03 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou were caught here on this very site masquerading as a women in order to dupe others, when i called it to your attention that this site also includes minors and the implications of a grown man masquerading in order to dupe others naturally you were at a loss to defend your actions.
Haven't you apologized already for your insinuations that I am a pedophile?
Originally posted by FMFThankyou for once again demonstrating a remarkable inability to divorce the proposer from the arguments they make and to demonstrate the pathological tendency to view almost every issue through a narrow moral framework of your own making. I would be want to say that I couldn't have done it without you, but the fact is, I can.
I didn't expect you to - here and now - take any responsibility for the stances you have taken in the past, so your reply is unsurprising.
The term "rape apologist" refers, of course, to your denial that that was even such a thing as a man forcing his wife to have sex against her will. Your defence of the cover up of sexual abuse of children (in your organi ...[text shortened]... d how keeping them secret from law enforcement authorities might cause sexual abuse to decrease.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Devil's advocacy" is supposed to be a way of exploring or discussing a topic. This is not what you have been doing on this thread.
Do you understand what devils advocate it? its simply putting out a premise in order to test it but you cannot grasp the concept...
Instead, you have been [1] blanking out observations and questions you find inconvenient, you have been [2] dodging or misrepresenting responses to what you have posted, [3] your "argument", such as it is, has been shifting and inconsistent, and [4] you have been dishing out silly little attempted insults instead of addressing what's been put to you.
You haven't been engaging in genuine "devil's advocacy" because you have not been the slightest bit interested in exploring the topic properly. You are instead using the pretense that you are engaged in "devil's advocacy" to cover up the fact that you don't seem to want - or are not much able - to discuss topics of a moral nature.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukePeople's personal faith(s) get tested here every day - odd that you would think this is not the case. However, I don't think there has ever been even one thread that was a "collective and prolonged dissection" of any one persons faith in the entire time I've been posting at RHP.
Not so much.
I still don't like it when someone's personal faith is relentlessly attacked, and this includes Robbie. In threads like this one where he is acting like a boofhead (thanks Dasa) he deserves to get a collective pasting. However, if the thread suddenly diverted to a collective and prolonged dissection of his faith, I wouldn't be part of it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat was gained from you claiming that it was "not logically possible" for a man to rape his wife? What was gained from you claiming that keeping serious sex crimes against children secret was in the interests of children when you had no data to support it, and why did you steadfastly refuse to extend your defence of your organization's cover up of sex abuse to any other religious organizations, such as the Catholic church?
Thankyou for once again demonstrating a remarkable inability to divorce the proposer from the arguments they make and to demonstrate the pathological tendency to view almost every issue through a narrow moral framework of your own making. I would be want to say that I couldn't have done it without you, but the fact is, I can.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe things you said about acts of rape and domestic violence against women in India, and the things you said about people raping children in your organization, and the things you said about how another poster was equally as hateful and equally as bigoted as someone who hanged black people from trees in the U.S. a hundred or so years ago, were you "simply having a little fun"?
Furthermore you simply seem incapable of simply having a little fun with the contributors on this site, that all it is, a little fun but you cannot handle other peoples happiness and you want to make them as miserable as you.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell said!
Not so much.
I still don't like it when someone's personal faith is relentlessly attacked, and this includes Robbie. In threads like this one where he is acting like a boofhead (thanks Dasa) he deserves to get a collective pasting. However, if the thread suddenly diverted to a collective and prolonged dissection of his faith, I wouldn't be part of it.
03 May 16
Originally posted by divegeesterAdmittedly, I am a little odd. 🙂
People's personal faith(s) get tested here every day - odd that you would think this is not the case. However, I don't think there has ever been even one thread that was a "collective and prolonged dissection" of any one persons faith in the entire time I've been posting at RHP.
And yes of course, peoples faith (and lack of it) gets tested here on a daily basis. (And rightly so) I am here however to poke and prod where necessary, not pull apart. (I think you are mistaken about there not having been any "collective and prolonged dissections' during your time here at RHP, but it's probably better if we agree to disagree on that as have no desire to rake over hot coals).
In a similar vain (vein? Where's Suzianne when I need her?) I personally only test/challenge people who I feel are strong in their beliefs. I honestly have no desire to damage any ones faith, which is why for example, when Chaney was going through a particularly wild and erratic period of religious thinking I told him that an atheist was the last person he should be speaking to and advised him just to spend time with his bible and seek advice from people he trusted.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWe can of course agree to disagree.
Admittedly, I am a little odd. 🙂
And yes of course, peoples faith (and lack of it) gets tested here on a daily basis. (And rightly so) I am here however to poke and prod where necessary, not pull apart. (I think you are mistaken about there not having been any "collective and prolonged dissections' during your time here at RHP, but it's probably ...[text shortened]... ing to and advised him just to spend time with his bible and seek advice from people he trusted.
My original point however was triggered by my observing you struggling to engage with robbie carrobie in any meaningful way, who I remember you quite vociferously defending when you first arrived here, in a thread like this and with him exhibiting posting behaviour and attitudes just like he his here.
03 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDasa didn't require goading. He created multiple threads of his own volition, almost as though trying to out do his previous hatred. (I know, you didn't read them). My role in his downfall was to shine the light on his own religion which invariably he proclaimed as perfect and was rarely challenged on in any meaningful way. He would arrive, post some extreme post about Muslims, say how perfect the Vedas were and then pop up in a new thread following the same pattern. - I deliberately sought to break this pattern. If he had the right and freedom to criticize Christianity or Islam for being terrorists or evil meat eaters etc then I had the same right to say, 'well hang on a moment, what about this verse in the Vedas that justifies rape, or that one that glorifies the torture of horses.' Why shouldn't Dasa have been forced to defend as well as attack?
A collective pasting???? the star bangled banner is still flying despite all the ludicrous cyber rockets that were fired at it! Really Ghastly one you seem to actually believe your own propaganda, its most disconcerting and not a little undignified.
Now that we have established you are talking pants and not just any pants but frilly pantaloons, ...[text shortened]... co conspirator or simply guilty by association. How reprehensible are you Ghostly one? Hmmmmm?
03 May 16
Originally posted by divegeesterI think in the last year I have probably vociferously defended everybody here at RHP, at one time or another. (Excluding sonship obviously. - Joke).
We can of course agree to disagree.
My original point however was triggered by my observing you struggling to engage with robbie carrobie in any meaningful way, who I remember you quite vociferously defending when you first arrived here, in a thread like this and with him exhibiting posting behaviour and attitudes just like he his here.
In regards to Robbie I have come to realise he's a bit of tea towel, who can soak up the water people throw at him with no lasting damage. At the end of the day though,...he's just a towel.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDon't get me wrong, I think you have become a solid addition to the regular posters and I'm not trying to score some sort of point here, just noting you dealing with the same level of intellectual dishonestly some of us here have observed for may years. I think robbie is big cog in here too by the way, much of the entertainment come from his willingness to be a "tea towel" as you put it.
I think in the last year I have probably vociferously defended everybody here at RHP, at one time or another. (Excluding sonship obviously. - Joke).
In regards to Robbie I have come to realise he's a bit of tea towel, who can soak up the water people throw at him with no lasting damage. At the end of the day though,...he's just a towel.
03 May 16
Originally posted by divegeesterDon't know if you're a fan of South Park, but can't help thinking of Robbie now as the 'Towelie' character in that.
Don't get me wrong, I think you have become a solid addition to the regular posters and I'm not trying to score some sort of point here, just noting you dealing with the same level of intellectual dishonestly some of us here have observed for may years. I think robbie is big cog in here too by the way, much of the entertainment come from his willingness to be a "tea towel" as you put it.
At the end of one brilliant episode Cartman says to him, "You're the worst character ever, Towelie", To which Towelie complacently replies, "I know."
My friends seeing that I have been cajoled out of semi-retirement I will lay the facts before you. FMF has stated that I am a 'rape apologist' and 'an apologist for the cover up of child abuse' etc etc Now the slanderous intent aside this is exactly the type of intellectually stifling rational meltdown that I have been referring to. Let us look at an example,
I raise an issue regarding the reporting of child abuse, the so called penitent privilege verse mandatory reporting. Now penitent privilege is a minister of religions obligation to keep the confessions that he hears confidential. This raises a moral dilemma in the confessor because he has vowed to keep the session secret but also has an obligation to protect children. FMF, 'you are an apologist for the cover up of child abuse'. I soak it up. Then I raise the issue of whether a perpetrator of child abuse would be more or less likely to come forward knowing that his confessor must reveal the details to the authorities due to mandatory reporting. FMF, 'you are an apologist for the cover up of child abuse'. I soak it up.
This is what transpires time and again when one raises almost any issue of an emotive nature with FMF, he goes into an intellectually stifling rational meltdown.
Now comes the interesting part, the ultimate irony of it is, is that FMF cast of his Christianity because he states that it was 'intellectually stifling'. This dear friends is the ultimate irony because what FMF has infact become is the very thing he wanted to avoid, a judgemental, finger pointing, one dimensional, cardboard cut-out, narrow-minded, bitter as the cud, self righteous, anti-intellectual loathsome ol thought policeman! Will someone please tell him that as soon as you make debate personal its intellectually stifling because the focus is taken from the issue and levelled against the personality, ITS THE ULTIMATE IRONY!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree, and I have recently posted this same sort of message to FMF in a different thread. I used the word 'angry' in my post, which Ghost didn't agree with, but there is surely something to what you are saying here. FMF was a Christian, and he believed in God. Now, in almost every single post to any person of faith (Dive excluded), he mocks those people with phrases such as 'your God figure", or 'your superstitious being figure' in a bitter tone....when he once believed in those 'figures and beings' himself. When he posts these days, he comes across as a person who thinks his thoughts have been betrayed in his past by believing in such a 'God figure', and can't wait to spread his new-found freedom of such stupidity with all persons of faith.
My friends seeing that I have been cajoled out of semi-retirement I will lay the facts before you. FMF has stated that I am a 'rape apologist' and 'an apologist for the cover up of child abuse' etc etc Now the slanderous intent aside this is exactly the type of intellectually stifling rational meltdown that I have been referring to. Let us look at ...[text shortened]... the focus is taken from the issue and levelled against the personality, ITS THE ULTIMATE IRONY!
This is something that Ghost has never done, in my opinion, which is why I don't mind exchanging posts with Ghost, because while being an atheist, he has respect for another's position of God.