Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo one in 2015 started as many threads as Grampy Bobby seeking to lecture and reprimand "others on their behavior and forum etiquette" while being, himself, arguably one of "the worst perpetrators of an ill willed self assuming pomposity [...] who takes little time to understand anything beyond that which [he] seeks to condemn" ~ as was the case with his 1950s take on suicide.
It appears to me that there are several people offering counsel to others on their behavior and forum etiquette when infact they are the worst perpetrators of an ill willed self assuming pomposity and who take little time to understand anything beyond that which they seek to condemn.
For me, his ignorance about mental illness and its possible (and tragically frequent) consequences, was what it was, what can one do? But what I found more revealing was the way that Grampy Bobby declared that those who did not accept the "truth" of his beliefs about suicide were peddlers of "premeditated lies". I think pronouncements like that deserve the flak they get.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh, really? O.k., let's try to understand together, shall we? Here
Perhaps we may do better to attempt to understand his perspective on suicide and why he expressed those sentiments that he did, or we could take the intellectually easy way out and simply condemn him without attempting to understand why he held those views.
is the summary: people who commit suicide are cowards and
an insult to god. You go first.
Oh yeah, and, as FMF said above, Bob is the etiquette
preacher around here, let's not kid ourselves.
Originally posted by SeitseI am glad you asked 😀 - but before I begin GB's etiquette is usually expressed in a kind of old fashioned abhorrence of talking smack to ladies, just so we are clear, he probably holds open every door and tips his hat to people he knows when strolling on the sidewalk. Is this the actual quote that you have provided or a paraphrase?
Oh, really? O.k., let's try to understand together, shall we? Here
is the summary: people who commit suicide are cowards and
an insult to god. You go first.
Oh yeah, and, as FMF said above, Bob is [b]the etiquette
preacher around here, let's not kid ourselves.[/b]
people who commit suicide are cowards and an insult to god
Lets take the latter first as its easier to explain. Bobs religious views are such that life is sacrosanct. Therefore to take a life, any life, even ones own is to demonstrate a complete disregard for the sanctity of life. It is a rather mundane affair to see how this can be regarded as an insult to God perceived as the originator of life. Now no one is being asked to accept the premise but its Bobs perspective and should be respected rather than termed disgusting, abysmal etc etc by those who are too intellectually lazy to attempt to understand his thought process.
Seeing suicide as cowardly is perhaps a little more difficult to explain. Who knows what inner turmoil drives a person to take his or her own life, there may be numerous motivating factors. However a definition of cowardly is unprincipled* and Bobs may simply have been alluding to the fact that to him suicide is an unprincipled act. Even if he was not and was referring to an act which he deems to lack fortitude its hardly shocking, disgusting, abysmal etc as the Realhousewives of RHP ( and I apologise to actual housewives everywhere) would have us believe.
*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cowardly
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERI don't think you can have seen the thread, which has now been completely removed due to Grampy Bobby's behaviour in it.
i could not see any posts by GB talking about dying friends, the point i am making, dive told GB to stop, but dive is the one that keeps mentioning it, which ,to me, makes his behaviour, well not the best i would say.
All of the 5 or 6 offending posts in question in that thread were made by Grampy Bobby, referencing me and the named family friend who is dying, before I had even entered the thread at all.
It was outright trolling of the most offensive nature. The moderator who removed it contacted me several times to see if I was OK, I said I was fine, thanked them and specifically asked that no forum based disciplinary action (e.g. a ban which is common in this type of situation and for which Grampy Bobby has been banned on many occasions previously), be taken against Grampy Bobby.
I trust this clarifies the turn of events for you.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERThe subject of trolling and forum etiquette has been Grampy bobby's favoured topic throughout 2015, he has started thread after thread after thread about it, while himself being one of the biggest, if not the biggest offender on the site.
no i did not read it, but if dive felt so strongly about it, strongly enough to get the moderators involved to get the thread or posts removed.
then why is dive still mentioning it?
I am quite happy to talk about this incident of Grampy Bobby trolling; as I said above I told the moderator I am completely fine. I simply wanted the posts detailing personal information about a dying friend removed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieO.k., first let's set the ground rules. Anything not encompassing
I am glad you asked 😀 - but before I begin GB's etiquette is usually expressed in a kind of old fashioned abhorrence of talking smack to ladies, just so we are clear, he probably holds open every door and tips his hat to people he knows when strolling on the sidewalk. Is this the actual quote that you have provided or a paraphrase?
people who co ...[text shortened]... ousewives everywhere) would have us believe.
*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cowardly
a rational driven provision of arguments and a coherent stream of
thought (e.g. sliding every now and then the term lazy) will be
automatically slotted into the "fallacy" or "cognitive bias" locker and
end this discussion.
That said, what you are trying to defend is the delivery of his
opinion, over which there is an almost general consensus that it was
offensive, distasteful, and out of place. By doing so, you are
involuntarily joining the aforementioned consensus. Trying to
rationalize his choice of words reinforces the view that he was
insensitive and outright vulgar.
However, there is a rich tradition of debate around the topic
of suicide dating back at least to Plato (try Phaedo for more details).
His take off point was that suicide was always wrong because it meant
release of the soul from the "posts" the gods have given us as a form
of punishment (i.e. our bodies), and he called for suicides to be buried in
unmarked graves --a great disgrace. His exceptions were when the mind is
morally corrupted, when it is done by judicial order, like Socrates, when
it is compelled by misfortune, and when it arises from shame. Any other
type of suicide was considered cowardly or lazy, at least for Plato.
Now, the latter is important because it is the strongest philosophical
precedent to suicide before Christianity, in which there is one that I want
you to pay a lot of attention to: There is not a single unequivocal
scriptural prohibition of it. The current Christian view on suicide came
only until St. Augustin, based on the 5th commandment and based on
an analogy with bearing false witness, which does add the qualification
"thy neighbor" unlike the 5th. It must be said that there is no uniformity
in Christian theology, though, for there have been notable doctrine in
the contrary citing scriptural support of other forms of killing such as
martyrdom, capital punishment, and wartime.
The Enlightenment, afterwards, brought the views which are prevalent
today, in which either an utilitarian view is espoused or, as in the case
of Hume, the argument is made that the very human fear of death makes
it rational to conclude that suicides are carried out either after very
thorough consideration and justification, or in evident cases, mental
illness, or crippling stress.
So, why am I investing this much time in sharing the thorough complexity,
depth and rich history of the debate regarding suicide? To exemplify that
it is (a) a sensitive subject, and (b) not a simple one either.
Bob is not the first simpleton to chip in and, by all means, not the first one
to regurgitate the Augustine position. Usually, though, since it is not an
easy subject and it is not simple, rational people who happen not to be
psychopaths try to address it with the respect such a deep topic requires.
Moreover, they try to argument it rationally and extensively, precisely due to
its nature. Particularly, Christians (due to the lack of scriptural condemnation)
ought to be careful to construct a sound theological line of thought. He did
not, demonstrating his ignorance and/or his cruelty.
Conclusion: his approach deserves contempt and scorn, for his clumsy and
disrespectful delivery (which you involuntarily acknowledge by your
argumentation angle, as I explained above) demonstrates his complete
disregard for others, his ignorance of the subject, and his utter lack of
tact.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSuzianne said that she "passed over" Grampy Bobby's comments about people who commit suicide being an offence to God and to their families, because, she said, "they are part of his religious beliefs"
Lets take the latter first as its easier to explain. Bobs religious views are such that life is sacrosanct. Therefore to take a life, any life, even ones own is to demonstrate a complete disregard for the sanctity of life. It is a rather mundane affair to see how this can be regarded as an insult to God perceived as the originator of life. Now no ...[text shortened]... l etc etc by those who are too intellectually lazy to attempt to understand his thought process.
Your religious beliefs also cause you abdicate moral cognitive self-examination and you are regularly intellectually de-bagged in the Spirituality forum for your offensive and outrageous opinions on, among other things, marital rape, blood transfusions and the reporting of child sexual abuse by some of the leaders of your religious cult.
It is therefore of no surprise and of little consequence (in terms of supporting Grampy Bobby), that your opinion of his comments is what you say here. Your supporters here in the General Forum were your detractors in the disband Clans forum; they support you here because they have a vacuum to fill left by that forum and they would rather be on your side than mine or FMF's. If they were aware of your history of posts in the Spiritually forum they may feel differently.
Originally posted by divegeesterThis does not even address the content of my text and in rather predictable fashion you take the opportunity once to insult my religious beliefs, my intelligence and my personal dignity. Is it really the best you can do. Look at Seitse above, what a wonderfully creative and imaginative post. Must we constantly be treated to this toneless and monotonous drivel that you post here day in day out?
Suzianne said that she "passed over" Grampy Bobby's comments about people who commit suicide being an offence to God and to their families, because, she said, "they are part of his religious beliefs"
Your religious beliefs also cause you abdicate moral cognitive self-examination and you are regularly intellectually de-bagged in the Spirituality ...[text shortened]... nsfusions and the reporting of child sexual abuse by some of the leaders of your religious cult.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe content of your post served to provide more religious excuses for Grampy Bobby's commentary about suicides. I am pointing out that it is of no surprise that you seek to support the concept of tolerating extreme religious based views, since you yourself hold extreme religious based views. In that respect I am addressing your text, by debunking it entirely.
This does not even address the content of my text and in rather predictable fashion you take the opportunity once to insult my religious beliefs, my intelligence and my personal dignity. Is it really the best you can do. Look at Seitse above, what a wonderfully creative and imaginative post. Must we constantly be treated to this toneless and monotonous drivel that you post here day in day out?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29254
Originally posted by divegeesterAt the time, i publicly challenged GB about his comments regarding suicide which i found greatly troubling. (He was of course trespassing on my Professional volition). To his credit, he did apologize for the comments he made. (Forget his precise terminology).
Suzianne said that she "passed over" Grampy Bobby's comments about people who commit suicide being an offence to God and to their families, because, she said, "they are part of his religious beliefs"
Your religious beliefs also cause you abdicate moral cognitive self-examination and you are regularly intellectually de-bagged in the Spirituality ...[text shortened]... If they were aware of your history of posts in the Spiritually forum they may feel differently.
That said, the last post by Seitse was very well written and valid points were made. (Hope he continues in that fashion).
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou choose to believe the things that you do about marital rape, blood transfusions and the reporting of child sex abuse within your religious cult. You are regularly and thoroughly cross-examined in debate in the Spirituality forum for those beliefs and found to be either intellectually dishonest or morally bankrupt - to which you generally respond in a way which is lacking in personal dignity and certainly makes you appear to be of low intelligence.
This does not even address the content of my text and in rather predictable fashion you take the opportunity once to insult my religious beliefs, my intelligence and my personal dignity. Is it really the best you can do. Look at Seitse above, what a wonderfully creative and imaginative post. Must we constantly be treated to this toneless and monotonous drivel that you post here day in day out?
Originally posted by Seitse*bows deep with respect*
Conclusion: his approach deserves contempt and scorn, for his clumsy and
disrespectful delivery (which you involuntarily acknowledge by your
argumentation angle, as I explained above) demonstrates his complete
disregard for others, his ignorance of the subject, and his utter lack of
tact.
i had not noticed the depth of yer intelligence...
i will not underestimate you again...
rock on, garth...
Friday, January 22, 2016
Here's a set of relevant questions it would behoove all of us to ponder objectively: Yes, my friends and almost friends, beginning with yours truly.
1) Do we view our lives through the microscopic lens of yesterday or today or tomorrow; or through the telescopic lens of our entire lives on planet earth with the acute realization that there may be fewer days remaining than those now already fading in the distance of our rear view mirrors?
2) At the moment that our brain waves cease and an attending physician or coroner pronounces us physically dead, will our corpses be embalmed and placed in an open casket for viewing during a memorial ceremony attended by family members and close friends as specified in our wills?
3) Will a tombstone be placed at the site of our burial following an internment service? If so, what words will we have provided or will our next of kin compose the epitaph? Or will our wills specify simple cremation without a ceremony and our ashes placed in an urn or left on the floor of the furnace for periodic removal by a funeral home's maintenance staff? "GB, what are you trying to say?" Simply that brevity describes our lives on planet earth.
Note: The sum total of our decisions and actions here and at home will either equal a net positive or net negative impact in terms of civility. ~GB
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHis apology (as I remember it) was more of an qualified acknowledgement that he had intellectually unzipped his fly in public. It was accompanied by a qualification anecdote and it was clearly a moment of posting regret than a sincere apology.
At the time, i publicly challenged GB about his comments regarding suicide which i found greatly troubling. (He was of course trespassing on my Professional volition). To his credit, he did apologize for the comments he made. (Forget his precise terminology).
That said, the last post by Seitse was very well written and valid points were made. (Hope he continues in that fashion).
Grampy Bobby enjoys the attention that is posting controversies bring and that is absolutely fine. The problem is that he seems to lack the awareness to know where the line is drawn between arguing over his passive-aggressive copy-pasted pulp and being deeply offensive.