Sometimes, even when forthgoing Christward individuals come together, there can be (hopefully mild!) disagreements as part of living the Christian life together. This topic, similar to the Aetherlight forum topic of the same name, is to discuss these points and hopefully come to a resolution.
A friendly reminder that this topic is for posting arguments for people’s consideration, not insulting people or tearing them down. It’s okay for people to disagree on things and compare notes to understand the truth of a matter, but not to smash people for their lack of agreement.
Your pursuit of balance and what’s right is commendable. However, in this case, I believe @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor actually and personally knows the dude, so it does not appear there is the aforementioned “impartiality” involved or as being an ingredient in the matter. Impartiality involves an equal playing ground and a “favoritism” (as you had mentioned) that takes away that balance. In this case @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor has already (as we say when purchasing a home…) pre-qualification. Favoritism, which I personally abhor as well, was not really a factor in this it seems.
Also interesting to note - Jesus Himself has made mention of this pre-qualication perspective via the person in charge as not being unfair, but strategic rather. (Matthew 20:1-16) ending with vs. 20, ““But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’”
However, the more prudent thing I may add here is that it is not usually a positive or recommended method to simply layout a non-investigated complaint publicly like you did. To be honest, a more effective approach I might suggest would be to “message” @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor directly and simply ask why, rather than publicly layout an entire scheme which does not seem to be the case. (Countryboy77 can speak his own mind on this lol) However, this is something we all should actively, and aggressively avoid to block any unnecessary drama.
Awesome peeps like you are very inspiring and influential, as well as awesomely articulate, especially in the Aether-realm, and this forum would really be blessed by your superb laser focus in helping encourage, build up and bring the power of Christ. @Bellflowerp
Sorry about quoting a whole paragraph here, but it’s kind of hard to address what you said with single sentences haha. The lesser of the two annoyances.
Anyways, that’s really the whole definition of impartiality (without this context, that is). @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor, we know, is friends with @Skunindoo in real life. As far as the “prerequisites” would go for who should have that role or not, I won’t argue that @Skunindoo does not pass them. He probably has, and I have no problem with @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor wanting to promote him. The actual concern I had was more that @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor himself said that no such thing would be needed; yet, lo and behold, such as come to pass.
One of my favorite stories, actually; I try to keep it in mind when it applies.
But as someone who’s read the story itself, I think only a portion of it applies here.
For context, in the parable, a man hired multiple men at different times to work for him. They all agreed to a certain same payment. The men who worked for him the earliest later became jealous of the ones later as technically they recieved more worth than they worked, at least compared to the originals. So yes, the story is eerily similar to this one, I think we can all agree haha.
But here’s where it deviates. @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor offered no “pay”. At least, not that I noticed. On the same note, none of us came here to “work”, per se. But what I’d like to focus on is this-
The master in the parable offered equal pay for all workers who came at first.
Here, enough “workers” were found, and no more were needed. No pay was then given, as there were no new workers.
When more workers came because more work was needed, the master paid them the same.
Here, more workers are still not needed. @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor confirmed it himself. And in effect, the workers you could say who were in the “middle”, were left out when a new worker—even one the master may have known himself—was given such pay without question or comment.
In that way, I think you can see why the previous workers, the ones in the middle, or people in general (or maybe it’s just me haha) would have that sort of concern. I’m not saying that it’s wrong. This isn’t my forum, and I’ve laid out my respect. @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor can do whatever he wants (which was why I askd his opinion).
Well, that wasn’t something I was aware of before now, but I’ll keep it in mind.
In the same veing, I can’t honestly take that responsiblity of insensitivity because instead I was ignorant of the deal altogether. Though I’m not sure if that’s any better.
Are there private messages here? Otherwise, my question really was directed at @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor personally; I don’t see how it wasn’t. As far as what I’ve said goes, it’s what people have always done to raise a concern. I believe in complete civil discourse and diversity of thought. If there is a way of private messaging here, then by all means I wouldn’t be opposed to the notion in the future. I live by the rules. But if the public knowing of a public problem, then that is indeed their problem and not just mine. They deserve to hear it.
But I do know what you mean haha, I’ve seen it on other forums. Judging from what’s already been said, the only dissent possible could really come from someone immature in conversation—in which case it wouldn’t be my or anyone else’s fault.
Whatever happens, I really do appreciate your opinion and judgement on the matter. It helps clarify the situation and furthers either of our points. I’d love to hear more,
I’d love to have a reply.
In being so articulate, @Xonos_Darkgrate you are actually missing the whole point. Great with words and structure, but the environment, premise and structure has been extremely overlooked.
Although I don’t have time to “debate” - which I can, and will if necessary, you’re reasoning power is being used in the wrong environment, used inefficiently and not in the best areas that would suit “both”. Just an older dude giving you at tip - IF you allow yourself to receive it.
Re: the scripture setting, you again missed the point. The point is still valid and in very good tact. Jesus mentioned how that one person felt slighted by the dude in charge, and the bro actually explained that it was all good and equal. Something you have missed entirely.
I attempted to give you a few props and positive compliments, but in your passionate response, you actually disregarded those and again, thwarted yourself in the entire premise, and as Jesus has reiterated that same thing to others that like to debate… you missed it. Or as Veggies Tales once quoted, “you just don’t get it.”
To emulate Dr. Suess, “Here’s an easy thing to say, here’s an easy game to play” …
If you want to throw a public complaint without first properly investigating, don’t. I builds walls between you and the other. Walls are good for our nation, but not in relationships or conversations. Try to dig that. If you want to debate, ask the other person first. They may not have the time or want to. If someone pays you a compliment, the proper thing to do is to first thank them and acknowledge that, rather than tear into your argument.
Honestly, to quote Cap’n, “I could do this all day.” But, I won’t - and don’t need to. Use a bit more discretion in your approach, use your debate superpowers against those that oppose truth and what’s right, not others in the same boat - and perhaps the old adage can help boost and propel your efforts, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor@Bellflowerp
How would I investigate it, please, tell me? To the extent of everything I can do, what I said was what I knew. The complaint I raised had its grounds, and thankfully, it got its answer. So I see no problem.
I see the Republican joke, but not the point haha.
Actually, I’m not sure to debate. I came to raise a concern, and it was heard. I’m not disappointed in any way.
I’m sorry if you felt that I ignored any of your compliments; I don’t feel that I did. They all meant a lot.
And to be completely blunt with you, I came for a conversation at most and not a lecture haha. Though I most definitely have a lot to learn–from both you and others.
If I might add, your whole post was saying that I missed the point. Saying, in effect, that I’m wrong. Saying I just did it wrong . . . And in all honesty, I’m inclined to believe you. For the most part, I do. But you didn’t list any. You didn’t disprove my argument. You did not provide the discourse or the clarity I think would’ve been needed for an answer. Though, I have to give you full marks for all those great quotes and points.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this. We’ve both made a point. But instead of moving on with the conversation, delving deeper into the subject—you only restated yours. And I suppose that’s fine, but in the process (or lack of such) you didn’t answer any of my questions. The only one that matters really, though, I’ll say again.
Is there a way to contact @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor directly or privately any more than what I’ve already done ?
This is something I honestly need word on, regardless of where we stand on the conversation. Because I’m willing to learn from this. I want to. I want to know where I’m right and where I’m wrong and why you’re right or why you’re wrong. But I’m not.
So if it’s the case that you can’t or don’t want to argue or debate as you put it, that’s fine. I have plenty of words in me for any conversation haha. I’m impartial to who I give it to.
Whichever way you take it, I apologize if anything I say or said has seemed ignorant, insensitive, or idiotic (though you’re oh too kind to admit it). After all, you are an adult; I am not. Nearly by default, you are the wiser. But I merely wish to point at as another side in this arguement—the student, the pupil, the amateur, and someone who wants to know all the answers—you have not done much as to explain what I would refer to as “the other side” of the argument. And that really is the only thing I regret about this conversation.
Again, I apologize if I’m an insubordinate rude child who’s barking about a barkless tree. But I’ve made my point, I’ve had it heard, and I’ve had the chance to articulate it. Even if that was all useless as you seem to believe. By my own definition, I’ve achieved my own goal.
And I know this is a separate point, but hey, you brought it up anyways. I debate, I argue, I have long conversations with anyone as long as I can. If it’s someone with something to learn, I’m happy to be the teacher. if it’s with someone I can learn from (as is with this case), I’m happy to be the student. If it’s an enemy, an ally, etc. Anyone. I will have that conversation because there is something to be gained for both parties.
To only debate those I disagree with is . . . I would say gutless. But whatever way it happens, I like to learn. I like the flow of information (the only kind of pool I enjoy diving in haha). Which is why, as my only criticism of any of your points here, I’d say that it was only a little puddle. Sad. Because I don’t like mud.
Thank you for your time, your words, and your wisdom. I’d love to hear more.
You may or may not be wondering how such a wordy worm such as myself could be so misled and so sociopathic . . . the truth is, I don’t know myself . . . but I’d love to talk about it . . .
I—in my inarticulate manner, hehe—just wanted to add that I actually had some of the same concerns as Xonos. It’s not that I have a problem with who has certain trust levels and who doesn’t—I think the people at higher trust levels deserve them. Maybe it’s just that there could be some clarity on what qualifies someone to have a higher trust level, so that those who don’t, don’t feel like “Did I do something to not merit a higher trust?” or something along those lines. I’m mainly thinking for newer people who come along and don’t know anything about the system, not those of us already here.
I don’t know if any of that made sense, but I feel like Xonos’ question was a reasonable question and not an out of line thing to ask, as it almost seemed you were saying (?) correct me if I’m wrong.
@Rapunzel heya, good to see you. Actually the question in its purest form was a great one, but it wasn’t the question that needed addressing - it was the quick accusation of @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor showing favoritism. Although Countryboy77 should be able to make anyone he feels comfortable with to be a leader, or whatnot, (it’s his rodeo after all lol) (get it? rodeo… country… nevermind LOL) it was brought up as more of an accusation rather than a question. Different dynamic altogether. namely “favoritism at its finest” and not being fair, etc. Those were the particular concerns that I personally had brought up - and those really should not be in the topic it was in, so @Bellflowerp moved it into a better discussion topic. Debating is great if done in the right place at the right time, with those that “want” to debate. Hopefully that helps at least on that part. The other questions, I can’t answer, so I’ll leave that open for Countryboy77 to discuss in his own time, etc. I just wanted to address the quick accusations of favoritism in a new and public arena.
Well, to clarify (and not continue the argument). It really was a question of the favortism I thought was being shown. I did not intend for any accusation to be placed. Though I see how it could be viewed that way, it doesn’t seem to be anyone’s actual literal fault—but rather just misinterpretation.
Quick and last note. As Admin, I gotta focus on other areas to be honest and really no need to debate, which is what you are doing, (which I could, but won’t) but I’m hoping you can dig this simplistic perspective here - there are no “right and wrong” issues at play - It’s a simple matter of what is most helpful beneficial and uplifting and simply throwing out “favoritism” and “partiality” w/out investigation, well, according to Herbert Spencer…
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
Well said, sir.
No big deal. It’s indeed a great awareness that no one should be favored over another. We are in 100% agreement on that. Trust you me! lol. Let’s rock together and build each other up. And of course, @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor can answer those things.
As I said—here for a conversation. If you’re not going to hold one, that’s alright.
That’s a heavy accusation, friend . . . I only brought it up (with whatever blackness in my soul haha) after my looking at the situation. As far as I can tell, there was no other possible way to get more information on the subject. If you seem to disbelieve this and insist on saying I did this as a trigger-happy move, by all means, do so. And I will believe you. Just provide proof.
That’s me haha, I won’t deny it.
Which was why I brought up the subject in the first place. I believe in purging the poison if it’s there. The question I raised was to figure out if it was poison at all—and that’s all I need to know.
Oh absolutely, that’s exactly what I’m doing. If you disagree, say so—point it out. Help me.
Until then, and with all due respect for you, stop making a villain out of dust haha.
Listen, I know you don’t want to argue. I’m sure at whatever age you’re at, you have a plethora of more wisdom and experience than me. You could crush me if you wanted to. But you want peace, stability, positivity (as you put it), and by that, you’ve proven to be the most honorable here. Well done.
But I came for a conversation. If there is no conversation to be had (which I don’t believe to be true)—that’s alright as well!! Say so!! But if you want to stay out of it, do that too. You don’t need to downplay the argument haha, which was in truth still just a simple question. You put in your two cents, don’t stuff in your wallet then take back the buck. Otherwise haywired calculators like me feel the need to reply in earnest haha.
We’re on two different side of the argument, but we’re handling it in different ways. And while I appreciate everything you’ve said and done, I bid you farewell and good fate if you don’t want to do it yourself haha. Hopefully that’s the end of it.
If this was already brought up, I apologize (I tried to read through it all, but it’s a bit loud where I’m at right this second.). However, I would like to raise a thing.
None of us really knows@Skunindoo. If a leader is to be appointed, shouldn’t it be someone who the community respects, knows, and trusts? Nothing against you, @Skunindoo, but. . . we don’t know you yet. While I’m sure that @PlͥⱥgͣuͫeDoctor’s judgement is sound, wouldn’t it be best to select someone who is a little better rooted in the community?
That’s just my take on the situation. I’m not saying that @Skunindoo wouldn’t make a good leader, but I am suggesting that he prove his worth. Thanks for reading!
He is, however, a leader. I was just thinking. . . y’know, if he’s a leader, and we’re followers, shouldn’t we at least know said leader before we. . . follow them? Or something like that. I’m totally not against him, juuust looking for a tad bit of clarity. Thank you for your time!
Had I made him a moderator, I would see where you are coming from. He does have the badge of leader which simply gives him a few more privileges than a member or a regular.
I know he is capable of handling these privileges and I know he will prove this as time goes on.