Cam42 Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 I think that was a rude statement and this thread needs to be closed. You don't need to be almost certain of hot stuff's degree, you can be certain. The PhD. statement was completely inappropriate and rude and following the criteria you established yesterday, we need to see some consistency. Honestly, if you can explain how these statements were any less rude, and therefore acceptable, I would love to hear it, otherwise, I think that the standard should which all should be adhered. No?
Socrates Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:19 PM']I think that was a rude statement and this thread needs to be closed. You don't need to be almost certain of hot stuff's degree, you can be certain. The PhD. statement was completely inappropriate and rude and following the criteria you established yesterday, we need to see some consistency. Honestly, if you can explain how these statements were any less rude, and therefore acceptable, I would love to hear it, otherwise, I think that the standard should which all should be adhered. No? [right][snapback]656147[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I concur. I'm not picking sides in this debate, but Don John's original remarks towards hot stuff were incredibly rude, and would have been censored, rather than defended, had they been made by any other individual. I know this will proabably stir up bad blood, but I just thought I'd speak out honestly about this.
Aloysius Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 the part about a psychology degree qualifying you for nothing more than a janitorial job was insulting, and "rude and insensitive, ...intollerably crass and defeating." however, the point about the degrees should not be taken with offence, as he was not accusing anyone of anything just pointing out the fact that he doesn't know hot stuff or carrie... just pointing out the fact that you can't discount Ironmonk just because he hasn't claimed to have a degree in psychology. I don't think the thread should be closed, cause it is an interesting topic (that I still can't pick sides on cause my head's still spinning ... i'm especially interested in DJ's point about seminary formation since it is quite obvious to me that ever since we've had psychological formation there seems to be increasing amounts of priests that are spiritually mature... and it worries me that this is possibly due to an overly materialistic evaluation of their seminary formation) when people aren't throwing around insults at other people's hard earned degrees and the professions they devote their lives to.
Guest Angelak Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 Who knows if my post will actually be read. My opinion of therapy has nothing to do with the faith. It has to do with my experience with therapy. Yea, there are Catholic therapists who will be like "ok I disagree with this and this and this thing that physcology teaches because they're opposed to the Church." But my experience is that they really just learn some professional stereotypes of people. "Oh you fit in this category. Try this this and this." People are way too complex than that. Meanwhile people so blindly trust it that others are afraid to give you advice because they're not professionals. I've gone to counciling for a number of reasons. It always ends up focusing on my self esteeme. "you need to build yourself up." The problem is that they give you a temporary solution. It works only if you're going to continue living in your pride. So long as what you deem as making yourself valuable as things you've succeeded at and qualities you think make yourself a better person, whenever you fail to be who you think you ought to be, it hurts your self esteem. They do not understand the value of humility and in Catholic counciling cases, they like to seperate between "well that's a different humility. Its ok. God doesn't want you to hate yourself." Well no of course he doesn't. But its your pride that makes you hate yourself and despair and not be satisfied with who God has made you. Its humility that accepts your weaknesses...that its not just admits them, but is content with God's plan and creation of who they are while meanwhile being willing and excited to grow without growing impatient. Counciling totally has that backwards and some of learning humility is just learning to think about others, serving others rather than sitting there moping about your problems and thinking "I gotta fix myself." We are selfish people. On the other hand, there are seriously ill patients who need counciling just to get through their daily lives. But counciling doesn't heal a person. For those who have difficulty understanding themselves, it may help them. I have friends who are in the field and I won't argue with them too much about it. I just know that I tend to dumbfound my physcologists.
Cam42 Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 24 2005, 12:32 AM']the part about a psychology degree qualifying you for nothing more than a janitorial job was insulting, and "rude and insensitive, ...intollerably crass and defeating." however, the point about the degrees should not be taken with offence, as he was not accusing anyone of anything just pointing out the fact that he doesn't know hot stuff or carrie... just pointing out the fact that you can't discount Ironmonk just because he hasn't claimed to have a degree in psychology. I don't think the thread should be closed, cause it is an interesting topic (that I still can't pick sides on cause my head's still spinning ... i'm especially interested in DJ's point about seminary formation since it is quite obvious to me that ever since we've had psychological formation there seems to be increasing amounts of priests that are spiritually mature... and it worries me that this is possibly due to an overly materialistic evaluation of their seminary formation) when people aren't throwing around insults at other people's hard earned degrees and the professions they devote their lives to. [right][snapback]656451[/snapback][/right] [/quote] He may have been saying that he doesn't know hot stuff or Carrie, but he did call into question their education. That was rude. We are to be so jaded as to expect online postings of our degrees, in order to be taken seriously? hot stuff also has a degree in theology, but that doesn't matter either does it? The reason that I called for the thread to be closed was due to the fact that hot stuff, Carrie and I were accused of being rude to Ironmonk on another thread. DJ was being rude to hot stuff, so I asked for Kilroy to close this thread, as a matter of consistency. But, I can understand her coming to the aid of "her boy." Although I would consider consistency to rule the day and not preferential treatment.
phatcatholic Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 Don John, Ironmonk, and Winchester do tend to get away w/ more than everyone else. that's something that i've always noticed in my time here. note i'm just making a general statement--not responding to this specific example--b/c i haven't followed this thread in a while. now, i do have a question, for hot stuff and Carrie, but if it is a severe departure from the direction this thread is going, then you can reject it. do you two agree or disagree with this statement:[list]secular psycholgy is lacking in some respects. catholic psychology is not. [/list]what do you all think? personally, i would agree w/ this statement. i think psychology w/o a christian influence is lacking in some respects. but, it is certainly not entirely deficient. i'm a counselor (and i suggest counseling to others) b/c of the good that i see in it. i think that christian counselors and psychogists are able to take this good and empower it, overcoming what is lacking in modern psychology to be of service to others. it seems that the proponents of psychology here are becoming offended by Don John's remarks b/c we think he is attack who we are and what we do. but think about it, we don't practice modern psychology...........we practice christian psychology. i dare say all social sciences are deficient in one way or another (not entirely, but in some respects) w/o a christian philosophy and worldview. i think that we can admit this and still be proud to be counselors, therapists, and psychologists. hot stuff, Carrie, what do you think? pax christi, phatcatholic
Aloysius Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 the entire point of "calling their education into question" was not to accuse anyone of anything (i.e. he's not saying they are lying) but rather to argue against the idea that Ironmonk's opinion is any less significant or noteworthy. no one should lord a degree over someone else to discredit what the other is saying just because they don't have a degree. they should use the knowledge obtained by that degree to argue against their point, not merely say that because they don't have a degree we shouldn't trust their opinion. for instance, if I were debating something theological with hot stuff, and it was said that hot stuff has a theology degree and I don't so obviously we should just believe hot stuff... that would be absurd... we don't know hot stuff, we don't know the types of teachers she had getting her degree or what type of school she went to or if she cheated on every exam to get her degree... moreover I can still have an opinion that could be correct even if I don't have a degree. she ought to apply the knowledge from her degree in order to defeat my arguments, and not attempt to discredit me for merely not having a degree. that was the point DJ was trying to make... now If I had said that I wouldn't be accusing hot stuff of cheating on every test to get her theology degree... and I wouldn't be accusing her of having a bunch of wacko professors that taught her falsities, I would merely be making a point with that comment that is not accusatory at all. but the janitor comment was out of line. I'm sure people with psychology degrees work hard and study hard and that's absurd to say they're only qualified for janitorial service... anyway, I generally hate when any thread gets closed and when I'm involved I usually end up sending a futile PM to the person who closed it and whine about it ... so that's probably my main reason for not wanting it closed. generally I prefer when "rude" comments are made, that the specific comments be edited/deleted rather than losing an entire thread.
Don John of Austria Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 23 2005, 04:50 PM']Also you ignore in Paul's apparent "condemnation" of psychology he says (and I will quote again [right][snapback]656020[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And I already adressed it, which is why I quoted the WHOLE Paragraph he says it is an unquestioned science-- well no one here disputes that psycology is a science, but he goes on to say that it has pushed forward secularism and must be responded to, that is NOT approval but hostility.
Don John of Austria Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:54 PM']I concur. I'm not picking sides in this debate, but Don John's original remarks towards hot stuff were incredibly rude, and would have been censored, rather than defended, had they been made by any other individual. I know this will proabably stir up bad blood, but I just thought I'd speak out honestly about this. [right][snapback]656164[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What statements torwards hot stuff-- the statements in question were to CMOM you guys really need to read a bit more closely. And as for the remark about the worth of a PH. D. in psychology being censored your kidding right, I express my opinion about a field of science and that would be censored? Are you on the same board as I am becasue I see a lot more rudeness than that coming out of Cam and hot stuff torwards Littleles DAILY. Carrie is sarcastic constantly, socrates has told people that they should leave the country if they didn't agree with his views, Brother Adam tells people to "SHUT UP" etc. I think you people need to get a grip, perhaps you should remove the log from your own eye before trying to point out the mote in mine.
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 11:58 PM'] But, I can understand her coming to the aid of "her boy." Although I would consider consistency to rule the day and not preferential treatment. [right][snapback]656485[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Hehehehe... he is kinda "my boy" isn't he? (J/K) If you truly believe that people are getting "preferential treatment" here I invite you to email dUSt. I will abide by his decision. But now I invite you back to the topic. God Bless us all.
Cam42 Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 24 2005, 02:28 AM']the entire point of "calling their education into question" was not to accuse anyone of anything (i.e. he's not saying they are lying) but rather to argue against the idea that Ironmonk's opinion is any less significant or noteworthy. no one should lord a degree over someone else to discredit what the other is saying just because they don't have a degree. they should use the knowledge obtained by that degree to argue against their point, not merely say that because they don't have a degree we shouldn't trust their opinion. for instance, if I were debating something theological with hot stuff, and it was said that hot stuff has a theology degree and I don't so obviously we should just believe hot stuff... that would be absurd... we don't know hot stuff, we don't know the types of teachers she had getting her degree or what type of school she went to or if she cheated on every exam to get her degree... moreover I can still have an opinion that could be correct even if I don't have a degree. she ought to apply the knowledge from her degree in order to defeat my arguments, and not attempt to discredit me for merely not having a degree. that was the point DJ was trying to make... now If I had said that I wouldn't be accusing hot stuff of cheating on every test to get her theology degree... and I wouldn't be accusing her of having a bunch of wacko professors that taught her falsities, I would merely be making a point with that comment that is not accusatory at all. but the janitor comment was out of line. I'm sure people with psychology degrees work hard and study hard and that's absurd to say they're only qualified for janitorial service... anyway, I generally hate when any thread gets closed and when I'm involved I usually end up sending a futile PM to the person who closed it and whine about it ... so that's probably my main reason for not wanting it closed. generally I prefer when "rude" comments are made, that the specific comments be edited/deleted rather than losing an entire thread. [right][snapback]656526[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is all well and good, however, the fact remains that Kilroy closed a thread because we were apparently being rude to/with Max. I disagree, I took it to PM and I asked in PM for the thread to be re-opened, because I disagreed with the decision. Now, because DJ was being obviously rude and crass toward, hot stuff and Carrie, I asked for consistency. I notice and am now resigned to the fact that the thread will not be closed, regardless of the intent. DJ: [quote]Are you on the same board as I am becasue I see a lot more rudeness than that coming out of Cam and hot stuff torwards Littleles DAILY.[/quote] LittleLes is a totally different issue altogether. He is regurgitating dead topics, over and over. There is no point in engaging him in a meaningful discussion. Perhaps what we say is a little rude, but then again, so is he AND he is not Catholic and we are debating him, that is a valid debating tactic. And he is saying nothing of any substance, as it has been a long time since he has something new. I could simply cut and paste earlier responses...... Even your wife recognizes that. However, hot stuff is Catholic and what you have done is gone Catholic v. Catholic. That is a no-no on this board. You called into question the education of another Catholic on a board in which it is forbidden to do so, isn't that right Kilroy? Incidentally, why are you bringing Bro. Adam and Socrates into this? I have said nothing about them. Is that just another way to get more rudeness in? Nice job. [quote]If you truly believe that people are getting "preferential treatment" here I invite you to email dUSt. I will abide by his decision.[/quote] Holy Cow......you have got to be kidding!!!!!! This is nepotism to the Nth degree then. Where was I (Cam42, specifically) rude to Ironmonk so horribly that I was included in the closing of [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36305"]this thread.[/url] You said: [quote name='Kiroy']Ironmonk, hot stuff, Cam42 and Carrie - you've all been so rude throughout this thread I don't know where to begin. But I know where to end. Go pray. God Bless.[/quote] And the statment: [quote name='DJ']I believe he has already stated what his qualifications where, so stating he has no qualifications is not factually correct, nor is it appropriate since unless you know Ironmonk personally you really don't know what his qualifications regarding anthing, simularly I have not seen Carrie's degree, nor Jamie's ,they could both be lying about having "qualifications" and who would know-- we are on the internet. Jamie and Carrie I am not acccusing you of anything just pointing out the stupidity of the " you aren't qualified statement". Personaly I think a doctorate in psycology qualifies you for nothing more than janitorial work at the stockyard but that is just my opinion.[/quote] That is not rude enough to close the thread, but apparently I was when I called Max a bully. Well, that is precisely what he was doing. He was trying to intimidate and then he made a comment to that......all you have to do is read the last page of the linked thread. Sheesh. And I am rude? All I am asking for is consistency.....and I am now resigned to the fact that we are not going to get it.
Recommended Posts