Originally posted by Proper KnobI could not sleep my mind sometimes gets too active and refuses to shut down. I don't know why.
Nope, you still don't get it. Let me try again.
You've claimed retro-trolling is immoral because it doesn't take into account that people views may change. Can you give an example, or two, where something you previously said in a discussion has been brought up but you had already changed your views on whatever was brought up?
What are you doing still up at nearly 4am?
Sorry i cannot think of an instance off hand.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobGoading and ridiculing have different motives than retro trollin. they are merely for fun if done in the right spirit. Retro trollin is way more sinister, its not done just for fun, but to embarrass and discredit.
If this 'retrospective trolling' is a 'cheapo', what about 'name calling, goading, ridiculing and taunting'?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieName calling and taunting? You seem to have missed them.
Goading and ridiculing have different motives than retro trollin. they are merely for fun if done in the right spirit. Retro trollin is way more sinister, its not done just for fun, but to embarrass and discredit.
What if goading and ridiculing are not done in the right spirit? What if retrotrollin is being done just for fun?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo retrotrolling is immoral for the reasons you cited, but you can't think of a single instance where the reasons you have cited have occurred?
I could not sleep my mind sometimes gets too active and refuses to shut down. I don't know why.
Sorry i cannot think of an instance off hand.
-Removed-It depends what your motivations are. If i am discussing something about John 1:1 with the trinitarians and you come in with 'remember that you you said I was no better than the southern Baptists who lynched people', then its clear that your intent is a cheap tactic designed to discredit me by attacking my person. If its related to the actual topic then it may have some validity.
Originally posted by Proper Knobare you willing to contest that people don't change? If not then my text stands people do change and its immoral to hold them to account for something they said in the past because we all have the ability to change. that I cannot at this moment in time think of an example does not negate it.
So retrotrolling is immoral for the reasons you cited, but you can't think of a single instance where the reasons you have cited have occurred?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAttempting to link this topic to Christianity is retrospective trolling of Jesus Christ.
refers to an attempt to drag elements up from the past in order to confront, embarrass or discredit an opponent.
The Retroactive Stalker will go back in time to find every cragislist post you ever made until he finds something embarrassing you said, even if you posted it three years ago. After that, whenever you post anything new, the Retroactive ...[text shortened]... ate with professed Christian belief to do so.
If you have any insight please let it be known.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOn the contrary we are counseled in scripture to use our perceptive powers of discernment, to distinguish between right and wrong. I had discerned that retrospective trolling was anti Biblical and have provided a scriptural basis of why i think its anti Christian rather successfully if i do say so.
Attempting to link this topic to Christianity is retrospective trolling of Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTalking of the role of motivation in your notion of "retrospective trolling", when you were telling divegeester ~ for days and days, across 2 or 3 threads ~ that his morality was equivalent to that of people who murdered black people a century or so ago (and asking him to provide "evidence" that he wouldn't have murdered people), and one of the only reasons you cited for saying such a thing was that he had been critical of your religious organisation in the past, was that "merely for fun" and "done in the right spirit", on your part, or was it "way more sinister" and "not done just for fun"?
It depends what your motivations are. If i am discussing something about John 1:1 with the trinitarians and you come in with 'remember that you you said I was no better than the southern Baptists who lynched people', then its clear that your intent is a cheap tactic designed to discredit me by attacking my person. If its related to the actual topic then it may have some validity.
1 edit
-Removed-On one hand I think he wants people to believe it is "merely for fun if done in the right spirit" but so often when he's tackled on how it doesn't seem funny, he likes to insist that it was not intended to be funny. When he gets rattled, he can swing between these two from post to post.