My van is totalled. A truck turning onto the main road hit me, sent me kareening into an electric pole (and over it, actually - SNAP!). The airbags deployed so I'm a little fuzzy about what happened after that, but the van ended up occupying someone's front steps, which was interesting considering that side of the road is a hill. ;-)
My van is toast, but I walked away with minor bumps and bruises. I'm sore and ache-y today, of course, but considering, I'm very blessed. It could've been a lot worse. NOTE TO ALL: WEAR YOUR SEATBELTS!!!! If I hadn't been, I'm convinced I'd have significantly more complaints this morning.
The other driver's insurance accepted fault for the accident almost immediately and we had a rented van to replace my poor totalled one within three hours. I still have to sign the medical waiver promising not to sue and they have to settle what's left on our loan. Need to clean out the stuff still in the van and start looking for a new one...
I miss my van.
Horribly.
I'm working at church this morning, picking up cub scout popcorn orders and meeting with the insurance guy this afternoon, 4-H this evening and my husband is coaching his first basketball practice with my older son tonight. Tomorrow, I've got cub scout training all day, possibly bellringing with our 4-H club in the evening, then I'll spend tomorrow night working on treasurer stuff, sorting popcorn orders and preparing my Sunday School lesson. Sunday, I'm at church in the morning, home briefly, then back at church for parents to pick up their scout's popcorn order. Then, I get to work on the church budget.
I'm taking Monday off.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Just a Head's Up...
I usually only have one Hell Week in any given month, but mysteriously, my November ended up with 2. I'm hip-deep in the 2nd and quite a bit has been added in because, hey, when it rains, it pours.
Right now, I don't even have time to breathe, but until everything blew up so spectacularly, I was reading Plantinga and William Lane Craig re the philosophy of religion.
Unless something else goes wrong, I'll reach the light at the end of my tunnel on Monday. Here's hoping it's not a train. LOL
Right now, I don't even have time to breathe, but until everything blew up so spectacularly, I was reading Plantinga and William Lane Craig re the philosophy of religion.
Unless something else goes wrong, I'll reach the light at the end of my tunnel on Monday. Here's hoping it's not a train. LOL
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I am just a wee bit mental right now...LOL
Our church treasurer quit and I agreed to take it over. Seeing as how I haven't looked at any books since college or done payroll since high school - and all of these were exercises (as in I have NEVER done books IRL) - the past week or so has been...Interesting. To say the least.
I've also been reading philosophy again, specifically Plantinga.
And debating (on and off - mostly off).
My brain is melting!!!
;-)
I'm taking some much-needed time off over the Thanksgiving holiday...
I've also been reading philosophy again, specifically Plantinga.
And debating (on and off - mostly off).
My brain is melting!!!
;-)
I'm taking some much-needed time off over the Thanksgiving holiday...
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Debating 101 - On NOT Being a Snot
Under certain, specific circumstances, I indicated in my previous posting that I believe using satire and sarcasm to make a point is appropriate and I wouldn't apologize for doing so.
In this posting, I'm going to look at instances when NOT being a snot is not only appropriate but necessary - when eating a large slice of humble pie is the order of the day and a wise debater will get his or her napkin and fork ready.
I'm talking about those occasions when you are - when I am - WRONG.
Everybody makes mistakes - including me. On one memorable occasion, I quoted a source secondarily (meaning the quote was contained within a source other than the original). There wasn't enough context included of the orginal material to ensure the secondary source had used the quote properly and much to my chagrin, the secondary source hadn't used the quote properly at all. On other occasions, my wording hasn't been as precise as it reasonably should have - or could have - been. There have also been times when I've misunderstood my opponent's argument or a specific element of it. Logical fallacies? I've blundered into some of them, probably all of them at one point or another. And hey, there have been times when I've gotten mad and said things I regretted, too.
We all make mistakes.
There's no avoiding it. We can try, of course. Studying logical fallacies (any generic search should turn up a wealth of information to review) is a good way to head off serious blunders and it NEVER hurts to pause before hitting that submit button. Re-read your post in search of ambiguous wording. Better, read it aloud. Your ears will identify stylistic awkwardness, if nothing else - any time you run out of breath, your sentence is way too long. ;-) If you aren't that great at spelling, grammar, or your typing is awful - spell/grammar check are your friends. (If your post is so incoherent or difficult to read that people skip over it, the brilliance of the content won't matter and consistently poor spelling/grammar gives your opponents an ad hom to beat you over the head with.)
But no matter what we do, we are ALL going to louse something up from time to time.
The question isn't if we make a mistake, but rather what we do WHEN we make those mistakes.
A P O L O G I Z E.
It bears repeating:
! ! ! A P O L O G I Z E ! ! !
Please allow me to clarify. An apology usually involves wording along the lines of "I'm sorry" or (for me) "My apologies." Confess your mistake, SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY. Then, apologize. It's that simple.
"I'm sorry, but..." is NOT an apology. "I'm sorry, but..." is a justification. Don't use it. Ever. It's a poor, poor excuse for an apology and only serves as a means of attacking your opponent and/or shifting the blame. You may, of course, explain what provoked your error, but you should only do so if the explanation does not point fingers at your opponent and only in so far as the explanation defines the behavior you are indicating that you will try to avoid repeating in future. (Repentance - ALWAYS repent. The importance of repentance comes into play later.)
"I'm sorry you feel that way" and the like are also just artful dodges. They aren't genuine apologies at all. You're not apologizing for your behavior. You're just saying you're sorry that your opponent felt hurt/angry. That neatly evades your taking responsibility for the behavior that caused the anger/hurt. You aren't owning up to having done anything wrong.
Don't do it.
"I'm sorry" or "my apologies" is short, sweet, and perfectly adequate for putting the unpleasant business behind you. When we're wrong, the experience is humbling enough. Make every effort to prolong the experience as little as possible. Belabor your apology ONLY in those instances when the error you've committed has inflicted serious harm and only if such belaboring would benefit whomever you've wronged. Your apology should always focus on the one(s) you injured - NOT on appeasing your guilty conscience.
Alright.
Now that I've addressed what an apology entails...When is an apology warranted?
Apologize any and every time you make a mistake, no matter how minor (you think) the mistake is, no matter who calls you on it and even if (especially if) NO ONE calls you on it.
Apologize for a minor errors because even though the mistake may seem insignificant to you, the mistake was obviously significant to whoever called you on it. It matters to them. Pointing out that you think it's a petty matter only denigrates your opponent, which is just another form of blame-shifting. Don't do it. The fact that it was minor to you doesn't negate the fact that your mistake MAY have been important to someone else. Even if you suspect your opponent doesn't genuinely consider your mistake important and is only grandstanding to try to make you look bad, confess and apologize. If your opponent is making a show of it, more likely than not, that will be apparent. A sincere apology given to an insincere and exaggerated protest reveals the character and integrity of both parties. Remember that.
If YOU are the one to identify your error, own up to it regardless and as soon as possible. Doesn't matter if your opponent is unlikely to discover your mistake. Confess it, anyway. Doing so preserves the intergrity of your argument. Welcome to the internet - you may win against that specific opponent but a subsequent reader may stumble upon the mistake later. Your goal should never be winning against a specific opponent - your goal should be to prove your position is correct. Leaving an error in your argument...You may win the battle, but you've lost the war.
In the short-term, mistakes are also opportunities for your opponent to criticize your position. Rob him or her of those opportunities as much as possible, especially on those occasions when the criticism is legitimate. YOU want to be the one to identify your mistakes. It leaves you in the driver's seat as far as damage control is concerned.
But what if your opponent is a total jerk? One of those people who will never, ever in a million years admit their own mistakes, much less apologize for them? One of those people who will take an admission of wrong as a club to pummel you with? Someone who will crow giddily about your mistake?
Those are all more reasons TO apologize. For starters, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that your opponent's behavior is less than exemplary is no reason or excuse to sink to his or her level. Personal integrity is not relative. Live the way you claim to believe. How others act, behave or believe shouldn't ever enter that equation. If you claim to believe in honesty, be honest. If you claim to believe in compassion, be compassionate. If you claim to believe in humility, be humble. If your opponent's behavior is dishonest, uncompassionate and proud, that's their burden. Don't make it yours.
But...Just to show that I'm not completely altruistic...The more your opponent acts like a jerk, the better you'll look in comparison if you resist the urge to respond in kind and in fact go in the complete opposite direction. Trust me, if you're willing to own up to a mistake while your opponent couldn't be forced to confess to a glaring error if you held a gun on him or her, that STRENGTHENS your position. Appearances, sure. Sugar is sweeter than vinegar and the simple fact of the matter is people are more willing to listen to and consider the calm voice of reason rather than the insulting and arrogant jerk. But further than that. If your opponent is unwilling to admit to an obvious error, what about mistakes that aren't so obvious? Ones you (or the reader) may not have picked up on? It casts doubt on your opponent's position because we simply cannot know if there are unidentified contradictions in the position that your opponent is aware of but he or she isn't sharing.
Own up to your mistake. Apologize for it - unconditionally. Indicate you will do your best NOT to repeat your mistake, then follow through on that. (I can guarantee I never quoted secondary sources without adequate context again.) Remember the repentance I noted above? If you've repented - genuinely repented - when your opponent insists on constantly reminding you of your admission of wrong, you are able to point to your sincere repentance and fairly criticize your opponent's unforgiving attitude. Quote your (hopefully humble) apology and any instance that demonstrates your repentance, if you can.
They think beating you with your mistake will make them look good.
They're wrong.
Everybody knows that admitting to, apologizing for and repenting of a mistake isn't wrong, either. Some, however, consider doing so in a debate as a show of weakness. It doesn't have to be. Not at all. Refusal to admit a wrong? That's a weakness. Taking responsibility for our mistakes, that's a strength. Mistakes define our integrity. Let them best exemplify yours.
In this posting, I'm going to look at instances when NOT being a snot is not only appropriate but necessary - when eating a large slice of humble pie is the order of the day and a wise debater will get his or her napkin and fork ready.
I'm talking about those occasions when you are - when I am - WRONG.
Everybody makes mistakes - including me. On one memorable occasion, I quoted a source secondarily (meaning the quote was contained within a source other than the original). There wasn't enough context included of the orginal material to ensure the secondary source had used the quote properly and much to my chagrin, the secondary source hadn't used the quote properly at all. On other occasions, my wording hasn't been as precise as it reasonably should have - or could have - been. There have also been times when I've misunderstood my opponent's argument or a specific element of it. Logical fallacies? I've blundered into some of them, probably all of them at one point or another. And hey, there have been times when I've gotten mad and said things I regretted, too.
We all make mistakes.
There's no avoiding it. We can try, of course. Studying logical fallacies (any generic search should turn up a wealth of information to review) is a good way to head off serious blunders and it NEVER hurts to pause before hitting that submit button. Re-read your post in search of ambiguous wording. Better, read it aloud. Your ears will identify stylistic awkwardness, if nothing else - any time you run out of breath, your sentence is way too long. ;-) If you aren't that great at spelling, grammar, or your typing is awful - spell/grammar check are your friends. (If your post is so incoherent or difficult to read that people skip over it, the brilliance of the content won't matter and consistently poor spelling/grammar gives your opponents an ad hom to beat you over the head with.)
But no matter what we do, we are ALL going to louse something up from time to time.
The question isn't if we make a mistake, but rather what we do WHEN we make those mistakes.
A P O L O G I Z E.
It bears repeating:
! ! ! A P O L O G I Z E ! ! !
Please allow me to clarify. An apology usually involves wording along the lines of "I'm sorry" or (for me) "My apologies." Confess your mistake, SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY. Then, apologize. It's that simple.
"I'm sorry, but..." is NOT an apology. "I'm sorry, but..." is a justification. Don't use it. Ever. It's a poor, poor excuse for an apology and only serves as a means of attacking your opponent and/or shifting the blame. You may, of course, explain what provoked your error, but you should only do so if the explanation does not point fingers at your opponent and only in so far as the explanation defines the behavior you are indicating that you will try to avoid repeating in future. (Repentance - ALWAYS repent. The importance of repentance comes into play later.)
"I'm sorry you feel that way" and the like are also just artful dodges. They aren't genuine apologies at all. You're not apologizing for your behavior. You're just saying you're sorry that your opponent felt hurt/angry. That neatly evades your taking responsibility for the behavior that caused the anger/hurt. You aren't owning up to having done anything wrong.
Don't do it.
"I'm sorry" or "my apologies" is short, sweet, and perfectly adequate for putting the unpleasant business behind you. When we're wrong, the experience is humbling enough. Make every effort to prolong the experience as little as possible. Belabor your apology ONLY in those instances when the error you've committed has inflicted serious harm and only if such belaboring would benefit whomever you've wronged. Your apology should always focus on the one(s) you injured - NOT on appeasing your guilty conscience.
Alright.
Now that I've addressed what an apology entails...When is an apology warranted?
Apologize any and every time you make a mistake, no matter how minor (you think) the mistake is, no matter who calls you on it and even if (especially if) NO ONE calls you on it.
Apologize for a minor errors because even though the mistake may seem insignificant to you, the mistake was obviously significant to whoever called you on it. It matters to them. Pointing out that you think it's a petty matter only denigrates your opponent, which is just another form of blame-shifting. Don't do it. The fact that it was minor to you doesn't negate the fact that your mistake MAY have been important to someone else. Even if you suspect your opponent doesn't genuinely consider your mistake important and is only grandstanding to try to make you look bad, confess and apologize. If your opponent is making a show of it, more likely than not, that will be apparent. A sincere apology given to an insincere and exaggerated protest reveals the character and integrity of both parties. Remember that.
If YOU are the one to identify your error, own up to it regardless and as soon as possible. Doesn't matter if your opponent is unlikely to discover your mistake. Confess it, anyway. Doing so preserves the intergrity of your argument. Welcome to the internet - you may win against that specific opponent but a subsequent reader may stumble upon the mistake later. Your goal should never be winning against a specific opponent - your goal should be to prove your position is correct. Leaving an error in your argument...You may win the battle, but you've lost the war.
In the short-term, mistakes are also opportunities for your opponent to criticize your position. Rob him or her of those opportunities as much as possible, especially on those occasions when the criticism is legitimate. YOU want to be the one to identify your mistakes. It leaves you in the driver's seat as far as damage control is concerned.
But what if your opponent is a total jerk? One of those people who will never, ever in a million years admit their own mistakes, much less apologize for them? One of those people who will take an admission of wrong as a club to pummel you with? Someone who will crow giddily about your mistake?
Those are all more reasons TO apologize. For starters, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that your opponent's behavior is less than exemplary is no reason or excuse to sink to his or her level. Personal integrity is not relative. Live the way you claim to believe. How others act, behave or believe shouldn't ever enter that equation. If you claim to believe in honesty, be honest. If you claim to believe in compassion, be compassionate. If you claim to believe in humility, be humble. If your opponent's behavior is dishonest, uncompassionate and proud, that's their burden. Don't make it yours.
But...Just to show that I'm not completely altruistic...The more your opponent acts like a jerk, the better you'll look in comparison if you resist the urge to respond in kind and in fact go in the complete opposite direction. Trust me, if you're willing to own up to a mistake while your opponent couldn't be forced to confess to a glaring error if you held a gun on him or her, that STRENGTHENS your position. Appearances, sure. Sugar is sweeter than vinegar and the simple fact of the matter is people are more willing to listen to and consider the calm voice of reason rather than the insulting and arrogant jerk. But further than that. If your opponent is unwilling to admit to an obvious error, what about mistakes that aren't so obvious? Ones you (or the reader) may not have picked up on? It casts doubt on your opponent's position because we simply cannot know if there are unidentified contradictions in the position that your opponent is aware of but he or she isn't sharing.
Own up to your mistake. Apologize for it - unconditionally. Indicate you will do your best NOT to repeat your mistake, then follow through on that. (I can guarantee I never quoted secondary sources without adequate context again.) Remember the repentance I noted above? If you've repented - genuinely repented - when your opponent insists on constantly reminding you of your admission of wrong, you are able to point to your sincere repentance and fairly criticize your opponent's unforgiving attitude. Quote your (hopefully humble) apology and any instance that demonstrates your repentance, if you can.
They think beating you with your mistake will make them look good.
They're wrong.
Everybody knows that admitting to, apologizing for and repenting of a mistake isn't wrong, either. Some, however, consider doing so in a debate as a show of weakness. It doesn't have to be. Not at all. Refusal to admit a wrong? That's a weakness. Taking responsibility for our mistakes, that's a strength. Mistakes define our integrity. Let them best exemplify yours.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Debating 101 - On Being a Snot
I have been criticized recently, by 2 different people in 2 different debates on 2 different boards for being a snot (in so many words). That's what you call independent witnesses, LOL.
Are they right?
Sure, they are!
In debates, I employ sarcasm and satire under specific circumstances. Deliberately so. I believe, under specific circumstances, sarcasm and satire are appropriate responses - even for Christians. Perhaps, especially for Christians. Let's look at some of those circumstances, shall we?
1. If an opponent announces that I've ceded a point when I have not, depending. On these occasions, I quote the relevant portion of my post and point out my opponent's error. Everybody can make an honest mistake, though, so I'm not going lambast anyone for that alone. But if my opponent has crowed about my alleged admission, I take him or her to task for it - severely if the opponent has made a big to-do about my alleged admission or has made this mistake previously.
Why?
If a big splash was made of the error, I'll make a bigger splash to correct the error to ensure no one is doubtful that the correction was made. It's like newspaper corrections - usually buried deep, deep in the paper. Nobody sees them, unless by accident. Not mine. In a manner of speaking, I put my corrections on the front page, above the fold.
If my opponent has made this mistake previously...Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern. So I'll also make a big splash of the correction as a preventative measure. If I tear into you for misreading me, I guarantee you'll think twice before doing it again. You'll be absolutely positive that I've genuinely ceded a point before announcing I've done so next time.
In those instances, my sarcasm and satire serves a necessary purpose: emphasizing the correction and a warning against repeating the mistake.
2. If an opponent consistently fails to support an argument they persist in asserting is true. Please note the word "consistently." Generally speaking, I ask opponents to support their arguments (from authority, from Scripture, whatever) at least twice before I turn to sarcasm. The more frequently an opponent fails to support his or her argument, the more sarcastic I become.
Why?
My opponent's persistent failure to support his or her position shows the weakness of his or her position. I emphasize the failure to showcase that weakness. An unsupported argument is just an opinion. Granted, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but personal opinions hardly provide a credible foundation in asserting a truth against a properly supported argument. I give personal opinions that disagree with my properly supported arguments every bit of the respect they deserve: none.
Satire and sarcasm serve a purpose: highlighting the weakness of my opponents position.
3. If an opponent equates his or her interpretation of Scriptures with the Scriptures themselves. In effect, any instance in which my opponent asserts or implies that if I don't agree with his or her position, I don't believe the Bible.
Why is sarcasm appropriate then?
To emphasize the distinction between my opponent's personal interpretation and the Word of God. Unless your name is Jesus, every interpretation of Scripture is open to error - including mine. Including my opponent's. Unlike my opponent in such instances, however, I am open to the possibility that my interpretation of Scripture may very well be wrong. Equating one's position with Scripture displays collosal hubris and reveals that the opponent does not recognize the fact that his or her interpretation may be in error. My opponent has, in fact, robbed the Bible of its inerrancy and applied that inerrancy to his/herself.
Sarcasam and satire serves a purpose - emphasizing the colossal hubris of my opponent and highlighting that personal interpretation is not equivalent to the Word of God.
4. If an opponent discounts my arguments without ever actually interacting with them. Reasons for failure to interact with my arguments tend to include (but certainly aren't limited to):
*we must look at the entirety of Scriptures, not just these verses
*my position isn't orthodox or my beliefs are atypical
*my position is biased because I am a: Trinitarian, Protestant, Christian, etc
*vague references to ambiguity when a word has more than one meaning
*one authority disagrees and therefore negates every other expert in the field
*since we don't know xyz exhaustively, we can't and shouldn't draw conclusions about xyz on existing evidence (a valid argument if existing evidence is inadequate, however)
*"I know what I believe is true and nothing you say will convince me otherwise" etc
*I'm quibbling over petty details (ironic when my opponent has demanded those details)
*I'm just borrowing from xyz (without proving the particular authority invalid)
*I'm too emotionally upset to discuss the issue rationally (???)
And if I point out the error of any of the above, then push the opponent to address an argument, you can add "I'm mean" to the list as well.
Why is satire and sarcasm appropriate?
To emphasize that my opponent has failed to refute my argument as well as stress the lengths to which some will go to in order to dodge even addressing those arguments - especially when ad hom attacks come into play.
Sarcasm and satire is an appopriate response, at times. Even for Christians. Christ himself used it (Matthew 23). I recommend "Offensisensitivity: Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?" at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html for an in-depth consideration of satire in the biblical and extrabiblical texts.
I have been a snot. Yep. But if you're looking for an apology, you won't find one here. Because, sometimes, the Faith benefits by showing all the snide mockery, disdain and contempt that a comment or argument deserves.
Are they right?
Sure, they are!
In debates, I employ sarcasm and satire under specific circumstances. Deliberately so. I believe, under specific circumstances, sarcasm and satire are appropriate responses - even for Christians. Perhaps, especially for Christians. Let's look at some of those circumstances, shall we?
1. If an opponent announces that I've ceded a point when I have not, depending. On these occasions, I quote the relevant portion of my post and point out my opponent's error. Everybody can make an honest mistake, though, so I'm not going lambast anyone for that alone. But if my opponent has crowed about my alleged admission, I take him or her to task for it - severely if the opponent has made a big to-do about my alleged admission or has made this mistake previously.
Why?
If a big splash was made of the error, I'll make a bigger splash to correct the error to ensure no one is doubtful that the correction was made. It's like newspaper corrections - usually buried deep, deep in the paper. Nobody sees them, unless by accident. Not mine. In a manner of speaking, I put my corrections on the front page, above the fold.
If my opponent has made this mistake previously...Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern. So I'll also make a big splash of the correction as a preventative measure. If I tear into you for misreading me, I guarantee you'll think twice before doing it again. You'll be absolutely positive that I've genuinely ceded a point before announcing I've done so next time.
In those instances, my sarcasm and satire serves a necessary purpose: emphasizing the correction and a warning against repeating the mistake.
2. If an opponent consistently fails to support an argument they persist in asserting is true. Please note the word "consistently." Generally speaking, I ask opponents to support their arguments (from authority, from Scripture, whatever) at least twice before I turn to sarcasm. The more frequently an opponent fails to support his or her argument, the more sarcastic I become.
Why?
My opponent's persistent failure to support his or her position shows the weakness of his or her position. I emphasize the failure to showcase that weakness. An unsupported argument is just an opinion. Granted, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but personal opinions hardly provide a credible foundation in asserting a truth against a properly supported argument. I give personal opinions that disagree with my properly supported arguments every bit of the respect they deserve: none.
Satire and sarcasm serve a purpose: highlighting the weakness of my opponents position.
3. If an opponent equates his or her interpretation of Scriptures with the Scriptures themselves. In effect, any instance in which my opponent asserts or implies that if I don't agree with his or her position, I don't believe the Bible.
Why is sarcasm appropriate then?
To emphasize the distinction between my opponent's personal interpretation and the Word of God. Unless your name is Jesus, every interpretation of Scripture is open to error - including mine. Including my opponent's. Unlike my opponent in such instances, however, I am open to the possibility that my interpretation of Scripture may very well be wrong. Equating one's position with Scripture displays collosal hubris and reveals that the opponent does not recognize the fact that his or her interpretation may be in error. My opponent has, in fact, robbed the Bible of its inerrancy and applied that inerrancy to his/herself.
Sarcasam and satire serves a purpose - emphasizing the colossal hubris of my opponent and highlighting that personal interpretation is not equivalent to the Word of God.
4. If an opponent discounts my arguments without ever actually interacting with them. Reasons for failure to interact with my arguments tend to include (but certainly aren't limited to):
*we must look at the entirety of Scriptures, not just these verses
*my position isn't orthodox or my beliefs are atypical
*my position is biased because I am a: Trinitarian, Protestant, Christian, etc
*vague references to ambiguity when a word has more than one meaning
*one authority disagrees and therefore negates every other expert in the field
*since we don't know xyz exhaustively, we can't and shouldn't draw conclusions about xyz on existing evidence (a valid argument if existing evidence is inadequate, however)
*"I know what I believe is true and nothing you say will convince me otherwise" etc
*I'm quibbling over petty details (ironic when my opponent has demanded those details)
*I'm just borrowing from xyz (without proving the particular authority invalid)
*I'm too emotionally upset to discuss the issue rationally (???)
And if I point out the error of any of the above, then push the opponent to address an argument, you can add "I'm mean" to the list as well.
Why is satire and sarcasm appropriate?
To emphasize that my opponent has failed to refute my argument as well as stress the lengths to which some will go to in order to dodge even addressing those arguments - especially when ad hom attacks come into play.
Sarcasm and satire is an appopriate response, at times. Even for Christians. Christ himself used it (Matthew 23). I recommend "Offensisensitivity: Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?" at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html for an in-depth consideration of satire in the biblical and extrabiblical texts.
I have been a snot. Yep. But if you're looking for an apology, you won't find one here. Because, sometimes, the Faith benefits by showing all the snide mockery, disdain and contempt that a comment or argument deserves.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Polishing amber and 4-H
Last summer, I bought half a dozen chunks of raw amber and different grades of sandpaper to polish them with during Canalfest specifically for this month's Cub Scout theme - Indian Nations. A bit pricey, but was okay since I needed so few kits. My Bears would polish the amber and make amulets out of them as a special den project.
I hadn't counted on 7 webelos tagging along with my den.
I'm trying to decide whether or not to call the vendor to try to get the extra amber to cover my Webelos. If I do, my special den project will have cost me an obscene amount of money, at least as far as Scout projects go. If I don't, I've wasted what I already invested. :-(
Up for today...Prepping for Scouts, volunteering at the hospital, then scout meetings tonight.
Tomorrow's 4-H, but only if I figure out why the robotics software isn't displaying properly. I'm so mad about 4-H right now (and have been for months) that I just want to quit, anyway. I've pretty much decided TO quit once robotics is done. Our new 4-H educator is pushing project record books (so much it's now a requirement for fair) and has been scheduling leader mtgs...Which is all fine, well and good, but 4-H is supposed to be my NO STRESS activity. If some of the kids don't want to do record books, I'm not going to hold a gun on them. And leader mtgs...why? Everything I've done with 4-H over the past 3 yrs has been ON MY OWN. Help from the extension ofc has been marginal, at best, and I have enough leader mtgs to get myself to already, thanks so much.
If I can't figure out the display problems in robotics, I may cancel 4-H and quit altogether now instead of later. The other family in our club would be fine, could join another club (though having to pay dues and for their project record books would be a rude awakening for them - I pay for everything for our 4-H club). And I could get my kids into a club on MY side of town, where they could do it with their friends and I wouldn't have to be the stupid leader.
We'll see.
I hadn't counted on 7 webelos tagging along with my den.
I'm trying to decide whether or not to call the vendor to try to get the extra amber to cover my Webelos. If I do, my special den project will have cost me an obscene amount of money, at least as far as Scout projects go. If I don't, I've wasted what I already invested. :-(
Up for today...Prepping for Scouts, volunteering at the hospital, then scout meetings tonight.
Tomorrow's 4-H, but only if I figure out why the robotics software isn't displaying properly. I'm so mad about 4-H right now (and have been for months) that I just want to quit, anyway. I've pretty much decided TO quit once robotics is done. Our new 4-H educator is pushing project record books (so much it's now a requirement for fair) and has been scheduling leader mtgs...Which is all fine, well and good, but 4-H is supposed to be my NO STRESS activity. If some of the kids don't want to do record books, I'm not going to hold a gun on them. And leader mtgs...why? Everything I've done with 4-H over the past 3 yrs has been ON MY OWN. Help from the extension ofc has been marginal, at best, and I have enough leader mtgs to get myself to already, thanks so much.
If I can't figure out the display problems in robotics, I may cancel 4-H and quit altogether now instead of later. The other family in our club would be fine, could join another club (though having to pay dues and for their project record books would be a rude awakening for them - I pay for everything for our 4-H club). And I could get my kids into a club on MY side of town, where they could do it with their friends and I wouldn't have to be the stupid leader.
We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
