Ego Defence Mechanisms

Originally posted by Doward
what's really ridiculous about this is that everyone...everyone has ego defense mechanisms

Not me😀

But seriously, sometimes I just attack my ego....(that guy is a jerk sometimes)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Of course you may disagree with my arguments. I invited people to do so because I felt that there was an interesting problem of balancing religious freedom with secular authority. The point is that ThinkOfOne simply kept reasserting his contention and, when challenged, just made snide comments that I didn't understand it -- something which you too have experienced.

Aye, his treatment towards yourself pretty much mirrored his treatment towards me. In both cases he had the opportunity to attack our arguments and instead just evaded them completely, settling for the same old patronising stock responses - in your case not understanding, and in my case missing the point (which I deem in this case similar to not understanding) when it was blatantly obvious we fully understood his one single pointReveal Hidden Contentthat he kept restating over and over again.

What really annoyed me, and I reacted (probably to his amusement), was when for one post I, in painful detail, outlined what his point was, which part of it was relevant at the present time, how I'd been addressing it as the thread progressed, and why I'd chosen that method to address it - so to challenge his string of (near enough) identical rebuttals(?)... and his response completely ignored the whole damned thing opting, again for the same old tried and tested line he favours so much!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm not going to refer you to any threads. Its not going to go like that with me.
Firstly, I'll wait for ToO to answer, should be an interesting one.
Secondly, he seems to have a general beef against christians who dont act very christianly.
Sometimes his "rudeness" is uncalled for, but hey, I think they should be able to take it.

I guess , much that you were high on the list of people that use these defenses. Pretty low, actually.

Those who are fair minded and objective will fully investigate each occurrence and judge each on its own. Others will be content with taking a cursory look and will be prone to drawing false conclusions. Those who create threads like this count on the latter. An example of someone drawing a false conclusion is Conrau K as evidenced by his saying, "Neither I, Agerg or Proper Knob are Christians and yet we have been victims of his scorn." Anyone looking at the post that referenced as "Response to Proper Knob" will see that the comment was not about him.

To understand the comment directed toward Agerg one must read through the entire discussion. Things seemed to go south after the following:

ToO: "Ask yourself this: Would a rational person rather hear the truth or a lie? Why?
A: "Too right I'd like to hear a lie sometimes! - especially if the truth serves no virtuous purpose other than to avoid false information - and the lie might inspire me on account of this false information, with confidence and optimism to act such that the truth is no longer pertinent anyway. I suppose you will no doubt throw the knee-jerk ad-hom that I am not rational on the basis that I don\'t agree with you!"
ToO: "A desire to have lies told to oneself is not rational. Believe me, this assessment is anything but 'knee-jerk' nor is it an 'ad-hom'".

After this Agerg became increasingly defensive and agitated and the accusations started flying. Attempts to clarify my position seemed were met by histrionics such as " it pains me to understand why you would waste your valuable time drilling some sense into a nitwit such as myself ". Evidently he felt so threatened that he was compelled to start this thread in which he engages in sensationalism, dealing in half-truths and further histrionics.

To understand the comments directed at Conrau K one needs to dig even deeper. I suggest you begin by reading the following thread which sets the table for the later threads cited in the OP: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=133024&page=1 where CK goes to absurd lengths in his attempts to defend the Roman Catholic Church. I finally had to give up on the thread. Likewise every other occurrence has its own story that needs to be understood in its own context.

I understand your confusion at CK's claim of not being a Christian. He has waffled back and forth between being an atheist and a Christian any number of times in the time that I've interacted with him. Who knows what next week will bring? Regardless, he appears to have a deep-rooted compulsion to defend the RCC and seems to have difficulty in being rational about it even if he is rational about other topics.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Those who are fair minded and objective will fully investigate each occurrence and judge each on its own. Others will be content with taking a cursory look and will be prone to drawing false conclusions. Those who create threads like this count on the latter. An example of someone drawing a false conclusion is Conrau K as evidenced by his saying, "Neither ...[text shortened]... iculty in being rational about it even if he is rational about other topics.

I'll post the entire sequence of posts between us here shortly (with some annotation)...I deny none of the things you quoted me on but I certainly deny your honesty/integrity.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Those who are fair minded and objective will fully investigate each occurrence and judge each on its own. Others will be content with taking a cursory look and will be prone to drawing false conclusions. Those who create threads like this count on the latter. An example of someone drawing a false conclusion is Conrau K as evidenced by his saying, "Neither ...[text shortened]... iculty in being rational about it even if he is rational about other topics.

Yes, thats the way I read it, despite still having reverence for Conrau, Agerg and the like.

I've always been a fan of your postings.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I think it's basically a guy thing. 😛

Indeed! 🙂

Men and women are made differently.(Thank God) But we're on this side of paradise.

I think a fully developed ego gives up the ego for the love of the other.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Those who are fair minded and objective will fully investigate each occurrence and judge each on its own. Others will be content with taking a cursory look and will be prone to drawing false conclusions. Those who create threads like this count on the latter. An example of someone drawing a false conclusion is Conrau K as evidenced by his saying, "Neither ...[text shortened]... iculty in being rational about it even if he is rational about other topics.

"Those who are fair minded and objective will fully investigate each occurrence and judge each on its own."

With a grain of salt.

No one except God is perfect. We must give each other wobble room

The posts which follow in response to ToO's response in this thread are the entire collection of posts between us in the Lying is Always Bad...Why??? thread. Watch how he demolishes every point I make and never ever repeats the same tired old lines over and over and over again!
(I've made a few additional comments along the way - might be quicker just to read these first and see the post preceding if necessary)


ThinkOfOne:

lol. Given his history with me, one would have to say that RC holds that "lying is always bad (unless RC is the one doing the lying)". The blatant hypocrisy of many of the Christians on this forum is truly remarkable.

But as to the crux of the matter, you might have to think "out of the box" on this one. I believe that lying is always bad because ultimately it works against lasting harmony. Any harmony based on untruths is destined to fail.

(his first response to me regarding the OP)

Agerg:

I do have a thread waiting where I did think out of the box (though I would have posed it differently now than I did back then) - also, Andrew Hamilton's offering looks quite appetising!

That aside, if we consider telling a young child a white lie in order to make him happy; how intransient do we expect the kid's memory of this event to be such that it would induce any problems in the future?

ThinkOfOne:

Lying to people in an attempt to make them "happy" works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies. To do this to a child who is still developing is particularly heinous.

(Thus If a lie is effective, ToO's argument is that it gives the recipient skewed version of reality -and this is bad!!!, and if the recipient is a child it is a heinous act...my next response will try to show that these need not necessarily be the case with 2 separate examples)

Agerg:

If we were considering the case where the child was old enough and articulate enough that they can pose less trivial questions than "Do you like my cat picture?" then I might grant some leeway with this one - a child at the age of four however is hardly going to take anything away from the lie one likes his drawing other than a short lived feeling of contentment that he has done something good. I somehow doubt when he turns eight, say, he's going to ruminate on the time he asked me whether I liked his picture then and I said yes, in response to my now, more critical or politely evasive evaluation of his work.

One could search further along this line and suppose some child with severe learning difficulties finally manages, after an excessive amount of coaxing, to eat his dinner on his own without having to be spoon fed is congratulated excitedly with the statement "cleverReveal Hidden Content

note: he always fails, due to his disability, to be anything close to what would be regarded as clever, and the speaker knows this

boy - you managed to eat that all by yourself!!!"

Would this be so heinous a lie also?

ThinkOfOne:

You seem to have missed the point of my post. Can you not see how lying to people in an attempt to make them "happy" gives them a skewed view of reality? Can you not see that such a view is detrimental to their well being?

Completely fails to point out where the weaknesses lie in my two counter examples, choosing instead to tell me I missed the point. Number of times he's explicitely told me /'suggested' I've missed the point so far: 1, Number of times he actually explains where the point was missed: 0

Agerg:

I don't think I did miss the point - I noticed your objection and attempted to undermine it by explaining how your objection wasn't justified in this case - and considered another hypothetical scenario to bear this out. Additionally, I acknowledged also that the well being of this particular example child (the "artist" ) might potentially be put in jeapardy if such a lie was given when they are at an age where they can express themselves better and where a false compliment carries any tangible degree of weight.

You are holding to the notion that in ALL cases, i.e. with complete generality, it is true that a delivery of inaccurate information, regardless of it's magnitude or importance is detrimental to the well being of the recipient of said lie. You seem to hold there are no exceptions.

I ask what is this universal statement based upon, a small sample of cases which work in favour of your argument?

ThinkOfOne:

Ask yourself this: If an individual believes lie X, does this or does it not give the individual a skewed view of reality?

Failing to acknowledge anything I said he asks me if a trivial component of the proposition he holds is true
Agerg:

I don't need to ask myself that; it is immediately obvious that the recipient of a lie will be in possession, at that particular instance of time, of a "skewed view of reality". That's pretty much the point of a lie - in that you hope to convey information which is false!

Or if you charge me with avoiding the question here - yes, the individual gets a skewed view of reality

My issue is that you hold this is both permanent and detrimental in all cases!, and again I ask why is this universal statement true?
Indeed if it was true that persons X and Y both thought Y was a thoroughly worthless human being - then if we accept your position on this matter and suppose Y asks X "am I a thoroughly worthless human being?" then a lie on the part of X would somehow make things worse for Y! 😕

ToO will ignore all of this response except, the point where I object to implied permanence of a skewed reality
Agerg:

Having answered this question in the affirmative in my last response I can delve a little deeper into the realms of absurdity your somewhat binary proposition, that lying is always detrimental by skewing ones view of reality, entails.

Suppose person X currently believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E} and also believes the true statement F which has no bearing on any of {A,B,C,D,E}.
Now suppose that
A false implies B is false
B false implies C is false
C false implies D is false
D false implies E is false
and X asks some other person Y "Does F true imply A is false?"

If Y tells the truth that F true does not imply A is false then X retains his belief in five false statements; on the otherhand if Y lies and says F true does imply A is false then X ends up only believing one false statement!

Is the view of reality from the perspective of X more skewed in this case if he recieves a lie??? 😕

Recall from the very first post in this entire exchange, ToO told me to think outside the box...I'm doing precisely that - I can search as many counter axamples as I like, and his binary position on this matter has to hold in all cases, this one is where a lie decreases the amount of false information held by the receiver to challenge the importance of his skewed reality argument
ThinkOfOne:

My issue is that you hold this is both permanent and detrimental in all cases!

I never said that it is "permanent" nor did I imply it. Why do you assert that I did?

Has he even addressed one of my rebuttals properly yet!?
ThinkOfOne:

If anything is "absurd", it is your ridiculously contrived scenario.

If Y knows X believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E}, Y should straighten out X regarding them as well as tell X the truth about F. If Y doesn't know, then the right thing to do would be to tell the truth about F. Regardless, the right thing for Y to do is to tell X the truth.

Ask yourself this: Would a rational person rather hear the truth or a lie? Why?

Oooh! he's decided to challenge one of my points for once!! - too bad his rebuttal here is irrelevant - he has to show that my lie categorically makes things worse, not that some better truth exists...ah well!

Agerg:

I never said that it is "permanent" nor did I imply it. Why do you assert that I did?
If the retention of a "skewed-reality" induced by some lie was a transient thing and made them feel good so long as they remembered it then that would contradict the condition you try to impose that ALL lies are detrimental to the recipient (since once this skewed reality has worn off the good effects will not necessarily be countered by any ill effects as is necessary to bear out your claim).

Agerg:

If anything is "absurd", it is your ridiculously contrived scenario.

If Y knows X believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E}, Y should straighten out X regarding them as well as tell X the truth about F. If Y doesn't know, then the right thing to do would be to tell the truth about F. Regardless, the right thing for Y to do is to tell X the truth.

Ask yourself this: Would a rational person rather hear the truth or a lie? Why?
Well your assertion lies are always bad Reveal Hidden Content

(which you try to substantiate merely by saying \"but lies give a skewed perception of reality!!!\" - no sh**! so!?)

is a universal statement. I therefore have all the freedom in the world to hunt down the most ridiculous examples I choose in a bid to demonstrate your assertion is false.

As regards your "solution" to my scenario, you miss the point in that following your logic(?) it must always be true that a reduction of reality-skew upon receipt of this lie is somehow bad!
It is irrelevant that from the default state of having no information (true or false) one can optimise the "good" by telling some other truthful statement since we are concerned only that from the default state the lie makes things worse.


Too right I'd like to hear a lie sometimes! - especially if the truth serves no virtuous purpose other than to avoid false information - and the lie might inspire me on account of this false information, with confidence and optimism to act such that the truth is no longer pertinent anyway. Reveal Hidden Content

I suppose you will no doubt throw the knee-jerk ad-hom that I am not rational on the basis that I don\'t agree with you!

As for the lying bit, sometimes I'd like to be lied to if one of my friends couldn't be arsed with me for now and told some polite non-truth that kept me away until their disposition changed, or I'd like to hear a lie if via the placebo effect I mention to Souverign in a different discussion, renders the lie, later, a truth! - ToO will now use this response of mine against me on numerous occasions

ThinkOfOne:

If the retention of a "skewed-reality" induced by some lie was a transient thing and made them feel good so long as they remembered it then that would contradict the condition you try to impose that ALL lies are detrimental to the recipient (since once this skewed reality has worn off the good effects will not necessarily be countered by any ill effects as is necessary to bear out your claim
Once again, "I never said that it is 'permanent' nor did I imply it." You really need to rethink this.

Ignoring how I defended the inference I drew...I cannot be bothered arguing this further and so I don't respond

ThinkOfOne:

Well your assertion lies are always bad Reveal Hidden Content

(which you try to substantiate merely by saying \"but lies give a skewed perception of reality!!!\" - no sh**! so!?)

is a universal statement. I therefore have all the freedom in the world to hunt down the most ridiculous examples I choose in a bid to demonstrate your assertion is false.

As regards yo erk ad-hom that I am not rational on the basis that I don\'t agree with you![/hidden]
Perhaps you've lost sight of my point:
"Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies."

A desire to have lies told to oneself is not rational. Believe me, this assessment is anything but "knee-jerk" nor is it an "ad-hom".

Repeating his argument again for me...Number of times he's explicitely told me /'suggested' I've missed the point so far: 2, Number of times he actually explains where the point was missed: 0
Agerg:

I'm well aware of your point ThinkOfOne; you've restated it about five times in response to my arguments to suggest why I should not believe it.

Unless I'm mistaken debates should go along the lines of

Person X asserts A
Person Y argues against A with B
Person X trys to show B is invalid because of C
Person Y argues that C is invalid because of D

It shouldn't go along the lines of

Person X asserts A
Person Y argues against A with B
Person X argues B is automatically invalid because of A
Person Y acknowledges X asserts A and with B ignored tries to attack the logic of A with C
Person X argues C is automatically invalid because of A
Person Y acknowledges X asserts A and with B and C ignored tries to attack the logic of A with D
Person X argues D is automatically invalid because of A
.
.
.
and so on!

I'm well aware that you claim it undermines trust (and from all lies are bad, consequently always undermines trust)...I just disagree with you that this overpowers all the good a lie can bring in all cases; and I'm sure that the next argument I present to justify this will be met with the same argument that I missed the point in not seeing that "Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality."

I'm going to let this one go.

Yes..I'm getting weary
ThinkOfOne:

C'mon. Your argument had gotten away from my point. It's been a little while since I posted that and thought perhaps you'd lost sight of it.

You honestly believe that lying in no way undermines the trust between individuals?

You honestly can't see how giving someone a skewed view of reality compounds the problem of people having trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe?

You honestly can't see how your scenario does not address my point in any meaningful way?

ToO doesn't quite think he's annoyed me enough - either that or he thinks he's completely thrashing me in this discussion and is sneaking up for the deathblow 😕 Number of times he's explicitely told me /'suggested' I've missed the point so far: 3,, Number of times he actually explains where the point was missed: 0
Anyway, what follows next is a long post from me detailing how the thread has evolved so far, how I've not missed his points, and why I've chosen to not miss the points in the way I chose to do so, in particular I also fill in the place holder symbols in my "ridiculous scenario" with real, tangible values.

Agerg:

C'mon. Your argument had gotten away from my point. It's been a little while since I posted that and thought perhaps you'd lost sight of it.
I don't believe it is off point; my reasoning here is that in
"Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality."
The part I bolded is the consequence of a lie (believed) which you suppose is always a bad thing. My strategy has been to show there exists at least one counter-example to suggest this errant view of reality isn't necessarily a bad thing, and supplied the following examples:

[quote]a child at the age of four however is hardly going to take anything away from the lie one likes his drawing other than a short lived feeling of contentment that he has done something good. I somehow doubt when he turns eight, say, he's going to ruminate on the time he asked me whether I liked his picture then and I said yes, in response to my now, more critical or politely evasive evaluation of his work.

One could search further along this line and suppose some child with severe learning difficulties finally manages, after an excessive amount of coaxing, to eat his dinner on his own without having to be spoon fed is congratulated excitedly with the statement "cleverReveal Hidden Content

note: he always fails, due to his disability, to be anything close to what would be regarded as clever, and the speaker knows this

boy - you managed to eat that all by yourself!!!"

Now having been hit twice with the same statement (rephrased) that I'm actively trying to undermine I switch tactics (still a search for a counter-example) with

Indeed if it was true that persons X and Y both thought Y was a thoroughly worthless human being - then if we accept your position on this matter and suppose Y asks X "am I a thoroughly worthless human being?" then a lie on the part of X would somehow make things worse for Y!

Suppose person X currently believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E} and also believes the true statement F which has no bearing on any of {A,B,C,D,E}.
Now suppose that
A false implies B is false
B false implies C is false
C false implies D is false
D false implies E is false
and X asks some other person Y "Does F true imply A is false?"

If Y tells the truth that F true does not imply A is false then X retains his belief in five false statements; on the otherhand if Y lies and says F true does imply A is false then X ends up only believing one false statement!

It is only the latter you have actually addressed by saying it was ridiculously contrived and then making astatement which though possibly true in some cases, is irrelevant to the statement of yours I'm arguing against.

The other part of your quote I intend to deal with once I've established a foot-hold with this part. I fail to see how I'm off topic!

You honestly believe that lying in no way undermines the trust between individuals?
Assuming you accidently dropped the all important all in "undermines the trust between [all] individuals?"
then I have no empirical or logical reason believe this. On the otherhand if you're asking if I think there are some (not all) cases where this is true then fair enough, I don't believe it in no way undermines the trust between some individuals.

You honestly can't see how giving someone a skewed view of reality compounds the problem of people having trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe?
This is the part of your argument I've been focusing on for which you believe I'm missing the point.

You honestly can't see how your scenario does not address my point in any meaningful way?
It is a valid counter example - indeed one can substitute those variables A-E with meaningful statements such as, for example, stupid WW2 german person X believes
A: Planets have 'best' people
B: Some Germans are the planet's 'best' people
C: X a German is one of the planet's 'best' people
D: X who is one of the 'best' people on the planet should take part in eradicating all people who are not 'best'
E: Some Jews (being not 'best'😉 should be exterminated by X if the opportunity arises

and we can choose any damned F we like! For example
F: Earth is not flat

Now suppose this dunderheaded X with a machine gun asks Y "does the earth not flat imply the planet doesn't have 'best' people?"
The lie initiates a chain which falsifies all of A,B,C,D,E (they are simple enough to be deduced as false once the chain starts by X) at the cost of giving X a skewed reality. With the truthful answer, these dangerous beliefs are free to remain and X then goes of to get his head kicked in by a crowd of angry Jews who don't like people who would try to kill them - whether they're too stupid to know any better or not.[/quote]

ThinkOfOne:

If you can't understand how lying undermines the trust between individuals, then there seems to be little point in trying to convince you otherwise.

Also you seem to keep missing the the explanation of how giving people a skewed view of reality is detrimental:
"If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies."

Well my last response was a waste of time wasn't it? Anyway, he's essentially asserting here if I don't agree with him then I'm an idiot - he just doesn't actually state it that way, and then reaffirms his point again (that I'm actively trying to undermine)...Number of times he's explicitely told me /'suggested' I've missed the point so far: 4, Number of times he actually explains where the point was missed: 0

Agerg:

You could try to break the circularity of assuming A to deduce A!

You could also actually address my arguments instead of constantly repeating A.

Given my cynicism that this will not happen then yes - we should just walk away from this one.

For your edit, my last detailed clarification of the "ridiculously contrived" scenario addresses that point - you also assert "most" as opposed to "all"!

ThinkOfOne:

The second paragraph that you saw was posted before I finished making my point which was in the edit. Evidently after my paste the focus was given to the "Post" button and was executed upon hitting "Enter" instead of serving as a line feed.

Maybe what keeps eluding you is that this issue is really about understanding the "right" action for the speaker, i.e., "What is the right action for the speaker?". The speaker should tell the truth.

Number of times he's explicitely told me /'suggested' I've missed the point so far: 5, Number of times he actually explains where the point was missed: 0 (we're not talking about "rightness" btw, we're talking about "uni-wrongness" of lying, anyway, I challenge his shifted point next: )

Agerg:

It may well be the case that sometimes an optimal solution (some particular truthful statement) may be found; but that is not to say a sub-optimal solution (lying) is always worse than the default state of receiving neither a lie or the truth.

I need not dwell on the optimum solution however - I'm dealing with a logical statement that all lies told to any person X are detrimental to X. The standard method to defeat that line is via targetted counter-examples.

ThinkOfOne:

And the point you seem to keep missing is the the issue is really about what is the "right" action for the speaker given that he is not omniscient. The speaker can only act from his limited knowledge.

Number of times he's explicitely told me /'suggested' I've missed the point so far: 6 (is the above an explanation of where I missed the point!??? 😕)

Agerg:

Well given that I keep "missing the point" it pains me to understand why you would waste your valuable time drilling some sense into a nitwit such as myself who lacks mastery of the winning formula of restating A for any argument against A.

Clearly I fall well short of the standards required to comprehend even the simplest statements you can offer me and so you should walk away from this with the 'truthful' statement that you've won this debate. Well done 😞

I've had enough of his BS and react!

ThinkOfOne:

Your repeated attempts to characterize my trying to get you to understand the points of my posts and/or trying to get you back to the points as a "winning formula of restating A for any argument against A" is misleading at best.

Evidently you really do like hearing lies - even if you have to resort to making them yourself.

I never actually asserted I 'like' hearing lies, I merely answered his question earlier "Would a rational person rather hear the truth or a lie? Why? in the affirmative, and my enthusiasm stems from the fact that I believe, sometimes (not often), some lies are good! [/i][/i]

Agerg:

On the contrary; I make no deceptive characterizations at all - I admire your diligence to the principles of circularity, economy of thought, and non too subtle insults. You have clearly surpassed all the brilliant fundies on this board such as RBHILL (et al) in this pursuit and you have my sincerest respect for this.

I genuinely lie down here in the cretinous gutter of absurdity from which my arguments were spawned in sheer awe of your unique intellectual gift and philosophical genius that no other person has the capacity to understand or acknowledge.

This wasn't really a response to his counter-contentious post, just doubling up the sarcastic post I made earlier - I can't be bothered here with him
ThinkOfOne:

Evidently you believe your attempts to characterize my trying to get you to understand the points of my posts and/or trying to get you back to the points as something they aren't. Evidently it makes you "feel better" to do so and serve as examples of your ability to self-deceive.

This comes as no surprise coming from a guy who said this:
"Too right I'd like to hear a lie sometimes!"
Talk about self-deception.

You place "feeling good" above the truth and so it it easy for you to deceive yourself when it "feels good" to do so. More's the pity.

Like I said:
"Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies."

You can count yourself as one who has trouble having a realistic view of yourself and the universe. You live in a world of deception including self-deception. That you so readily condone lying to children serves to underscore this point.

I really shouldn't have asnwered "Would a rational person rather hear the truth or a lie? Why?" honestly should I!?...he's going to use this against me near enough all the time from now one 😴
Agerg:

You always tell the truth presumably because you feel you have some objective duty to do this, this is done with the binary mindset that things are either black or they are white. You have not presented me with a rational argument to support your universal position other than it is true by your decree.

Your responses will be of the form

- "You miss the point, I said..." (without actually critiquing the offered points so to demonstate you are correct)
- "Looks like you're employing ego-defence mechanisms..."
- "If you don't understand that lying is always wrong there is little point trying to reason with you..."
- "You seem to like lying, perhaps you are a ..."
- "You are stupid and you are..."
- "None of those, infact... [insert some trivial response]"

A half-hearted response from me - any meaningful discussion is well and truly over now...watch him tell me I'm employing ego defence mechanisms as predicted
ThinkOfOne:

lol. You readily admit to practicing deception and self-deception, yet cannot seem to comprehend that your "reality" is of your own making. You should read up on ego defense mechanisms as more than a few seem to apply.

Please reread my post. With that and gaining an understanding of ego defense mechanisms, hopefully you'll gain some much needed insight into yourself as well as the universe in general.

There it is...never fails to hit home! What follows is a slanging match, Include them for completeness

Agerg:

Yeah that response was no.2 of my "predictions". You have nothing to offer me here that I deem edifying, or having any appreciable level of integrity.

As I said before, feel free to walk away under the impression you have "won" this debate.

ThinkOfOne:

Integrity? You're the one who has repeatedly mischaracterized my posts.

If anything, you're the one trying to "feel free to walk away under the impression you have 'won' this debate". Your attempts to insinuate that I am the one doing so is just your latest mischaracterization. For the record, I have not in any way declared any type of victory. In fact, I have little interest in "winning" or "debating".

You threw a little hissy fit because I suggested that "perhaps" you were missing points and/or had lost track of points. A hissy fit that evidently you still can't quite bring under control.

Agerg:

In fact, I have little interest in "winning" or "debating".
Yes...that did not quite escape my notice!

You've pretty much spammed me to the brim with more than suggestions I "perhaps" missed the point (though you fail to point out how of course) and attacks against my comprehension skills.

Your rebuttals(?) were (with the exception of one which lacked relevance and a whimsical scattering of veiled ad-homs) merely reaffirmations of the proposition you already assume.

ToO will now tell me I've missed the point and am employing ego defence mechanisms ;]

Leave me out of this!

Example of a missed point, and how one might go about showing this is the case:

Person A: "The Bible implies the value of pi = 3 as is evidenced in:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"

Person B: "you will notice that the greek letter representing pi, or even the word itself was never used in that quote - ergo, you are false in concluding the Bible implies that pi = 3"
Person A: "No B, you missed the point; the numerical constant pi is defined by the ratio of a circle's circumfrence to it's diameter...we could have called it beta, eta, zeta, xi, and the passage would still have been that said ratio (which we name "pi" ) is 3. However we know that pi has the value 3.14159... and this is the point I'm contesting; not the symbol which denotes said number
Person B: Ah, I see...thanks for clearing that up, lemme try again...

(notice that A has looked over B's response and observed that the issue which is up for debate here hasn't actually been addressed - that being the ratio of a circle's circumfrence to it's diameter is what the Bible suggests is equal to 3. He therefore explains to B what his point is with respect to what B wrote - pointing out in sufficient detail where B's response was not relevant (that the symbol or word used to denote the value of pi is of no concern here). B realises his mistake, realises that the point is still unresolved, and hopefully his next response will be better)


Example of a missed point, and how one shouldn't go about showing this is the case:

Person A: "The Bible implies the value of pi = 3 as is evidenced in:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"

Person B: "you will notice that the greek letter representing pi, or even the word itself was never used in that quote - ergo, you are false in concluding the Bible implies that pi = 3"
Person A: "No B, you missed the point; "The Bible implies the value of pi = 3 as is evidenced in:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"

(Note that Person B is none the wiser as to how his rebuttal missed here)


Example of a point that wasn't missed:

Person A: "The Bible implies the value of pi = 3 as is evidenced in:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"

Person B: If you consider the context of that statement it can be argued the inference you draw isn't necessarily valid [rest of post borrows some response from http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm]
Person A: I see what you're saying, and it's on point, but I disagree with you because of [insert rebuttal]

(Person A seeks to show B's rebuttal is not valid, even though it was on point. The difference between validity and relevance isn't a subtle one ;] )



I hope this helps ThinkOfOne 🙂