quote:As for the scenario being a win-win, you might as well run a race, finish second place, and say, "Hey, second place is pretty darn good, I haven't lost anything." It's accurate, from a certain outlook...but I don't really think you have that sort of outlook, or at least probably not as regards religion. That's a totally subjective personal interpretation, though.
Um, you do remember that actual money changed hands here, yes? When irrational people give up some of their power because I manipulated their irrational beliefs, I count that as a win, thanks kindly. If I'm left with a bit of egg on my face, pff, what do I care? Follow the money. The minor, personal gratification of having a hypothesis confirmed is nothing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I think an interesting question is what gratification you get out of trying to convince KoM that he came in second place.
What difference to you is it if he feels like he made a good deal? Sounds a lot like sour grapes on your part.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Rakeesh: I think an interesting question is what gratification you get out of trying to convince KoM that he came in second place.
What difference to you is it if he feels like he made a good deal? Sounds a lot like sour grapes on your part.
I'm puzzled. In what way would that be "sour grapes" on Rakeesh's part?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because KoM seems satisfied with the outcome, and Rakeesh keeps trying to convince him that he isn't.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fable that that expression makes reference to isn't about trying to convince another person of anything.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the scenario being a win-win, you might as well run a race, finish second place, and say, "Hey, second place is pretty darn good, I haven't lost anything." It's accurate, from a certain outlook...but I don't really think you have that sort of outlook, or at least probably not as regards religion. That's a totally subjective personal interpretation, though.
Um, you do remember that actual money changed hands here, yes? When irrational people give up some of their power because I manipulated their irrational beliefs, I count that as a win, thanks kindly. If I'm left with a bit of egg on my face, pff, what do I care? Follow the money. The minor, personal gratification of having a hypothesis confirmed is nothing.
You do get that giving up power is a good thing in this situation, right? That I am glad to have made the donation?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but it's not necessary for you to lose by your standards. The question is whether I win by mine.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: The fable that that expression makes reference to isn't about trying to convince another person of anything.
It's about Rakeesh only being happy if he can believe that KoM didn't actually get anything of value.
Look, it's not a perfect analogy, and if you really want to say that I used it wrong, ironic as that might be, I'll concede.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, you do remember that actual money changed hands here, yes? When irrational people give up some of their power because I manipulated their irrational beliefs, I count that as a win, thanks kindly. If I'm left with a bit of egg on my face, pff, what do I care? Follow the money. The minor, personal gratification of having a hypothesis confirmed is nothing.
Well, as long as you're copping to the egg on your face, that's fine. But I wonder, does kmbboots think she has 'given up some of her power'? I suspect not. In fact, I rather think she probably feels empowered by the experience of being charitable. I certainly do.
If the minor, personal gratification was nothing, why was that what motivated your challenge in the first place? Because if it was all about the power, why hasn't this come up before in one of your many arguments with kmbboots about religion? The context the challenge came up in was you trying to one-up her. You 'zinged' her by enticing her to do something that actually she was happy to do anyway, and then gloated about it.
*shrug* Your behavior really does make me think the benefit to society was incidental rather than primarily intentional. And anyway...if your behavior is about benefiting society, as you so frequently claim, isn't there some money burning a hole in your pocket, or some time in your weeks, that could be better spent doing some real, effective good in the fight against dumb theists?
As opposed to just prodding on the Internet, I mean. We all recognize the heroic accomplishments such work has achieved, but really, isn't it covered already?
quote:What difference to you is it if he feels like he made a good deal? Sounds a lot like sour grapes on your part.
For me, it's the amusement garnered by poking at someone who so consistently claims to be acting for the communal good when his behavior tells a different story, particularly the parts where he chastises theists for actually doing communal good but being counterbalanced by the awful sickness of their beliefs on society.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never claimed that I act for the good of society. I have only claimed that theists do not do so, to the extent that their own teachings mandate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've never claimed that your behavior towards theists was not at least partially intended to serve some good beyond your own amusement?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't calling into question the ends, but the means. If you say your entire participation in this thread here was geared into maneuvering kmbboots into a 'loss of power', well, there's really not much I can say to that except that it doesn't appear very likely.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I noted - several times - exposing hypocrisy would have been fine too. When I say there were two possible outcomes and I was fine with either one, just what is your problem?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I noted - several times - exposing hypocrisy would have been fine too. When I say there were two possible outcomes and I was fine with either one, just what is your problem?
If this were the only thing you had said - I'm not just talking about this thread now, to be clear - I wouldn't have a problem. But to sum up, my problem can be posed to you much the same way one of your problems was posed to kmbboots: you claim, sometimes, to be working towards some public good. If that is the case, why the penny-ante tactics? Surely there are better, more effective ways to thwart theists in the world than poking at them on an Internet discussion forum.
Seeing as how you do not spend the time you spend here doing those other things, then, I can challenge your publicly claimed intent on precisely the same grounds you challenged kmbboots. Unfortunately there isn't an easy test I could devise to do so, though, as you did. It does save me the trouble of doing so, losing the point, and then claiming victory.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not an especially damning charge since I've admitted I can't come up with such a test. I'm open to a suggestion, though, if you've got any instead of pithy one-liner posts.
As for victory, though, I suppose I am. Though why you'd be critical of that in defense of KoM, I don't know-he gloated about being wrong. But as for my motive, it'd be nice to have another discussion with the guy, I think, as I did a couple of weeks ago, but not if I have to wade through crowing masquerading as altruism to do it.
In the interest of honesty, though, that's my motive now. At many points in the past it has been simple satisfaction. I see nothing wrong with admitting it, though, and it continually baffles me why KoM does.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But to sum up, my problem can be posed to you much the same way one of your problems was posed to kmbboots: you claim, sometimes, to be working towards some public good. If that is the case, why the penny-ante tactics?
Posting on Hatcrack is what I do when I'm procrastinating on real work. So within the constraint of having only a finite amount of self-discipline, forum posts may quite often be my best option. Then, in addition to that, although the benefit may be small, the cost is also very small; the ratio may not be that bad.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM, Are you willing to accept a challenge yourself.
I will pay you US$20 if you will refrain from posting anything derogatory about religion or religious people for the next 30 days.
If you would like, I'm willing to give the $20 dollars to a fair arbiter (by mutual agreement) now via paypal.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posting on Hatcrack is what I do when I'm procrastinating on real work. So within the constraint of having only a finite amount of self-discipline, forum posts may quite often be my best option. Then, in addition to that, although the benefit may be small, the cost is also very small; the ratio may not be that bad.
Well, no, the cost isn't actually very small. You could be doing so much more, after all. Time being ultimately the most precious resource, the cost could be considered to be quite high.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By which logic none of us should be posting on Hatrack at all.
Any egg on KOM's face from Kate's stepping up to his challenge has been more than wiped off by his patient tolerance of the (non-Kate) harping on it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, no, the cost isn't actually very small. You could be doing so much more, after all. Time being ultimately the most precious resource, the cost could be considered to be quite high.
In principle, yes. But again: I have only so much willpower. At this very moment I ought to be working on my talk for Saturday; do you see me doing so? Now, it's possible that if I strained myself to the utmost, I could find just a bit more self-discipline; but I and not you must be the judge of that. Christians, on the other hand, have an external standard given by the theoretical founder of their faith; since the standard is written down and objective, anyone can judge by it. "Doing one's best" can only be judged by the one involved; "Giving all one's worldly goods" is easily measurable by anyone.
quote:KoM, are you willing to accept a challenge yourself?
I will pay you US$20 if you will refrain from posting anything derogatory about religion or religious people for the next 30 days.
Ok, I accept your challenge. Thirty days takes us to (and including) June 19th, right? However, perhaps you could define your terms a bit more precisely. Is it derogatory to say that there is no good evidence for a given claim, and that the claimant must therefore be fooling herself? Because if so, you're effectively challenging me to refrain from debating religion at all. Which is ok too, as long as it's clear.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know that I am entirely comfortable with, even voluntarily, restricting conversation beyond the TOS or the judgment of the moderator.
I think that everybody should voluntarily restrict what they say beyond the TOS or the judgment of the moderator.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:By which logic none of us should be posting on Hatrack at all.
Which is why I think such arguments are very strange when posted on an Internet discussion forum.
quote:Any egg on KOM's face from Kate's stepping up to his challenge has been more than wiped off by his patient tolerance of the (non-Kate) harping on it.
Yeah, he's a peach:)
quote:In principle, yes. But again: I have only so much willpower. At this very moment I ought to be working on my talk for Saturday; do you see me doing so? Now, it's possible that if I strained myself to the utmost, I could find just a bit more self-discipline; but I and not you must be the judge of that. Christians, on the other hand, have an external standard given by the theoretical founder of their faith; since the standard is written down and objective, anyone can judge by it. "Doing one's best" can only be judged by the one involved; "Giving all one's worldly goods" is easily measurable by anyone.
Ahh, so you're still going by the 'everyone giving away all their worldly goods' standard, eh? You've already had one scriptural response to that that I note without surprise you've glossed over. Put another way, you might at least consider considering that the standard is not exactly what you appear to be suggesting it is, as flattering to your vanity as your current interpretation is. After all, why pick a different interpretation when the current one lets you crow?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't really noticed "crowing". And I am not sure we can fault KoM for using what I quoted; I did not put it in context. And he asked for $100 which, while non-negligible is not exactly all my worldly goods.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ahh, so you're still going by the 'everyone giving away all their worldly goods' standard, eh? You've already had one scriptural response to that that I note without surprise you've glossed over.
If there was a scriptural response, I missed it. I did see the claim that the words applied only to that specific context and person; this is an interpretation not obvious from the scripture, and which sounds quite a bit like an excuse.
ETA: Incidentally, I will not consider the 30-day period to have started until the terms are fully clarified and agreed to.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]If there was a scriptural response, I missed it. I did see the claim that the words applied only to that specific context and person; this is an interpretation not obvious from the scripture, and which sounds quite a bit like an excuse.
It is an interpretation that is very obvious from the scripture -- the man asks what should I do and Jesus answers him. It isn't his first answer either, he only gets to it after the man tells him that he's already doing all the things Jesus suggests first.
Edit: Which is not to say that extrapolating from that to general advice is not also a possible interpretation, but it's not the literal one.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there was a scriptural response, I missed it. I did see the claim that the words applied only to that specific context and person; this is an interpretation not obvious from the scripture, and which sounds quite a bit like an excuse.
It sounds more like an excuse the less you're aware of the context.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I note that, to the extent any Christians exist who interpreted the verse correctly, you would never hear of them, because they would not be posting on the Internets. Consequently there's rather a strong selection bias in any interpretational tradition one might point to. This is, of course, a natural consequence of setting up impossible targets.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, I accept your challenge. Thirty days takes us to (and including) June 19th, right? However, perhaps you could define your terms a bit more precisely. Is it derogatory to say that there is no good evidence for a given claim, and that the claimant must therefore be fooling herself? Because if so, you're effectively challenging me to refrain from debating religion at all. Which is ok too, as long as it's clear.
Yes it is derogatory to tell someone they must be fooling themselves. Whether or not its derogatory to say there is no good evidence for a given claim depends to a large extent on how its said. I think it would be most unambiguous if we just went with refraining from all religious debates for 30 days.
Now we just need to agree on an arbiter, and I'll send them the money.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of Paul's letters are written to specific churches, yet Christians don't disregard those teachings on the basis that they are only for "someone else."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
err...Yes some of them do. Or rather, they regard them as reflections of the time and place of the writing, and not as absolute teachings. For example, Red Letter Christians. That what I was when I was Christian, although we didn't have a fancy name for it then.
---
As a kind of amusing aside, regarding what Ron said earlier about Revelation being Jesus's direct inspiration while the Gospels where just people writing down what they thought Jesus said, I had a similar experience when talking about theology with protestants at an ecumenical Christian leadership conference. A couple of the central tenets of protestantism are incompatible with red letter christianity (for example salvation from faith alone vs. Matthew 25). I was maybe 14 at the time and I couldn't understand how they could discount what Jesus said in favor of what Paul wrote. They're take was very similar, that the Gospels were bystander accounts, while the Epistles were direct from God. That was a really bizarre conversation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: All of Paul's letters are written to specific churches, yet Christians don't disregard those teachings on the basis that they are only for "someone else."
Many Christians do in fact disregard many parts of Paul's letters using that exact reasoning.
When a religious leader speaks to specific audience, its completely rational to presume some of what is said will have general applicability and some will be applicable only to that particular audience. As long as people are making that distinction based on the context of the particular text and the broader context of their religion, why would it be a problem.
When looking at the scripture in question, it is evident from the context that this admonition was directed at a particular individual. The same admonition is not repeated in any other context within either the New or Old Testament, where as general admonitions to aiding the poor are repeated through out the scriptures.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The same admonition is not repeated in any other context within either the New or Old Testament, where as general admonitions to aiding the poor are repeated through out the scriptures.
It's repeated almost verbatim in Luke, as an address to a large audience. The phrasing is slightly different though- the word meaning "as much as" or "the extent of" (ie: all) isn't there. So we get, in English, "sell what you have" rather than "sell all that you have" as in Mark.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I was maybe 14 at the time and I couldn't understand how they could discount what Jesus said in favor of what Paul wrote. Their take was very similar, that the Gospels were bystander accounts, while the Epistles were direct from God. That was a really bizarre conversation.
I find that very odd.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, I accept your challenge. Thirty days takes us to (and including) June 19th, right? However, perhaps you could define your terms a bit more precisely. Is it derogatory to say that there is no good evidence for a given claim, and that the claimant must therefore be fooling herself? Because if so, you're effectively challenging me to refrain from debating religion at all. Which is ok too, as long as it's clear.
Yes it is derogatory to tell someone they must be fooling themselves. Whether or not its derogatory to say there is no good evidence for a given claim depends to a large extent on how its said. I think it would be most unambiguous if we just went with refraining from all religious debates for 30 days.
Now we just need to agree on an arbiter, and I'll send them the money.
No worries, you can be the arbiter since the terms have now been rather simplified.
Continuing the discussion of what is derogatory or not, if I say to the one, "Your evidence would not convince you if you did not wish to be convinced", is that not the same as telling them they are fooling themselves? The one must follow from the other even if it is not said explicitly. And yet I do not see how I can discuss religion without saying this in one form or another; this is the core of my disagreement with theists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I quoted nothing. Kmb quoted the verse, approvingly, as something that ought to guide the actions of Christians.
You're right. My bad.
Of course I'm right. I'm always right. I keep telling you people this, and you don't believe me. It's very frustrating. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
