2 edits
-Removed-Dude I never make appeals to popular opinion because my arguments stand or fall on their own inherent merit or otherwise for as far as i am concerned its a cheap tactic. If you want to use retro-trolling to discredit and embarrass people thats your affair. I still hold that its immoral and anti-Christian for reasons already cited. You need not agree or acquiesce but you have failed to provide a single logical or rational reason why my claims in this regard are not to be considered valid and i don't need an appeal to argumentum ad populum for that.
If you ever do manage to provide a valid reason why my claims in this regard should not be considered valid please let me know ill be interested to read them but i forewarn you, you may need to address the content rather than the man.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell your argument falls on its own merit as has already been pointed out. You just can't seem to handle it.
Dude I never make appeals to popular opinion because my arguments stand or fall on their own inherent merit or otherwise for as far as i am concerned its a cheap tactic.
I still hold that its immoral and anti-Christian for reasons already cited.
You are confusing 'unChristian' with 'anti-Christian'. They are not the same thing.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you actually manage to address the content let me know, ill be interested to read what you have to say.
Well your argument falls on its own merit as has already been pointed out. You just can't seem to handle it.
[b]I still hold that its immoral and anti-Christian for reasons already cited.
You are confusing 'unChristian' with 'anti-Christian'. They are not the same thing.[/b]
Pedantry over differences in antichristian or unchristian I am not interested in. Anyone with a modicum of discernment can see that they are used synonymously to effectively mean the same thing, anyone other than a knit picking pedant that is.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBump for robbie:
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.
Talking 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"?
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFSorry this doesn't address the content and is nothing more than a thinly veiled personal attack. If you actually manage to address the content of my post let me know, its detailed in the opening statement. I ask two questions about retrospective trolling.
Bump for robbie:
Talking 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 t ...[text shortened]... e in the right spirit", on your part, or was it "way more sinister" and "not done just for fun"?
1. Is it moral?
2. Is it in harmony with Christian principles?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe question is about motivation. You raised the issue of motivation. What was your motivation in that particular case?
Sorry this doesn't address the content and is nothing more than a thinly veiled personal attack. If you actually manage to address the content of my post let me know, its detailed in the opening statement. I ask two questions about retrospective trolling.
1. Is it moral?
2. Is it in harmony with Christian principles?
When you were asserting that divegeester's morality was equivalent to people who murdered black people a century or so ago, was your posting "moral" by your own standards? Was your posting "in harmony with Christian principles" by your own standards?
When one of the only reasons you cited for equating divegeester's morality with the morality of murderers was the fact that he had been critical of your religious organisation in the past, were you "retrospectively trolling" him ~ by your own definition ~ and was what you were doing "morally reprehensible" ~ by your own definition?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou still cannot make reference to the two questions, let me know when you can, otherwise I am not interested.
The question is about motivation. You raised the issue of motivation. What was your motivation in that particular case?
When you were asserting that divegeester's morality was equivalent to people who murdered black people a century or so ago, was your posting "moral" by your own standards? Was your posting "in harmony with Christian principles" by your own ...[text shortened]... r own definition ~ and was what you were doing "morally reprehensible" ~ by your own definition?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's no mystery as to why you don't want want to engage in any genuine discussion of what is, after all, just a rhetorical fig leaf that you feel the need to deploy from time to time.
you still cannot make reference to the to questions, let me know when you can.
Originally posted by FMFagain this does not address the questions and again simply seeks to attack the motive - its transparent. If you manage to address the actual content please let me know, ill be interested in discussing that.
It's no mystery as to why you don't want want to engage in any genuine discussion of what is, after all, just a rhetorical fig leaf that you feel the need to deploy from time to time.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWas it "moral" when ~ by your own definition ~ you engaged in it?
I ask two questions about retrospective trolling.
1. Is it moral?
2. Is it in harmony with Christian principles?
Was it "in harmony with Christian principles" ~ by your own definition ~ when you engaged in it?
Was it "merely for fun" and "done in the right spirit", on your part, or was it "way more sinister" and "not done just for fun" ~ by your own definition of these things ~ when you engaged in it?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFdude either address the content or don't, you were asked if you thought retro trolling was
Was it "moral" when ~ by your own definition ~ you engaged in it?
Was it "in harmony with Christian principles" ~ by your own definition ~ when you engaged in it?
Was it "merely for fun" and "done in the right spirit", on your part, or was it "way more sinister" and "not done just for fun" ~ by your own definition of these things ~ when you engaged in it?
moral and/or in harmony with Christian principles.