A Question for Evangelicals.

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #1

Post by Gracchus »

Do evangelicals and other Christians really believe that a habitual liar, serial adulterer, and defaulter on contracts, who tears children from their parents and has them put in cages, can lead them toward the Kingdom of Heaven? Is that what Jesus would do?

:?: :study:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #11

Post by Bust Nak »

Clownboat wrote: If someone is a total doody head of a person, but a qualified heart surgeon, should you not use their services? Pretend the doody head is better qualified if you would.

Like I tell my employees. You don't have to like each other, but you do have to work with each other.
Heart surgery is not a one person job, being a doody head affects how well their team mate works and in turn the final product or service. But if we can absolutely isolate job performance from character flaw, then job performance should be the determining factor.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #12

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote:Heart surgery is not a one person job, being a doody head affects how well their team mate works and in turn the final product or service. But if we can absolutely isolate job performance from character flaw, then job performance should be the determining factor.
You're actually presupposing your conclusion here, that being that it's permissible to chuck the one with the better skill at the task itself because he's a doody-head.

It's subtle, but I caught it.

You're assuming that this fellow's team-mates are going to refuse to hand him a scalpel because they don't like how he asked, and that that's perfectly okay, and that the people who react that way absolutely belong on that team.

The "doody-head" is me. It's been me all my life. I don't insult people, I am extremely nice to customers and I've never gotten a poor review from one, but co-workers never, ever like me. No matter what I say to them, they'll find some way to twist it into something offensive.

I kid you not, I told this joke:
Q: Why doesn't Kool-Aid Man play baseball with the Pillsbury Dough Boy anymore?
A: Because Kool-Aid Man is tired of always being the pitcher, and Dough Boy is tired of always being the batter.

...And I lost a job from that.

If I don't say anything at all, that's worse. If I keep it to simple responses, as polite as possible "Yes, I'll do that," "Thank you for telling me that," I'll still be the rude one, because I don't socialise.

No one is trying to be mean. No one is trying to be rude. Everyone just wants to keep their job, and the social butterflies won't have that. The social butterflies demand that about 70% of the energy that should go into working be devoted to establishing chimpanzee pecking order.

So when you say the surgeon is the one causing that reaction in his team, I see one person trying to do his job, and the rest refusing to hand him a scalpel because he missed some keyword like please or they didn't like his tone, and they would rather the patient die on the operating table than lose an opportunity to "teach" someone courtesy.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #13

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: You're actually presupposing your conclusion here, that being that it's permissible to chuck the one with the better skill at the task itself because he's a doody-head.
That is my conclusion, but how is it my presupposition?
You're assuming that this fellow's team-mates are going to refuse to hand him a scalpel because they don't like how he asked, and that that's perfectly okay, and that the people who react that way absolutely belong on that team.
I do assume that but it's a different claim to my conclusion.
The "doody-head" is me. It's been me all my life. I don't insult people, I am extremely nice to customers and I've never gotten a poor review from one, but co-workers never, ever like me. No matter what I say to them, they'll find some way to twist it into something offensive.
That sounded like your co-workers are the doody-heads.
Q: Why doesn't Kool-Aid Man play baseball with the Pillsbury Dough Boy anymore?
A: Because Kool-Aid Man is tired of always being the pitcher, and Dough Boy is tired of always being the batter.

...And I lost a job from that.
And you thought the problem was on your end?
If I don't say anything at all, that's worse. If I keep it to simple responses, as polite as possible "Yes, I'll do that," "Thank you for telling me that," I'll still be the rude one, because I don't socialise.

No one is trying to be mean. No one is trying to be rude. Everyone just wants to keep their job, and the social butterflies won't have that. The social butterflies demand that about 70% of the energy that should go into working be devoted to establishing chimpanzee pecking order.
Either you are less polite than you thought, or your co-workers are the problem. "Establishing chimpanzee pecking order" makes a hostile workplace.
So when you say the surgeon is the one causing that reaction in his team, I see one person trying to do his job, and the rest refusing to hand him a scalpel because he missed some keyword like please or they didn't like his tone, and they would rather the patient die on the operating table than lose an opportunity to "teach" someone courtesy.
Or the surgeon is actually the one causing a legit reaction in his team?

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #14

Post by Gracchus »

Excuse me folks, but the discussion is not about a competent doody-head, it is about an obviously incompetent doody-head. Signs of his incompetence are his penchant for hiring and firing staff at an unprecedented rate, an unusual number of former staff in prison, his bankruptcies, his cheating of contractors, and his SLAP lawsuits to drive up the attorney costs for opponents who aren't financed by Russian loans through Deutsche Bank.
Of course this is a hypothetical person and not referring to any real individual. I mean, who could seriously support for public office a lying, cheating scoundrel who can scarcely read?
And this is about his moral character and why Evangelicals would support him so enthusiastically.

[-X

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #15

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote:
Purple Knight wrote: You're actually presupposing your conclusion here, that being that it's permissible to chuck the one with the better skill at the task itself because he's a doody-head.
That is my conclusion, but how is it my presupposition?
You're assuming that this fellow's team-mates are going to refuse to hand him a scalpel because they don't like how he asked, and that that's perfectly okay, and that the people who react that way absolutely belong on that team.
I do assume that but it's a different claim to my conclusion.
I see them as the same premise: Teamwork (otherwise known as popularity) > Skill.

If the surgeon is somehow rude, and the rest of the team refuse to hand him the scalpel because they don't see him as being polite enough, you're presupposing that that's his problem and not theirs.

For a lack of teamwork to be his failing, it has to be his fault that they don't hand him the scalpel, and not theirs. For their own actions not to be their fault, you do have to assume your conclusion: Teamwork > Skill.

If you don't assume that conclusion, you can just stock the operating room with people like me who don't give a flying bacon bit about anyone's tone or how offensive they can shoehorn something he said into being, and they just do their jobs, and they have absolutely no interest in going over everything he says with a fine-toothed comb for mistakes they can leverage into social advantage.

There are more of me than there are of those other kind anyway.
Gracchus wrote: Excuse me folks, but the discussion is not about a competent doody-head, it is about an obviously incompetent doody-head.
I was trying to isolate that issue, and it's proving to be a complex one.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #16

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 15 by Purple Knight]

Gracchus wrote: "Excuse me folks, but the discussion is not about a competent doody-head, it is about an obviously incompetent doody-head."

Purple Knight responded: "I was trying to isolate that issue, and it's proving to be a complex one."

Complex?! Oh my! I'm getting popcorn! :eyebrow:

:study:
Last edited by Gracchus on Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #17

Post by Wootah »

Gracchus wrote: [Replying to post 5 by Wootah]
Well, I might inquire as to a heart surgeon's training and experience. I might ask how much of his time is actually practicing surgery and how much playing golf.


:study:
The best would earn the most and play the most golf!
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #18

Post by Wootah »

Gracchus wrote: Excuse me folks, but the discussion is not about a competent doody-head, it is about an obviously incompetent doody-head. Signs of his incompetence are his penchant for hiring and firing staff at an unprecedented rate, an unusual number of former staff in prison, his bankruptcies, his cheating of contractors, and his SLAP lawsuits to drive up the attorney costs for opponents who aren't financed by Russian loans through Deutsche Bank.
Of course this is a hypothetical person and not referring to any real individual. I mean, who could seriously support for public office a lying, cheating scoundrel who can scarcely read?
And this is about his moral character and why Evangelicals would support him so enthusiastically.

[-X
You haven't made your case and ignore the obvious sign of competence - he made it to president.

Mod hat - no more doddy head comments please from anyone.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #19

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: I see them as the same premise: Teamwork (otherwise known as popularity) > Skill.
Team work is decidedly a different thing to popularity. Results > Skill. Team work is just a good way of getting results.
If the surgeon is somehow rude, and the rest of the team refuse to hand him the scalpel because they don't see him as being polite enough, you're presupposing that that's his problem and not theirs.
That's not an assumption is it? The premise is that the surgeon is rude, that is his problem. I don't think I have to assume teamwork > skill to conclude that being rude is his problem.
If you don't assume that conclusion, you can just stock the operating room with people like me who don't give a flying bacon bit about anyone's tone or how offensive they can shoehorn something he said into being, and they just do their jobs, and they have absolutely no interest in going over everything he says with a fine-toothed comb for mistakes they can leverage into social advantage.
That's one way of fixing the problem, but that doesn't change the source of where the problem came from - a guy being rude enough that his team refuses to work with him.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: A Question for Evangelicals.

Post #20

Post by Clownboat »

Team work is decidedly a different thing to popularity. Results > Skill. Team work is just a good way of getting results.
Speaking hypothetically as the employer...
You don't have to like your fellow employees, but you have to work with them. If you are not able to do so, then you are not able to fulfill that part of your job.
That's not an assumption is it? The premise is that the surgeon is rude, that is his problem. I don't think I have to assume teamwork > skill to conclude that being rude is his problem.
Again, speaking hypothetically as the employer...
You don't have to like your fellow employees, but you have to work with them. If you are not able to do so, then you are not able to fulfill that part of your job. Even if you call this person names!
That's one way of fixing the problem, but that doesn't change the source of where the problem came from - a guy being rude enough that his team refuses to work with him.
Hypothetical employer again...
You are not able to work with your fellow worker. For this reason I must terminate your employment.
There is a life lesson to be learned though. You cannot change others, only yourself. Therefore to blame others is a fool's errand and not one I'm willing to continue to pay you for. I would recommend some self-reflection and wish you the best of luck going forward.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply