The leap from created to immortal

@petewxyz said
I am unclear why they make certain statements about perceiving limitations in my ability to understand and communicate, but since these are abilities that have been assessed by respected professional bodies I have no reason to be interested in these comments beyond noticing a somewhat alarming certainty on their parts, where certainty about the other is not indicated.

Maybe social media brings out attributes and interpersonal limitations that "respected professional bodies" never got to see in you.

-Removed-

I assume that you realize, of course, that the root of 'intoxicant' is 'toxic', although if you did realize it, then perhaps you wouldn't be trying to dredge up some kind of 'good feelings' from the word 'toxic'.

Or you could just, you know, acknowledge your error and how you came to apply a meaning to a word that the rest of the world doesn't.

But, then again, you're never wrong, are you?

-Removed-

Are you sad that no one is trying to explain what you mean, since you're doing such a piss-poor job of it yourself?

-Removed-

It would help if you used commonly-accepted meanings for words instead of trying to invent one on-the-fly.

@fmf said
So you are stil peeved? You made a fool of yourself but it wasn't your fault, it was other people's fault, right?

Are you stil[sic] peeved that you have failed to intimidate him to stop posting?

-Removed-

This is alarmingly the same as what you are ridiculing him for doing: doubling down on your error.

@fmf said
You are baffled by the word "intoxicants"? Why? Here's what you said about sudden religious conversions a couple of weeks ago:

"People become deluded in an instant (certainly seen that in practice) but personality changes slowly. According to most psychiatrists and psychologists there is a clear distinction, but I think that is overly certain. How do you fit sudden religious conversion into that scheme. Should you treat it with antipsychotics?"

Are you speaking for dive now?

Unfortunately, you're perpetuating his error, and making his meaning not more clear, but even more baffling by not only not explaining his errant usage, but associating it with another passage entirely. Dive might need help acknowledging his error, but you're not helping at all.

@suzianne said
Are you speaking for dive now?

Not really. I am tackling petewxyz about something he said which does not sit neatly beside something he had said previously... in a kind of both sides of his mouth way.

@suzianne said
Unfortunately, you're perpetuating his error, and making his meaning not more clear, but even more baffling by not only not explaining his errant usage, but associating it with another passage entirely. Dive might need help acknowledging his error, but you're not helping at all.

I think everything you have typed is just mistaken. All of it.

@suzianne said
Are you stil[sic] peeved that you have failed to intimidate him to stop posting?

I don't want petewxyz to stop posting. Nor is there any "intimidation" involved.

He definitely tried to blame others for "misunderstanding" his foolish comments about "true" atheists ~ he was even advised not to double-down and to admit his error and move on, alas he did not ~ and he was certainly "peeved" enough to start a whole thread that seems to me to be fueled by resentment. It's OK by me if you disagree with all this.

@suzianne said
Would it make more sense to you (I admit that I, too, find the word 'intoxicant' perhaps too harsh in this context) if instead of 'intoxicant', he had said 'comforter'?

I think the word "intoxicant" is alright and interesting. As I said, when I was a Christian, in group prayer meetings, I definitely used to feel quite a profound and affecting euphoria, as did many of my Christian friends. The use of the word "intoxicant" is perhaps a tad idiosyncratic but it's definitely in the right ballpark.