quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I just wanted to see if Kwea was just a rambler or was actually worth his salt. Apparently not; just a bunch of big talk. You actually have something to say. Everything you said, I find debatable, but that's the point.
quote:And no one I like here disagrees with me, as far as I know.
I think that Kwea said it all right there.
I'm not going to claim that Resh is a genius or anything, and I disagree with him on several particulars concerning this issue. But he really is being treated very poorly. And it is because this forum is not a place that genuinely values diversity.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But he really is being treated very poorly. And it is because this forum is not a place that genuinely values diversity.
Or he's being treated poorly because his expressed beliefs are sexist and homophobic and bigoted, and he behaves like a jackass. That's also a possibility on a forum that, despite your claims (and really, Survivor, you're your own proof that you're wrong) values diversity.
Well, I suppose that's what I was mentioning, so it should hardly surprise me. I wonder if there was more venom in that post before you edited it. Really, for all the excitement over me, I wonder how you've ever managed to decieve yourselves even when I wasn't around.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Survivor: But he really is being treated very poorly.
He's being treated poorly because he's been a flippant, pompous, and ego-masturbatory troll. All of the posts I've seen him make have: had flawed logic that is pointed out to be false, attacks and passive-aggressive baiting, snide remarks, claims of being victimized, and saying no one understands him because we're all: stupider, brain-washed, or misinformed.
If he presented his beliefs without purposely trying to get a rise out of people, we wouldn't have any problem with him.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I suppose that's what I was mentioning, so it should hardly surprise me. I wonder if there was more venom in that post before you edited it. Really, for all the excitement over me, I wonder how you've ever managed to decieve yourselves even when I wasn't around.
I don't hate Reshpeckobiggle, or you, or anyone on Hatrack. I do know what it is, I think, to truly hate someone, though. I believe* I have truly hated someone I know personally, so I've got some perspective to examine the emotion.
There's not even any 'venom' in that post, anyway. I was describing something venomous, so I suppose there was...but the venom wasn't mine. Reshpeckobiggle's statements, until he should choose to clarify himself as to why he links pedophilia and homosexuality together, and his other sexist remarks, are venomous.
Concern and shock =/ 'excitement'. You haven't excited people, Survivor. You've worried or irritated them. That you think it is excitement is yet more of the evidence I was speaking of earlier, that I should not take your unusual claims seriously.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Good job, KoM. I just wanted to see if Kwea was just a rambler or was actually worth his salt. Apparently not; just a bunch of big talk.
First...none of my posts regarding you took long at all. That was the point...you aren't worth the effort.
Second...what ever gave you the idea I care about your opinion of me?
If you approved, I would obviously need to make a few adjustments.
Survivor...if by diversity you mean small minded bigots who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, you are right....we don't care for them at all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Survivor...get over yourself. If you could perhaps being human would stop being such a bad thing, and you could stop pretending.
Pretending we hate you, pretending this is a horrible place....pretending that everyone who is not liked, even if for the simple reason that he is an a$$, is really being percecuted.....
Pretending you aren't a human yourself....with both the good and the bad of that being a part of you too....
Honestly....you haven't really even made a ripple here, and if people didn't care so much about your sister we probably wouldn't even care at all.
Hate?
....more like extreme apathy.
Then again, that's what you want, right? Makes us easier to "destroy".
posted
Kwea, cool it. Calling Resh a "small-minded bigot" IS a violation of the User's Agreement, just as his behavior has occasionally been. You've been easily as rude to him as he's been to anyone, and I don't know what that's meant to accomplish.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry about it Tom. I'm the LAST person whose going to complain. I wish everyone would lighten up. I mean, this Survivor person seems to deserve the ire of all of you MUCH less than I do. It seems to me that all he's doing is defending me (is he allowed to do that?!?) so apparently he too must now be destroyed!! (I know, I'm being hyperbolic.) Maybe he has a history that has everyone so detestful of him, and maybe I do too, but does everyone have to be so nasty?
Hitoshi and Samprimary, you hide behind your sarcasm. There are better ways to make your point. Though at least Samprimary is funny. Hitoshi, you seem bitter. You probably have very good reasons. Don't take that the wrong way.
Rolainm: Prove what? I'll clarify my post a bit, anyway. "I find your points debatable, and that is the point" just means that I'm not here and no one is engaging me simply so that we can all talk about how we agree on everything. The point is to discuss, debate, all that.
Rakeesh, you (along with Hitoshi)put words in my mouth. I'm not interested in discussing anything whatsoever with you until you can demonstrate that you will debate me honestly and without malice. I don't think that's gonna happen, but I'm willing to give you the chance. Now if you meant what you said about not wanting to discuss anything with me until I fulfill YOUR criteria first, I guess we have nothing further to say to each other.
Kwea:
Rakeesh: Ok, I'll make it quick. I equate them together because they are both examples of deviant behavior, in the sense that deviant behavior is that which is outside the norm and not considered acceptable by the society in which it occurs. By the way, I think pedophilia is MUCH worse than homosexuality.
Just because I believe something that has been widely believed for many centuries by most of western Christian civilization doesn't mean I'm right, but it also doesn't mean that I must defend my belief from your assumed position of the moral high ground. You are much more confident in your possesion of that ground than I am, but that doesn't mean you have it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What "assumed moral high ground" are we talking about here? Most of what has been happening recently is simple insult, not any effort to make a moral argument.
Saying "your position is so racist/homophobic/sexist/reactionary/whatever that I don't feel any need to make a reasoned response" doesn't constitute an argument, it's just a way of making a simple insult look like a rational for not engaging the question.
I don't think that "small-minded bigot" necessarily violates the user agreement, but some of the other terms used probably do. I have to laugh, though, at the idea that we're all taking the user agreement seriously at this point in the game. No, real laughter, not Graemlin laughter. Sorry you can't hear it.\
Anyway, the discussion on the other side of the forum is a lot more interesting. Just as much heat, but a good deal more light, or some lame analogy like that.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny Tom...I wasn't specifically referring to him.
We have had a plethura of them lately...and most of them really can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag.
And Resh's behavior had been far more than occasionally rude, and usually far less deserved by those who bear the brunt of it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, in fact, I didn't. I quoted you. If you don't like my negative interpretations, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully. I think perhaps my interpretations have some truth to them when you say pedophilia is 'much worse' than homosexuality.
Then of course there's the part where you equate growing tolerance of homosexuality in the United States as evidence of the lessening and worsening of our society. Clearly, you find homosexuality wrong and distasteful. It's not just something 'Western society' thinks is distasteful, it's something you think is also.
Oh, and 'much worse' means it's still in the same ballpark as pedophilia, and not just on grounds of what's common and what ain't. I'm not putting words into your mouth when I ask you to defend that characterization, so please do explain yourself.
quote:You are much more confident in your possesion of that ground than I am, but that doesn't mean you have it.
No, you're pretty clear that you've got the moral high ground-at least your tone is positively laden with that certainty. And it's not just me saying that, either. Ask around. Communication is a two-way street, but if a majority of people are interpreting your words one way, and it's not the way you intended, it's your job to communicate in a way that expresses your meaning.
For example, when I say that I believed you were behaving like a smug jackass, I don't hold malice towards you. You can pick up a handy dictionary to see what I mean. In fact, my words to you have not been any more rude and mean-spirited (and some would argue, quite a bit less) than yours to others in this thread have been.
So, don't talk to me about malice, and don't presume you're out for 'honest and unmalicious' discussion. Your own posts-by widespread judgement, not just me-demonstrate this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying "your position is so racist/homophobic/sexist/reactionary/whatever that I don't feel any need to make a reasoned response" doesn't constitute an argument, it's just a way of making a simple insult look like a rational for not engaging the question.
It's only a simple insult if the position isn't racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. If it is those things, though, it's not an insult-it's the truth.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:...if a majority of people are interpreting your words one way, and it's not the way you intended, it's your job to communicate in a way that expresses your meaning.
What if people are interpreting my words one way, and it's not the way I wrote them? From my perspective, that seems to be the real problem. Well, that and the fact that all my opinions are wrong and that is why I can be insulted and dismissed.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No...you attitude is why is dismiss you, not your arguments.
You talk to people like as if they don't matter (and are stupid) if they don't agree with you, and that every single person who happens to disagree with you has never considered your points before.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
You're not being dismissed because your opinions are wrong. This has been clarified so many times now that your stating so is disingenuous at best...and a further reason you're being dismissed.
You're being dismissed a) because your attitude started out inflammatory and insulting, and the only explanation you offered was 'that's just the way I post, it was actually nice for me'
quote:b) you begin with the assumption that it is unreasonable and illogical to disagree with you[quote]but I there is a common thread: logic, critical thinking, and an understanding of history. I think that the way the myriad liberal viewpoints are grouped together stems from some different logical basis as well.
c) your rhetoric resonates with homophobia, sexism, and bigotry. To use a previous example, you equated growing tolerance of homosexuality as something that's damaging our country right alongside a growing inability to defend ourselves.
Don't you try to tell me you don't necessarily think homosexuality (and a host of other things) is bad (or even evil)...
quote:We have some improvements, such as racial equality and environmental awareness. But look at how bad things are getting. An increasing inability to defend ourselves from aggressors and to protect our national interests. The normalization of deviancy, to include homosexuality and pedophilia. Young girls becoming more and more violent and promiscuous, bringing themselves down to the level of men, all for the sake of trying to attain the same rights as men to have to suffer in work and society the way we've always had to. The slow death of marriage and the restriction and persecution of religion, with the exaltation of athiesm. And perhaps the greatest evil in all of human history: legalized abortion.
You're not fooling anyone, Reshpeckobiggle. Except maybe Survivor...and he claims he isn't a human being. It's been made very clear to you, more than once, why exactly you're being dismissed. So continue the show, if you like (truly a one-man show), or actually offer some evidence for your claims aside from "it's obvious".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly suspect Survivor isn't "fooled," either; he's just using Resh to reinforce his own personal biases about human interaction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: That story is disturbing...but I don't want to cry out against the jail nurse until we have more information.
A nurse cannot prescribe medication, and I'm sure a jail nurse has specific rules about what can and can't be given to inmates and if the drug the girl wanted wasn't prescribed by a doctor and couldn't be approved or verified, I can see where the nurse might not have the power to act.
The whole thing sounds like a breakdown in the system, not the fault of one individual. They did say in that article they have a policy not to arrest people wanted for misdemeanors if they've been a victim of a violent crime, but this girl was wanted on felony charges. I'm unsure that I would want police departments to insitute a policy whereby people wanted for felonies shouldn't be arrested.
It's a tough case, and I feel sympathy for the girl. I actually am a proponent of morning after pills being available to rape victims, even though I'm pro-life. I can see the concern that this may prevent some people from coming forward, but again, I don't like the idea of making a policy decision that leads to not arresting people wanted on felonies. Would we feel differently if the girl were wanted for murder?
They took her to the clinic where she was given the first dose and given the second dose to take the next day. The second dose was confiscated when she was arrested, and the nurse wouldn't give it to her. I assume they would allow people to take other medications, even if they had to confiscate them.
It was felony "failure to appear" which sounds strange to me.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn it! Judging by the title of the thread, I was expecting to read a fetus point of view on the abortion... Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to be fair, most of the posters here were probably fetuses at some point in life...depending on when you think "life" begins, as if it were all that important anyway.
I think that Reshpicklewigglewhatever does have me fooled, despite my first post in response to him. At least, the membername pretty completely defeats me
More to the point, if he's doing something that objectively deserves the treatment he's getting, I'm not aware of what it could be.
quote:It's been made very clear to you, more than once, why exactly you're being dismissed.
By that, I take it you mean his "inflammatory and insulting" attitude. But of course, nothing about the way he's been treated would suggest that there is anything necessarily wrong with such an attitude. I mean, the comments responding to him on this thread have mostly been beyond inflammatory and insulting.
I knew immediately that Reshbeckbiggie would be flamed because of the content of the first post I saw from him, not the attitude. And everything I've seen of his posts suggests that his attitude is reflective of the way he's been treated here in the past, rather than being an unusual character flaw.
We get new members posting caustic and insulting messages all the time, but as long as those insults are directed at Card and his views, they rarely meet any significant challenge on these forums. So I don't buy the assertion that Reshpecko is being dissed because his attitude is inappropriate. It's all about his viewpoint.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because I believe something that has been widely believed for many centuries by most of western Christian civilization doesn't mean I'm right, but it also doesn't mean that I must defend my belief from your assumed position of the moral high ground.
Sure you do. It's called examining you life for the purposes of becoming a better person. I have no position on abortion, but I've constantly had to defend some of my beliefs, many of which date back to Socrates. I have changed some of my beliefs, become tolerant of some, and gotten into drunken brawls over others, but I do so with the same goal: to understand my place in the world and constantly improve.
As you have constantly called for, I'll give you my position on some of the issues you've brought up so far. (My personal opinion of you being irrelevant)
Abortion: Complex. Yes, I will concede that it kills a living organism, but at what point do we as a human race say that an organism is cognizant? I don't know. I'm not a doctor and I'm not God.
Homosexuality: Not a threat. If two guys want to get their freak on in the privacy of their own home there's not a bloody thing I can do about it. Is it deviant? Only if you happen to classify humans as animals. I know of no animals that engage in homosexuality, but I also know of no opponents of homosexuality who would classify humans as being purely animal either. And there lies the rub. If humans are not animals, then homosexuality does not go against the rest of nature, if humans are animals, then we have to rewrite the laws of nature to include homosexuality, as it's a scientific impossibility to go against the laws of nature. (I can elaborate on this if you want)
In addition, as I understand it, in most Christian Religions the only marriages that are valid are those recognized by God. Does God officially recognize and ordain the State Registrars Office? Does God recognize Social Security and the right of spouses to share such earthly benefits with each other?
I believe that if two people are consistently getting nookie from one another, than their earthy benefits should be shared, like hospital visitations, income taxes, life insurance etc.
In addition I think that government is not justified in making any law prohibiting a person or persons actions unless said actions infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty and property.
Does Gay marriage infringe on my rights to any of these? Not at all.
Me being brainwashed: By what exactly? My conservative parents? My conservative religion that I was raised in? Utah doesn't really have a liberal media so that can't be it. What else? Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thoreau, Gandhi, Jefferson, Lincoln? Got to be those ignorant buggers. And before you mention that you didn't mean your brainwashed comment that way: thats the way it's going to get responded to. It is very possible to hold Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, or even Socialist beliefs based on experience, learning and logic. If you claim that people who believe differently than you are brainwashed, you are going to offend those who have formed our beliefs this way.
Me being wrong: plenty of times just look up some of my previous posts. Try me.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never checked on that, it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do with ice, though. Maybe there is some deep, doomsday meaning in it. Perhaps it will dramatically increase the impact of the kinetic bolide?
No, apparently it's mainly just to keep the ice from building up. As the ice gets too thick, it increases stress on the underlying geological strata and increases volcanic activity. Thicker ice, more volcanism to melt it. Rather an elegant solution, compared with some of His work.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: You presumably mean "apart from homo sapiens", but in any case you are wrong.
I never knew that KOM. My main intention, however, was to head off a possible argument I've heard many times from opponents of homosexuality which goes along the line of: "there are no animals that engage in homosexuality" I guess I could have been clearer on that.
Thanks though, I now know of a better way to answer that argument.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because I believe something that has been widely believed for many centuries by most of western Christian civilization doesn't mean I'm right, but it also doesn't mean that I must defend my belief from your assumed position of the moral high ground.
Sure you do. It's called examining you life for the purposes of becoming a better person. I have no position on abortion, but I've constantly had to defend some of my beliefs, many of which date back to Socrates. I have changed some of my beliefs, become tolerant of some, and gotten into drunken brawls over others, but I do so with the same goal: to understand my place in the world and constantly improve.
I couldn't agree with you more. I defend my postion, but not from someone who has assumed the moral high ground simply because my opponent believes his or her side is right and that is all there is to it. No room for argument. This is one of the biggest roadblocks in any debate, and it is often assumed by both sides. I may not be any more able to shed my notion of being on the morally correct side than others, but I try to recognize that and point out when my argument is coming from there. The thing is, I am also careful to specify exactly where my argument is based in the purist logic I am capable of. It has been pointed out to me that I am utterly incapable of logic, but I for one don't accept that. I have at the very least a basic understanding of the rules (I did receive the highest grade in the logic class I took last semester [that would be an Argumentum ad Verecundiam,appeal to authority... I looked it up]), and I know when someone (like myself; re: my appeal to authority) is using an informal fallacy. When I have the audacity to point them out, generally I am told how stupid I am. There is a certain level of entertainment value to it, but it's kinda sad, too.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you agree with me, then why do you feel you don't need to defend your arguments from someone who assumes the moral high ground? If you ask others to entertain the notion that you're correct, it's polite to do the same in return. As I read this thread I couldn't help but feel you were assuming the moral high ground and not considering for a moment that you might be incorrect. I have no problem defending my position from people who think they're morally correct, that was my point in posting.
I think there is room for argument here. If you refuse to argue with someone who thinks they're morally superior to you then you'll never actually learn anything valuable from them or about yourself. You may feel that they're being pompous, but it doesn't mean that they don't have anything valuable to say.
I have no doubt that you're trying your best, but I think a large portion of the reason you didn't receive a warm welcome to your debate is a result of your writing style. If your argument is mired in emotional language and other fallacies, your more likely to get the same in return and no one is going to get anywhere.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I agree with you. I just do not believe my my arguments are any more mired in emotionality and logical fallacies than anyone else. In fact, I believe I am doing a better job than my opponents (and I mean that word in the most innocuous manner possible.) I do feel the need to defend my position, but from the person's arguments, not the high ground he believes he is standing on. Is that clearer? And yes, I am aware of my own perceived moral superiority. I try not to let it take over my arguments, without total success, let me tell you. But if you get to the meat of what I say, especially concerning abortion, I think an objective observer can see I have made some strong arguments that have not been seriously challenged. Those challenges have mainly been along the lines of "shut up."
You think I am trying my best, but I'm not really. As I said in previous posts (particularly on the other forum), I tried that for a while and it was too tiring, and not as much fun. And since no one else is trying rein in their vitriol (sorry; not "no one," just the ones who are really getting into it with me), I don't see much point in doing the same. I don't think I have a lot of vitriol in the first place; most of the things people take such offense at that I say are made in generalizations. All (or most) of the really focused insults are directed at me.
quote:You think I am trying my best, but I'm not really. As I said in previous posts (particularly on the other forum), I tried that for a while and it was too tiring, and not as much fun. And since no one else is trying rein in their vitriol (sorry; not "no one," just the ones who are really getting into it with me), I don't see much point in doing the same. I don't think I have a lot of vitriol in the first place; most of the things people take such offense at that I say are made in generalizations. All (or most) of the really focused insults are directed at me.
You can keep on saying this as long as you like, but that won't make it true at all. I've gone into thorough detail why the things I said weren't just 'insults', but openly (and justly) critical things said against your bigoted, homophobic sexism, and you persist in pretending otherwise.
Also, nicely done! You've completely neglected to acknowledge you were totally wrong about homosexuality in the animal world, as anyone who'd made a serious study of the issues involved would already know. Good job!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And yes, I am aware of my own perceived moral superiority. I try not to let it take over my arguments, without total success, let me tell you.
No need to tell us....we had noticed it.
I recall attacking your attitude regarding this, which is displayed in many other threads as well.
I implied I didn't agree with your arguments, but there are a lot of people who I disagree with here.....it's one of the things I like most about Hatrack, to be honest.
I dislike being called an idiot (although you may not use that specific word, of course) because I see things differently that you. I don't like seeing you berate people for sloppy logic when you are are guilty of the same.
If you can't get your points across in a non-confrontational manner, people won't listen to you very often. That means that despite your possibly strong arguments, and your strong writing skills, your overall lack of communication skills defeat yourself in serious debate.
Before you get all up in arms about what I just said, ask yourself this......if your communication skills are so great, why do so many people have competing views on your attitude and your arguments?
What you think you are saying, and how you think you are saying it, are far different that how most people here perceive it.
JUst because someone has a different opinion than yours does not mean that they haven't considered the same evidence that you have. We all filter things through our own perceptions, and two intelligent, educated people can (and often do) come to two completely different conclusions about the same events/beliefs.
If you could keep that in mind when you write, people might actually care enough to listen. But if you continually insult someone, or their beliefs, don't expect any consideration back yourself.
The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result.
quote:The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result.
As a side note, I've always hated this definition of insanity. For one thing, it's incredibly hubristic to assume that you always know all the variables that factor into your result. I could flip a coin twice, technically doing the "same thing" -- and yet it's not insane to expect the coin to possibly come up tails if it first came up heads.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do feel the need to defend my position, but from the person's arguments,
This being so, how come you're still arguing about argument styles, and not responding at all to my post attacking your statements, apart from noting that you find my points 'debatable'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would. Maybe we could do it without getting sidetracked into who's losing the debate because of the offensive tone being used. First time for everything, right?
Speaking of... Kwea, you are taking a MUCH different tone with me now than you were earlier. Either that or I'm just in a much different mood. If I go back and re-read your posts, I'll know for sure.
Ok, just did. Your tone is different. To recap, Kwea:
"Feel free...I am prepared to be underwhelmed yet again by both your manners and your intellect."
"You haven't said anything that merits any original thought, or any further effort."
"Quite frankly, you aren't worth the effort I spent typing this reply."
"I have more edifying conversations with my 3 year old niece."
These from one person, this is not an exhaustive list, and you're not even the worst!
Compile a list of my directly insulting comments, why dontcha? Actually, don't do that...
If this is your way of "implying" that you disagree with me, then why don't you just come out and tell me how you really feel?
So anyway, your last post was much nicer. And you're not saying anything that I don't know or agree with. I just don't see why there is a double standard, as Survivor has pointed out. Despite everyone's apparent dislike for him, he has said some true things. He's said things in my defense that I didn't even think of, and he says them much better than I could have.
And thanks, Tom. I always thought there was something wrong with that definition of insanity, and I think you nailed. Not to say that Kwea's use of it doesn't explain why I keep coming back here...
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would.
I know nothing of the kind. All I know about you is what I see; and what I see is that you make insulting and factually wrong initial posts, in which you accuse people who disagree with you of doing so from only emotion and inexperience; when this is objected to, you insist that people should respond to your arguments and not your tone; and when that is done, you "don't feel like" responding, but instead continue to argue about who is using worse insults. I must conclude that you are not actually arguing in good faith, but rather seeking to stir up trouble.
Some of the regulars here may find this just a touch ironic coming from me; I have two responses, one humorous, the other serious. First, it takes one to know one; second, I do actually respond when people make arguments against what I say in an insulting post.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would. Maybe we could do it without getting sidetracked into who's losing the debate because of the offensive tone being used. First time for everything, right?
Ha! This is rich. Put up, or shut up, Reshpeckobiggle. You've got an explicit challenge from KoM in the manner you've been complaining about not getting for days now.
quote:Some of the regulars here may find this just a touch ironic coming from me; I have two responses, one humorous, the other serious. First, it takes one to know one; second, I do actually respond when people make arguments against what I say in an insulting post.
And since this was at least partially to me...
Yes, you respond with some actual arguments when you make insulting posts. This does not, however, as I've always said, match with your (numerous times in the past) stated intentions of persuading theists away from their brainwashing and into a more sensible atheism.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not, at this time, saying that I argue well. I'm saying that I do argue better than Resh, that is to say, I present some kind of argument, and therefore the charge of hypocrisy which I anticipate does not apply.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would tend to dispute that, from what I've seen of your posts, but then again I haven't seen that many and this isn't really a forum where argument as such is ever really favored.
I think that's part of what contributes to the vile tone and general content of this forum, but the underlying cause has more to do with other factors...namely that the majority of people on this forum have views that can't be substantiated by honest debate because some of those views are fundamentally incompatable with the very concepts of truth and logic, which are important perequisites for "honest debate". If you have a lot of people who simply aren't willing to concede that somethings can be really true and others really false, nor believe that there exists a non-subjective pattern of deduction by which to discover additional truths from established truths, then you aren't going to get very far by arguing.
Which means that there is no point in argument. There's room for study and reflection on what others are saying, certainly. We can all learn a lot about Kwea without bothering to contend the invective. I've learned a lot about you all without much trouble of engaging in anything so pointless as debate. Even if it would be nice to have a forum where argument could be considered seriously as a method of discourse, that isn't what we have here and nobody should be blamed for recognizing that fact.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh...I am. I was talking to you earlier in a very similar tone to what you use at times, even if you don't realize it. Perhaps you don't say the exact things I said, but the tone was all you. Notice that the only person who commented on my posts was Tom...and he only said I was as bad as you are at times.
You talk down to people, insult them fairly consistently, and are very dismissive of others thoughts and feeling.
You haven't done so to me, because I don't bother to engage you in debate. It isn't that you aren't smart enough to engage, but that I don't want to bother engaging someone who probably will be rude and dismissive.
I love how Survivor "knows" so much about me already. I don't usually bother getting involved in these type of threads at all....but he feels like he has the key to unraveling my character just from two threads....
I have almost 10000 posts. How many of them involve me calling someone a name? How many people have engaged me in debate, and how many times have I changed my opinion about something serious because of conversations I had with other people here on Hatrack? How many times have I recieved email from other people here thanking me for my insight, or asking me to debate them in private, because they wanted my opinion on somehting that bothered them?
And he feels like he can have an "honest" opinion about "honest debate"...all the while insisting he isn't human himself. He should try being honest with himself first, THEN complain about others for a change.
Survivor:
I don't care is you are insane, or simply stupid...you are possibly the least qualified person on this board to debate honesty or sanity, or be honest.
Just because we don't care for Survivors tone (and what passes for content) doesn't mean he is right. What was the "serious debate" suppose to be? Whether or not he is human?
Give me a frickin break.
I like when people disagree with me, guys. I do...as long as their disagreement doesn't involve calling me names, or implying I am inferior to them.
Didn't feel too good, did it, Resh.
Either way, I am done with this thread. If I feel like debating something else I see you post in, I will...but from this point on you can't say you didn't KNOW how you were coming across.....we have all told you now.
So if you really are as smart as you think you are, and really care to communicate, try treating others with some respect.
Perhaps you will get some in return for a change.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have a lot of people who simply aren't willing to concede that some things can be really true and others really false, nor believe that there exists a non-subjective pattern of deduction by which to discover additional truths from established truths, then you aren't going to get very far by arguing.
Although this is true, I disagree that there are many people on this forum who feel that way. True, you can occasionally get someone to say "naturalism is just one more assumption" or "You can't disprove X (so I'm justified in believing it)" if you back them into a corner, but I don't think they really mean these statements. It is merely a technique for backing out of a conversation when conceding a point would mean a serious re-examination of one's entire lifestyle and identity. Although this is cowardly, it should not be taken as indicating a genuine disbelief in rationality, but merely a disinclination to take the full consequences of that belief.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather than being cowardly, KoM, at times it is just that people get tired of being belittled and talked down to.
Saying those things at times (depending on the situation) is just a way of saying you should just agree to disagree.
Let me reiterate.....it is possible for intelligent people to disagree on what something means, even though they both have the same evidence in front of them.
Whenever you get into a discussion about religion, for instance, I don't debate it with you. It isn't because I am afraid of your intellect, or that I am unsure of my own religious convictions.....it is because before the conversation ever begins I know pretty much what you are going to say. You opinion of the matter doesn't mean anything to me....as a matter of fact, your bias against religion is so strong that it makes communicating with you about it impossible.
I know you feel someone who is religious is as wacky as Survivor is, in their own way....I disagree.
Nothing either of us is going to sway the other, and you really aren't going to present much that I have not considered myself, long before you joined this board. Nor will I convert you to my own religion.
We have the same evidence before us, but come to different conclusions.
quote:Saying those things at times (depending on the situation) is just a way of saying you should just agree to disagree.
Let me reiterate.....it is possible for intelligent people to disagree on what something means, even though they both have the same evidence in front of them.
I concede the general principle; I do not feel it necessary to apply it to such statements as "The Earth is round", although there can certainly exist intelligent people who have never been presented with the evidence or thought the question important. Moreover, many of my disagreements with religious people are not strictly about interpreting evidence, but rather about what is evidence; and in such matters there is one way that works to produce truth, many that do not, and some that only produce acrimony and civil wars.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It is possible that what I have learned about you isn't representative of who you are as a total individual. I cannot dispute this, since I believe it to be very true. But the fact remains that I have learned quite a bit about you. So has anyone that has bothered to read your posts in response to me.
Back to the discussion, I'm afraid I don't understand the point of "agreeing to disagree". If disagreement exists, then it exists whether or not either party agrees to it. Perhaps you mean "we both agree that the disagreement is less important than other things on which we do agree." If that were truly the case, then wouldn't it be more specific and useful to reference the agreement that you both agree is more significant than the disagreement? One of my sisters is fond of doing this, I find the resulting phrase charming. And meaningful, which is my point.
So what agreement is it that you all agree is more important than your disagreements? I can think of several possibilities, but none of them make me think very highly of any of you
That's all right. My opinion of you, one way or another, doesn't matter very much. I think we all agree on that point, even if it is for very different reasons. Your opinion of me matters quite a bit more, though again we agree on this for fundamentally different reasons. Can a nominal agreement that is rooted in almost total disagreement really be called agreement?
Probably not. So I will discard this agreement, since it is virtually nothing more than a play on words, and therefore almost irrelevant, certainly far less important than most of the disagreements we've been able to establish. It's like saying that a person who believes the Earth is dish-shaped agrees with someone who believes that it is spherical, or that a person who believes that the average curve of the Earth's surface can reasonably be used as a flat surface for most human scale activities is in fundamental disagreement with a person who believes it to be an enormous globe.
Is there a non-trivial point of agreement between us?
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] [QUOTE]I don't know, KoM. I guess I just didn't feel like it at the time. I don't feel like it now, either. But you know I would. Maybe we could do it without getting sidetracked into who's losing the debate because of the offensive tone being used. First time for everything, right?
Ha! This is rich. Put up, or shut up, Reshpeckobiggle. You've got an explicit challenge from KoM in the manner you've been complaining about not getting for days now./QUOTE]
I guess he shut up. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I was speaking specifically to Hitoshi, but I guess I have noticed a lot of others doing similar deeds, so I extend my plaudits to all who deserve them.
Still not sure that includes you, though.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
