lost. From where I read it, EB is right, and you're dancing around your mistake, SOL.
posted by jonson at 1:10 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by jonson at 1:10 PM on July 30, 2006
(Hint: the word has its roots in "crisis", not "critic". But, y'know, you'd know that if you did have a dictionary handy with etymologies. I'm not sure if advising someone to look up a word when one clearly has not done so himself is hypocritical or not. It's definitely laughably stupid.)
posted by solid-one-love at 1:12 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by solid-one-love at 1:12 PM on July 30, 2006
What mistake would that be, jonson? Understanding English? Not making shit up out of whole cloth?
posted by solid-one-love at 1:12 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by solid-one-love at 1:12 PM on July 30, 2006
I'm going to post an AskMe that says "I've recently lost my faith, so I've been drinking a ton of iced tea sweetened with about two cups of Nutrasweet" so his head will explode and we don't have to deal with his terrible answers any more.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:15 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:15 PM on July 30, 2006
"Ethereal, please try to keep different responders in this thread distinct. Your rush to judge us all makes for a very confusing post; you quote me twice but end up responding to various others."
Noted. I'll try to be more explicit when I transition from the particular to the general and when I'm talking about something/someone else entirely.
I make strong generalized statements on this topic because if there's one subject which is treated unfairly on MeFi it's religious belief, particularly Christianity. The unfairness is hypocritical, and thus particulalry galling, because many of the specific offenders and MeFi in general decry comparable unfairness involving the same principles and point to said unfairness of enemies as symptomatic and revealing.
Anyway, as an aside, I'll mention that I've been revisiting lately what seems to me to be the chasm between those who tend to see, first and foremost, the structual similarity between if X, then Y and if A, then B and then determine comparability, and those who tend to see, first and foremost, their belief in the truth value of each of those statements and then determine comparability. For those of us in the former group, hypocritical behavior is rampant—while the latter group will always say something which amounts to the two things are completely different because one is true and one is false. I have a lot of difficulty communicating with that group.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:19 PM on July 30, 2006
Noted. I'll try to be more explicit when I transition from the particular to the general and when I'm talking about something/someone else entirely.
I make strong generalized statements on this topic because if there's one subject which is treated unfairly on MeFi it's religious belief, particularly Christianity. The unfairness is hypocritical, and thus particulalry galling, because many of the specific offenders and MeFi in general decry comparable unfairness involving the same principles and point to said unfairness of enemies as symptomatic and revealing.
Anyway, as an aside, I'll mention that I've been revisiting lately what seems to me to be the chasm between those who tend to see, first and foremost, the structual similarity between if X, then Y and if A, then B and then determine comparability, and those who tend to see, first and foremost, their belief in the truth value of each of those statements and then determine comparability. For those of us in the former group, hypocritical behavior is rampant—while the latter group will always say something which amounts to the two things are completely different because one is true and one is false. I have a lot of difficulty communicating with that group.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:19 PM on July 30, 2006
EB, rinkjustice's comment is not simply an answer that fails to answer the question--as I agree, many of the answers in that thread fail to do. Rinkjustice's comment is just one example of his habit of inserting proselytizing comments disguised as answers to several different questions. He basically said as much, and has been called on it before. If you can show me another answer in that thread that exhibits a member's pattern of deliberating making non-answers in questions to promote their personal viewpoint, I will happily agree that it should be deleted. How's that for evenhandedness?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:20 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:20 PM on July 30, 2006
The unfairness is hypocritical
You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what the word means. I recommend using another. We might be able to find a word with one syllable for you.
If one does not like any monotheistic religions, but only complains about Christiaity, they are not being hypocritical by any definition but your own.
I'm not sure that I would even agree that it is unfair, because the audience is primarily Christian.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:23 PM on July 30, 2006
You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what the word means. I recommend using another. We might be able to find a word with one syllable for you.
If one does not like any monotheistic religions, but only complains about Christiaity, they are not being hypocritical by any definition but your own.
I'm not sure that I would even agree that it is unfair, because the audience is primarily Christian.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:23 PM on July 30, 2006
Would it be less annoying if, instead of "church", he said "church, temple, mosque or other religious community"? If he said "you need God, Allah, or Yahweh on this one?".
posted by AmbroseChapel at 1:25 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by AmbroseChapel at 1:25 PM on July 30, 2006
"I'm not sure if advising someone to look up a word when one clearly has not done so himself is hypocritical or not. It's definitely laughably stupid."
Oh, for fuck's sake, you moron. The root is krinein, "to sift, decide"—and krinein is also the root of the word critic. Unbelievable. Get back to me when you know Homeric and Attic Greek, like I do.
"You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what the word means. I recommend using another. We might be able to find a word with one syllable for you."
I recall another thread where we argued and you embarrassed yourself as egregiously as you do here. Do you not learn anything from this? It's astonishing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:28 PM on July 30, 2006
Oh, for fuck's sake, you moron. The root is krinein, "to sift, decide"—and krinein is also the root of the word critic. Unbelievable. Get back to me when you know Homeric and Attic Greek, like I do.
"You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what the word means. I recommend using another. We might be able to find a word with one syllable for you."
I recall another thread where we argued and you embarrassed yourself as egregiously as you do here. Do you not learn anything from this? It's astonishing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:28 PM on July 30, 2006
"Rinkjustice's comment is just one example of his habit of inserting proselytizing comments disguised as answers to several different questions."
I agree. I certainly do not intend to defend rinkjstice in general. I'm criticizing what seems to me to be the hypersensitivity of the callout and the larger trend I think such hypersensitivity exemplifies.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:31 PM on July 30, 2006
I agree. I certainly do not intend to defend rinkjstice in general. I'm criticizing what seems to me to be the hypersensitivity of the callout and the larger trend I think such hypersensitivity exemplifies.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:31 PM on July 30, 2006
I actually thought
"Hold on, please. Your son needs you more than you could know."
was a more annoying post. What an inappropriate use of a cliché, especially when the OP presumably knows exactly how much his son needs him.
What a weird thread. As soon as it got over being about suicide, it was about murder? I'm glad he de-anonymised, it was getting bizarre in there.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 1:33 PM on July 30, 2006
"Hold on, please. Your son needs you more than you could know."
was a more annoying post. What an inappropriate use of a cliché, especially when the OP presumably knows exactly how much his son needs him.
What a weird thread. As soon as it got over being about suicide, it was about murder? I'm glad he de-anonymised, it was getting bizarre in there.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 1:33 PM on July 30, 2006
Seriously, SOL... step away from the keyboard for a bit. You're making this personal, and it has nothing to do with you.
posted by jonson at 1:33 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by jonson at 1:33 PM on July 30, 2006
The root is krinein, "to sift, decide"—and krinein is also the root of the word critic.
The root of both crisis and critic are krinein, but that doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong. All sorts of words have common roots that do not form common meanings for those words. It's like I'm talking with a guy who thought about studying linguistics but decided that it would be too hard.
Get back to me when you know how to read, like I do.
I recall another thread where we argued and you embarrassed yourself as egregiously as you do here
I recall almost nothing but threads where you have done this. Wah, wah, wah.
You are wrong. In nowhere but your own fevered mind can your personal definition of hypocrisy be found. And, y'know, one simple citation would be all it takes, but I know for a fact that you won't be able to find one. As do you. Which is why you're so testy for being rightly called out as a fucking retard.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:38 PM on July 30, 2006
The root of both crisis and critic are krinein, but that doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong. All sorts of words have common roots that do not form common meanings for those words. It's like I'm talking with a guy who thought about studying linguistics but decided that it would be too hard.
Get back to me when you know how to read, like I do.
I recall another thread where we argued and you embarrassed yourself as egregiously as you do here
I recall almost nothing but threads where you have done this. Wah, wah, wah.
You are wrong. In nowhere but your own fevered mind can your personal definition of hypocrisy be found. And, y'know, one simple citation would be all it takes, but I know for a fact that you won't be able to find one. As do you. Which is why you're so testy for being rightly called out as a fucking retard.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:38 PM on July 30, 2006
Seriously, Jonson, stay the fuck out of what doesn't concern you. I'm tired of EB's high-handed, pseudo-intellectual bullshit trolling and I'm calling him on it.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:39 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by solid-one-love at 1:39 PM on July 30, 2006
monju_bosatsu writes "How's that for evenhandedness?"
I think you would be closer to demonstrating it if you acknowledged that for some people who read the poster's question and question title, a not unreasonable answer in all the circumstances was to respond with 'religion' (obviously paraphrasing). You view a narrow construct and I'm saying that, just for myself, I see this as one of those questions where a broader view is indicated.
It's not a computer fix, it's not a recipe additive; they were some serious issues that were at best articulated clumsily. In these sorts of situations, it's well within the bounds of a acceptibility for answers to cover a wider gamut than the narrow interpretation you have asserted here.
And this has nothing to do with what I thought of rinkjustice's answer, nor had I read their 2nd response in that thread until mediareport mentioned it.
posted by peacay at 1:45 PM on July 30, 2006
I think you would be closer to demonstrating it if you acknowledged that for some people who read the poster's question and question title, a not unreasonable answer in all the circumstances was to respond with 'religion' (obviously paraphrasing). You view a narrow construct and I'm saying that, just for myself, I see this as one of those questions where a broader view is indicated.
It's not a computer fix, it's not a recipe additive; they were some serious issues that were at best articulated clumsily. In these sorts of situations, it's well within the bounds of a acceptibility for answers to cover a wider gamut than the narrow interpretation you have asserted here.
And this has nothing to do with what I thought of rinkjustice's answer, nor had I read their 2nd response in that thread until mediareport mentioned it.
posted by peacay at 1:45 PM on July 30, 2006
and I'm calling him on it.
But the thing is, you're not so much "calling him on it" as you are just picking a fight. In which you are wrong. And embarassing yourself.
posted by jonson at 1:50 PM on July 30, 2006
But the thing is, you're not so much "calling him on it" as you are just picking a fight. In which you are wrong. And embarassing yourself.
posted by jonson at 1:50 PM on July 30, 2006
Oh, my. I've figured it out. EB thinks that the construction of the word (hypo+critical) means that the word can be used to define the act of being deficiently critical (never mind that the 'critical' form is a late addition to English, something EB almost certainly didn't know until I challenged him).
He's wrong, of course. To use another example, the word "agnostic" was coined specifically by Thomas Huxley to define a particular philosophy, although the word's roots imply that it could mean "without magical or spiritual knowledge" or "without Gnosticism", when, of course, it does not mean either of those things, nor has it ever.
All the Homeric Greek in the world isn't a defense for making shit up based on a stupid and ignorant assumption about the construction of a word. And I have five bucks that says that EB will spend more time trying to dredge up some old argument where he thinks (incorrectly) that he bested me than he spends trying (and failing) to find a citation to show he's right.
Oh, yes, Jonson, I'm wrong and embrassing myself. Sure. Take a walk.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:52 PM on July 30, 2006
He's wrong, of course. To use another example, the word "agnostic" was coined specifically by Thomas Huxley to define a particular philosophy, although the word's roots imply that it could mean "without magical or spiritual knowledge" or "without Gnosticism", when, of course, it does not mean either of those things, nor has it ever.
All the Homeric Greek in the world isn't a defense for making shit up based on a stupid and ignorant assumption about the construction of a word. And I have five bucks that says that EB will spend more time trying to dredge up some old argument where he thinks (incorrectly) that he bested me than he spends trying (and failing) to find a citation to show he's right.
Oh, yes, Jonson, I'm wrong and embrassing myself. Sure. Take a walk.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:52 PM on July 30, 2006
I love these happy family gatherings.
Would you please pass the potato salad?
posted by ericb at 1:55 PM on July 30, 2006
Would you please pass the potato salad?
posted by ericb at 1:55 PM on July 30, 2006
Seriously, Jonson, stay the fuck out of what doesn't concern you. I'm tired of EB's high-handed, pseudo-intellectual bullshit trolling and I'm calling him on it.
Yeah, you. Stay out of my MeTa call out! Mine! MINE! MINE!
posted by mrmojoflying at 1:57 PM on July 30, 2006
Yeah, you. Stay out of my MeTa call out! Mine! MINE! MINE!
posted by mrmojoflying at 1:57 PM on July 30, 2006
is anyone going to give me an etymologically based correction if i call this argument stupid?
i wouldn't want to misuse the word stupid, you know
posted by pyramid termite at 2:05 PM on July 30, 2006
i wouldn't want to misuse the word stupid, you know
posted by pyramid termite at 2:05 PM on July 30, 2006
Two words come to mind here : mental masturbation.
Have a nice day. :)
posted by bim at 2:16 PM on July 30, 2006
Have a nice day. :)
posted by bim at 2:16 PM on July 30, 2006
No, it's stupid, PT, in pretty much every way. EB's stupid for using an emotionally-loaded word like 'hypocrite' where it doesn't apply. I'm stupid for investing effort in an over-the-top correction about something that bugs me, posted by someone who bugs me.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:18 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by solid-one-love at 2:18 PM on July 30, 2006
Now is it time for the elephant?
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 2:25 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 2:25 PM on July 30, 2006
I certainly do not intend to defend rinkjstice in general. I'm criticizing what seems to me to be the hypersensitivity of the callout and the larger trend I think such hypersensitivity exemplifies.
Meanwhile, the more thoughtful folks here are concerned with the specific case in question. There have been at least two, and I say more, cases in which rinkjustice has inappropriately inserted proselytizing into AskMe. Stating "Fornication is a sin" in a thread asking for help *getting over* religious guilt about sex remains the classic example, and indicative of the deeper issue that needs to be addressed by the moderators.
posted by mediareport at 2:29 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, the more thoughtful folks here are concerned with the specific case in question. There have been at least two, and I say more, cases in which rinkjustice has inappropriately inserted proselytizing into AskMe. Stating "Fornication is a sin" in a thread asking for help *getting over* religious guilt about sex remains the classic example, and indicative of the deeper issue that needs to be addressed by the moderators.
posted by mediareport at 2:29 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
solid-one-love,
I don't know if EB is right or if he's wrong. But given the arguments presented here, his arguments make him appear correct, and your counterarguments just make him appear more correct. So maybe you're right and he's wrong, but your efforts are proving extraordinarily counterproductive. So I totally acknowledge that this concerns you, but it might nonetheless be a good idea to stay the fuck out of it and let someone else more effective do the counterarguments.
pyramid termite writes " is anyone going to give me an etymologically based correction if i call this argument stupid?
"i wouldn't want to misuse the word stupid, you know"
Etymology of "stupid": 1541, "mentally slow," from M.Fr. stupide, from L. stupidus "amazed, confounded," lit. "struck senseless," from stupere "be stunned, amazed, confounded," from PIE *(s)tupe- "hit," from base *(s)teu- (see steep (adj.)).
I'd say this argument is mentally slow, amazing, counfounding, strikes one senseless, and stunning, so you're good to go. Dunno about "hitting" or "steep", though.
posted by Bugbread at 3:06 PM on July 30, 2006
I don't know if EB is right or if he's wrong. But given the arguments presented here, his arguments make him appear correct, and your counterarguments just make him appear more correct. So maybe you're right and he's wrong, but your efforts are proving extraordinarily counterproductive. So I totally acknowledge that this concerns you, but it might nonetheless be a good idea to stay the fuck out of it and let someone else more effective do the counterarguments.
pyramid termite writes " is anyone going to give me an etymologically based correction if i call this argument stupid?
"i wouldn't want to misuse the word stupid, you know"
Etymology of "stupid": 1541, "mentally slow," from M.Fr. stupide, from L. stupidus "amazed, confounded," lit. "struck senseless," from stupere "be stunned, amazed, confounded," from PIE *(s)tupe- "hit," from base *(s)teu- (see steep (adj.)).
I'd say this argument is mentally slow, amazing, counfounding, strikes one senseless, and stunning, so you're good to go. Dunno about "hitting" or "steep", though.
posted by Bugbread at 3:06 PM on July 30, 2006
I don't hate religion. I have a deep respect and awe of religion.
I generally despise organized religion. I have litte respect and no awe whatsoever of religion. That said however, Rinkjustice is entitled to his views, and through that lens, his post was a perfectly legitimate contribution to the AskMe post.
posted by Neiltupper at 3:33 PM on July 30, 2006
I generally despise organized religion. I have litte respect and no awe whatsoever of religion. That said however, Rinkjustice is entitled to his views, and through that lens, his post was a perfectly legitimate contribution to the AskMe post.
posted by Neiltupper at 3:33 PM on July 30, 2006
Church saved my life. I'm glad someone recommended it when they did.
And when I left my church, they harassed me to the point I attempted suicide. Church is not always a good thing!
posted by IndigoRain at 3:51 PM on July 30, 2006
And when I left my church, they harassed me to the point I attempted suicide. Church is not always a good thing!
posted by IndigoRain at 3:51 PM on July 30, 2006
Oh, for fuck's sake, you moron. The root is krinein, "to sift, decide"—and krinein is also the root of the word critic. Unbelievable. Get back to me when you know Homeric and Attic Greek, like I do.
added to pretentioustwatwhohappenstobewrong.txt
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:04 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
added to pretentioustwatwhohappenstobewrong.txt
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:04 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
i'd just like to jump in for a moment and tell solid-one-love to shut the fuck up.
posted by quonsar at 4:06 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by quonsar at 4:06 PM on July 30, 2006
The problem with EB's argument has nothing to do with the etymology of the word hypocrisy; it's that not all attributes are equivalent. Since he's being understandably coy about which attributes he thinks are analogous to religious belief, I'll throw out a by no means complete list: hispanic, ugly, nasally voice, refers to self in third . person, child molester, christian, fat, smoker, drug dealer, heroin addict, lawyer, black, transgendered, TimeCube believer, know-it-all dweeb, zionist, prostitute, serial killer, Republican, doesn't bathe or floss, jewish, NAMBLA member, pro-lifer, atheist, abortion doctor, Democrat, screws people of same gender, bomber pilot, holocaust denier, neo-nazi, believes invisible monkey lives in non-monkey-believers' skulls, creationist, evolutionary biologist.
Obviously, you can't just choose 2 at random from that list and deride the hypocrites who pillory one and support another. Rather, imagine it was your job to categorize these into groups, such that within each group you could legitimately claim that being opposed to one attribute and not another was truly hypocritical. You might see some patterns at first, there are jobs in there, kooky beliefs, political philosophies, ethnicities, personal quirks, sexual preferences, etc
However, at a certain point, what you consider hypocritical says more about you than others. I know people who would put 'abortion doctor' and 'serial killer' together, and I know people who would put 'bomber pilot' and 'serial killer' together. That tells you much more about those individual people than the nature of hypocrisy, don't it? I might put christian, TimeCube believer, creationist, 'believes invisible monkey lives in non-monkey-believers' skulls' and holocaust denier together, while EB might put Christian, jewish, hispanic, black and 'screws people of same gender' together. In my eyes, EB could be a hypocrite because he constantly defends one kooky belief while pillorying others. But that's kinda silly, no? And it's the same way with EB's cries of hypocrisies; the principles he's referring to are just his principles, not everyone's, and it's nice of him to tell us what they are, but let's not take it too seriously.
On preview: maybe I should add 'quonsar' to that list.
posted by boaz at 4:17 PM on July 30, 2006
Obviously, you can't just choose 2 at random from that list and deride the hypocrites who pillory one and support another. Rather, imagine it was your job to categorize these into groups, such that within each group you could legitimately claim that being opposed to one attribute and not another was truly hypocritical. You might see some patterns at first, there are jobs in there, kooky beliefs, political philosophies, ethnicities, personal quirks, sexual preferences, etc
However, at a certain point, what you consider hypocritical says more about you than others. I know people who would put 'abortion doctor' and 'serial killer' together, and I know people who would put 'bomber pilot' and 'serial killer' together. That tells you much more about those individual people than the nature of hypocrisy, don't it? I might put christian, TimeCube believer, creationist, 'believes invisible monkey lives in non-monkey-believers' skulls' and holocaust denier together, while EB might put Christian, jewish, hispanic, black and 'screws people of same gender' together. In my eyes, EB could be a hypocrite because he constantly defends one kooky belief while pillorying others. But that's kinda silly, no? And it's the same way with EB's cries of hypocrisies; the principles he's referring to are just his principles, not everyone's, and it's nice of him to tell us what they are, but let's not take it too seriously.
On preview: maybe I should add 'quonsar' to that list.
posted by boaz at 4:17 PM on July 30, 2006
also optimus chyme.
posted by quonsar at 4:07 PM PST on July 30
*posts a hilarious inline image, sobs about his fleeting fame*
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:27 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by quonsar at 4:07 PM PST on July 30
*posts a hilarious inline image, sobs about his fleeting fame*
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:27 PM on July 30, 2006
bigmusic, I may not agree with you, but I shall defend to my death the right for you to whine about a bunch of inconsequential bullshit.
posted by rob paxon at 4:42 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by rob paxon at 4:42 PM on July 30, 2006
Religion is like sports. Or, for that matter, stereo equipment.
Some people are nutters about it and will rave endlessly about their football hero or heroic cyclist or monoblock amplifier with oxygen-free gnomic woven cables.
You just know the nutters don't understand that the rest of us don't give a shit. You wanna get all excited about the sports, you're better off somewhere else: it gets acknowledged here, but not real passionate. You wanna get all excited about audiophile equipment that operates on pixie dust, you're probably in for a rough ride here.
Religionists are probably in the majority here. It's just that most of them are not nutters about it. It's not a passion.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:10 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Some people are nutters about it and will rave endlessly about their football hero or heroic cyclist or monoblock amplifier with oxygen-free gnomic woven cables.
You just know the nutters don't understand that the rest of us don't give a shit. You wanna get all excited about the sports, you're better off somewhere else: it gets acknowledged here, but not real passionate. You wanna get all excited about audiophile equipment that operates on pixie dust, you're probably in for a rough ride here.
Religionists are probably in the majority here. It's just that most of them are not nutters about it. It's not a passion.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:10 PM on July 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
woven cables? Are you nutters? Woven cables are verboten, unless, of course each conductor therein is individually insulated with Teflon, preferably foamed Teflon..........................
posted by caddis at 6:25 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by caddis at 6:25 PM on July 30, 2006
Here's a happy old Budweiser commercial to calm everyone's nerves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2wDAsRgvWg
posted by evilcolonel at 9:18 PM on July 30, 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2wDAsRgvWg
posted by evilcolonel at 9:18 PM on July 30, 2006
Actually, rinkjustice did cause me to consider that my son may have religious views that may be disregarded even now. So, I am not going to jump rj's shit. In fact, that is just the kind of angle for which I seek. The type of people who should be brought into my circle beyond doctors, lawyers and immediate friends.
The preacher thing works because one of my exwife's personalities is christian and I have never asked how that personality and my son got along.
So, what other professionals would give long-term services that I can put to some use?
posted by mischief at 10:31 PM on July 30, 2006
The preacher thing works because one of my exwife's personalities is christian and I have never asked how that personality and my son got along.
So, what other professionals would give long-term services that I can put to some use?
posted by mischief at 10:31 PM on July 30, 2006
If you take the advice to establish a trust fund to provide for your child, you'll need a CPA to administer it and prepare the yearly tax return (not too expensive, but something to consider). Also, would it be possible to have somebody other than your parents take custody if your ex-wife objects to them specifically? It may be easier for your ex-wife to accept a neutral party, especially if she isn't in her best mental state at the time. While your parents may be the best choice in every other sense, potential difficulty in the transition of custody could cause serious stress for your child.
posted by concrete at 11:58 PM on July 30, 2006
posted by concrete at 11:58 PM on July 30, 2006
at a certain point, what you consider hypocritical says more about you than others. I know people who would put 'abortion doctor' and 'serial killer' together, and I know people who would put 'bomber pilot' and 'serial killer' together. That tells you much more about those individual people than the nature of hypocrisy, don't it? - boaz
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for giving me something to think about.
posted by raedyn at 12:21 PM on July 31, 2006
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for giving me something to think about.
posted by raedyn at 12:21 PM on July 31, 2006
*puts on diamond-encrusted lapel pin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster*
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2006
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2006
Jesus Christ, people.
posted by brain_drain at 1:26 PM on July 31, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 1:26 PM on July 31, 2006
Religion is like sports. Or, for that matter, stereo equipment.
added to thingsididntsaybutwouldhavelikedto.txt
posted by hoborg at 2:23 PM on July 31, 2006
added to thingsididntsaybutwouldhavelikedto.txt
posted by hoborg at 2:23 PM on July 31, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by bigmusic at 8:20 PM on July 29, 2006