Originally posted by FMFNo one has claimed your posting here is immoral and indeed i can find not a single reference to anyone having asked you if you consider your posting here immoral and i must assume that you simply made it up. You have still failed to give a reason why you think retrospectively trolling is morally acceptable. Either address the content or don't, its your choice.
And I have answered you. Indeed, there has not been anything immoral about my posting here, and if I were still a Christian, I would say that my behaviour is in keeping with Christian principles. Now, What about you? Do you regard all your posting here on this web site to be "in harmony with Christian principles"?
1 edit
-Removed-yes they do, i have provided reasons why i think it unacceptable and its childish to think that you can simply make a statement and not also be called to account for the reasons behind it so i reject your assertion that reason does not need to be provided.
I am doing better than you for you have still failed to provided a single reason.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no such thing as "retrospectively trolling" to my way of thinking. So it can't be "immoral". Even if someone were to bring up the death of a husband or wife and insult and mock the surviving spouse in some dark and sinister way on the anniversary of them passing away, I wouldn't call it "retrospectively trolling". This notion is in your head robbie, and now that you have declared (I think) that your own posting is "fully morally acceptable and there is no contradiction with any principles, Christian or otherwise", I don't see what the issue is.
You have still failed to give a reason why you think retrospectively trolling is morally acceptable. Either address the content or don't, its your choice.
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFThis has already been refuted FMF, I provided a third party reference which also made reference to the practice. Your text is therefore demonstrably false unless of course you are also willing to state that its also simply in the head of those that authored the smosh article. Are you FMF?
There is no such thing as "retrospectively trolling" to my way of thinking. So it can't be "immoral". Even if someone were to bring up the death of a husband or wife and insult and mock the surviving spouse in some dark and sinister way on the anniversary of them passing away, I wouldn't call it "retrospectively trolling". This notion is in your head robbie, and ...[text shortened]... is no contradiction with any principles, Christian or otherwise", I don't see what the issue is.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy comment about my own posting demonstrates what I see as "moral" as opposed to "immoral" posting. My other comment demonstrated what I would perceive as being "in keeping with Christian principles".
No one has claimed your posting here is immoral and indeed i can find not a single reference to anyone having asked you if you consider your posting here immoral and i must assume that you simply made it up.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFGo to the thread Former Atheist Testimony by jaywill, a classic example is the second post where Great King Rat attempts to disrupt the discussion with an irrelevant reference to something jaywill said previously in another thread that has NO bearing on the content of what he posted in his OP. Its nothing but a cheap tactic. Tell us why you might find that acceptable and moral FMF, Please id be happy to hear it.
My comment about my own posting demonstrates what I see as "moral" as opposed to "immoral" posting. My other comment demonstrated what I would perceive as being "in keeping with Christian principles".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm no more persuaded by your "third party" than I am by you. They aren't here arguing their corner. You are. And you have failed to persuade anyone ~ apart from, perhaps, yoctobyte. As far as I am concerned, your interest in the notion of "retrospective trolling" is so that you can brandish it ~ as you sometimes do ~ to avoid taking responsibility for things you have stated and the way you have behaved here in this public arena.
This has already been refuted FMF, I provided a third party reference which also made reference to the practice. Your text is therefore demonstrably false unless of course you are also willing to state that its also simply in the head of those that authored the smosh article. Are you FMF?