Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Subscribercaesar salad
    a flickering bulb
    Joined
    06 May '15
    Moves
    15573
    23 May '20 02:55
    Next up: "Thirteen Views of Divegeester, Wolsey, and Dariusz"
  2. PFJ Judea AD33
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    93795
    23 May '20 03:10
    @tom-wolsey said
    Nothing makes dariusz apparent. Well, unless he has kids, but anyway.
    What is it about the OP by dariusz that makes you call him a “douche”?
  3. Subscribercaesar salad
    a flickering bulb
    Joined
    06 May '15
    Moves
    15573
    23 May '20 04:10
    @divegeester said
    What is it about the OP by dariusz that makes you call him a “douche”?
    Why should anyone ever respond to you?

    (Assuming you are not also Tom Wolsey, putting on some little pantomime.)
  4. PFJ Judea AD33
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    93795
    23 May '20 04:24
    @caesar-salad said
    Why should anyone ever respond to you?
    Why not?
  5. Standard memberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3894
    23 May '20 06:251 edit
    @divegeester said
    What is it about the OP by dariusz that makes you call him a “douche”?
    "Apparent" douche.

    ap·par·ent - seeming real or true, but not necessarily so. Seems like if an upstanding, quality person like sonship calls someone's character into question, and that person apparently thinks Christians are brainwashed cultists... then yeah, that person is an apparent douche.
  6. PFJ Judea AD33
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    93795
    23 May '20 07:09
    @tom-wolsey said
    "Apparent" douche.

    ap·par·ent - seeming real or true, but not necessarily so. Seems like if an upstanding, quality person like sonship calls someone's character into question, and that person apparently thinks Christians are brainwashed cultists... then yeah, that person is an apparent douche.
    Well it’s only “apparent” to you, I.e. subjective douchbaggery based on your pinholed perspective, prejudice of the man and your sectarian localities which are clouding your already infected judgment.
  7. Standard memberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3894
    23 May '20 07:15
    @divegeester said
    Well it’s only “apparent” to you, I.e. subjective douchbaggery based on your pinholed perspective, prejudice of the man and your sectarian localities which are clouding your already infected judgment.
    It can't only be apparent to me, as my assessment is based on the claims of another. Thus there is at least one other person in which the douchebaggery is apparent. So there are, at minimum, 2 who see it as apparent. The actual number of adherents to the apparent douche assesment is at least 100% more than you claimed. Now who's judgment is infected? Or at least found wanting.
  8. PFJ Judea AD33
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    93795
    23 May '20 07:291 edit
    @tom-wolsey said
    It can't only be apparent to me, as my assessment is based on the claims of another. Thus there is at least one other person in which the douchebaggery is apparent. So there are, at minimum, 2 who see it as apparent. The actual number of adherents to the apparent douche assesment is at least 100% more than you claimed. Now who's judgment is infected? Or at least found wanting.
    Incorrect, sonship has not once claimed that Dariousz is a fellow of douchenozzle tendencies. You are therefore alone in your condemnation of a man you have never met nor never exchanged a single post with, and therefore my previous post dissecting your fallibleness stands.
  9. Standard memberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3894
    23 May '20 07:373 edits
    @divegeester said
    Incorrect, sonship has not once claimed that Dariousz is a fellow of douchenozzle tendencies. You are therefore alone in your condemnation of a man you have never met nor never exchanged a single post with, and therefore my previous post dissecting your fallibleness stands.
    I didn't condemn. I observed an "apparent" (remember, 'not necessarily true' ) situation. The existence of a nozzle is neither claimed nor relevant.

    douche - an obnoxious or contemptible person
  10. PFJ Judea AD33
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    93795
    23 May '20 07:51
    @tom-wolsey said
    I didn't condemn. I observed an "apparent" (remember, 'not necessarily true' ) situation. The existence of a nozzle is neither claimed nor relevant.

    douche - an obnoxious or contemptible person
    Calling a person by your own description “obnoxious or contemptible” is condemning them, especially as you are basing your insult on merely your buddyesque association with the absent (but lurking and thumbing down) sonship.

    Of course you can back-pedal and run away from your comments if you feel more comfortable in doing so.
  11. Standard memberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3894
    23 May '20 08:14
    @divegeester said
    Calling a person by your own description “obnoxious or contemptible” is condemning them, especially as you are basing your insult on merely your buddyesque association with the absent (but lurking and thumbing down) sonship.

    Of course you can back-pedal and run away from your comments if you feel more comfortable in doing so.
    "Apparent." I could use the word to describe your accusation, saying you are apparently ignorant of the meaning of apparent. But it's gone beyond that with this, now 3rd time, claiming I insulted said apparent douche, even after I took the time to define "apparent." So it's not that you're ignorant of the meaning of apparent, you are committing an omission error by acting as if the word is not there.

    You could likewise follow up an insult hurled by one of your entourage (or personas whatever) by implying the insult is apparently correct--and base it solely on your trust and respect for said entourage member/alter ego. And that would be fine because in your hypothetical use of the word "apparent" you would be admitting that the insult is possibly off-base.
  12. PFJ Judea AD33
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    93795
    23 May '20 08:571 edit
    @tom-wolsey said
    "Apparent." I could use the word to describe your accusation, saying you are apparently ignorant of the meaning of apparent. But it's gone beyond that with this, now 3rd time, claiming I insulted said apparent douche, even after I took the time to define "apparent." So it's not that you're ignorant of the meaning of apparent, you are committing an omission error by acti ...[text shortened]... hypothetical use of the word "apparent" you would be admitting that the insult is possibly off-base.
    You can walk away from your crass sock-puppetry if you want to, but you can’t weasel out of it; what you posted is there to be read.

    I don’t care about dariusz or his aledged doucheness, what is interesting to me is your squirming intellectual dishonesty and cowardly sock-puppetry.
  13. Standard memberFMF
    Studying God figures
    Human Condition East
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29990
    23 May '20 09:28
    @tom-wolsey said
    Let's see. The thread is about some apparent douche name Dariusz, and the problem of fair treatment for women, especially rape victims, in India.
    What do you think of the way in which sonship used the issue of gang rape in India in order to retaliate against someone posting some material critical of his religious group?

    And then what do you think of the way in which sonship said nothing about gang rape in India himself and, instead, just disappeared from the thread?

    Do you think, on this thread, sonship has [1] effectively championed the cause of women victims of specific violent crimes in India and [2] pushed back against criticism of his religious group in a principled way?
  14. Standard memberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3894
    23 May '20 20:12
    @divegeester said
    I don’t care about dariusz or his aledged doucheness.
    Bold statement. So if dariusz lives or dies, it's none of your concern. smh
  15. Standard memberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3894
    23 May '20 20:341 edit
    @fmf said
    What do you think of the way in which sonship used the issue of gang rape in India in order to retaliate against someone posting some material critical of his religious group?
    I thought sonship could have picked a better battle. As stated initially.

    @fmf said
    And then what do you think of the way in which sonship said nothing about gang rape in India himself and, instead, just disappeared from the thread?
    I don't know. Hopefully he is ok.

    @fmf said
    Do you think, on this thread, sonship has [1] effectively championed the cause of women victims of specific violent crimes in India and [2] pushed back against criticism of his religious group in a principled way?
    [1] No, but it seems the primary objective was to elicit a response.
    [2] A common way of attempting to refute an argument is to accuse the accuser and try to expose hypocrisy. Principled? I don't know but this is about the last place on Earth I would expect to see principled arguments.
Back to Top