quote:



Elder Price:
Ever since I was a child I tried to be the best
So, what happened?
My family and friends all said I was blessed
So, what happened?
It was supposed to be all so exciting to be teaching of Christ 'cross the sea,
But, I allowed my faith to be shaken.
Oh, what's the matter with me?

I've always longed to help the needy
To do the things I never dared.
This was the time for me to step up
So, then, why was I so scared?

A warlord who shoots people in the face.
What's so scary about that?
I must trust that my Lord is mightier
And always has my back.
Now I must be completly devout
I can't have even one shred of doubt...

I believe that the Lord, God, created the universe.
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins.
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America
I am a Mormon,
And a Mormon just believes.

You cannot just believe part way,
You have to believe in it all.
The problem is doubting the Lord's will
Instead of standing tall.

I can't allow myself to have any doubt.
It's time to set my worries free.
Time to show the world what Elder Price is about!
And share the power inside of me...

I believe that God has a plan for all of us.
I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet.
And I believe; that the current President of The Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God.
I am A Mormon,
And, dang it! a Mormon just believes!

I know that I must go and do
The things my God commands.
I realize now why He sent me here.

You ask the Lord in faith,
He will always answer you.
Just believe in Him
And have no fear!

I believe that Satan has a hold of you
I believe that the Lord, God, has sent me here
And I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people!
You can be a Mormon..
A Mormon who just believes!

And now I can feel the excitement.
This is the moment I was born to do.
And I feel so incredible
To be sharing my faith with you.

The Scriptures say that if you ask anything,
If you ask God Himself he'll know.
But you must ask Him without any doubt
And let your spirit grow...


I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
I believe that Jesus has his own planet as well.
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.

If you believe, the Lord will reveal it.
And you'll know it's all true. You'll just feel it.
You'll be a Mormon
And, by gosh!
A Mormon just believes!
Oh, I believe.
I believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Mods, delete this error post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I think it happens when you type too many words on a message board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

When does being a “True Believer” cross the line into being “nut-job”?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

True believers, whether they're nut jobs or not, tend to have one thing is common.

An inability to admit they're wrong, or not wholly correct.

By itself that is neither a good thing or a bad thing.

It all comes down to what their beliefs elad them to do.

If you're a true believer in the idea that your disposable income should go to feed and house the poor, then your beliefs are doing no harm in the world.

If your belief tells you to take the homeless down quiet alleys and kill them, then your beliefs are doing harm in the world.

Both of those actions can be easily classified as either harm or good because their consequences are directly observable.

The difficulty comes when the actions triggered by a belief have consequences that are not immediately apparent.

Political, especially economic, beliefs probably fall into that category.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Obama and Boener are both true believers in their positions on the debt ceiling.

The consequences of both their ideas stretch well into the future. Thus, it is difficult, objectively, to categorically say which (if any) would do the most good/harm.

Instead we have to use our own beliefs, our own subjective narrative, to judge them.



What I will say though, is that true believers are difficult to deal with, precisely because they can not negotiate in good faith. Unless, of course, negotiation is what they hold a true belief in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Hey, Steel.  Its been a while.  How's it hanging?  [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
However, if he didn't consciously choose only "non-liberals" for his examples, then his unconscious sure knew what to do.

The subtext of only including "Republicans, non-left terrorists, and Christians" in his "nut-job or not?" list has the effect of posing an unasked question:  "Why are all righties such nut-jobs?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Hey, Steel.  Its been a while.  How's it hanging?  [8D]

Great actually, I've hiked about 1,400 miles of the Appalachian Trail and I'm in town for my sisters wedding. Heading back to the AT in the morning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
However, if he didn't consciously choose only "non-liberals" for his examples, then his unconscious sure knew what to do.

The subtext of only including "Republicans, non-left terrorists, and Christians" in his "nut-job or not?" list has the effect of posing an unasked question:  "Why are all righties such nut-jobs?"

To get the whole "Why are all righties such nut-jobs?" bit you have to read quite a bit into his statement, I've got to tell you I just don't think it's actually there. Incidentally, what liberal examples would he need to have cited to make things unbiased?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

When does being a “True Believer” cross the line into being “nut-job”?

Simple answer: when people think you're a nut-job, that's all you'll ever be to them, and the rest is academic.

Academic answer: when someone ceases to behave rationally in their own frame of reference, they're nutjobs.

Consider self defense. Let's say you are convinced someone is a vampire and about to kill you. The rational thing would be to get out your stake, or to put some rounds into the bastard and see if that will do the trick. In doing so, you would have been acting rationally in the frame of reference you have. If evidence could convince you that the person is not a vampire, then you would not necessarily be delusional, either, just wrong.

Being a nutjob is a conflation. It isn't something one is. It is something one is considered to be. It shouldn't be a passive intransitive so much as an active transitive where the ergative is the person making the determination (generally left out). One might as well (in some other languages) say "I nutjob you" and it would be more correct. That's why no serious clinician would use the word, except in explaining to someone who cannot grasp a more accurate explanation.

Returning to my 'favorite' example du jour...

Breivik seems to believe that Muslims will destroy Norway, and that they can only do so in a tacit collaboration with the Labor Party, and that the Labor Party is to blame for most of the problems in the country. That appears to be his frame of reference. We can certainly say that he has a frame of reference that appears to be wrong. But rationality is a seperate topic. In his frame of reference, going to war on the Labor Party would be rational, as an attempt at saving his country and the lives of the people. Shooting those kids would be a rational thing if he also does not cleave to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty, or if they were considered to be an "acceptable sacrifice" as part of some rational strategy to pursue his goals. People do that in war all the time, after all.

In short, he may be irrational, but so far he just seems wrong.

If you believe something is true, you must act as if it is, else be irrational. If you believe in gravity, you must refrain from walking off cliffs unless you want to fall down, as anything else is patently absurd in your frame of reference. If you believe the earth is flat, you must stay away from the edges unless you want to sail off, and again anything else would be absurd (i.e. irrational) in your frame of reference.

I stated the same thing from several angles here, which is because I've had feedback that some have difficulties grasping this idea.

Health,
al-Aswad.

Edit: Fixed italics close tag.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

When does being a “True Believer” cross the line into being “nut-job”?

Simple answer: when people think you're a nut-job, that's all you'll ever be to them, and the rest is academic.

Academic answer: when someone ceases to behave rationally in their own frame of reference, they're nutjobs.

Consider self defense. Let's say you are convinced someone is a vampire and about to kill you. The rational thing would be to get out your stake, or to put some rounds into the bastard and see if that will do the trick. In doing so, you would have been acting rationally in the frame of reference you have. If evidence could convince you that the person is not a vampire, then you would not necessarily be delusional, either, just wrong.

Being a nutjob is a conflation. It isn't something one is. It is something one is considered to be. It shouldn't be a passive intransitive so much as an active transitive where the ergative is the person making the determination (generally left out). One might as well (in some other languages) say "I nutjob you" and it would be more correct. That's why no serious clinician would use the word, except in explaining to someone who cannot grasp a more accurate explanation.

Returning to my 'favorite' example du jour...

Breivik seems to believe that Muslims will destroy Norway, and that they can only do so in a tacit collaboration with the Labor Party, and that the Labor Party is to blame for most of the problems in the country. That appears to be his frame of reference. We can certainly say that he has a frame of reference that appears to be wrong. But rationality is a seperate topic. In his frame of reference, going to war on the Labor Party would be rational, as an attempt at saving his country and the lives of the people. Shooting those kids would be a rational thing if he also does not cleave to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty, or if they were considered to be an "acceptable sacrifice" as part of some rational strategy to pursue his goals. People do that in war all the time, after all.

In short, he may be irrational, but so far he just seems wrong.

If you believe something is true, you must act as if it is, else be irrational. If you believe in gravity, you must refrain from walking off cliffs unless you want to fall down, as anything else is patently absurd in your frame of reference. If you believe the earth is flat, you must stay away from the edges unless you want to sail off, and again anything else would be absurd (i.e. irrational) in your frame of reference.

I stated the same thing from several angles here, which is because I've had feedback that some have difficulties grasping this idea.

Health,
al-Aswad.

Edit: Fixed italics close tag.

quote:


Did the "True Believer" Roman Catholic cross the line into "nut-case"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

Pol Pot of Cambodia, for example, was an atheist "True Believer" who most people, even atheists, would believe crossed the line into "nut-case".

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It's interesting that you put 'frame of reference' in the singular.

I think we all operate in multiple frames of reference all the time. For instance, we have a moral frame, a legal frame, relationship frames, career frames etc. We make decisions according to the framework(s) relevant at the time.

When people abandon that internal system of checks and balances, and begin to operate inside a single framework, that's when the problems start. When people grant the status of 'Truth" to that framework, then the sparks begin to fly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Hey, Steel.  Its been a while.  How's it hanging?  [8D]

Great actually, I've hiked about 1,400 miles of the Appalachian Trail and I'm in town for my sisters wedding. Heading back to the AT in the morning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
However, if he didn't consciously choose only "non-liberals" for his examples, then his unconscious sure knew what to do.

The subtext of only including "Republicans, non-left terrorists, and Christians" in his "nut-job or not?" list has the effect of posing an unasked question:  "Why are all righties such nut-jobs?"

To get the whole "Why are all righties such nut-jobs?" bit you have to read quite a bit into his statement, I've got to tell you I just don't think it's actually there. Incidentally, what liberal examples would he need to have cited to make things unbiased?