Person A: Posts an eloquent ten paragraph case for God, using different writing methods to illustrate his point. Somewhere in paragraph 6, there's a brief, anecdotal mention of a dying flower.
Person B skims through all 10 paragraphs. Then focuses like a laser on the poor little flower: Why did you speak of the flower dying? I like flowers. Do you want the flower to die? And what kind of flower is it? Probably a weak, delicate flower that if taken care of, wouldn't have died. [then spins off into a lengthy story about his childhood experiences with different types of flowers]
Person A: You said some interesting things. But they aren't relevant to my dissertation on God. The flower was used as a metaphor.
Person B: Well I'm an atheist, and we atheists don't believe in God. You obviously don't think my opinion counts. Anyway, why do use metaphors? Can't you just speak directly so others don't have to interpret your inane symbols? Since you won't speak directly, it tells intellectuals like me that you have something to hide. You shouldn't be so dishonest.
Person A: No, wait. What I am trying to say is...
Person B: It doesn't matter what you are trying to say. You've already proven yourself to be an intellectually dishonest flower hater with something to hide.
To some, perhaps many here, Person B has fully engaged the OP and has touched on some important subjects in principled, intellectual fashion. Person B has broadened and deepened the conversation. No. Person B completely ignored the OP, derailed it into a selfish conversation about his own views and experiences, then capped it off by questioning Person A's honesty and integrity.
Seems to be the white elephant in the room. Person B is clearly immature, shallow, and probably isn't even intelligent or self-aware enough to realize it.
@tom-wolsey saidYou'd probably be better advised to channel all this writing effort into sharing your personal opinions and perspectives about spiritual and supernatural ideas and engaging the opinions and perspectives of others.
Person A: Posts an eloquent ten paragraph case for God, using different writing methods to illustrate his point. Somewhere in paragraph 6, there's a brief, anecdotal mention of a dying flower.
Person B skims through all 10 paragraphs. Then focuses like a laser on the poor little flower: Why did you speak of the flower dying? I like flowers. Do you want the flower ...[text shortened]... s clearly immature, shallow, and probably isn't even intelligent or self-aware enough to realize it.
It would be more interesting than hearing you condemning this community wholesale or trying to brand people you talk to as "immature" or "shallow" or resorting to questioning how "intelligent" other posters are.
@tom-wolsey saidWhere did any conversation happen here that resembles this fictitious one about a flower that you have presented here? The made-up conversation in the OP seems to be nothing other than an elaborate straw man.
Person A: Posts an eloquent ten paragraph case for God, using different writing methods to illustrate his point. Somewhere in paragraph 6, there's a brief, anecdotal mention of a dying flower.
Person B skims through all 10 paragraphs. Then focuses like a laser on the poor little flower: Why did you speak of the flower dying? I like flowers. Do you want the flower ...[text shortened]... s clearly immature, shallow, and probably isn't even intelligent or self-aware enough to realize it.
Why not quote a real "RHP SF discussion" and point to the bits you think are "typical"?
@tom-wolsey saidWhy the straw man OP?
Like a laser!
Why not just cite any conversations that correspond to the one you made up?
@tom-wolsey saidWhen and where did this happen?
Person B completely ignored the OP, derailed it into a selfish conversation about his own views and experiences, then capped it off by questioning Person A's honesty and integrity.
Do you think it is "selfish" when you expres your own views and experiences?
Do you yourself ever "cap things off" by questioning other posters' honesty and integrity?
@Tom-Wolsey
when confronted with an immature person, how does one decide the correct action to encourage their growth?
@tom-wolsey saidI don't see that you have anything to complain about.
Person A: Posts an eloquent ten paragraph case for God, using different writing methods to illustrate his point. Somewhere in paragraph 6, there's a brief, anecdotal mention of a dying flower.
Person B skims through all 10 paragraphs. Then focuses like a laser on the poor little flower: Why did you speak of the flower dying? I like flowers. Do you want the flower ...[text shortened]... s clearly immature, shallow, and probably isn't even intelligent or self-aware enough to realize it.
You clearly identify as a "Person A", and in your example, Person A pwnd Person B. If your characterization is accurate, you and your ilk rule this forum.
So what's the problem?
Was it that you couldn't change Person B despite this massive win in argumentation?
@tom-wolsey saidIf you choose not to address BigDoggProblem's clearly in-good-faith and very reasonable response to your OP, you will ~ perhaps unwittingly ~ turn his words into an absolute zinger.
Thank you everyone for your thought-provoking responses. I didn't expect anywhere near this level of satisfaction.
@tom-wolsey saidBut you appear to be dodging what it has put to you, for all intents and purposes. BigDoggProblem has asked you two questions which you have sidestepped.
Why tinker with perfection? BDP's post is sublime just as it is.
