Speaking Truth in Posts

[Sudsy]

Nor have the sight police made any rules that I'm aware of prohibiting us from asking questions when posters make claims for which we don't see any evidence.

True. However, if one does not get replies to their questions and continues to question, then, I believe, it can become a case of 'badgering'.

[ken_sylvania]

Nor have the sight police made any rules that I'm aware of prohibiting us from asking questions when posters make claims for which we don't see any evidence.

True. However, if one does not get replies to their questions and continues to question, then, I believe, it can become a case of 'badgering'.

I suppose it could. Not sure what the sight police would do if they were to see any badgers.

[Bootstrap]

True. However, if one does not get replies to their questions and continues to question, then, I believe, it can become a case of 'badgering'.

If they continue to "perseverate" in making those claims, they should not be surprised that people continue to doubt them. If they stop promoting the claims, things will die out quickly.

Thought experiment: how much of the negative energy in these threads is about people saying "oh no, you must not ask those questions!" - followed by a debate about that, instead of the truth of the original claim?

These threads would be a whole lot shorter if they looked like this:

Person 1: Here's a claim about X
Person 2: That doesn't seem to be true ... X is actually a picture from the Gohn Brother's site ... if I'm missing something, could you please explain?

Followed by silence or an answer. No debate needed about whether it's OK to care about the truth. Especially if we can enforce the rules of the board and not make personal attacks against people simply for asking questions or pointing out inaccurate claims.

[MaxPC]

Nor have the sight police made any rules that I'm aware of prohibiting us from asking questions when posters make claims for which we don't see any evidence.

True. However, if one does not get replies to their questions and continues to question, then, I believe, it can become a case of 'badgering'.

I suppose it could. Not sure what the sight police would do if they were to see any badgers.

Indeed, badgering is a form of aggression. It can quickly become stalking in which case, other action is taken to protect the person who is being badgered. If no replies are given to the aggressor, then several possibilities are in play, perhaps all may be in play:
1. Allowing the aggressor to create evidence against himself for prosecution.
2. The aggressor may be blocked from the sight of the victim in order to protect the victim who can then continue to be able to enjoy his life without harassment.
3. The aggressor does not clue in to the fact that interaction with the victim is no longer an option. Abusive personalities feed on the ability to continue the stalking and harassment of victims and try to manipulate others into believing that it is his right for whatever reason.

As you can see, any or all of the above reasons may be in play here. As Lester Bauman once sagely noted:
“There are many things we do not see in this world but it does not mean they do not exist. It means simply that we have not seen them yet.”

Lester was a gem of the old MD. He is appreciated and missed.

[Bootstrap]

Indeed, badgering is a form of aggression. It can quickly become stalking in which case, other action is taken to protect the person who is being badgered. If no replies are given to the aggressor, then several possibilities are in play, perhaps all may be in play:
1. Allowing the aggressor to create evidence against himself for prosecution.
2. The aggressor may be blocked from the sight of the victim in order to protect the victim who can then continue to be able to enjoy his life without harassment.
3. The aggressor does not clue in to the fact that interaction with the victim is no longer an option. Abusive personalities feed on the ability to continue the stalking and harassment of victims and try to manipulate others into believing that it is his right for whatever reason.

Or perhaps:

4. Discussing the facts is really inconvenient. The pictures really are of German Baptists and buildings in open air museums and the like. There really isn't a 100 year history dating to the Back to the Land Movement in England - which really did promote Distributionism. The Catholic really does teach as a rule "an infant should be baptized within the first weeks after birth." Catholics really don't believe the Dordrecht confession.

That's not about "aggressors" and "victims". It's about being able to discuss what is true, being able to ask people to provide evidence for views that seem not to be true. If you won't answer even basic questions about the things you claim, that's your right, but asking these questions is not some sign of mental illness.

When it comes down to it, "Speaking Truth" does involve truth.

[RZehr]

Nor have the sight police made any rules that I'm aware of prohibiting us from asking questions when posters make claims for which we don't see any evidence.

True. However, if one does not get replies to their questions and continues to question, then, I believe, it can become a case of 'badgering'.

I suppose it could. Not sure what the sight police would do if they were to see any badgers.

They may be ordered to quit using bold fonts by the sight police. And the sight police may suggest increasing the size of monitor font size…

[Soloist]

1. Allowing the aggressor to create evidence against himself for prosecution.

Yes that could be, but secret identity would be exposed by such. Besides why would you need protection on an anonymous Internet forum from multiple people challenging about something you keep claiming . Be careful otherwise people owning the photos such as that Irish historical website could sue you too. Conveniently enough, Amish, Mennonite and German Baptist don’t sue.
Any court would likely laugh at such a case as being extremely bizarre.
In case you want to try, you can read up on such here and maybe consult a lawyer before wasting your time.
https://onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen ... arassment/
Might be worth noting that you are prosecutable too for using copyrighted pictures under common use act.

2. The aggressor may be blocked from the sight of the victim in order to protect the victim who can then continue to be able to enjoy his life without harassment.

Yes you could add several people to the foe list but based on the pattern I laid out that you follow and your responses, you haven’t done it.

[Bootstrap]

And the sight police may suggest increasing the size of monitor font size…

The sight police really should consider this:

https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/

[ohio jones]

As you can see, any or all of the above reasons may be in play here. As Lester Bauman once sagely noted:
“There are many things we do not see in this world but it does not mean they do not exist. It means simply that we have not seen them yet.”

This site does not often police the sight of its members, but some people are self-policing and have not yet seen things that exist foe reasons under their own control.

[Valerie]

True. However, if one does not get replies to their questions and continues to question, then, I believe, it can become a case of 'badgering'.

If they continue to "perseverate" in making those claims, they should not be surprised that people continue to doubt them. If they stop promoting the claims, things will die out quickly.

Thought experiment: how much of the negative energy in these threads is about people saying "oh no, you must not ask those questions!" - followed by a debate about that, instead of the truth of the original claim?

These threads would be a whole lot shorter if they looked like this:

Person 1: Here's a claim about X
Person 2: That doesn't seem to be true ... X is actually a picture from the Gohn Brother's site ... if I'm missing something, could you please explain?

Followed by silence or an answer. No debate needed about whether it's OK to care about the truth. Especially if we can enforce the rules of the board and not make personal attacks against people simply for asking questions or pointing out inaccurate claims.

I have seen the mob mentality here years back when Brother Gabriel was on Mennodiscuss. You had it then & it had nothing to do with supposed false photos. It had everything to do with not liking his explanations about Eastern Orthodox teachings. He by the way is who suggested I come here as a seeker (and then regretted it). So sometimes with the mob mentality one might conclude it is wiser to open not your mouth. I certainly understand why. I'd prefer to see the good I do see in him. And I simply disagree that he's trying to convert you. It's not like you're all in agreement anyway in the variety of sects represented here. Obsession is not a fruit of the spirit.