Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Every post where you told me what I meant by my original joke was irrational. I seem to remember that you are not particularly fond of people telling you what you were thinking, either.

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

This was a rational response with no assumptions of my intentions?

No, see, you inserted a sarcastic remark and followed it up with a rolleyes smiley. ...... 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?

This is not telling me what I meant or intended?

There's no perhaps about it.  Rolling one's eyes is a sign of condescension, contempt, boredom, or exasperation.

If there is "no perhaps," then there was no other interpretation, in spite of my saying that there was.

If you are willing to admit that you have misinterpreted me, and that all I was trying to do was (unsuccessfully) insert a joke, then I am fine to leave it at that. However, it still saddens me that you would assume I meant you malcontent.

This was a rational response with no assumptions of my intentions?

You are moving the goalposts from "rational" to "rational and unassuming".  I told you in the very beginning the specific reasons for my interpretation.  Those interpretations were rational.  AFTER your explanation, I took that explanation at face value (which is precisely what I said: I took your explanation at face value).

This is not telling me what I meant or intended?

The first is that I told you what you said.  That is simply a statement of fact.  You made an ironic remark and a rolleyes.  That is beyond dispute.  So no, it is not "telling you what you meant".

The second statement is not telling you what you meant either, it is an expression of frustration that we are wasting time talking about whether or not I make irrational statements rather than the philosophy and mechanics of dishonesty.  So no, it is not "telling you what you meant".

If there is "no perhaps," then there was no other interpretation, in spite of my saying that there was.

You said "perhaps I should have used another smiley".  I said there was no perhaps about it.  Based on what your stated intentions were, and the actual meaning of the smiley you used, then you DEFINITELY (not perhaps) should have used another smiley.  This sentence in fact directly contradicts your accusation that I'm telling you what you meant because I am in fact stipulating your version of the events here.

If you are willing to admit that you have misinterpreted me

Five of the last thirteen posts were me stating the specific reasons that I misinterpreted you.  One of those posts directly states - repeatedly - that my conclusion was wrong.  My last post pointed you back to that admission.  If after all of this, you think I am still clinging to my initial impression - the one that I discarded the moment you explained yourself - I don't know what you want to hear from me here and now that is going to tell you something I haven't said already.

However, it still saddens me that you would assume I meant you malcontent.

You provided a context to your remark which, as I stated previously, added that impression to a low-context environment, leading me to that initial assumption.  After you said you didn't mean it that way, I believed you.  Even after you continued to call me irrational, I believed you.  When you accused me of being irrational beyond this discussion but back "several posts", I still believed you.  Only after about the fifth time you made the accusation did I question how much joke was really in your joke.  If you say I'm irrational, say you're joking, and then say I'm irrational another half-dozen times immediately after that... where's the joke at this point?

The first is that I told you what you said.  That is simply a statement of fact.  You made an ironic remark and a rolleyes.  That is beyond dispute.  So no, it is not "telling you what you meant".

Ironic =/= sarcastic  You said sarcastic in your original post, which is inherently negative. Irony is not necessarily negative.

...and the actual meaning of the smiley you used, ...

If the "actual" meaning of tht smiley is condescending and rude, then it needs to be removed as an option.

If you are willing to admit that you have misinterpreted me

This was my acknowledgment of your statement so as to move away....

You provided a context to your remark which, as I stated previously, added that impression to a low-context environment, ...

I think that this is the essence of the misunderstanding. Frankly, people like Colin have created a negative atmosphere on these boards, such that the first assumption is that people are being sarcastic. Some may pine over his removal, but I do not. We, as brothers and sisters in Christ can communicate with sincerity and occasional mischief, without it being a personal attack. I, for one, hope that we can all move forward to a more positive atmosphere, which is what a Christian message board should look like in the first place.

Sarcasm is negative and personal.

Irony is not.

It is ironic that the title of the thread is "Discussion on false information" when our discussion was caused by false information related to what a certain smiley means. This irony could have been funny, but it ended up not being funny.

Since my goal was not obtained, and the result was in fact the polar opposite of my goal, there is no sense in my continued posting on this thread. I had stopped commenting on these types of threads specifically to avoid these circumstances. I felt compelled to speak out when Colin simply went too far, but I should have made that a one-time interjection. One would think I could learn from my mistakes in posting in the Open Discussion, but I still have much to learn (even at my age).

Adieu.

This alone makes it more subjective.

"More subjective" is itself a subjective assessment.  To suggest (correctly) your formula has degrees of subjectivity only proves my point.

Who gets to decide whether the threat is greater if you are truthful or untruthful?  Who gets to decide which will cause more harm in the long run (which actually is impossible to even know)?  How are these relative values assigned?

Oh look, it's all that picking apart of the simplified formula that I predicted would happen despite numerous disclaimers.

Wow, this topic really blew up in the last few days and I missed it!



Mark, with reference to yoru fear about my moral relativism let me explain my reasoning a bit further.

For me the saving of a life (Spiritually) and then the saving of a life (Physically) are the most paramount commands in scripture.  Even in the Jewish faith, the preserving of life is the most important thing that one can do.

So as we began our discussion of the Nazi/Jew Delimma, That is how I consider Lying in that situation a virtue and not a sin because Lying preserves a life and telling the truth destroys it.  Maybe you can say that in this situation the command to preserve a life overrules the command to not bear false witness, To me it is just a simple guiding principle that tells me that Lying has to be the correct choice in this situation because I cannot let myself be complicit in ANY WAY with the destruciton of the Jews that I am protecting.

As for the made up Library situation, I would be torn by the knowledge that my testimony would kill my daughter but also the belief that out right lying and getting caught in that lie would destroy my spiritual witness in an official capacity so I would probably not say anything. (which is why they have laws that prevent family memberd from being forced to testify against one another)

but even if we were to take this one step forward, I would probably not testify unless that person was willing to testify as well.  If they woudl admit it, then I would confirm it (and by default incriminate myself)  But if they did not admit it, I would not admit it either.  But neither would I lie.

Jesus himself took that approach before Herod when he was asked if he was the Christ.  His answer was silence so if you ar going to hit me with being untruthful in that situation, then you have to apply that lable to our Lord as well and I am pretty sure yoau re not prepared to admit that.

Jesus himself took that approach before Herod when he was asked if he was the Christ.  His answer was silence so if you are going to hit me with being untruthful in that situation, then you have to apply that label to our Lord as well.

I don't think Jesus was lying at all, because I define lying as saying something that isn't true.  So that passage isn't a problem for me.  However, it does seem to go against the definition you previously stated.

False Witness - Intentionally lying or leaving out information in a situation where you are called to render testimony for or against an individual

This one is always intentional, always harmful and always evil

So now you have said twice that you would "leave out information" (by refusing to answer), and also bring up the point that Jesus did that as well in His own trial.  Therefore, considering that Jesus never did something harmful and evil, your definition for "false witness" must be incorrect.  Which is why I think my definition is a better way to go.  What do you think?

mark I was giving those definitions to see if people ould agree on what we were talking about.  That wasnt necesarially what I fully agree with.  Having looked at that definiton again, I would probably add something to the effect that the false witness carries an evil intent ( which I tried to clarify with the second statement)



Mark, You keep pointing to inconsistencies in our arguments but you still havent reconciled the nazi/jew scenario.  If you consider it a lie to deceive the Nazi's, then do you not consider it a sin to be complicit in the murder of the Jews you betrayed?  This to me is the ultimate hypocracy.  Someone who cares more about their supposed Integrity that they would not lie to the Nazi's who he knows would kill the jews he promised to protect has their moral compass screwed up.

if you want to cry about my moral relativism then I can live with that.  what I CANNOT live with is the idea that you would refuse to lie to the Nazi's knowing they would kill Jews you would be hiding in your house.

I personaly do not believe that if I were in that situation and I lied to the Nazi's, that I would be committing a sin.  But even if I were, that sin would pale in comparision to the reality that I could so soemthing to stop the Nazi's and I failed to do so and ended up being complicit in their death.


To be honest, your idea of integrity in this situation, really bothers me.

Yes But if you know what will happen and you do not do what you can to stop it, then you are complicit in that action.

AS a teacher, if I hear a student confess to me that they intend to harm themselves or another student, then I am legally required to tell the proper athourities. IN the same way, if you know the Nazi's intent to kill, and you do not make a reasonable effort to do what you can to prevent it, then the law makes no distinction between you and the nazi's

Also, I want to temper my previous post.  Re-reading it it seems a little harsh with all the "hypocracy" talk.  I do not believe that Mark is a Hypocrite, I just believe that he holds to strongly to this argument about protecting his integrity when the alternative is, in this scenario, he becomes complicit in murder.  That is an awful high price for personal intergrity and I feel that it is like straining a gnat to swallow a camel (matt. 23:24)

the law and God's law are not comparable. You should really know that.

Dont patronize me Alex. You know exactly what I am talking about.  You dont think that God would hold you guilty if you allowed the Jews that you were protecting to die by the Nazi's because you refused to decieve the Nazi's who clearly meant to harm them?

Jesus, Constantly rails against those who hold to the LETTER of the law at the expense of the Spirit of it.  He Blasts those who tithe their spices and neglect their duty to their families and the poor.  Even in the OT, God demands that Justice be done for the poor, the widows, the Alien's in our midst. 

Hiding behind the command not to lie as you interpret it may win you points from a legalistic point of view but that never goes over well with God

Someone who cares more about their supposed Integrity that they would not lie to the Nazi's who he knows would kill the jews he promised to protect has their moral compass screwed up.

I should clarify here that I am trying to obey God because I love God, not to protect my personal integrity.

Yes But if you know what will happen and you do not do what you can to stop it, then you are complicit in that action.

I would do what I could to stop it.  I would try to hide them so that they couldn't be found.  I would try to fight the soldiers if they did find them.  I would do what I can.  But lying is not something that I "can" do, because I don't want to disobey God.

You dont think that God would hold you guilty if you allowed the Jews that you were protecting to die by the Nazi's because you refused to decieve the Nazi's who clearly meant to harm them?

No I don't think God would hold me guilty for doing everything I could (without disobey His own commands) to protect their lives.

Or with the Jews that die because of you.

I would obviously warn any Jews who wanted to hide in my house that I would try to protect them, but that I would not lie for them.  They would choose whether they wanted to stay there under those conditions.

And getting into a fight with someone doesn't count?

I don't know of anywhere in the Bible that is says that I can't punch a soldier in the nose to keep him from unjustly hurting someone.

it's not obvious to me

Well now it is because I told you, and as we've already learned, I don't say things that aren't true.  Because that would be lying.