The Upper Room

@dancek Irish, I think

Once the language issue is resolved on that question, I intend to remove my -1 and add a +1

I think it's a good question... it just has problems right now

@Flimzy Me too.

There is one piece of English that we mostly all failed to understand. Translated in the context of somebody who has already made a big deal about something, "this isn't a big deal to me" should be understood to mean "I don't see why this should be a big deal to you, but it is for me."

I think we can assume it's a big deal for him--or anyone else who actually uses those pronouns.

If it's not a big deal, nobody would ever bother making those pronouns habitual

10:06 PM

@Flimzy yeah, it looked from the beginning that we're not just gonna easily edit the question

For me, I don't really care about zie and zir and whatever. It's the attitude that I don't appreciate.

(Man, I feel like I'm talking about my 2 year old.)

Sadly, IMO/IME, the only reason to use those pronouns is to point out that you're making a bit deal out of it. English has multiple conventions to allow for non-gender specific pronouns... some of which were mentioned in meta answers, some which weren't.

@Flimzy Right.

I dn't care about zie/zir personally... I do care in the sense that I think it detracts from the question (for reasons I Just mentioned), and because I think non-native speakers will have a lot of trouble with it (something I'm sorely aware of, as I'm trying to learn Spanish now)

If those pronouns ever become mainstream, I won't have a problem using them on this site... I'll always think their origin was silly, but it will no longer be "making a point", and will no longer confuse people.

ironically, if they ever do become mainstream, I suspect the people who use them now will be those who care the least... because it won't allow them to make their point any more :)

@Flimzy It definitely detracts from the question. I'd prefer to not have them in use. However, if the community decides that we should allow them, then I can accept that. But the "And it's staying" attitude is frustrating.

@Flimzy Yeah, I agree.

10:11 PM

Sure, if the community decides to use them, that's okay with me. I think it will be the wrong decision... but I'll abide by it.

The community often disagrees with me... but I still follow their rules

2

this is quite similar to the homosexual/gay thing that was some time ago, actually

about the "those who claim to be gay" phrasing?

@Flimzy yep, the point there was very obscure to me.. but it got settled by changing the "claiming" part

I should just translate the post into Turkish as the next edit. They don't even HAVE gender specific pronouns.

I think it was the same guy who complained on that point, wasn't it?

El'endia Starman

10:14 PM

@Caleb LOL. :P

@Flimzy talk about it... I personally don't very much like having JWs on-topic on a site called Christianity, nor D&C considered scripture, but that's how we roll

@Flimzy yes

@dancek Which by the way we never settled. I deleted it from the conventions list because it was just attracting trolls. Eventually we may need a separate meta post about it.

@Flimzy No that was a different issue.

@Caleb I'd never heard before that anyone would consider homosexual offensive/derogatory, and I still don't understand that. I'm quite sure some homosexuals don't approve of gay so if we need to choose terminology, we'll be in trouble either way

@Flimzy see this one: meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/342/…

@Caleb wasn't it the same? only the gay/homosexual point wasn't pushed further after "claimed" got edited out

@Caleb that was later iirc

10:20 PM

@dancek Yes that is the point I would make in a meta post, as well as noting the fact that one term has a smaller scope and it is more likely the scope that is mean in most cases. The other suggested terms often are DESIGNED to be inclusive, but most of the times I use it I would specifically be trying to be exclusive.

@Caleb yep

El'endia Starman

Well, I'm heading out. Seeya later guys! :)

Interesting post: english.stackexchange.com/questions/27057/…

Seeya El'

@Richard that's the only source I've seen for that (and it's now been thrice linked to me...)

@Richard Basically, he makes anything mean anything he wants it to mean. I don't see any consensus behind his opinion there.

Gender-neutral pronoun

A gender-neutral pronoun is a pronoun that is not associated with any gender. It designates two distinct grammatical phenomena, the first being pronouns/periphrastics that have been assigned nontraditional meanings in modern times out of a concern for gender equity, and the second being genderless pronouns that occur traditionally in human languages. In some languages — notably most Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and a number of Niger–Congo languages — some personal pronouns intrinsically distinguish male from female; the selection of a pronoun necessarily specifies, at least to some extent,...

10:24 PM

@Caleb that's where I pulled ne, yt and yo from (used in a comment) :P

The American Heritage comment on the subject is pretty good.

@waxeagle Shooting me down, are you>

Also it seems the correct grammar term is "invented pronoun", not your 'leading' use of 'made-up'. I'm a little gray on the distinction.

@Caleb It's probably just connotations and purely subjective.

@Richard Which is where we got off on this problem to start with.

10:33 PM

I think the point should have never made it to meta tbh

if a term is hard to understand, add an explanation.

or down vote and comment, or whatever. but a meta question?

done (if anyone can approve my edit, thanks)

we started with a comment

which turned into an ugly "I don't care what you say" debate

it was only after that that it became a meta question

although in retrospect, there were already sufficient other meta questions on SO at large, that would have applied

I don't agree that clarifying the pronouns in the question is the right answer. Although it's better than not.

@Sklivvz When a comment thread about what should or shouldn't happen in a question becomes contentions, the correct thing to do is take it to meta.

It's contentious, sure. It's not worth fighting on, even more sure. It's the kind of content that should be in meta, nope.

The point is that you can't have two parts really trying to force their hand. It's silly

I've put in a compromise edit to try to satisfy everybody. If it works, fine, if not amen.

I think Shog9's answer is right on target.

If the OP wants the quality of the post to reflect on them that way, so be it but downvoting for something that people things hurts the future usefulness of a question is fair game.

Meh. Sorta. -8 for 3 stupid pronouns?

10:44 PM

@Sklivvz: I approve of the intention of a compromise. I spent some time trying to brainstorm one myself. I don't agree that your proposed compromise actually satisfies "everybody," though.

It should. I don't know if it will though. It's the intention that counts.

@Sklivvz: If I asked a question "Is it okay to unf every time I flackle?" then appended it with "unf means ___ and flackle means ____", that wouldn't be a good compromise.

better than not

@Sklivvz They managed to completely derail the question. This isn't a matter of "should it have" so much as "it did".

Better than not... but not as good as using common English.

10:46 PM

@Flimzy Completely not worth fighting over

@Sklivvz: Maybe. Maybe not. But definitely worth down-voting for, IMO.

I mean -- the whole point of beta is building a community. Fighting needlessly and basically alienating people is not the correct way to do a beta, IMHO.

@Sklivvz: The point of the meta question, and indeed my comments (I can't speak for everyone) was not to fight. But to discuss, and come to consensus. That is what meta is for.

@Sklivvz: I've stated my opinion in opposition to TRiG's. I don't think that means I'm fighting with him.

I think it's clear that some of TRiG's posts (both on this matter, and others) indicate a tendency for him to fight.... but that doesn't mean that everyone involved in the conversation is "fighting."

@Sklivvz the sand and pearl parable is IMO applicable not only to posts but users, too. We should welcome everybody, but we should optimize for experts, not those who start fights and don't show expertise.

It's the welcome bit that we're failing...

and @Flimzy you did insist a lot in your comments...

I mean, a bunch of meta questions are "we should not feed the trolls". The same principle should apply here. Calm down. Let it go. Who cares.

10:53 PM

@Sklivvz: For example? I'm reading through my comments, and I think most of them look fairly level-headed and accepting of his view, while advocating clearer language.

He says "@Flimzy. The meaning is obvious from context. Honestly, I was not looking for a debate on this. I asked the question because I was interested in it. This blow up debate on a trifling irrelevancy is confusing me."

At that point you should have let it go.

instead you insist "If you're primarily interested in the answer to your question, then you shouldn't object to changing the pronouns to something less confusing/controversial."

although you already said that in your answer, in your question and in the other comment :-)

@Sklivvz: Well... I disagree with your assessment of the situation. I think I also disagree with your assessment of my answers/comments. But that's okay.

Sure, my point is--this is how he probably read it. That's all. I really don't have any other agenda than helping :-)

I have no doubt that he read a lot of things into what most or all of us said.

He has a history of making mountains out of mole hills all over the place.

I don't think that's a reason to let the quality of his question go by un-checked.

Whatever. I told you how it looks like from outside. If you can use my advice, fine. Otherwise, fine as well.

:-)

11:15 PM

@Sklivvz: So while you're here... I'm interested to hear how you'd reason through the logic the other way on my 'Who created God' answer

You suggested that because God has no cause, that means he's not an effect, rather than the reverse which I used... he is not an effect, therefore he has no cause

How would you build the case that there is no cause for God first?

Well, you don't know what is an effect and what is not. They are assumptions

One could say: "the universe is not an effect, therefore it has no creator"

and it would be just as valid--especially if one assumes the universe to "contain" time

There are no scriptures that say "The universe never changes"

Or "Before the foundations of the earth, the universe [did/is/was something]"

sure, but how do you go from "never changes" to "not an effect"?

Everything that comes into existence changes at some point...

at the very least from the state of non-existence to the state of existence

well, if you don't exist you can't change, and when you start existing you may never change

11:19 PM

It is (at least theoretically) possible that something could have a beginning, then never change after that

the "container" may change from not-containing to containing

but the universe has no container

But I think the change from non-existence to existence would count as a change

Now if there is scripture that says that nothing caused God... then that would be logical grounds for saying "there is no cause, therefore he is not an effect"

maybe there is such scripture

I'm not familiar with it if there is

which is why I took the opposite approach

Well, it's still circular logic though. I mean, citing Scripture assumes Faith in it. Which already proves the point. I mean if you trust the Bible to be true, then God is all over the place in it, no?

So you think we shouldn't quote scripture on a site called Christianity.SE?

It's not circular logic

but it is complex logic

Well, of course you can, but it is not a correct answer to that question, imho

11:24 PM

It's only circular logic if "I believe God has no beginning because the Bible says so." and "I believe the Bible because God says so."

But my reason for believing the Bible is far more complex than that

and well beyond the scope fo that question

I think on a site called 'Christianity', a belief in the validity of scripture is as good as assumed when answering a question that doesn't itself ask for confirmation of the validity of scripture.

Sure: what I mean is, in the context of the Bible, God has no creator

Why is that, it's not explained. I personally don't think that Him being eternal has anything to do with it. I mean, if the Bible said "and God was born out of xyz" then people would accept that, even if God is then said to be eternal

So you're saying there is no answer within the Christian context?

I am simply saying that the Bible is not a philosophy book or a physics book, but a (the) religious book. Not all Christianity derives one to one from the Bible

a lot of it is tradition, and a lot of it is actually integrated with today's scientific knowledge in many cases

philosophically speaking I see no problem in entertaining the question of who created God, and I think the correct answer, from a Christian perspective, is "nobody".

Q: Can people speak in tongues today?

How often should one flag comments as 'obsolete'? for instance, on this question:

12

The Bible refers to people speaking in tongues--most notably at Pentecost. Is this something that legitimately happens today? I've been in church services where speaking in tongues has happened, but it always seems weird and creepy, and those doing it seem like kooks. How can I know if this is l...

the third comment suggests a re-title... which has been done.. should I flag the comment as obsolete? or leave it alone, since there are only a few comments, so it's not really cluttered

Yep you should