On Sep 22, 12:59 pm, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2:44 am, atypican <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Why the fuck do you say such stupid shit like this? All the time!
>
> > > Are you actually stupid? I really want to know. Let me know if you
> > > are considered retarded or something, because dealing with your
> > > juvenile crap is getting truly annoying.
>
> > (sarcasm) Way to keep within the spirit of this discussion forum!! :(
>
> > resorting to insults is a sign of incapability to discuss things in a
> > civil manner, not a sign that one has more diligently thought out
> > these matters.
>
> Context:
>
> Deidzoeb wrote:
> > > Everyone who claims to disagree about the Bible's perfectly
> > > clear meaning can be dismissed as lying to themselves or each other,
> > > because they must really understand the perfectly clear words when
> > > they read them. We know this because you and your favorite clergy can
> > > see into our hearts and know when we're being honest.
>
> This is nothing but an insult, but he has been more clever about it
> than I. Because he conceals his contempt behind the pretense of
> civility, it slips right by you. I was simply returning like for
> like, but not pretending to be doing anything else.
>
> Examine Deidzoeb's paragraph above, and explain to me how he was
> sincerely stating his own opinion.
It's my interpretation or characterization of the things you have
said. It was presented sarcastically. That's a little better than
calling you stupid or retarded. When you claim that this is not my
sincere opinion, that it's merely intended as insult, you exemplify
what I was talking about once again, because you continuously presume
to know my motivations, peering into my heart. We would do better to
discuss behaviors and actions and solid, concrete things, but a lot of
our subject matter about morality depends on motivations and internal
workings, so I guess we have to consider it. Oh well.
> > When I created the "coming to terms" threads I hoped to expose the
> > limitations of language deidzoeb brought up. I also was expressing
> > hope and my faith that these limitations could be overcome.
>
> > I guess I will keep reading this thread and see if deidzoeb blows off
> > the lame attack and sticks to the subject like I have come to expect
> > from him.. :)
>
> > atypican
>
> Deidzoeb's paragraph above was a full frontal offense, as you will see
> with a little honesty.
Another statement which acts as a litmus test, since honest people
will agree with it and only dishonest people will disagree.
Can you see how this is an instance of the logical fallacy known as
"poisoning the well"?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A
Civil Religious Debate" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
