Author Topic: Discussion on false information (Read 32195 times)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #100 on:** October 22, 2009, 02:47:02 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 21, 2009, 11:40:00 PM

Not really, no, because pretty much every instance of deliberate fabrication is a rendering of testimony.

If I say that I like a haircut that I really don't like, then that is not bearing false witness against anyone, but it is lying. But considering that I think both are wrong it really doesn't matter to me personally. I am only trying to make the distinction for people who think that one is always wrong and the other is only sometimes wrong.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 21, 2009, 11:40:00 PM

It's hair-splitting when you are still treating people with a dishonest heart without vocalizing a fabrication.

So you're saying that I'm wrong for saying it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions. While at that same time you are saying that it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions, and on top of that, it's sometimes appropriate to flat out lie to them. That doesn't make sense.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 21, 2009, 11:40:00 PM

Is it really your position that God commanded Moses that we should not make specific vocal fabrications, rather than people of honest hearts?

Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.(Luke 6:45) You are the one arguing that it is sometimes appropriate to lie. If the mouth is speaking lies, then the person doesn't have an honest heart.

The Schaef · « **Reply #101 on:** October 22, 2009, 08:40:19 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 22, 2009, 02:47:02 AM

If I say that I like a haircut that I really don't like, then that is not bearing false witness against anyone, but it is lying.

I don't see how you are not "rendering a testimony".

Quote from: The Schaef on October 21, 2009, 11:40:00 PM

So you're saying that I'm wrong for saying it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions.

I'm saying you are inconsistent in your philosophy, and criticizing people for a so-called "moral relativism" that also comes out in your own way of thinking. I don't consider it a judgement of right/wrong, I just think it's nonsensical and haven't really had any response to any of the bigger-picture issues I brought up. This is another instance of you distorting something I said into something that sounds worse, presumably so it can be dismissed as irrational.

Quote

While at that same time you are saying that it's sometimes appropriate to allow people to jump to the wrong conclusions, and on top of that, it's sometimes appropriate to flat out lie to them. That doesn't make sense.

It does in the context that I have repeatedly laid out in careful detail. That effort was not intended to be of no significance.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 21, 2009, 11:40:00 PM

You are the one arguing that it is sometimes appropriate to lie. If the mouth is speaking lies, then the person doesn't have an honest heart.

A person can kill without having a murderous heart, and a person can lie without having a dishonest heart. Jesus spent his entire ministry communing with people who were shunned by the religious elite of their day, and deeply critical of those who followed a meticulous letter of the law. Paul said that the law does not exist to make men righteous, but to present a standard to show us that it is our hearts first that need mending, and righteous actions will flow from that. So no, I don't think the law was intended to give us one specific line that we can never ever ever ever ever cross, but allow us to violate the spirit of that law in other ways without technically stepping over that one line. It seems to me that to argue in favor of such actions misses the point.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #102 on:** October 22, 2009, 09:20:26 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 08:40:19 AM

I'm saying you are inconsistent in your philosophy, and criticizing people for a so-called "moral relativism" that also comes out in your own way of thinking.

I admitted a long time ago that the difference between the arguments here is that one side parses when lying is wrong, and the other side parses what classifies as lying. I think the second is more logical because it is objective and fits with scripture. Saying something that isn't true is often condemned and never praised in scripture. Saying or doing something that leads people to jump to the wrong conclusion is sometimes praised in scripture. Therefore, I think it makes sense to recognize that difference, and use it to reach a conclusion about what our actions should be.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 08:40:19 AM

Paul said that the law does not exist to make men righteous, but to present a standard to show us that it is our hearts first that need mending, and righteous actions will flow from that.

I agree that the main purpose of the law is to show us our need for God because we all fall short of keeping it. I also agree that Jesus taught us that it is not enough to just obey the law on the outside, but that our heart attitudes are also important. But Jesus was adding there, not taking away. Jesus still said adultery was wrong, and He added that lust was wrong too. Similarly lying is still wrong, and having a deceitful heart that is trying to hurt people is wrong too. Just because your heart attitude is important doesn't get you off the hook of the original law still applying.

The Schaef · « **Reply #103 on:** October 22, 2009, 10:43:35 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 22, 2009, 09:20:26 AM

I admitted a long time ago that the difference between the arguments here is that one side parses when lying is wrong, and the other side parses what classifies as lying. I think the second is more logical because it is objective and fits with scripture.

I have shown in considerable detail where the first is the better fit with Scripture, and the second lacks consistency. Like it or not, what you are doing is still creating circumstantial permission to lie, you just define your circumstances differently, by the specific method behind the lie rather than the motive. This makes the application in fact SUBjective, and exposes the claim that - unlike your lukewarm brethren - your position is pure and absolute.

Quote

Saying something that isn't true is often condemned and never praised in scripture.

To kill people as God commands is never "praised" either, whatever that is supposed to mean. So this doesn't really support your position.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 08:40:19 AM

But Jesus was adding there, not taking away.

This is another distortion of my point; I never claimed or even remotely suggested that Jesus took anything away from the law, nor that a focus on the heart "lets people off the hook". I'm beginning to have a real problem with this fixation on assigning ill motives to every aspect of an opposing viewpoint: seeking to replace God's commands with our own, saying the commandments are "wrong", judging your character based on how you define lying (an ironic charge), and now that I expect mercy to "get me off the hook". This is a series of mind-bogglingly wrong and often wild interpretations that are incomprehensible to me, as it would never even occur to me to think these things of you.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #104 on:** October 22, 2009, 11:56:23 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 10:43:35 AM

This makes the application in fact SUBjective

Let me explain what I mean by objective. I mean that you can write the rule in a way that a computer can understand it. In this case, the program would look somewhat like this:
(If verbal statement = false) AND (if verbal statement = intentional) THEN (action = wrong)
This is objective. It is easily understood and applied.

Matt on the other hand, hasn't even been able to figure out whether it is wrong to lie about his daughter being at the library. He has to make a case-by-case basis depending on whether he personally believes that a law is good or whether the ends justify the means.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 10:43:35 AM

To kill people...

You just keep trying

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 10:43:35 AM

I'm beginning to have a real problem with this fixation on assigning ill motives to every aspect of an opposing viewpoint...as it would never even occur to me to think these things of you.

I do not think that your (or Matt's, or anyone else's) motivation for your interpretation of lying is evil. However, I do think that the line of reasoning that you are espousing when taken to its logical conclusion can lead to dangerous waters for people. You guys have been able to navigate your subjective approach to scripture in a way that stays within orthodox Christianity. But there are a lot of other people who will not end up in that place.

I just think it is dangerous to tell someone that Biblical commands such as "you shall not lie to one another" don't really apply all the time. It takes authority away from the Bible and assigns it to our own personal reason and judgment. And I've seen too many people (including one recently banned forum member) who have gotten sucked into that trap so far that they leave the boundaries of orthodox Christian belief.

The Schaef · « **Reply #105 on:** October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 22, 2009, 11:56:23 AM

Let me explain what I mean by objective. I mean that you can write the rule in a way that a computer can understand it.

In that case, mine is also objective. You just consider mine subjective because you apply fewer conditional statements.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 10:43:35 AM

You just keep trying

The commandments are not arbitrarily cobbled together. They are grouped for a reason. Your criticism of this is unwarranted and illogical; it is perfectly legitimate to make comparative analogies with like instances.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 10:43:35 AM

I do not think that your (or Matt's, or anyone else's) motivation for your interpretation of lying is evil.

You think that we're trying to supplant God's law with ours and that we're looking for ways to "get off the hook". Call it "evil" or not but the assignation of impure motives is clear.

Quote

You guys have been able to navigate your subjective approach to scripture in a way that stays within orthodox Christianity.

Our approach is no more or less subjective than yours. I'm sorry that you do not see this.

Quote

I just think it is dangerous to tell someone that Biblical commands such as "you shall not lie to one another" don't really apply all the time.

That's the world that we live in! It doesn't! God Himself has not applied "don't kill" and "don't lie" in every circumstance! What he HAS said is that you can be obeying the strict letter of the law and still be sinning by acting with an impure heart. If I murder someone, that is a blatantly wrong action. If I direct someone else to find a person they intend to kill, I also bear responsibility for that person's death. I took an action that directly resulted in the taking of a life. I consider it more dangerous to distinguish between two actions like this, and suggest that people can remain righteous on technicalities. It is especially contradictory with Jesus' message as outlined repeatedly above.

In your infamous and well-recycled hiding-the-Jews scenario, what you are faced with is a dilemma. To cooperate with the Nazis is to be complicit in the deaths of the victims. To save the lives of the Jews is to act deceitfully. A narrow definition based on technicalities suggests that both actions are righteous since you're neither actively murdering someone or verbalizing falsehoods. A broad definition based on impact suggests that both those actions will result in a transgression; either you will be causing someone's death or you'll be causing someone to be deceived. The truth preserves your own well-being at the cost (or risk) of someone else's; the lie puts you at risk to preserve someone else. If we are commanded to consider others better than ourselves, the better of two bad choices seems clear.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #106 on:** October 22, 2009, 12:51:41 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM

In that case, mine is also objective. You just consider mine subjective because you apply fewer conditional statements.

OK, then help me see it. How would you write the computer program?

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM

You think that we're trying to supplant God's law with ours...

No I don't think that YOU are trying to do that. I just think that your line of reasoning can and will be used by OTHER people to do that.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM

Quote
I just think it is dangerous to tell someone that Biblical commands such as "you shall not lie to one another" don't really apply all the time.
That's the world that we live in! It doesn't! God Himself has not applied..."don't lie" in every circumstance!

But my point is that God has applied it in every circumstance as long as you define lying to mean "saying something that isn't true". So why not use that definition and have a consistent rule, instead of making up a broader definition and an inconsistent rule?

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM

In your infamous and well-recycled hiding-the-Jews scenario, what you are faced with is a dilemma.

To me it is not a dilemma. I don't lie to the Nazi's (by telling them something that is NOT true), and I also don't help them kill the Jews. Why would I want to redefine words to be so broad that situations like them force me to choose something wrong either way? You're not making your side sound very appealing to me.

The Schaef · « **Reply #107 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:15:33 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 22, 2009, 12:51:41 PM

OK, then help me see it. How would you write the computer program?

I cannot foresee every circumstance. However, my heart knows what is right and wrong and I trust my actions to flow from my faith.

And let me stop you right there, no, that's not subjective. It's using a single unwavering principle and acknowledging that the more specific I try to get, the more I'm going to be nitpicked to shreds. I've already had more than my fill of that with ruling discussions.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM

No I don't think that YOU are trying to do that. I just think that your line of reasoning can and will be used by OTHER people to do that.

You make the mistake of making this specific to one person, and ignoring the larger point. I could also say that your philosophy works for you but could lead another person down a dangerous path. Are we talking about what we personally do or are we talking about the underlying philosophies at work? Because if this is only about our own two or three or four lives, I don't even know what there is to discuss since we all know each other's hearts.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM

But my point is that God has applied it in every circumstance as long as you define lying to mean "saying something that isn't true". So why not use that definition and have a consistent rule, instead of making up a broader definition and an inconsistent rule?

Obviously I don't agree with that, and I don't find your rule to be even internally consistent - much less externally -and I take strong exception to your accusation of us "making up" rules. I have spent far too much time explaining my position from a Biblical standpoint to put up with being told I'm making things up on my own.

Quote

I don't lie to the Nazi's (by telling them something that is NOT true), and I also don't help them kill the Jews.

Yeah, I already mentioned from your viewpoint that neither position is technically a sin.

Quote

Why would I want to redefine words to be so broad that situations like them force me to choose something wrong either way? You're not making your side sound very appealing to me.

1). I AM NOT REDEFINING ANY WORDS! PERIOD!
2). Yes, life has tough choices sometimes. How in the world could that be a stunning revelation to you?

Ironica · « **Reply #108 on:** October 22, 2009, 03:27:26 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 01:15:33 PM

However, my heart knows what is right and wrong and I trust my actions to flow from my faith.

Should we really rely on our hearts (I'm sure you meant the leading of the Holy Sprit instead of your own heart)?

Quote

Jeremiah 17:9 (New Living Translation)

9 “The human heart is the most deceitful of all things,
and desperately wicked.
Who really knows how bad it is?

The Schaef · « **Reply #109 on:** October 22, 2009, 03:51:11 PM »

Quote from: Ironica on October 22, 2009, 03:27:26 PM

Should we really rely on our hearts (I'm sure you meant the leading of the Holy Sprit instead of your own heart)?

If you know what I meant then there's really no need to ask the question, is there?

Ironica · « **Reply #110 on:** October 22, 2009, 03:58:25 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 03:51:11 PM

Quote from: Ironica on October 22, 2009, 03:27:26 PM
Should we really rely on our hearts (I'm sure you meant the leading of the Holy Sprit instead of your own heart)?

If you know what I meant then there's really no need to ask the question, is there?

Clarification for others.

The Schaef · « **Reply #111 on:** October 22, 2009, 04:22:58 PM »

Well, I said that my actions flow from my faith, not from temporal, irrational emotional outbursts. Added to the fact that the heart is a metaphor for the seat of our soul and Christ is supposed to indwell our souls (read: hearts), I think it's clear as it stands. Unless now we're having a discussion about whether salvation is transformational at all.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #112 on:** October 22, 2009, 05:13:27 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 12:42:18 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 22, 2009, 11:56:23 AM
Let me explain what I mean by objective. I mean that you can write the rule in a way that a computer can understand it.
In that case, mine is also objective. You just consider mine subjective because you apply fewer conditional statements.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 01:15:33 PM

I cannot foresee every circumstance. However, my heart knows what is right and wrong and I trust my actions to flow from my faith. And let me stop you right there, no, that's not subjective.

First of all, you claimed that you could write a computer program (with more conditions) that would be objective. Now you say that you can't, and that you just judge right and wrong based on your heart. You may say that isn't subjective, but it sure will look like it to other people. And those people will use that as a license to create their own private morality based on whatever their heart tells them.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 01:15:33 PM

I could also say that your philosophy works for you but could lead another person down a dangerous path.

You are right that my philosophy could lead someone down a path to legalism. But if I have to choose between encouraging someone to live too close to what scripture seems to say, or too far from what scripture seems to say, I think the former is a better way to go.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #113 on:** October 22, 2009, 05:39:40 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 04:22:58 PM

Well, I said that my actions flow from my faith, not from temporal, irrational emotional outbursts.

Am I the only one that finds this statement humorous?

The Schaef · « **Reply #114 on:** October 22, 2009, 05:43:08 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 22, 2009, 05:13:27 PM

First of all, you claimed that you could write a computer program (with more conditions) that would be objective. Now you say that you can't,

I didn't say that I could not. I only said that this forum was not appropriate to present you with such a program right here and now, leaving the possibility that it would be incomplete and/or fail to anticipate a future condition. That does not mean those conditions do not exist or the program is impossible.

Quote

And those people will use that as a license to create their own private morality based on whatever their heart tells them.

Then those people will commit what seems to be turning into a very common mistake: twisting something I said into something I did not.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 01:15:33 PM

You are right that my philosophy could lead someone down a path to legalism.

If you acknowledge that your philosophy without moderation can be dangerous, you take out all the teeth from your criticism that a philosophy is flawed simply because a random person MIGHT misconstrue it.

Quote

But if I have to choose between encouraging someone to live too close to what scripture seems to say, or too far from what scripture seems to say, I think the former is a better way to go.

I thought you didn't believe in choosing between two undesirable options. You certainly didn't have any positive words for how the idea impacted my position.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 22, 2009, 05:39:40 PM

Am I the only one that finds this statement humorous?

Anybody else want a shot? So cheap they're practically free today! Come on down!

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #115 on:** October 22, 2009, 05:46:54 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 05:43:08 PM

Anybody else want a shot? So cheap they're practically free today! Come on down!

I was making a joke, but you instead proved it to be true.

The Schaef · « **Reply #116 on:** October 22, 2009, 06:02:16 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 22, 2009, 05:46:54 PM

I was making a joke, but you instead proved it to be true.

No, see, you inserted a sarcastic remark and followed it up with a rolleyes smiley. The logical conclusion is that the comment was personal, not joking, because there is no direct indication that the tone should be taken as such.

This is the error that makes your comment ironic, because I may argue passionately but I argue from a logically contrived position. In fact, the frustration that comes out in my posts stems mostly from investing time and energy into a purposeful deliberative position, with details and supporting points, only to be dismissed as illogical or poorly-conceived or motivated by something other than deliberative conviction, often without consideration, and frequently based on a poor analysis that ignores something I explained directly, or twists something I said into something I did not. It's insulting to have to defend my own good character against people I have called my brethren, and discouraging that I so frequently have to play the bad guy just to get even the slightest traction on the most marginal of issues. 99% of the time, things don't need to be that hard, they become needlessly complicated and I have to pick up the pieces.

I won't even pretend to deny being prone to emotion but I do not consider myself to be irrational or given to instantaneous flare-ups. To the contrary, I am often logical to a fault which is a primary reason for my social ineptitude. So let's not equate all emotional statements with irrational statements, so that you take something I used to qualify my position and turn it into a redundancy.

So, how much longer is this thread going to be about me and my character before we're allowed to go back to the issue?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #117 on:** October 22, 2009, 06:14:10 PM »

Just a little longer.....

because, quite frankly, you are wrong. I used the rolleyes to make sure it was construed as a joke. Perhaps a smiley would have worked better for you. However, your ensuing rant only proves that you are taking anything said to you as a personal attack. That is what makes your response irrational.

To wit, if anyone else on these boards had made the same comment, I would have said the same thing. Is this really the first time that I have interjected a thread that was having a heated discussion with an attempt at lighthearted humor?

If you seriously cannot see how your last few posts on this thread have all included irrational comments, then I fear you may never see what hinders you.

The Schaef · « **Reply #118 on:** October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 22, 2009, 06:14:10 PM

I used the rolleyes to make sure it was construed as a joke. Perhaps a smiley would have worked better for you.

There's no perhaps about it. Rolling one's eyes is a sign of condescension, contempt, boredom, or exasperation. I have no logical grounds to assume that a sign of condescension or contempt in response to something I said should be construed as being of humorous intent.

A large majority of communication between humans is non-verbal; we typically are high-context communicators. The written form, and in particular the Internet, is a low-context environment. Smileys are a useful tool in providing context in the absence of other non-verbal forms, but people often neglect to provide any context at all, assuming their high-context communication will be taken at face value. It is for that reason that I tend to communicate as low-context as possible in this format, so that if you want to know what I mean, usually you can just look at what I say. In your case, you provided an inaccurate context which only added to a statement that required context just to be seen as anything other than personal in the first place.

Quote

However, your ensuing rant only proves that you are taking anything said to you as a personal attack. That is what makes your response irrational.

The two reasons this is wrong are 1). you are adding context to a discussion which I did not include, taking a detailed explanation in my defense as a "rant" with no evidence in the text to support it, and 2). I do not take "anything said to me" as a personal attack. Absolute statements are often absolutely wrong on their face. For example, Rob congratulated me on defeating him in fantasy football a couple weeks ago. I did not take that as a personal attack. Tom said goodbye to me when he left the office today. I did not take that as a personal attack. If there's an irrational response here, that would be it.

Quote

Is this really the first time that I have interjected a thread that was having a heated discussion with an attempt at lighthearted humor?

No, and neither is it the first time that someone has taken a discussion in which I happen to be involved and use it as a referendum on my character. So arguing from past experience gains you no ground.

Quote

If you seriously cannot see how your last few posts on this thread have all included irrational comments, then I fear you may never see what hinders you.

You are welcome to provide me with something I said which has no logical support. My posts are my evidence and I am happy to defend them, especially if it means they are being read with consideration rather than casual dismissal.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #119 on:** October 22, 2009, 07:25:04 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM

There's no perhaps about it. Rolling one's eyes is a sign of condescension, contempt, boredom, or exasperation. I have no logical grounds to assume that a sign of condescension or contempt in response to something I said should be construed as being of humorous intent.

Wrong again. Rolling eyes are also used when someone is being mischievous. In my case, interjecting humor in an otherwise unhumurous discussion.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM

The two reasons this is wrong...

It is a rant because you your initial presuppostion was wrong.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM

No, and neither is it the first time that someone has taken a discussion in which I happen to be involved and use it as a referendum on my character. So arguing from past experience gains you no ground.

So you can argue that it was personal from past experience, but I cannot argue that it was a joke from past experience.... and that's not irrational?

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM

You are welcome to provide me with something I said which has no logical support. My posts are my evidence and I am happy to defend them, especially if it means they are being read with consideration rather than casual dismissal.

Your idea of "logical support" is my idea of "rant" since you were wrong about my intentions.

The Schaef · « **Reply #120 on:** October 22, 2009, 08:00:10 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 22, 2009, 07:25:04 PM

Wrong again. Rolling eyes are also used when someone is being mischievous.

I'm not sure where you picked up that interpretation but I have never used it in that situation - particularly face to face - nor do I know anybody who has.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM

It is a rant because you your initial presuppostion was wrong.

It's not a rant... because... I wasn't ranting. I was explaining. The fact that I have to repeat that point to you illustrates the lack of absorption and comprehension when I try to state things directly for clarity.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM

So you can argue that it was personal from past experience, but I cannot argue that it was a joke from past experience.... and that's not irrational?

It is perfectly rational. You are reading my post wrong. I said that arguing from past experience does not gain any ground. That is in no way the same as saying you cannot argue it. It just is not a convincing argument because past experience points to the conclusion I drew as well. It's not a compelling reason to choose one and not the other.

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 07:16:21 PM

Your idea of "logical support" is my idea of "rant" since you were wrong about my intentions.

My incorrect conclusion about your intentions was based on the way you chose to respond to something I said, entirely separate from the topic itself, and inserted context that suggests condescension or contempt. Drawing a conclusion based on an examination of the available information is the very definition of acting logically. You can draw a logical conclusion and still reach the wrong one; it does not make it automatically irrational. Can you provide any evidence that my conclusion was drawn irrationally? Or only incorrectly based on what you gave me?

The Guardian · « **Reply #121 on:** October 22, 2009, 08:05:56 PM »

(I let emoticons do all my talking now. Interpret as you please.)

The Warrior · « **Reply #122 on:** October 22, 2009, 08:08:42 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on October 22, 2009, 08:05:56 PM

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #123 on:** October 22, 2009, 08:24:25 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on October 22, 2009, 08:00:10 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 22, 2009, 07:25:04 PM
Wrong again. Rolling eyes are also used when someone is being mischievous.

I'm not sure where you picked up that interpretation but I have never used it in that situation - particularly face to face - nor do I know anybody who has.

You've never seen the little mischievous boy, who is caught doing something he wasn't supposed to, standing with his hands behind his back and rolling his eyes (sometimes accompanied by a soft whistling)? Rolling of eyes is commonly used when you are trying not to look someone in the eyes (i.e. hiding something). If Rolling Eyes are only negative and condescending, then why in the world do we even have them on a Christian message board? Wouldn't that fall under the same category as having a smiley giving the finger?

The Schaef · « **Reply #124 on:** October 22, 2009, 09:04:31 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 22, 2009, 08:24:25 PM

You've never seen the little mischievous boy, who is caught doing something he wasn't supposed to, standing with his hands behind his back and rolling his eyes (sometimes accompanied by a soft whistling)?

That's not rolling your eyes. That's a visual form of deflection. Completely different expression.

Quote

If Rolling Eyes are only negative and condescending, then why in the world do we even have them on a Christian message board? Wouldn't that fall under the same category as having a smiley giving the finger?

Also boredom and exasperation. And there are times when such expressions are appropriate. The finger is effectively a non-verbal swear and a separate matter entirely. Additionally, since you seem to have a lot to say about my behavior supposedly being irrational, you only cause me to question your original claim that you did not mean it the way I took it, even after I took your initial explanation at face value.

Which reminds me, you've gotten off the point again. If I have irrational comments in several of my previous posts, there should be no effort in pointing out what I have said irrationally. So far no examples have been given and I find you changing the subject yet again.

News:

Author Topic: Discussion on false information (Read 32195 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

Ironica

The Schaef

Ironica

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef