Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and i will say again the forum and this thread are not about discussing any individual person who happens to be posting.
it is to discuss the views, ideas, beliefs, examples, attitudes, teachings put forth.
Yet your first post on this thread misrepresented QB, calling her smug, condescending, holier-than-though, and accused her of having a borderline personality disorder.
The two things you did not discuss were the actual concepts of an eye for an eye and turning the other cheek.
Perhaps it is a subtlety of English that I do not understand, can you explain what you mean by not being a problem-solving approach? If someone steals from me, the problem is I have lost something, and if the person who stole is made to repay what they have stolen, my loss has gone. Do you mean that the person may steal again is the problem?
Hi, Harry. Yes, that is pretty close to what I was referring to.
Some people here also start threads in the Politics area, that at first glance look innocent and open, but are pushing a side. If you're going to root for one side, just be open about it and not try to conceal it.
This OP's "side", however, is and always has been open and transparent. The first post seems to be in keeping with the pacifist and anti-violence practices of the Friends.
And ironically, given some of the affectations of assumed interfaith injury in this thread, there are plenty on this forum who would argue that the OP's faith is not even Christian. No baptism, no sacraments, no preaching, Bible's a sidebar. But that's a poo-sling better suited to the Christianity forum.
Just a suggestion. When you have been around here for a while it is easy to think that one knows the poster, come to some conclusions about them, and thus respond to their post with that bias, and also think everyone else should have the same knowledge or bias about the poster. That is a lot of baggage, and not true perception.
It is far better, I think, to approach each post without any prejudice about the poster, and just address the post. This may, just may, promote a livelier discussion of the topic, which is a lot more interesting, rather than dissect the posters’ character, motives, religion, gender etc etc. which just drags down the discourse.
Do i do this myself? I try. Some posters are indeed predictable but I still try to be objective.
I am saying this because i have been on that end where there are a lot assumptions made about me, speculations about whether i am male or female, where i live etc, etc. It is quite natural to do so, but what comes naturally is not always right. It just muddies the water.
Address the post, as the rules say, not the poster. And i dont always carry the life history of posters in my head, to “know betterâ€. Maybe some of you do because you have been here a long time. I have been here a long time as well, maybe my memory is just not that sharp.
Just my humble opinion.
Just a suggestion. When you have been around here for a while it is easy to think that one knows the poster, come to some conclusions about them, and thus respond to their post with that bias, and also think everyone else should have the same knowledge or bias about the poster. That is a lot of baggage, and not true perception.
It is far better, I think, to approach each post without any prejudice about the poster, and just address the post. This may, just may, promote a livelier discussion of the topic, which is a lot more interesting, rather than dissect the posters’ character, motives, religion, gender etc etc. which just drags down the discourse.
Do i do this myself? I try. Some posters are indeed predictable but I still try to be objective.
I am saying this because i have been on that end where there are a lot assumptions made about me, speculations about whether i am male or female, where i live etc, etc. It is quite natural to do so, but what comes naturally is not always right. It just muddies the water.
Address the post, as the rules say, not the poster. And i dont always carry the life history of posters in my head, to “know betterâ€. Maybe some of you do because you have been here a long time. I have been here a long time as well, maybe my memory is just not that sharp.
Just my humble opinion.
No one needs to know life history, but when a poster's screen name clearly defines their religion or faith, you do know something about the perspective from which they are posting.
But most of us here do know QB's history as a very young woman who first started posting here as a teen, then a young wife and mom, because she was pretty open about sharing the details. However, even without that, you would at least know she is posting from the Friends' POV, which is the extreme opposite of what she's been accused of by some here.
My own view is that fawning and coddling are a disservice, and serve to keep the person infantilized. It stunts their growth and development. A person does not grow into their strength and radiance by being coddled and fawned over. We grow and develop by dealing with that which challenges us when we bump up against it in daily life. in this case on the forum.
i remember reading somewhere that from a spiritual perspective and point of view the reason most people have to work for a living and have to hold down a job for well much of their adult life is not to earn money or support our families or keep a roof over our head. But it's so that we learn how to interact with people we don't get along with, who annoy us, situations that irritate us. Typically people spend more time at their job and more hours in the day with work associates, than they do anywhere else.
and when a person is sincerely committed to walking their path of religion and spirituality whatever that may be for the person, it's not about "what will people think" or "how is that going to look to others." No. It is about "how well am i putting into practice the principles" and "does the walk match the talk."
My own view is that when a person tries to summarize their understanding of a concept, they are attempting to enhance their comprehension. What that implies is that people don't always have 100% understanding, but summarizing helps to reach that goal higher and higher. When a person summarizes, it allows others to determine quickly if somebody understood the overall gist. If they didn't, of course, there are many reasons for this and different approaches to deal with it. And that is exactly what happened in this thread.
Students are expected to "Summarize a text to enhance comprehension" (R.2.3, page 19). Since these are standards for public schools, students must refer to texts for supporting details. The OP does not cite sources for the concept of 'eye for an eye,' but I think that is because quite a few of us have been taught that it means revenge or something along those lines. 'Eye for an eye,' even in its simplistic and reductive form, suggests violent sensory details.
There is nothing wrong to hold a view that fawning and coddling are a disservice, but where are the sources for how to react to a post that is inaccurate. One reaction I spotted in a post was setting improbable standards. For example,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
may you one day be able to live a set of beliefs without (1) misunderstanding and mis-stating the beliefs of other religions and other holy books; and also without (2) looking down on others with holier-than-though posturing.
Having zero misunderstandings is a very high standard that I don't think most people can obtain. The OP later came back and said she meant no harm. Clearly, she feels misunderstood by the same poster. Even the Florida English Language Arts Standards don't expect students to summarize to obtain perfect comprehension. Instead, the goal is to enhance it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
(d) the tone of the flawed premise put forth in the opening post is smug and reeks of condescending superiority. It is simplistic and reductive. because let's face it. the opening post is a not even thinly veiled question asking which is better Torah or New Testament, which is better Crstnty or Judaism, which is better Crstnty or Islam ("beloved faultless" MLK; or "ineffective violent" Malcolm X)
Summarizing can be simplistic and reductive, just like saying 'eye for an eye' is simplistic and reductive. The point is to see if the listener understood the intended message. If the take away is that it is violent, then maybe understand why someone might think that. While the OP did state that 'eye for an eye' was about violence, she did provide a video source that doesn't support this premise. Here is the post below specifically point #4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker
Game theory in Prisoner's Dilemma suggests what is best is (1) Be nice, (2) don't be a push over so you retaliate to aggression, (3) be forgiving after retaliation so you don't get stuck in a doom loop, (4) be clear in your strategy so your opponent knows what to expect.
Revenge or violence wouldn't necessarily include allowing your opponent to know what to expect. There have been several references to 'eye for an eye' as something that is used in law, which is something that is codified. If people were to perhaps read the laws, they would learn what to expect from society should they break the law. That doesn't sound like revenge. It sounds more like consequence. Therefore, the OP's concept of 'eye for an eye' and "game theory" don't exactly support each other.
People are free to decide how to 'inform' others, but I think that if somebody wanted to work in the mental health field and they were asked a multiple-choice question, most would know what to pick on an exam, whether they practiced it or not, if these were the choices:
Question: How should you react to a person who made an inaccurate statement (or that you believe is an ignorant, smug, condescending superiority, holier-than-thou statement)?
A. Teach the standard in a different way or provide more sources of information because you want to be careful not to coddle them
B. Tell the person they are ignorant, smug, and condescending because you want to be *careful* not to coddle them
C. Tell the person their words are ignorant, smug, and condescending because you want to be *careful* not to coddle them. In addition, tell the person that you are just critiquing their words and not the person because you just want to be helpful (without actually being explicit about this intention.)
Summarizing can be simplistic and reductive, just like saying 'eye for an eye' is simplistic and reductive. The point is to see if the listener understood the intended message. If the take away is that it is violent, then maybe understand why someone might think that. While the OP did state that 'eye for an eye' was about violence, she did provide a video source that doesn't support this premise.[/b] Here is the post below specifically point #4.
I actually never said that an "eye for an eye" was about "violence."
I did mention violence in "turn the other cheek" in regards to MLK rejecting a violent response when being met with violence.
The video clearly connects "eye for an eye" to violence in the context of the Cold War, military conflict, and the near risk of nuclear war between the USA and USSR - for example applying this to the real world like their example of Stanislav Petrov.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
Revenge or violence wouldn't necessarily include allowing your opponent to know what to expect. There have been several references to 'eye for an eye' as something that is used in law, which is something that is codified. If people were to perhaps read the laws, they would learn what to expect from society should they break the law. That doesn't sound like revenge. It sounds more like consequence. Therefore, the OP's concept of 'eye for an eye' and "game theory" don't exactly support each other.
Again, I didn't use the word "violence" nor did I use "revenge" when discussing "Eye for an eye." I used the phrase "retaliate to aggression," which does not have to be violence.
Based on the video:
In the game prisoner's dilemma after simulating many different strategies the strategy that performed best was called "tit for tat."
Tit for tat by mathematical fact can't win in a single match up of prisoner's dilemma, it can only tie or lose, but it consistently earned more coins than any other strategy over the long term when totaling match up after match up against different strategies, because it garnered better outcomes of cooperation and was not a push over.
Tit for tat:
(1) Starts out nice to cooperate.
(2) Only defects if the other program defects first.
(3) Quickly forgives and cooperates again if the other program goes back to cooperating.
(4) Is very clear on it's reactions. Strategies that were programmed to be random did not do as well. Programs where consequences were clear to the opponent performed better.
It was the professor himself in the video that stated that the best performing program, "tit for tat," was NOT Christian "turn the other cheek," but rather "eye for an eye."
If you think I am misinterpreting the video, I will gladly stand corrected if you can provide specifics from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
People are free to decide how to 'inform' others, but I think that if somebody wanted to work in the mental health field and they were asked a multiple-choice question, most would know what to pick on an exam, whether they practiced it or not, if these were the choices:
Question: How should you react to a person who made an inaccurate statement (or that you believe is an ignorant, smug, condescending superiority, holier-than-thou statement)?
A. Teach the standard in a different way or provide more sources of information because you want to be careful not to coddle them
B. Tell the person they are ignorant, smug, and condescending because you want to be *careful* not to coddle them
C. Tell the person their words are ignorant, smug, and condescending because you want to be *careful* not to coddle them. In addition, tell the person that you are just critiquing their words and not the person because you just want to be helpful (without actually being explicit about this intention.)
Indeed....
....I'll try to only post when I have time so I can be more clear, which isn't often as I have a 3 year old, 1 year 10.5 month old and a 6 month old...so I am often too busy to deep think and write well.
I actually never said that an "eye for an eye" was about "violence."
I did mention violence in "turn the other cheek" in regards to MLK rejecting a violent response when being met with violence.
The video clearly connects "eye for an eye" to violence in the context of the Cold War, military conflict, and the near risk of nuclear war between the USA and USSR - for example applying this to the real world like their example of Stanislav Petrov.
Again, I didn't use the word "violence" nor did I use "revenge" when discussing "Eye for an eye." I used the phrase "retaliate to aggression," which does not have to be violence.
Based on the video:
In the game prisoner's dilemma after simulating many different strategies the strategy that performed best was called "tit for tat."
Tit for tat by mathematical fact can't win in a single match up of prisoner's dilemma, it can only tie or lose, but it consistently earned more coins than any other strategy over the long term when totaling match up after match up against different strategies, because it garnered better outcomes of cooperation and was not a push over.
Tit for tat:
(1) Starts out nice to cooperate.
(2) Only defects if the other program defects first.
(3) Quickly forgives and cooperates again if the other program goes back to cooperating.
(4) Is very clear on it's reactions. Strategies that were programmed to be random did not do as well. Programs where consequences were clear to the opponent performed better.
It was the professor himself in the video that stated that the best performing program, "tit for tat," was NOT Christian "turn the other cheek," but rather "eye for an eye."
If you think I am misinterpreting the video, I will gladly stand corrected if you can provide specifics from it.
Indeed....
....I'll try to only post when I have time so I can be more clear, which isn't often as I have a 3 year old, 1 year 10.5 month old and a 6 month old...so I am often too busy to deep think and write well.
Hi, Quakerbaker. Thank you for correcting where I misunderstood. Yes, I interpreted retaliate as something violent and did not think to connect that concept to the overall message of the video. It's pretty cool now that you have spelled it out, but to be honest, that was the first impression I had of your OP. I never got the impression that you were smug or condescending.
Looking forward to following the thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
