Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on April 18, 2011, 09:34:58 AM
-
Likers/ Critics?
Matthew, is this a tally of the thumbs up/ downs we get?
-
When I saw that I think it is not what we get but what we gave.
-
I'm still working out one last kink from the system --
But the Likers / Critics part already works.
It tells you how big of a crowd has given you at least ONE like or ONE dislike. It doesn't tell you how many; just the number of UNIQUE LIKERS and UNIQUE CRITICS that have ever given you a thumbs up or thumbs down.
After all, you could have Pope Augustine come on here with one or two followers (read: fanatic zealots) and give said "pope" a very high reputation.
But with this new feature, it would show "Likers: 2" so you'd know his apparent stellar reputation is due to a tight-knit fan club, and doesn't reflect the general CathInfo membership at all.
You're going to love the next feature, if I can figure out what I did wrong (I was programming very late at night; usually not a good idea! You make a lot of mistakes.)
-
If the same poster gave you a "like" and a "dislike", would that poster be counted as a liker AND a critic?
-
If the same poster gave you a "like" and a "dislike", would that poster be counted as a liker AND a critic?
Yes.
The goal of this particular feature is to show the "broadness" of one's popularity. To give the Reputation figure a bit of depth.
-
Nice feature, can't wait to see what the next feature will be. Is the next one by any chance the ability to see the top posts, Matthew? That feature sounds awesome.
-
Ok -- the new feature is done.
Hover over "Likers" or "Critics" to see what % of your total (Likes, Dislikes) came from your Top 3 fans/critics.
Obviously, a person with 100 dislikes from 100 people is a different sort of person than someone with 100 dislikes from ONE individual! The latter might be a saint, who has managed to make ONE fervent enemy.
Again, this is to give more transparency and meaning to the Reputation number.
-
Thanks for the better explanation!
-
Sounds good to me. Also still looking forward to the "top posts" feature.
-
Ok -- I just modified it to contain the actual NUMBER as well as the percentage.
Also, hover over "Reputation" to see how many likes/dislikes you have received total.
-
What's with all this voting and number-crunching? Why encourage a popularity contest? Why promote such concern for human respect?
-
What's with all this voting and number-crunching? Why encourage a popularity contest? Why promote such concern for human respect?
I couldn't agree more. The idea of a Catholic caring about what others think or may think about them or being concerned for his/her reputation seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Quite the contrary, I believe it makes more harm than good. It only flatters the more popular ones (which is certainly a very bad thing) and alienates the least popular ones, and incites a certain bias (even if subtle) in this regard.
Who pays attention to such popularity markers?
Each time I say with St. Peter Damian: "For I pay attention to what is said, not to by whom it is said." (And this he said when he was arguing that Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church, St Jerome had erred in his understanding of Divine Omnipotence.)
-
I think the "like" and "dislike" of a praticular post is very helpful.
The only thing I find beneficial about the reputation count is that it encourages some people to post more regularly. Very minimal benefit imo.
-
What's with all this voting and number-crunching? Why encourage a popularity contest? Why promote such concern for human respect?
I couldn't agree more. The idea of a Catholic caring about what others think or may think about them or being concerned for his/her reputation seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Quite the contrary, I believe it makes more harm than good. It only flatters the more popular ones (which is certainly a very bad thing) and alienates the least popular ones, and incites a certain bias (even if subtle) in this regard.
Who pays attention to such popularity markers?
Each time I say with St. Peter Damian: "For I pay attention to what is said, not to by whom it is said." (And this he said when he was arguing that Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church, St Jerome had erred in his understanding of Divine Omnipotence.)
Matthew's intent was not to turn it into a popularity contest. He brought in the feature to make a distinction between the more well-respected posters here on CatholicInfo and the not-so-well-respected. Most people here are mature enough to know not to turn it into a popularity contest.
-
What's with all this voting and number-crunching? Why encourage a popularity contest? Why promote such concern for human respect?
I couldn't agree more. The idea of a Catholic caring about what others think or may think about them or being concerned for his/her reputation seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Quite the contrary, I believe it makes more harm than good. It only flatters the more popular ones (which is certainly a very bad thing) and alienates the least popular ones, and incites a certain bias (even if subtle) in this regard.
Who pays attention to such popularity markers?
Each time I say with St. Peter Damian: "For I pay attention to what is said, not to by whom it is said." (And this he said when he was arguing that Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church, St Jerome had erred in his understanding of Divine Omnipotence.)
Matthew's intent was not to turn it into a popularity contest. He brought in the feature to make a distinction between the more well-respected posters here on CatholicInfo and the not-so-well-respected. Most people here are mature enough to know not to turn it into a popularity contest.
A popularity contest may not be his intent, but it'll be the result.
As for making the distinction, why not let each post speak for itself?
Is applause a measure of merit? It's a measure of approval, not of merit. Jesus Christ received no applause on Good Friday, though He of course infinitely merited it. The amount of applause one has accuмulated has nothing to do with the merits of any particular post.
-
No offense, but your logic is flawed.
Applause should be reflective of merit.
On occasion, applause isn't given when merited.
Applause is absolutely meaningless.
I think the conclusion SHOULD be:
Applause isn't always paired with merit.
If you're hanging around with a group of teenagers, you can be pretty sure that when they applaud something, it's probably a bad thing, and vice versa.
However, among polite society (Catholics, mature adults, etc.) generally speaking AS A RULE good men will tend to applaud that which is good, and castigate that which is bad.
There are exceptions to the rule, but as we say every other day here on CathInfo, "exceptions don't invalidate the rule".
-
I couldn't agree more. The idea of a Catholic caring about what others think or may think about them or being concerned for his/her reputation seems pretty ridiculous to me.
We shouldn't be slaves to human respect, but we also should be polite as befits Catholics who are temples of the Holy Ghost.
For example, it is becoming to bathe, wear deodorant (preferably a non-toxic variety like baking soda), and pass gas when people aren't around.
It is not praiseworthy to "not care at all what people think" as an excuse for rude, boorish, or crude behavior.
Just want to point out that you can go too far in rejecting "human respect" too completely.
And yes, the famous saint who had lice, etc. is one of those "not to be imitated" aspects in the life of a holy man.
-
Most people here are mature enough to know not to turn it into a popularity contest.
:roll-laugh1:
-
You mischaracterized my logic, Matthew. But so be it. You're committed to this acclaim thing. Fine. It's your site.
I much appreciate the site, by the way, and will soon get you some amazon credit.
-
And yes, the famous saint who had lice, etc. is one of those "not to be imitated" aspects in the life of a holy man.
:tv-disturbed:
-
By the way, I have no plans to disable the Like/Dislike feature in the Library subforum, either.
The posts might be locked to prevent discussion, but if someone were to be glad that someone posted a useful docuмent -- they might just give a thumbs-up.
Today someone posted something in the Library and he's received 3 "Likes" so far.
Just a thought for your consideration.
-
65% of my thumbs down are from 3 people! :laugh1:
-
The smoke of the evil one has entered the sanctuary that is Cathinfo......
:shocked:
-
65% of my thumbs down are from 3 people! :laugh1:
I might have given you one or two, not even sure of that, I wish I kept a tally.
I know I haven't given out that many thumbs down to anyone. Usually when I read something that I can't agree with, my mind gets busy thinking of words to refute them. Sometime I wish I went to College so I could think better. lol! :idea:
I seem to forget about the thumbs down.
-
The smoke of the evil one has entered the sanctuary that is Cathinfo......
:shocked:
What's the basis for this crazy statement? (Unless you're joking.)
-
The smoke of the evil one has entered the sanctuary that is Cathinfo......
:shocked:
What's the basis for this crazy statement? (Unless you're joking.)
Whats so crazy, SS? Don't get me wrong, on some level I do think its cool having thumb up thumb down, but in reality its just paving the way for vanity and popularity contests...yet that wasn't the intent of it all , was it?
The obvious allusion of my post was to how VatII "opened the window" .
Thumb down me all you want, doesn't hurt . Opinions of men mean not much to me. :)
-
I actually haven't thumbed you down that much since the feature was added. I just thought it was ridiculous to say the smoke of the evil one has entered CatholicInfo. Not to mention that I haven't seen many people here -if anyone- making a popularity contest out of it. Nor was Matthew trying to do so by adding the feature.
-
The smoke of the evil one has entered the sanctuary that is Cathinfo......
:shocked:
What's the basis for this crazy statement? (Unless you're joking.)
Whats so crazy, SS? Don't get me wrong, on some level I do think its cool having thumb up thumb down, but in reality its just paving the way for vanity and popularity contests...yet that wasn't the intent of it all , was it?
The obvious allusion of my post was to how VatII "opened the window" .
Thumb down me all you want, doesn't hurt . Opinions of men mean not much to me. :)
I see what you are saying. The more I think of this the more I remember the words of St. Teresa of Avila:
"God deliver us from people who wish to serve Him yet who are mindful of their own reputation. Reflect how little they gain from this; for, as I have said, the very act of desiring honor robs us of it, especially in matters of precedence: there is no poison in the world which is so fatal to Christian perfection." ~The Way of Perfection
It also reminds me of the great prayer called the litany of humilty:
From the desire of being extolled, deliver me Jesus.
From the desire of being honored ...
From the desire of being praised ...
From the desire of being preferred to others...
From the desire of being consulted ...
From the desire of being approved ...
All these things are hard to avoid (at least for me, and I don't think I am "a special case") when you are put in an environment where this is given importance. One of the first things you look at when you read a post is the name of the poster, and consequently his "stats" (since they below his name).
On the other hand, MaterDominici hit the nail on the head when she said that she noticed that having many likers and thumbs up actually encourages some to post more (and we can say that by the same token, it has the opposite effect on the others). This is indeed one of the effects of flattery and alienation that I had mentioned before. But why do you really think it encourages some to post more and some to post less? Answer that for yourself because I already thought about it and I think I know why.
-
I have been unpopular and now I am "popular," so I have seen both sides of the fence.
The opposite danger to flattery, is thinking you are so righteous that unless everyone hates you, you're doing something wrong. That is what I used to be like. That seems to drive the Feeneyites, a mistaken impression that they are Christ-like when everyone piles up on them, when in reality they're just wrong.
I haven't changed any of my beliefs to fit in, peer pressure had no effect on me. But I have developed a more mild tone and have more charity. God told St. Gertrude that if she wanted to make an acceptable sacrifice to Him, she should correct others with mildness. We're on a Catholic site, so I think people sense this and respond to it.
I am avoiding conflict more -- but not entirely -- not due to the desire for approval, but because I feel some of the debates are fruitless and repetitious. Yet I make my position on SSPX clear, just read the thread about infalliblity. And what I say there would not be popular with an SSPX-er on this board.
Having all these "thumbs up" encourages me to post less, it's embarrassing. But again, this IS a trad Catholic site, there should be basic agreement between members... It's not like I'm posting on YouTube, where my comments are wiped out by unpopularity and probably considered the ravings of a medievalist lunatic.
-
If we apply a cost/benefit analysis to the voting etc., the potential costs are the cultivation of pride, the devaluation of hard truths, the marginalization of good, though unpopular, posters.... The potential benefits are negligible in comparison.
-
If we apply a cost/benefit analysis to the voting etc., the potential costs are the cultivation of pride, the devaluation of hard truths, the marginalization of good, though unpopular, posters.... The potential benefits are negligible in comparison.
No!
You're missing the point.
If someone is severely unpopular on CathInfo, there is likely a problem with THEM and need to correct themselves -- even if only to learn some humility and/or tact.
What "hard truths" are the majority of CathInfo members going to reject? Only FALSEHOODS that are not truths at all.
When you think you're the cream of Traditional Catholicism -- the "Creme de la creme", it becomes a problem. You get guys like CM "I'm more traditional than 99.9% of traditional Catholics out there!"
The Like/Dislike system is to help sort the wheat from the chaff among traditional Catholics. It is there to discourage rudeness, axe-grinding, and extremism.
This is CathInfo, not Youtube. Get it? We're traditional Catholics here. We all have the Faith. We define what is "normal". A "Normal" or "mainstream" CATHINFO MEMBER is a good thing.
If you're unpopular here, you're more likely to be a lunatic than "a faithful follower of the Crucified Master".
You're confusing fitting in with the world with fitting in with Christ's Church. We are SUPPOSED to conform, be normal, etc. among Christ's followers.
-
Considering the membership here and the opinions and attitudes maintained by many, that is a rash notion to say the least. To assert that an "unpopular" person on a message board is ipso facto uncatholic is in itself lunacy. Suppose you have one member who disagrees with certain opinions that are subject to legitimate discourse, but you have twelve very confused members who hold this opinion as de fide. The poor sap who gets twelve votes against him was in the right at least concerning liberty of opinion, whereas the twelve errant dogmatists err concerning a matter of fact. But according to your logic, the "unpopular" one simply isn't Christ-like because he is "unpopular."
I would strongly suggest you delete that post, Matthew. The opinions of those here do not form a "rule of faith." The things we disagree on here are usually matters of opinion, they are matters relating to subjective dispositions. You may have a point if a true heretic were on here spouting heresies and causing trouble but that is rarely the case (afterall, you banned someone for being a "puritan"). Rather, we have many on here who are deeply confused about certain things and vote according to their emotions.
-
But the cantankerous Sedes you refer to are quite a minority, when it comes down to it.
Ok, there is no ipso facto "you're not Catholic" if you're not popular here, but you'd at least have to be *controversial*, for example someone who enjoys arguing with the Sedes in the Crisis subforum (and doesn't post about anything else). You're going to get some bumps and bruises, and I think most people can see that.
Anyone who's been on CathInfo for long knows what the threads in the Crisis subforum are like. That's why some people avoid that subforum altogether.
I suppose my assumption (in my above post) was that you had a *really bad* popularity score. That could only be achieved by consistently needling one side or the other, and not posting ANYTHING non-controversial.
Note that I didn't say arguing with -- I said needling. You can disagree and not make a swarm of enemies. There are some that have no tact or charity, and YES it's going to hurt them. But they need to learn charity and tact to become better Catholics. You don't convert people with a whip and a scourge. You convert them with the sweetness of Christ.
I don't see Gladius or Raoul downvoting every pro-SSPX post in the Crisis sub-forum. It's just not happening at this time. If we have problems going forward, I can put in limitations on how many downvotes, etc. but we haven't had a problem thus far.
Matthew
-
In summary:
Like the Ignore feature, the Reputation score only has meaning at the extremes. Right now, if you have a score in the high 100's it means A) you post lots of good material and B) you post a LOT.
Those with a score of 10 simply haven't posted much lately.
In fact, low scores are meaningless for that reason in particular -- the feature hasn't been around long enough. You can only go down to "0", and a TON of people are still at default score of "10" because they haven't posted much since the feature was unveiled.
-
I think you're getting techno-fever and losing sight of the fact that this is a simple message board where various catholics come to opine. It has less a status in reality than a regularly scheduled coffee house meeting between friends. I think if one of the friends decided he would put himself in "charge" and introduce all manner of mechanism in order to arbitrarily weigh and measure opinions as a reflection of their catholicity sooner than later he would be the only one left at the monthly meeting. This whole thing strikes me as eerily similiar to that sad mentality adopted by the gentleman "Quis" over at Fisheaters. So distorted was his concept of reality as exercised though a message board that I believe he really did think he had some kind of "authority" over other Catholics and that his "judgment" actually meant more than an opinion conjured up in his mind. This misperception happens to internet "apologists" all the time. They very soon begin to operate under the assumption that their opinions count, at least ever so slightly in the beginning, as something more than they actually are. Let this go unchecked and monsters like Jimmy Akin and Karl Keating are created. Men who are simply not susceptible to correction. Couple this delusion caused by technology with "Quis's" severely imbalaced personality in other respects and you had a poor Catholic man reduced to a pitiable state treating other Catholics as his "subjects" and "banning" people as a form of excommunication at least according to his darkened mind. Certainly you haven't gone that far and have retained, on the whole, a remarkable balance, but all these added features, coupled with that last statement, caused me to voice my concern.
-
I have no problem with the Like/Dislike feature. I'm not crazy about the ignore option, but it does have its advantages. It's good to use whenever nutty people like roscoe or CM come on here.
-
The like/dislike feature is just a tool for people holding grudges to downrate people they don't like.
Can't answer an argument? Then downrate the post. It's very feminine to secretly attack an enemies reputation.
I can see why women like it - since they'll never be the target of a systematic downrate campaign. It gives them the opportunity to attack the ideas (of course it is also feminine to be unable to separate the idea from the person) they don't like without having to put up any actual criticism.
-
O come now Tele, when does a woman stay silent when someone says something she doesn't like?
-
The like/dislike feature is just a tool for people holding grudges to downrate people they don't like.
Can't answer an argument? Then downrate the post. It's very feminine to secretly attack an enemies reputation.
I can see why women like it - since they'll never be the target of a systematic downrate campaign. It gives them the opportunity to attack the ideas (of course it is also feminine to be unable to separate the idea from the person) they don't like without having to put up any actual criticism.
It sounds like you're becoming a misogynist. This isn't good. Women are God's creatures. They are good. What you object to is today's deformation of femininity. It sounds like you may be allowing some bad experiences with women to sully your reason with regard to women. Be careful. Initiate course corrective procedures at once.
I was the only boy growing up with three sisters. If I can still love women, so can you!
-
I was the only boy growing up with three sisters. If I can still love women, so can you!
:laugh1:
-
It sounds like you're becoming a misogynist.
That sounds like a very feminine response. Notice, men can act in feminine ways as well as women. I notice you didn't object to my observation about women, but rather to me personally, saying I don't like women. (which isn't true at all)
This isn't good.
lol, I know, that's why you claimed I am one - because you want to answer my observation by impugning me with the label of "woman-hater" - which is a lie.
Women are God's creatures.
Certainly.
They are good.
Men are God's creatures too, but I don't think anyone here would every say that men are good. But you say women are good without hesitation. That shows that you're not thinking critically.
What you object to is today's deformation of femininity.
Most of the bad traits we see in women today are grotesque exaggerations of those bad traits of women that are universal in time and place, and that go back to Eve.
It sounds like you may be allowing some bad experiences with women to sully your reason with regard to women.
No, my reason with regard to women is quite sound. On the other hand, the desire to chalk up an observation that I make to "bad experiences with women" is a typical feminine criticism. You are certainly proving and reinforcing the point I made above.
Be careful. Initiate course corrective procedures at once.
LOL! Immediately start pandering to women! For some men, that seems to them their only option. Sad but true.
I was the only boy growing up with three sisters. If I can still love women, so can you!
I like women more than men. I like people who are nice to me, and women are nice to me. But I'm not going to willfully deceive myself about the character defects of women. That IS a recipe for disaster
-
As you wish.
But you're headed down a very unhappy road. The kind of excessive earnestness you display here is part of it.
Excessive earnestness is the opposite of attractive. A big reason why is that it's an indication of desperation. And make no mistake: women have a sixth sense - for desperation. They can smell it from a miles away.
To the desperate and the apparently desperate, I say: Cultivate levity. Even if you must fake it, cultivate levity. Dissipate the cloud over your head at all costs. The effects of this will extend far beyond the attraction of women.
-
Tele, I do wonder if there are any women at all over the age of 20 that you respect as not being yet another victim of the modern world.
I'd venture to say that for most of us the number would be small, but certainly at least a few.
-
As you wish. But you're headed down a very unhappy road.
That's another feminine argument. "You'll be miserable unless you accommodate us!"
It is a sign of the weakness of their arguments, that they (and the males who pander to them) resort to threatening the collective withholding of affections. And they do it with such glee to the average man who ever dares open his mouth against them.
But putting a woman in her place is the best way to get her interest, provided she finds you attactive.
-
Tele, I do wonder if there are any women at all over the age of 20 that you respect as not being yet another victim of the modern world.
You're definitely confusing things. The sort of girl I want to marry versus the sort of woman I like and respect are two entirely different things.
-
As you wish. But you're headed down a very unhappy road.
That's another feminine argument. "You'll be miserable unless you accommodate us!"
It is a sign of the weakness of their arguments, that they (and the males who pander to them) resort to threatening the collective withholding of affections. And they do it with such glee to the average man who ever dares open his mouth against them.
But putting a woman in her place is the best way to get her interest, provided she finds you attactive.
You responded with this as I was editing. See my edit.
-
Excessive earnestness is the opposite of attractive. A big reason why is that it's an indication of desperation. And make no mistake: women have a sixth sense - for desperation. They can smell it from a miles away.
Well I'm not desperate for women. It doesn't surprise me that you are not at all answering anything I said, but making this about me personally - my character. If I'm desperate it's not "for a woman" - that's not hard. It's to find a woman that I can love. It's to find a way to live a decent life in this society. I've just about given up on most trad Catholics.
To the desperate and the apparently desperate, I say: Cultivate levity. Even if you must fake it, cultivate levity. Dissipate the cloud over your head at all costs. The effects of this will extend far beyond the attraction of women.
This is an internet forum. Yes, the people make me angry, and I suppose that makes me look unhappy and "desperate" to some. But many of those people want to make me angry, and they don't want to discuss topics on the actual merits. They're here to provoke me.
I'm here to hold up a mirror to their vicious character. To their false piety. To their complete lack of reason.
-
Tele, I do wonder if there are any women at all over the age of 20 that you respect as not being yet another victim of the modern world.
You're definitely confusing things. The sort of girl I want to marry versus the sort of woman I like and respect are two entirely different things.
Let us hope that they are not two *entirely* different things.
I'm here to hold up a mirror to their vicious character. To their false piety. To their complete lack of reason.
?
-
Let us hope that they are not two *entirely* different things.
Right, not "entirely different" - but not the same thing.
It's one thing to respect a woman. It's quite another thing to want to marry her.
-
I'm here to hold up a mirror to their vicious character. To their false piety. To their complete lack of reason.
The people who have given me the majority of the 220 or so negative reputation points I have are here to provoke me. Not to debate me. But they are not pious, and they have no reason to hate me. They just hate.
-
Excessive earnestness is the opposite of attractive. A big reason why is that it's an indication of desperation. And make no mistake: women have a sixth sense - for desperation. They can smell it from a miles away.
Well I'm not desperate for women. It doesn't surprise me that you are not at all answering anything I said, but making this about me personally - my character. If I'm desperate it's not "for a woman" - that's not hard. It's to find a woman that I can love. It's to find a place in this society.
To the desperate and the apparently desperate, I say: Cultivate levity. Even if you must fake it, cultivate levity. Dissipate the cloud over your head at all costs. The effects of this will extend far beyond the attraction of women.
This is an internet forum. Yes, the people make me angry, and I suppose that makes me look unhappy and "desperate" to some. But many of those people want to make me angry, and they don't want to discuss anything. They're here to provoke me.
I'm here to hold up a mirror to their vicious character. To their false piety. To their complete lack of reason.
Your ideals are laudable. Unfortunately, excessive earnestness in adhering to them all too often makes you a puppet. Your attackers pull your strings and you dance. You treat them far too seriously.
As for me, no, I'm not going to respond point by point to you. You believe that you're operating entirely according to reason, but you really aren't. The fact is that the subrational is a stronger force here, as it usually is in the world at large. Therefore one must often deal accordingly.
At any rate, this would be an excellent book for you, and all, to devote much attention to:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0818909064/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwchanco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0818909064
-
Yes I'm trying to understand just what their goals are.
The people here taunting me are immoral but they also lack sense.
-
Yes I'm trying to understand just what their goals are.
The people here taunting me are immoral but they also lack sense.
Yes, I've seen some jerks unjustly attack you. But forget it! It's unimportant. Take care that, by adopting a victim mentality, you yourself don't become yet another emasculated Oprahist.
Have a drink on me, sir.
-
By the way, the recent posts in this thread illustrate the pernicious effects of the voting stuff. I'm now finding myself checking to see if I'm getting positive votes and if Tele is getting negative votes. And seeing that I'm getting positive votes is stoking my pride. This is an indication of my own corruption, of course. But still, it's instructive. Of course I don't want negative votes either. I want positive votes, if there must be votes. I want my pride to be stoked - and yet I don't. Yes, instructive.
-
By the way, the recent posts in this thread illustrate the pernicious effects of the voting stuff.
+1
-
By the way, the recent posts in this thread illustrate the pernicious effects of the voting stuff.
+1
HA! I'm becoming more and more conflicted....
:really-mad2: :dancing-banana:
-
By the way, the recent posts in this thread illustrate the pernicious effects of the voting stuff. I'm now finding myself checking to see if I'm getting positive votes and if Tele is getting negative votes. And seeing that I'm getting positive votes is stoking my pride. This is an indication of my own corruption, of course. But still, it's instructive. Of course I don't want negative votes either. I want positive votes, if there must be votes. I want my pride to be stoked - and yet I don't. Yes, instructive.
Should I vote you down so you feel better? :smirk:
Seriously, would what you're posting be any different if you were getting negative feedback rather than postive ... if so, how so?
-
Seriously, would what you're posting be any different if you were getting negative feedback rather than postive ... if so, how so?
I was wondering the same thing. I'm not sure. :scratchchin:
-
Even fisheaters didn't have unlimited downrates. (the ability to downrate every post with no time limits)
At any rate, there are no downraters more indefatigable than a women upset about an issue pertaining to feminism.
-
Seriously, would what you're posting be any different if you were getting negative feedback rather than postive ... if so, how so?
I was wondering the same thing. I'm not sure. :scratchchin:
(fwiw, I've not yet voted on anything here.)
Presuming you're not in the midst of debating something that is controversial by its nature, I'd hope a number of negatives would at least cause one to pause and consider more thoroughly what they've said. By and large, we're not here to fight with one another, but rather to help one another.
I think at least a couple of your posts here are giving sound advice and giving a thumbs up is much quicker than saying, "you should listen to this guy."
-
One more point about feminine tactics in argument - when they resort to impugning the character of the person they argue with - it's typically with language pertaining to modern psychology. In that way they're similar to cultural marxists and other subversives talking about "authoritarian personalities" and the like.
After all, when they say it's "disordered" to be attracted to a young woman, trying to use scholastic language that can be morphed into psychological language - it sounds ridiculous - from a scholastic point of view. Talking about what is "healthy" and what is "maturity" is a weapon for the pharisee who finds authority for the sorts of moral judgments he wants to make lacking. So he changes the subject from morality to "mental health" - following the marxist technique.
It's much more effective for them (because of worldly attitudes that now hold sway) to impugn a person's mental state than to criticize their morals. And sad to say, that's how we see many trad groups operate.
-
Even fisheaters didn't have unlimited downrates. (the ability to downrate every post with no time limits)
At any rate, there are no downraters more indefatigable than a women upset about an issue pertaining to feminism.
Tele, it's anonymous. Just post whatever you want; you shouldn't care about your reputation, especially considering you're gifted with the knowledge that all your detractors completely lack reason.
-
Tele, it's anonymous. Just post whatever you want; you shouldn't care about your reputation, especially considering you're gifted with the knowledge that all your detractors completely lack reason.
It's not completely anonymous. And that's the point. A few determined people can destroy the reputation of someone when they want to. Sort of like a few women at church can try to destroy a man's reputation. And the most important thing for them - is to not be held accountable for it.
-
One more point about feminine tactics in argument - when they resort to impugning the character of the person they argue with - it's typically with language pertaining to modern psychology. In that way they're similar to cultural marxists and other subversives talking about "authoritarian personalities" and the like.
After all, when they say it's "disordered" to be attracted to a young woman, trying to use scholastic language that can be morphed into psychological language - it sounds ridiculous - from a scholastic point of view. Talking about what is "healthy" and what is "maturity" is a weapon for the pharisee who finds authority for the sorts of moral judgments he wants to make lacking. So he changes the subject from morality to "mental health" - following the marxist technique.
It's much more effective for them (because of worldly attitudes that now hold sway) to impugn a person's mental state than to criticize their morals. And sad to say, that's how we see many trad groups operate.
I just want to point out -- despite his occasional bitterness and bursts of frustration, Telesphorus is clearly very intelligent. I just read this and it is quite illustrative as to the capabilities of his mind.
I can't help but think that many readers won't get everything out of that paragraph that I did -- most of it will probably go over their collective heads.
And what he says about impugning one's mental state is actually dead on -- we've seen it several times even here on CathInfo! When you can't attack their morals, attack their mental state.
-
I can't help but think that many readers won't get everything out of that paragraph that I did -- most of it will probably go over their collective heads.
Perhaps you should explain it to us. :wink:
-
I don't know that I could teach it -- at least not at 1 in the morning.
But I understand everything he said -- I really do! :wink:
Each sentence I let sink in, and asked if it made sense and/or have I seen cases of this on CathInfo. The answer to pretty much every question was "yes".
And much of what he said has never been touched on here before.
For example, the phrase some people were throwing out against him, "Disordered", is a technical term in Scholasticism, and has a precise meaning. But non-scholastic trained people are using it, and giving it a more modern world bias, which has the malleability of modern psychology, rather than the precision of Scholasticism.
But what's profound is they seem to get the best of both worlds -- they beat Tele up saying he's disordered -- which is a bad thing ALWAYS when St. Thomas uses it, but they're using it in modern psychological terms -- really they should be using a more accurate phrase closer to what they mean.
Let's put it this way -- it's not "disordered" for ANY single man to be attracted to ANY young lady for purposes of lifetime marriage. It's very much "ordered" because it fulfills God's order for the world.
-
One more point about feminine tactics in argument - when they resort to impugning the character of the person they argue with - it's typically with language pertaining to modern psychology. In that way they're similar to cultural marxists and other subversives talking about "authoritarian personalities" and the like.
After all, when they say it's "disordered" to be attracted to a young woman, trying to use scholastic language that can be morphed into psychological language - it sounds ridiculous - from a scholastic point of view. Talking about what is "healthy" and what is "maturity" is a weapon for the pharisee who finds authority for the sorts of moral judgments he wants to make lacking. So he changes the subject from morality to "mental health" - following the marxist technique.
It's much more effective for them (because of worldly attitudes that now hold sway) to impugn a person's mental state than to criticize their morals. And sad to say, that's how we see many trad groups operate.
I just want to point out -- despite his occasional bitterness and bursts of frustration, Telesphorus is clearly very intelligent. I just read this and it is quite illustrative as to the capabilities of his mind.
I can't help but think that many readers won't get everything out of that paragraph that I did -- most of it will probably go over their collective heads.
And what he says about impugning one's mental state is actually dead on -- we've seen it several times even here on CathInfo! When you can't attack their morals, attack their mental state.
It's not far afield from the issue of modernism itself. After all, modernism turns religion into something therapeutic, a part of "human development of the person" - and how were the traditionalists stifled? Stevus just posted this article which contained the following:
The outbursts against Cardinals Pizzardo and Ottaviani by the psychologist, Fr. Oraison, quite nauseate me.
-
Tele, it's anonymous. Just post whatever you want; you shouldn't care about your reputation, especially considering you're gifted with the knowledge that all your detractors completely lack reason.
It's not completely anonymous. And that's the point. A few determined people can destroy the reputation of someone when they want to. Sort of like a few women at church can try to destroy a man's reputation. And the most important thing for them - is to not be held accountable for it.
Destroy your reputation? It's a random number to the left of your post, taken seriously only by those "few determined people," (remember, the ones completely lacking reason?) who bother to continuously click a button. The owner of the board has just said you're clearly intelligent, and if I didn't believe that I wouldn't bother posting this at 2 in the morning. Anyone who thinks less of you because of an arrangement of digits is as little worth losing sleep over as whoever at your Church is bothering to listen to a few babbling women.
In short, be Epictetus at the bathhouse, and marry any legal consenting bride you want.
And at your leisure, perhaps delineate your criteria for establishing certain traits as descriptive of women as women. You seem particularly adept at discovering them.
-
Destroy your reputation?
Destroy my reputation count. The intention though, is the same as to destroy my reputation as though the little number had an objective relation to a real world reputation.
And at your leisure, perhaps delineate your criteria for establishing certain traits as descriptive of women as women. You seem particularly adept at discovering them.
Observation. Yes, I am somewhat adept ;).
-
I don't suppose "You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer," is going to help? Suit yourself.
And I spoke poorly. To what rules do you submit your observations? What are the criteria for an observed trait to be ascribable to women qua women?
-
I don't suppose "You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer," is going to help? Suit yourself
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Do you mean not entering into a contest for fear of losing? If so, what contest do you mean?
And I spoke poorly. To what rules do you submit your observations? What are the criteria for an observed trait to be ascribable to women qua women?
I'm not claiming to have proven my observations according to some objective law. If people really believe they are not true they will not likely pay them any attention. A general observation is valuable because other people can see it. If you can't see what I'm talking about, it can't convince you.
And a general observation is just that - it's not an absolute statement that applies to all women.
-
By the way, the recent posts in this thread illustrate the pernicious effects of the voting stuff. I'm now finding myself checking to see if I'm getting positive votes and if Tele is getting negative votes. And seeing that I'm getting positive votes is stoking my pride. This is an indication of my own corruption, of course. But still, it's instructive. Of course I don't want negative votes either. I want positive votes, if there must be votes. I want my pride to be stoked - and yet I don't. Yes, instructive.
Haha, Jitpring, you are just like me. I don't want that to happen but it certainly happens when you are put in an environment that contributes to it.
There's nothing wrong in wanting to be liked and loved. As St. Teresa of Avila explained, this is truly part of human nature. So much so that even Jesus Himself desires to be loved and liked, so it is not wrong in itself. It is wrong (sinful) when this desire is stimulated by the wrong reasons, (e.g. vanity) and this is precisely where this system of reputations doesn't help and has a bad effect on people like you and me; it produces a certain feeling of self-satisfaction when you get approved by many (thumbs up, likers, whatever).
I could say more things about this topic but I will leave at that because the most basic points of our view and experience have already been expressed with enough clarity and I see no point in arguing at length over the same thing.
-
I was attempting to drive at maintaining ones mind in a state conformable to nature by a valuation only of those things that are in ones control.
And I have no desire to contest your observations - though given their specific and experience oriented nature perhaps I could never "see" what you meant. Do you intend for them to apply to the set of all women generally, though not in every specific case?
-
I was attempting to drive at maintaining ones mind in a state conformable to nature by a valuation only of those things that are in ones control.
Yes, I understand your point. It's just it's one thing to know that your enemies are implacable, it's another thing to feel that certain trad Catholics are implacable enemies. It is very disappointing.
And I have no desire to contest your observations - though given their specific and experience oriented nature perhaps I could never "see" what you meant.
Well if you want to talk about specifics you may. Probably I expressed myself clumsily. But in arguing with women you often see a pattern. At least I do.
Do you intend for them to apply to the set of all women generally, though not in every specific case?
It is generally true that people have 10 fingers. Right?
And one could say more than that - it is reflective of human nature that they have 10 fingers.
Some would deny there is any such thing as human nature, and argue that the exceptions mean that we should not say that human beings have 10 fingers.
At any rate, all human tendencies in voluntary behavior tend to be general tendencies.
-
My first question to you, then, would be how you can be certain (and your usage indicates a degree of certainty) that your observations of these traits in specific women correlate to the whole set, generally (included in this might be your observation that men can have "feminine" traits as well, and why your observation of these traits in men has not led you to associate them with men).
In other words, how do you know you do not live on an island where a genetic mutation has led the inhabitants to all have 12 fingers?
-
I don't know if it will help saying this as it might still be an issue of pride, but perhaps a better attitude to approach the reputation system is to treat it more like a game than anything else. It's just for fun, right? I mean no one has to post here at all; it's all voluntary, and even if you get a low score (or rep), almost everyone here lives hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, so it's not like you're dealing with "real" people in your life. The game is this; get the highest score possible by posting the most amount of good material possible. Since the average age here seems to be above 30, most of you are going to be experienced/wise enough to know the difference between good material and bad material, so there should theoretically be more ups than downs anyway. IMHO, I say don't take the game too seriously and just have fun with it. Be charitable, give ups for good stuff, downs for bad stuff, and things will work out.
On the note for treating it like a game (for adults :wink:), I say Matthew should give a prize to the first person to reach 300, or 500, rep points (not including him, though).
-
I don't know if it will help saying this as it might still be an issue of pride, but perhaps a better attitude to approach the reputation system is to treat it more like a game than anything else. It's just for fun, right? I mean no one has to post here at all; it's all voluntary, and even if you get a low score (or rep), almost everyone here lives hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, so it's not like you're dealing with "real" people in your life. The game is this; get the highest score possible by posting the most amount of good material possible. Since the average age here seems to be above 30, most of you are going to be experienced/wise enough to know the difference between good material and bad material, so there should theoretically be more ups than downs anyway. IMHO, I say don't take the game too seriously and just have fun with it. Be charitable, give ups for good stuff, downs for bad stuff, and things will work out.
On the note for treating it like a game (for adults :wink:), I say Matthew should give a prize to the first person to reach 300, or 500, rep points (not including him, though).
I agree -- it's just an encouragement -- a sort of contest -- to see who can contribute the best posts to CathInfo. Many members here regularly post great stuff; they should be recognized for it.
But why would I have to exclude myself from the contest? I'm not exactly head and shoulders above everyone else --
Raoul and Gladius are neck-and-neck with me -- but who's counting?
:laugh1:
-
I don't know if it will help saying this as it might still be an issue of pride, but perhaps a better attitude to approach the reputation system is to treat it more like a game than anything else. It's just for fun, right? I mean no one has to post here at all; it's all voluntary, and even if you get a low score (or rep), almost everyone here lives hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, so it's not like you're dealing with "real" people in your life. The game is this; get the highest score possible by posting the most amount of good material possible. Since the average age here seems to be above 30, most of you are going to be experienced/wise enough to know the difference between good material and bad material, so there should theoretically be more ups than downs anyway. IMHO, I say don't take the game too seriously and just have fun with it. Be charitable, give ups for good stuff, downs for bad stuff, and things will work out.
On the note for treating it like a game (for adults :wink:), I say Matthew should give a prize to the first person to reach 300, or 500, rep points (not including him, though).
I agree -- it's just an encouragement -- a sort of contest -- to see who can contribute the best posts to CathInfo. Many members here regularly post great stuff; they should be recognized for it.
But why would I have to exclude myself from the contest? I'm not exactly head and shoulders above everyone else --
Raoul and Gladius are neck-and-neck with me -- but who's counting?
:laugh1:
I thought you would find it odd if you were in a position where you were giving a prize to yourself :smirk:
-
a sort of contest -- to see who can contribute the best posts to CathInfo.
Rather, it indicates what are perceived to be the best posts. Actually, not even that. It indicates what are apparently perceived to be the best posts. This is because, in fact, much (even most, I wager) approval will be given not on the basis of quality, but on the basis of agreement. The power of the subrational can never be overestimated.
-
a sort of contest -- to see who can contribute the best posts to CathInfo.
Rather, it indicates what are perceived to be the best posts. Actually, not even that. It indicates what are apparently perceived to be the best posts. This is because, in fact, much (even most, I wager) approval will be given not on the basis of quality, but on the basis of agreement. The power of the subrational can never be overestimated.
Well, it's supposed to be based on agreement. You can't give a someone a "like" if you don't agree with them. As far as it being a contest or whatever, I personally do not care about boosting up my reputation. I appreciate any positive feedback I receive for my posts, but what really matters is pleasing God by making my posts.
-
The power of the subrational can never be overestimated.
True that! As an example: How could I ever give you a thumbs down when every time you post I can see your big bubbly smile? I can't do it, haha.
-
You can't give a someone a "like" if you don't agree with them.
Not true. I've given thumbs up before even though I disagreed with someone. I gave each on the basis of admiring how one's particular case was made. Other bases as well could lead one to vote positively while yet disagreeing.
-
The power of the subrational can never be overestimated.
True that! As an example: How could I ever give you a thumbs down when every time you post I can see your big bubbly smile? I can't do it, haha.
That's why I put it there! hehehhe....
-
You can't give a someone a "like" if you don't agree with them.
Not true. I've given thumbs up before even though I disagreed with someone. I gave each on the basis of admiring how one's particular case was made. Other bases as well could lead one to vote positively while yet disagreeing.
And I've given thumbs down to posts I've agreed with.
-
I found a grammatical glitch in the system!
If you like a post and bring it up to 1 like and you put your mouse over the smiley, it will say, "1 people like this post"
It should be, "one person likes this post"!!!