Originally posted by ivanhoeSo you are suggesting that you shouldn't follow Jesus' example then. And also that it is your own biblical interpretations that are important?
I do not look upon Scripture as a recipe book for pre-cooked behaviour. This tactic is always used by people who want to misuse the Word of God to manipulate and force people into a behaviour that is advantageous to the manipulaters.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI didn't state such a thing and I do not entertain such thoughts.
So you are suggesting that you shouldn't follow Jesus' example then. And also that it is your own biblical interpretations that are important?
To prove this please read my previous post adressed to Darvlay.
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you read my post directed to Darvlay very carefully, you'll find a very important Biblical notion concerning justice and fairness, thus indicating that I look upon Jesus's teachings and Scripture itself very seriously.
So please clarify what you inteded your post to me to mean.
Originally posted by ivanhoeBut you don't intend to follow the pacifist nature of Jesus, instead taking arms aginast your opressors as it were.
If you read my post directed to Darvlay very carefully, you'll find a very important Biblical notion concerning justice and fairness, thus indicating that I look upon Jesus's teachings and Scripture itself very seriously.
Originally posted by StarrmanThe question is why YOU do NOT address the subject of abuse while I do.
But you don't intend to follow the pacifist nature of Jesus, instead taking arms aginast your opressors as it were.
As I said in my response to Darvlay it is hardly effective and certainly not fair in fighting abuse if you make the subject of abuse responsible for it.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat is simple. The answer is twofold.
The question is why YOU do NOT address the subject of abuse while I do.
As I said in my response to Darvlay it is hardly effective and certainly not fair in fighting abuse if you make the subject of abuse responsible for it.
1) I do not agree abuse is taking place in half of the situations you suggest it is
2) You are prone to exactly the same outbursts as the rest of us, so for you to cry abuse is somewhat like the boy who cried wolf. You have time and again resorted to insults of others when your debate becomes heated and you rarely follow your own advice.
Anything else?
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrmann: " 1) I do not agree abuse is taking place in half of the situations you suggest it is"
That is simple. The answer is twofold.
1) I do not agree abuse is taking place in half of the situations you suggest it is
2) You are prone to exactly the same outbursts as the rest of us, so for you to cry abuse is somewhat like the boy who cried wolf. You have time and again resorted to insults of others when your debate becomes heated and you rarely follow your own advice.
Anything else?
Then let's talk about the half on which we are agreeing.
Why don't you address that abuse ?
Starmann: "2) You are prone to exactly the same outbursts as the rest of us, so for you to cry abuse is somewhat like the boy who cried wolf. You have time and again resorted to insults of others when your debate becomes heated and you rarely follow your own advice.
Yes, I went overboard, because of the extended abuse, insults, foul language in the form of haikus and other "poems", degrading remarks, and accusations I had to endure. I walked away many many times in case of abuse and insults, unnoticed by many. I ignored the abuse, the accusations and the innuende many many times, also unnoticed by many, but I am just a human being. I am not a robot.
So, too many times I took refuge in the same methods I had to endure. That's true, I plead guilty. I acknowledge and accept my part of the responsibility and guilt.
Of course tempting me and luring me into taking refuge in the same methods I am fighting against is a majestic victory for the abusers and they and other people, among whom you, do not hesitate to rub it in. Of course.
What do they prove in luring me into this ? Have they proved I am a human being ? I plead guilty. Have they proved I am a hypocrite ? I plead guilty. Have they proved I can lose my self-control ? I plead guilty.
But this doesn't change the fact that anti-ToS activities, also mine, need to stop.
Do you agree that ALL abuse needs to stop or do you just want to make me stop fighting abuse because I have made myself guilty of the crime ?
Do you want to stop ALL abuse or just mine ?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI do not want to stop ALL abuse, I think there is a level of it which is necessary in defining the community. I know you will disagree with me on this and that is fair enough. You have been surprisingly frank here and I will be in return. Yes I, amongst others, goad you from time to time, this is undeniable and whilst I hold no ill will towards you, I am occasionally incensed by some of your posts (as I am sure you are by mine) to the point where civility begins to degrade. Should we both refrain from doing this? Maybe, but it is part of the process of community and conversation. If I am guilty of the abuse which you believe violates the ToS then I am bound to apologise should the situation arise, but I will debate with you as to whether your assessment of the situation constitutes abuse or not. And herein lies the problem; it is all very well laying out a series of rules for conduct, but with something as complex as language and with such a diverse set of people and views, the clarification of those rules in relation to each situation is difficult.
Starrmann: " 1) I do not agree abuse is taking place in half of the situations you suggest it is"
Then let's talk about the half on which we are agreeing.
Why don't you address that abuse ?
Starmann: "2) You are prone to exactly the same outbursts as the rest of us, so for you to cry abuse is somewhat like the boy who cried wolf. Y because I have made myself guilty of the crime ?
Do you want to stop ALL abuse or just mine ?
Should we all be more tolerant of each other? Undoubtedly.
Should we all attempt to debate on a less emotional, more academic level? Possibly.
Is this likely to happen? I doubt it, people are people, that's life ivanhoe.
Originally posted by StarrmanActually under normal circumstances being reasonable should be the rule. However obnoxious people like Ivanhoe has time and time again proven himself to be have no righteous call to ask not to be subjected to the same abuse that they use as a tactic of debate.
I do not want to stop ALL abuse, I think there is a level of it which is necessary in defining the community. I know you will disagree with me on this and that is fair enough. You have been surprisingly frank here and I will be in return. Yes I, amongst others, goad you from time to time, this is undeniable and whilst I hold no ill will towards you, I am o ...[text shortened]... vel? Possibly.
Is this likely to happen? I doubt it, people are people, that's life ivanhoe.