Some Anti Name-Calling Folks...

[Crow]

If you respect a person who is clearly doing wrong, then you confer acceptability on that action. Why do you think that Paul told us to not even eat with the sexually immoral and to toss them out of the church assembly?

 

[Agape4Robin]

If you respect a person who is clearly doing wrong, then you confer acceptability on that action. Why do you think that Paul told us to not even eat with the sexually immoral and to toss them out of the church assembly?

I didn't say to respect what the person does, but to respect them as a person. Even Jesus treated the woman at the well with dignity and respect and yet told her the truth in love.

 

[Crow]

Yup. He pointed out to her that her "husbands" weren't her "husbands."

Did Jesus do the same for the Pharasees?

No. When someone clings to their evil behavior and tries to make that behavior seem acceptable, then is the time to call names. It is quite appropriate in that situation. IIRC, the woman at the well and the woman in the "cast the first stone" incident did not try to justify their behavior.

My reaction to a woman who is a whore and trying to change would be quite different than my reaction to a woman who is a whore and shows no shame in her game.

 

[Lovejoy]

Ok, fine.
Why are you trying to defend your position that it's ok to call names?
Do you call black people, niggers?
Do you call a sexually promiscuous person a whore?
Do you call Jews, kikes?
Do you call a child born out of wedlock a bastard?

Where does the line get drawn?

You know as well as I do that the line is drawn in our heart, and that Jesus will judge why we used those names. Personally, I don't think Jesus ever used a disparaging word on someone to change them (or at least, that use was rare) but rather as a warning to other people. When he called someone a hypocrite what He was saying is "Do not follow this person, for he is hypocrite." As such, when my children ask me about why we cannot "socialize" with someone, at some point I want to be able to honestly tell them. That may mean saying that they are, well, unrepentant sinners (or something very like that). That certainly seems like calling them names, and that also seems to WA's original point. Those names are purposeful, but possibly still hurtful. Your list contains mant words that people use that are technically objective (based on real facts, such as race) but then attach a purely subjective, completely false, negative connotation just for the purpose of expressing hate. By comparison, saying someone is a "hypocrite" should still be an objective statement (and maybe done for pure reasons), but is still name calling as the person on the other end undoubtedly interprets it as false and derogatory. But was it an appropriate thing to say? Maybe! Anyway, WA was trying to make a purely objective point, but this is one of those things that falls rapidly into matters of interpretation no matter what we say or do.

 

[wholearmor]

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill!

The mole hill wouldn't have turned into a mountain if no one had responded to my original post, right?

 

[Agape4Robin]

You know as well as I do that the line is drawn in our heart, and that Jesus will judge why we used those names. Personally, I don't think Jesus ever used a disparaging word on someone to change them (or at least, that use was rare) but rather as a warning to other people. When he called someone a hypocrite what He was saying is "Do not follow this person, for he is hypocrite." As such, when my children ask me about why we cannot "socialize" with someone, at some point I want to be able to honestly tell them. That may mean saying that they are, well, unrepentant sinners (or something very like that). That certainly seems like calling them names, and that also seems to WA's original point. Those names are purposeful, but possibly still hurtful. Your list contains mant words that people use that are technically objective (based on real facts, such as race) but then attach a purely subjective, completely false, negative connotation just for the purpose of expressing hate. By comparison, saying someone is a "hypocrite" should still be an objective statement (and maybe done for pure reasons), but is still name calling as the person on the other end undoubtedly interprets it as false and derogatory. But was it an appropriate thing to say? Maybe! Anyway, WA was trying to make a purely objective point, but this is one of those things that falls rapidly into matters of interpretation no matter what we say or do.

I can agree with that! :thumb:

 

[Agape4Robin]

Welcome back WA....was dinner good?

 

[wholearmor]

Maybe as a person who says you must name-call, you took it as such. There is very little I can do about that. I would not be able to communicate at all without possibly offending you. All I can say is that it is not my intention. What you perceive is beyond my ability to control.

It has nothing to do with being offended or not being offended. Whether I'm a name caller or not, you called name callers a name. You called them "small" at the same time as you were proclaiming that name calling is wrong.

 

[wholearmor]

Yes, he labled them, but that is different than being malicious. On the same token, you could say that calling someone blonde, because they are in fact blonde, is calling them a name.

He may not have meant to be malicious, but derogatory, yes. I don't see how that can be denied.

 

[BillyBob]

I don't understand why 'faggot' is so bad? I can think of A LOT worse derogatory terms for queers than faggot.

 

[Ninjashadow]

I think he was just using it as an antonym for "noble."

 

[Lovejoy]

I don't understand why 'faggot' is so bad? I can think of A LOT worse derogatory terms for queers than faggot.

It does seem to stall productive conversation! But hey, if the conversation was boring anyway...

 

[wholearmor]

Welcome back WA....was dinner good?

I don't know. I forgot what it was! (Inside joke.) Anyway, yes, thank you, it was. My wife made her world-famous goulash.

 

[wholearmor]

Yup. He pointed out to her that her "husbands" weren't her "husbands."

Did Jesus do the same for the Pharasees?

No. When someone clings to their evil behavior and tries to make that behavior seem acceptable, then is the time to call names. It is quite appropriate in that situation. IIRC, the woman at the well and the woman in the "cast the first stone" incident did not try to justify their behavior.

My reaction to a woman who is a whore and trying to change would be quite different than my reaction to a woman who is a whore and shows no shame in her game.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Crow again.

:sozo2:
​

 

[wholearmor]

I don't understand why 'faggot' is so bad? I can think of A LOT worse derogatory terms for queers than faggot.

:chuckle:

 

[julie21]

What round is this thread up to...:think: 3 or 5 I believe, and so it will continue. Watching from outside the ring, it seems as though this could indeed go on like a fight in a school yard, with each main players supporters not really adding on to that which has already been said.."he said...she said..but he said....but she said" etc, and just going around and around and around in a huge circle...ad infinitum. It's unbelievable really. A stand-off situation as I see it...but then I could very well be wrong, so keep it going...what the heck...who's got anything better to do?

 

[Chileice]

You know as well as I do that the line is drawn in our heart, and that Jesus will judge why we used those names. Personally, I don't think Jesus ever used a disparaging word on someone to change them (or at least, that use was rare) but rather as a warning to other people. When he called someone a hypocrite what He was saying is "Do not follow this person, for he is hypocrite." As such, when my children ask me about why we cannot "socialize" with someone, at some point I want to be able to honestly tell them. That may mean saying that they are, well, unrepentant sinners (or something very like that). That certainly seems like calling them names, and that also seems to WA's original point. Those names are purposeful, but possibly still hurtful. Your list contains mant words that people use that are technically objective (based on real facts, such as race) but then attach a purely subjective, completely false, negative connotation just for the purpose of expressing hate. By comparison, saying someone is a "hypocrite" should still be an objective statement (and maybe done for pure reasons), but is still name calling as the person on the other end undoubtedly interprets it as false and derogatory. But was it an appropriate thing to say? Maybe! Anyway, WA was trying to make a purely objective point, but this is one of those things that falls rapidly into matters of interpretation no matter what we say or do.

I guess this is true. If you want to paint fine lines, I guess I was name calling. In a sense I was saying that those who behave in an intentionally derogatory manner are using less of their abilities to be civil and using less communication skills than those who don't. If one takes that personally, I guess they would consider it "name-calling" even though it was just meant to be descriptive. I used the word "small" on purpose but not with the purpose WA took it to mean. I used it, as I have said, as an opposite to noble. This whole thread points out how amazingly entwined we can get over the use of language. I have written tons of posts and most of them were far longer than the simple statement I made. I never even saw any initial response to it on the original thread. Who would have thought that the turn of one word "small" could have generated such interest?

 

[wholearmor]

Because you stated in a post that name calling was wrong and you name called in that very post. Simple as that.

 

[Lovejoy]

I guess this is true. If you want to paint fine lines, I guess I was name calling. In a sense I was saying that those who behave in an intentionally derogatory manner are using less of their abilities to be civil and using less communication skills than those who don't. If one takes that personally, I guess they would consider it "name-calling" even though it was just meant to be descriptive. I used the word "small" on purpose but not with the purpose WA took it to mean. I used it, as I have said, as an opposite to noble. This whole thread points out how amazingly entwined we can get over the use of language. I have written tons of posts and most of them were far longer than the simple statement I made. I never even saw any initial response to it on the original thread. Who would have thought that the turn of one word "small" could have generated such interest?

If I had to sum your single statement up, it would be "do not follow these people (meaning those who name call just to be hurtful)." Nothing wrong with that, as it is your opinion on the matter. BTW, almost all of my POTD's have been for single sentence posts. People actually read those. :chuckle:

 

[wholearmor]

What round is this thread up to...:think: 3 or 5 I believe, and so it will continue. Watching from outside the ring, it seems as though this could indeed go on like a fight in a school yard, with each main players supporters not really adding on to that which has already been said.."he said...she said..but he said....but she said" etc, and just going around and around and around in a huge circle...ad infinitum. It's unbelievable really. A stand-off situation as I see it...but then I could very well be wrong, so keep it going...what the heck...who's got anything better to do?

You've posted 2,406 times and you just observed that happening at TOL? :chuckle: