Sorry to hear about all the distress here. I really don't believe it's necessary as people create their own reputation and reputability based on how they conduct themselves in the sight of others. To cut people off would only be censoring them, and then people get upset about "censorship".

Is it a no-win situation?

No, not if you look at it a different way.

My position is:

(1) that all of you deserve freedom, and
(2) that there are two sides to freedom that we all need to learn to respect:
- (a) Our side, and
- (b) The other guy's side.

We have to realize that there are nearly always two kinds of things at play:

(1) Opinions, and
(2) Statements of Fact.

If we are offended by someone's opinion, then we have a fear that we would do well to resolve within ourselves. That fear may or may not have something to do with what was spoken, or it may have more to do with what we think others will believe is true as a result. This is where statements of fact come into play.

Statements of fact are exampled by someone saying something like, "Sally cheated on her test." This is not a statement of opinion. It is a statement of fact, or at least it is presented as a fact. Whether or not it is true—we don't know. No evidence was provided.

We should not take offense to people stating opinions. If we do, we have a fear that is being brought to our attention by the emotions that fear invokes. We are designed this was for a reason.

For this reason, I do not threaten to ban people for stating opinions.

I do threaten to ban people for:

(1) Making false statements of fact, and
(2) Provoking emotion without reason, i.e. "content" (a.k.a. "trolling").

Making false statements is actually harmful to others because it can affect your reputation (which all civilized people should value). If your reputation is damaged, than you have been damaged indeed, and this is ground for banning.

This is why I warned LindaLou on the Creation/Evolution forum recently. She made false statements of fact about me, which is an action that is harmful to my reputation.

On the other hand, if someone is being bantered or answered sarcastically, it is really a reflection of the person doing the bantering, not the person receiving it. Over time, the person doing the bantering will probably lose reputation among people, but since this loss is of their own accord, they have indeed harmed no one but themselves.

Now here is where most people cannot tell the difference between the two.

If someone says something to us that hurts our feelings but is not a statement of fact (meaning that anyone can recognize that it is only their opinion), it does is no actual harm. There only may be the perception of harm because we may experience emotions that have been improperly trained to react to someone else's opinion.

It should not be offensive to anyone that I state that our emotions are improperly trained. This is true of all of us. As we mature, it is up to us to bring our emotions in line with reality. If we continue to allow our emotions to dictate our stance, we are slaves to them, and this only creates a climate of illogical reactions (a "reactionary" person).

For this reason, we have different kinds of people in the world. Some are gentle. Some are rough around the edges. Both types refine a different part of the other. The gentle become impermeable. The rough become considerate. This is the way of things if we allow it to be.

Of course, the key phrase in this concept is "if we allow it to be".

-- This system works well if we believe that it is logical and reasonable not to give into our emotions, but rather to make (discipline) our emotions to be subject to logic and reason.

-- This system does not work so well if we believe (perhaps by upbringing) that our emotions actually provide a means to logically discern. They do not, but this belief system is being thrust upon us by the emerging one-world socialistic ideology because it works to the advantage of globalists and bankers (material for a different book).

I have myself been virtually-slapped by LindaLou enough times to know that the only difference between her and SoSick is that LindaLou slaps with the back of her hand and SoSick with the front.

Well, that's OK. It's their right and perogative, and far be it from me to take their right away from either of them. For this reason, I don't mind getting slapped around if the hand is the hand of opinion, but when the hand becomes one posing as deliverer of statements of fact, then the rules are different, and if someone slanders someone else on this forum, I'd like to hear about it because I will consider banning them.

The short of it is this: The precious thing for which you are responsible always has been and always will be under your control, and that is, your reputation.

If someone offends you, they have actually provided you with an opportunity to gain reputation by contrasting the offense to your graceful response. Both the unrefined and the gentle provide each other with opportunity to become better people through offenses, and therefore should—when offenses are experienced with a proper understanding—drive us in an upward spiral; and this is—after all—what we are here for.

God does not need to get to know us. He is simply letting us get to know ourselves. Only then can we understand how He sees us, and only then can be begin to understand our relationship with Him.

Yes, a deeper look reveals that both the unrefined and the gentle provide opportunities for us to shine and to grow, and if this sounds idealistic, it certainly is. After all, the entire universe is designed by an Idealist with a plan.

With a proper understanding, we can safely conclude:

Be kind to each other, and if someone is unkind to you, be kind anyway. It will be good for both of you regardless of how it feels.


[color:"brown"]"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."[/color]

—Romans 12:19-21


Bear in mind that in this context, the heaping of coals is for the eventual benefit of the recipient of the coals, for fire both burns (hurts) and purifies.


Know thyself.