Okay, that seems pretty straight-forward then.  If "mormon" is just a label, and anyone can claim any label they want, then FLDS should be able to use the "mormon" label, right?  That seems like a very clear implication of what you've just said to me.


Okay, yes.  But what about when they don't?  I feel like you view "You are not a Mormon, no matter what you say!" as just pointing out differences, but "You are not a christian, no matter what you say!" as something entirely different.  I get *that* you think it, but I don't understand *why* you think it.  You've asserted it a few times, and stated that one is "invalidating" someone else' beliefs, while the other is just pointing out a difference, but I don't see *why* one is X and the other is Y.  They both look pretty much the same to me.  That's sort of why I don't see us making much progress on this.  Your position seems to be based on some assumptions I don't share.


But it DOES say "FLDS are not Mormons."  Most people don't say "Mormons don't have the right to call themselves christians," but rather just "Mormons are not christians."  I don't see the distinction here.  Again, it seems like there are some tacit assumptions that are required for your view that I simply don't share, so what makes sense to you just seems like arbitrariness to me.

No.  I'm saying "You're not a LDS member" is okay, but saying "You're not a Mormon" is questionable.  There is a difference.

Here's an example.  In one part of the Seattle metro area, there are tons of tech companies.  At one point, the Nintendo USA HQ and the Microsoft campus are literally across the street from each other.  (Well, freeway, but you get the point.)  Both are companies that make video games and consoles, they hire from the same temp agencies, and they're so geographically close, there's going to be some confusion as to who works for whom.  Microsoft, being the bigger company, is usually the default assumption.

Let's say you work for Nintendo.  If someone says "You don't work for Microsoft", that's fine-- it's a group membership thing, testable, and while it might be rude it's not actually invalidating.  If someone says: "You hack, you don't make real video games, you make toys that go 'Pika Pika'!", *that's* invalidating.  Both groups have the right to claim the title "video game designer", although they are separate groups.


I *quoted* the section you're referring to.  It actually does *not* say the FLDS has no right to call themselves Mormons; it says they also call themselves Mormons.  You can infer a disapproving tone, but it does *not* explicitly state that the LDS church has an exclusive lock on the term "Mormon", only that the LDS church is what most people think of when they think of the term.

Try this on for size.  When people say Catholic, most people assume they mean the Roman Catholic church.  Actually, there's a couple of denominations that claim that title.  So, let's picture a conversation:

"I'm Catholic."
"Oh, so you follow the pope?"
"No, I'm Old Catholic, we don't believe in the pope."
"I get it, you're Catholic, just not Roman Catholic."

Versus:
"I'm Catholic."
"Oh, so you follow the pope?"
"No, I'm Old Catholic, we don't believe in the pope."
"Oh, so you're not really a Catholic, then.  You're not even a real christian, are you?"

Can you see the difference between the two conversations?

Okay, but the link I gave specifically says "FLDS are not mormons," which seems to put it in the second category.


Go back and look at the site.  The first words, in bold, are "FLDS are Not Mormons" (that's their capitalization of "Not," too).  Sure, they don't mention "the right" to call themselves mormon, but it's sort implied by saying they're not mormons.



Absolutely.  And "You're not LDS, you're not even Mormon!" seems like the latter example to me.

It can be hazy, but I'm inclined to put it in the former category.

But anyway, you're missing the point.  Do you see how someone saying "You're not a member of my church" is different than saying "You're not really a christian"?  That's the question of yours I was trying to answer.

I don't really see why, but I suppose you see whatever you see.  On the one hand it's good to see that in practice you don't adhere to the extreme position you expressed before ("it's always religious bigotry to disagree with someone's religious self-identification!"), on the other this is one of those cases where it actually seems like using a broader, more inclusive definition would be better.  But whatever, I guess the fact that you're okay with at least this example of someone telling someone else their religious identification is incorrect is better than nothing, even if we disagree whether telling FLDS they're not really Mormons is legit.


Yes and no.  I wasn't really talking about the former case at all.  The example I brought up wasn't someone saying "you're not in my church," but rather "you're not in my church, so you're wrong to use the label that I use for the religion my church is part of."  I absolutely think it's okay to say "FLDS are not LDS," and think that's very different from saying "FLDS are not Mormon."  I just don't see the difference between saying "FLDS are not Christian" and "FLDS are not Mormon" though.  The only reason anyone has given for not calling FLDS "mormons" is that it will lead to confusion with LDS mormons.  I think that's a legitimate concern, but you told me "definitions don't get made by majorities" when I used the same reasoning about "christianity" before, so the lack of consistency bugs me a bit.

What it feels like is that people have views of who should be allowed to call themselves this or that, and then come up with reasons to justify it after the fact, without considering the wider implications of those justifications.  The justifications get abandoned and contradicted when a different example is raised where their view flips.  It's a pretty common thing, and is really how we all think most of the time, its just a bit frustrating (to me at least) when the contradictions are made clear.

Okay, I went back to the link: You're right it does say explicitly that FLDS are not Mormons.  Which I disagree with, and puts it into the other camp IMO.


Definitions don't.

Look, the Roman Catholic church is the single largest christian denomination in the world.  It's so large, when I say the word "Catholic", you automatically think of the RCC.  However, they're not the only ones who call themselves Catholic: there are several other branches I can name.  Even though the RCC has a huge majority on the others, they don't have a lock on the term Catholic.

Now, when they want to draw a distinction between themselves, both sides need to clarify.  "We're both Catholic, but he's Roman and I'm Swiss" is a nonjudgmental approach.  Saying: "When you think of Catholic, you think of me, but he's Catholic too" is also a fair approach.  But saying "I'm what you think of as Catholic, and he calls himself Catholic too" starts to straddle a line.

Cool, cool, sounds like we've reached some degree of agreement afterall!

We both seem to think FLDS are Mormons, even thought they're not LDS.  We also both seem to agree that there are at least some cases where it is legitimate to disagree with someone's religious self-identification (e.g., A baptist is a christian, but he's not LDS nor RCC), though we'll probably not agree about every individual case.

I still think FLDS aren't Mormons, just like LDS aren't Mormons. ;)

Almost.

Disagreeing with someones church membership isn't the same as disagreeing with their religius self-identification.  Church membership is objective, religion is subjective.  However, if anything, it goes in the opposite direction: the Southern Baptist conference has disavowed the Westboro Baptist church, yet they still call themselves Baptist.  And really, who can ay what makes someone a Baptist?  Its even less organized than the term Catholic, and as we've seen, there's more than one group who claims that term.

Might just have to agree to disagree on some level here.  I think if someone is a member of a Baptist church, goes only to baptist church services, believes all the stuff that Baptists believes, but not stuff that Catholics believe, then that person isn't Catholic.  Even if they claim to be Catholic (perhaps by mistake, or because they're trying deceive someone, or whatever), they don't become Catholic just by saying so, in my view.  In my view, religions are about beliefs.  I know you disagree with that at some level, but I'm not going to spend much more effort trying to change your mind at this point.  The fact that you're willing to call church membership objective at least covers part of what I was trying to convince you of earlier (it seems at this point that you had a narrower view of "religious self-identification" than I had realized; I had thought which church someone claimed membership in would be included in that).

Well, let me turn it around on you.  How much do you know about the Utrecht Catholic church?  Withot looking it up, of course.  I'm betting the answer is "not much", they're not widely known.  So if I tell you their practices are very similar to Lutheran, you'd probably accept it.  Let's say that they belive just about every thing a Lutheran does, and their practices are similar.  Are you going to seriously tell them they're not catholic?

No, but when explaining them to other people I'd find it hard not to use the shortcut word "Lutheran."

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg # 481):

Um, yeah, if/when you don't know the subject matter, then it's a good idea not to make claims about it.  That's true in general, not just for religions.  So I wouldn't tell someone they're not X if I didn't actually know anything about their beliefs.  But again, that's nothing unique to religion.

Also, I think you might need to realize that giving examples isn't really going to prove your point here, because you've stake out a general claim, that we can never disagree with someone's religious self-identification.  No amount of examples will ever prove that (though a single counter example can disprove it).  You need to realize that I'm not arguing that it's always okay to disagree with someone's religious self-identification, just that there exist some cases where it is.  Thus, showing me examples where it's not okay doesn't actually change anything.

As analogy, if you make the claim "All integers are even" you could give an infinite number of examples of numbers that are even, but it wouldn't make your claim true.  However, a single odd number would disprove it.

So if you're actually interested in changing my mind, examples aren't really the way to do it, since what I disagree with is the scope of your claim.  And if you're not really interested in changing my mind, we should probably just call it a day.

In reply to Tycho (msg # 483):

So, in other words, no matter how much evidence I provide you won't agree?  Wow, never had someone shift the goalposts that much before.  ;)

We're talking about morality, which means there aren't absolute standards.  The best standard is "Preponderance of the evidence", which means I need to show that it's the better practice.

In this case, your argument isn't that it's okay to disagree with someone's religious self-identification, but that it's okay to do so for purely subjective reasons.  Without some objective standard, that opens the door to religious persecution and intolerance.  Every example of "when it's okay" has boiled down to "I don't like it", which is a dangerous place to tread.

Using the preponderance of the evidence standard, I have shown many reasons why it's a bad idea to challenge someone's self-identification.  Your counter examples are "It doesn't match what I know", which arrogantly assumes you more than they do; "Lots of people think this way", which is a poor standard for anything; and "I don't like it", which is rather weak.

Sorry, mate, I can't change the rules of logic.  To change my mind you need to give me reasons not just more examples.  As I said before, no amount of examples proves a general case.  That's not my decision, that's just how logic works, I'm afraid.  I've already stated that there are many cases where you and I would agree that one shouldn't disagree with someone's self-identification.  Listing them all doesn't really move the conversation forward, since the question isn't about the cases where we agree.


I think you're mixing up your ideas here.  Or at least we're talking about different ideas.  For you this is a moral question.  For me it's about factual accuracy.  If someone believes they are a turnip, it may well be rude to tell them otherwise, but it will still be accurate to tell them their not a turnip, rude or not.  So I don't view this as a moral question.  If you want to call me a meanie for being willing to disagree with people, I won't put up much fight.  If you want to call me a horrible person, well, I'll just have to live with that.  The question, in my view at least, isn't whether what I might say is good or bad, but rather whether it's correct or incorrect.

The "preponderance of evidence" doesn't really work here, since we're not talking about a court case (which involves are particular event), but rather about a general statement.  You can offer an infinite number of example of even integers, but that doesn't make it logical to conclude that all integers are even.  Basically it's a discussion like this:
GMC: "All sheep are white!"
Tycho: "I disagree.  I think there exist at least a few black sheep, uncommon though they may be."
GMC:  "Ah, but look at this!  A white sheep!"
Tycho: "yes, yes, I know that white sheep exist.  Very many of them, actually.  The question isn't whether there are white sheep, but whether there are any non-white sheep"
GMC:  "But let me show you this--A *second* white sheep!  What do you have to say about that!"
Tycho:  "no, really, I get that there are lots of white sheep.  But look over there, a black sheep!"
GMC:  "Well, here's a *third* white sheep!  Will no amount of evidence sway you, Tycho?"
That's sort of how I feel this conversation has gone, and is likely to continue to go.  Showing me more white sheep isn't going to change my mind, because I accept that there are lots and lots of white sheep out there.  No need to show me more, because I accept and agree that they're out there.


Actually, no, that's not my argument.  Maybe you need to go back and read what I've actually written?  It seems like you're making some additional assumptions here that I haven't actually made.


Really?  When have I said "I don't like it?"  I think perhaps you're mis-remembering something I've posted.  Also, I've offered an objective standard (the amount of people who will understand you when you use a term a certain way), but you keep rejecting it for reasons that seem very close to "I don't like it."  You demand an objective standard, but then when one is given, you reject it for reasons that you don't apply to other words.

You seem to want this to be a question of morality or manners.  I'm talking about factual accuracy.  It's seeming more and more that there's just not much room for agreement.  As I've said before, you haven't convinced me of your position.  It doesn't look like you're going to at this point (because if you had convincing reasons, I'd have hoped you'd have given them by now).  It also doesn't seem to me like you'll ever change your position, so I don't feel much like putting effort into changing your mind anymore.


You've given many examples of cases where we might agree that it's wrong to do so, but you haven't given any reasons (with the possible exception of "It's mean!", which I can accept, but see as irrelevant).  There's an important difference.


Yes, it would be horrible arrogant to tell anyone that they're wrong.  I hope no one here would ever stoop to such depths. ;)

I guess it boils down to this, GMC:  do you know better than me about this?  Because if not, then I'll just ignore you.  If you do, then well, perhaps a bit of "arrogance" is acceptable in some situations.  This is part of the trouble I'm having with your argument, it doesn't seem to be internally consistent.

But you're not using them!  You're shifting the goalposts, which is a logical fallacy.  There are many logical standards which could apply, and you're choosing the one that I haven't already taken apart.


Rayel.  To be more precise, you said you don't like *him*, because you believe him to be a conman and a nutjob.  Which is fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but remember that Jesus was regarded as a nutjob in his time.  But just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean their beliefs are false.


As I've stated, majority opinion is a very poor way to set a standard.  You also have no means of *testing* how many people will understand something, you're relying on pure anecdote.  So, number of people you *think* agree with your views is not an objective standard.

It leads to religious intolerance and bigotry.  Also, it's not factually correct in enough ways to be adopted as the standard.


You're mixing up facts with opinion (and anecdotes too).  If I can offer more correct facts, then I *do* know better than you-- and despite the fact that you deride examples, those are facts.  But religious identification is not something that can be subjected to a factual test.  It's an opinion, and if there are no facts to contradict an opinion, it's as valid as any other.

But, to turn it back on you: If someone says: "Hi, I'm Baptist!", what objective test can you apply to them?  Now, you're not an expert on Baptists; I'm sure you know many anecdotes, but I don't believe you have any personal, in-depth expertise on the subject.  So, who knows more about what they believe: them, or you?

Or, to try one more tack: Let's say you meet some random guy, and in conversation, you tell him you're an agnostic.  He nods, and says: "You're not really an agnostic, you're a christian in denial."  So tell me: is he more of an expert on your beliefs than you are?

Ah, I see, you've misunderstood me.  I don't think he's wrong because I don't like him, and I'm pretty sure I never said I did.  What I said is that I don't believe him because I think he's a conman and nutjob.  I think if someone is conning you, that sort of does mean their beliefs are false (or at least their claims are).  I also pointed out a link with a bunch of evidence to back up that he isn't actually Jesus.  But, I guess if the "weakness" of my argument is that I don't believe that Rayel is Jesus, then I'm happy to accept that my argument is "weak."  The fact that you believe he actually *IS* Jesus makes me think you're not someone whose view I need to take all that seriously.  Might I be wrong about that?  Sure, but I'll roll those dice.


And that seems to be where we disagree.  I see it as being factually correct enough to be very useful in many, many situations.  Your position seems to be based on an assumption that doesn't match my observations, which means we're not likely to get much further than that.


Ah, okay.  Would you accept that all integers are even, then?  I can offer literally an infinite number of examples, so surely that proves I know better than you?  No?  Okay, maybe this line of reasoning doesn't actually work then.  Or how about "all sheep are white?"  If I can point to more white sheep than you can point to black sheep, do I know better?  No?  Hmm, seems like the reasoning you're using is flawed then.


Seems like that's another assumption that you're resting your position on that I don't share.


Well, I might say "which church do you belong to?  Blessed Mary's RCC cathedral?  Hmm...Well, how many ordinances do you believe in?  Baptism, communion, and confession?  Hmm...About that that communion, do you think it literally turns into blood and flesh, or is it more of a symbolic thing?  Literally?  Okay, I think perhaps 'baptist' doesn't actually mean what you think it does."

The difference is that I think the word "baptist" has meaning, and you think it doesn't (and in fact can't).  So you accept that anyone is a baptist if they say so, but don't think that means anything.  Whereas I think it means something, but because of that, sometimes people can say it without it being true.  Your position is based on the axiom that religious terms have no actual meaning.  I disagree with that axiom, and therefore don't accept your conclusion.  That's sort of as far as we can take things.


In most situations, probably them.  But if they're a confused 2-year-old who's just learning to talk, I might actually know more about theology than them.  Or if they're newly arrived in the states, and barely speak english, I just might know more about the words they're using than them.  Probably wouldn't happen very much, but sometimes, I actually do know more than others about things.  It's probably a bit like how you consider yourself to know more about this topic than I do.


Well, he is "some random guy," so I suppose he knows best.  ;)

Do you see what you're doing here?  You're giving more and more examples.  Did you miss that part where I said you can't prove a general statement with a bunch of examples?  ;)

However, counter examples can disprove a general statement, so let's try this:
I am the pope.   Do you believe me?  I'm also baptist.  Do you believe that?  I'm also the living son of God returned to earth to establish my heavenly kingdom.  Believe that?  And I'm Moses too, just because.  Believe that?

Let me answer for you: no, you don't.  And you shouldn't.  Telling me I'm not any of those things isn't religious bigotry, it's just plain old true.  Basically, you either have to believe me when I make absurd claims like those (in which case you'll be wrong), or you have to not believe me, in which case you've got a counter example to your general statement.  It's that simple, really.

At this point, GMC, what would you really like to get out of this conversation?  I'm trying to be polite and not just walk away silently, but I'm really struggling to see what else either of us can possible get out of it.  I'm convinced your general statement isn't true, you seem to be convinced I'm a religious bigot for thinking that, and neither of us seem to have much hope of changing the other's mind at this point.  We simply don't share the assumptions that would allow us to reach the same conclusion.  Shall we just move on?
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:12, Mon 07 Apr 2014.

"Because I think he's conning me" is functionally identical to "Because I don't like him", unless you routinely like conmen and nutjobs.  Besides which, the operative term here is that you have opinions; do you have a test that can be fairly applied to anyone who claims he's Jesus?


Did you misread what I wrote?  I said, more "correct" facts.  Which is better than more incorrect facts, and still better than more opinions.

"I'm Catholic, but I don't believe in the pope.  Or literal transubstantiation, or the power of confession."  There are real-world Catholics who believe that way.  They're not wrong; as it turns out, "Catholic" doesn't mean what *you* think it does.

See, this is anecdote again, as well as a small sample size fallacy.  Tell you what, this is a testable statement, so let's test it.  Why don't you go and count every sheep in the world, and tell; me exactly how many are black, and how many are while?  That would be actual proof, instead of what you're offering, which is an "everyone knows that!" statement without anything substantial backing it up.


Your logic is flawed.  You prove statements with evidence, not with logical fallacies.

So, you'd only do it if you felt superior to them in some way.  You do realize that's almost the textbook case for bigotry right there: You're acting the way you do because you feel superior.

But, since we brought up random guys on the internet: Heath is a random guy on the internet.  We have no way of evaluating his claim that he's a LDS.  I don't see you challenging his beliefs.  And the reason why?  Because he's not challenging your views.  If a two year old told you stuff about Baptists you already agreed with, right or wrong, you'd go along with it.

The criteria you're offering for when it's okay to challenge someone's views is when you feel superior to them, and when their views disagree with your own.  That is bigotry in any sense of the word.

Considering the vast number of sophist positions you've taken in this thread, I would believe it if you sincerely said you did.

That's another logical fallacy, in this case an either-or fallacy.  Try again.


Well then, let's put it on you.  What do you think Baptist means?

I believe I can easily prove that your basis for what "Baptist" is is based purely on subjective criteria, opinion, and anecdote.  It doesn't have an actual meaning, it has an aggregate of circumstantial evidence.  You keep demanding I prove my point, with more and more sophist standards; how about you defend your definitions by providing a few?
This message was last edited by the player at 21:40, Mon 07 Apr 2014.

Majority rules in the case of language, I'm afraid. Good idea or not doesn't even enter into it. When trying to reach a general audience we agree that certain noises mean certain things. Sometimes those concepts are complex, but that doesn't mean that the majority is wrong.

So when Webster says X means Y, they mean that the majority of people, from their understanding, believes that X means Y. If you want to generally talk about X, then you have to accept that your audience hears Y.

Funny, that.  Dictionaries are not written by opinion poll, they're written by a handful of people.  Those people aren't necessarily experts, either; they're taking their best guess.  Which means, they're running on anecdote as well, this is their assumption.

Language is a bit like history in that regard.  Language is not written by the majority, it's written by the victors.  That's why prevailing political parties always try and take control of terminology.  In the case of religion, it's written from a point of privilege, and it's meant to hold back opposing viewpoints.

Regardless of this the majority of people will accept the definition found in the dictionary, for some reason. Maybe those monkeys flinging poo at typewriters are just really lucky.

First of all, you're assuming that the majority of people will accept it.  Its not like they actually polled people to find out what they thought, the writers just went with what they thought was best.

Second, dictionaries are no substitute for an expert opinion.  WebMD has a medical dictionary online, but a doctor's diagnosis trumps it every time.

I have access to several language experts. For general terminology they recommend dictionaries.

What're people using dictionaries for if not the definitions? Doorstops? They do keep buying the things.

We're discussing specifics.  "General use" implies that its not fully accurate.

And as you pointed out, when you want accuracy, you should go to an expert.  Dictionaries aren't really useful anymore, not in the internet age.  They used to be handy for a quick and dirty explaination of things, but even then, if you wanted details you used an encyclopedia.  And since we're discussing bigotry and stereotypes, quick and dirty isn't good enough, basically, all a stereotype amounts to is a quick and dirty judgement.

My point with at least some of that, since we seem to be returning to a point that has been discussed previously, is that going to a religious expert for a definition would result in a poor definition. We should turn to language experts. If they aren't busy on dictionaries then what are they doing and how do we find them?

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/115259 employed by the OED. PhD in linguistics. I'll call her an expert.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:28, Tue 08 Apr 2014.