1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnea) No; b) No; c) No; d) Yes,
a) Are you sincerely trying to claim that you don't understand that when someone asks you to explain how YOU think a given quote applies, that they are asking for something other than a cut and paste of the quote? b) That they are asking for an actual EXPLANATION of what That YOU think? c) Are you sincerely trying to claim that you don't understand that ...[text shortened]... lation was "obvious" to the person, they would not ask for an EXPLANATION of what YOU think?
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAs GB continues to refuse to offer an explanation of how he thinks the quote applies to FMF, it would seem that he was looking to cast vague aspersions toward FMF, but is not willing to offer an explanation of how they apply to FMF. In fairness to FMF, one must therefore conclude that they were false.
a) No; b) No; c) No; d) Yes,
In his silence GB speaks volumes about the quality of his own character.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneRather like the way you think, repesents a refreshing change of pace from much of what passes here as objective focus and rational thought. Your tenacity I value, too. Bobby's deserving of your cynicism but not of your dismissive tone and premature conclusions. A few intrusive posts, yep. An intrusive foray into FMF's private repartee with sumydid, guilty as charged. Playful toying around with you and your mechanical cerebral ejections, guilty again. Consequence, you're now Pontius Pilate faced with an irreversible decision: a) Displease the religious rabble (along with any forum fan club members you've acquired); or b) Pin the olde idiot to the nearest tree with public thumbs (down), wash your hands in milk and die the internal death of a coward before your appointed time. It's a matter of intellectual honesty; integrity of character; and the uncoerced exercise of your free will. Here's hoping ThinkOfOne has made the sensible choice of one between two permanent addresses for eternity.
As GB continues to refuse to offer an explanation of how he thinks the quote applies to FMF, it would seem that he was looking to cast ere's hopingvague aspersions toward FMF, but is not willing to offer an explanation of how they apply to FMF. In fairness to FMF, one must therefore conclude that they were false.
In his silence GB speaks volumes about the quality of his own character.
Looks something like this:
ETERNITY [past])---------------------------------------------------> [time / human history] ------------------------------------------------------> (ETERNITY FUTURE
gb
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think this thread has fully answered kd2acz's original question, as follows:
Rather like the way you think, repesents a refreshing change of pace from much of what passes here as objective focus and rational thought. Your tenacity I value, too. Bobby's deserving of your cynicism but not of your dismissive tone and premature conclusions. A few intrusive posts, yep. An intrusive foray into FMF's private repartee with sumydid, guil ...[text shortened]... an history] ------------------------------------------------------> (ETERNITY FUTURE
gb
Seek -----------------------------------------------------------------> Argue ------------------------------------------------------------------------> This thread
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Some things are inevitable. 😉
I think this thread has fully answered kd2acz's original question, as follows:
Seek -----------------------------------------------------------------> Argue ------------------------------------------------------------------------> This thread
Originally posted by JS357* "Through the honest disagreement of friends we arrive at the truth." -John Locke
I think this thread has fully answered kd2acz's original question, as follows:
Seek -----------------------------------------------------------------> Argue ------------------------------------------------------------------------> * This thread
.
14 edits
The irony contained within this thread is wholly and completely sublime.
Thinkofone, GB answered your question. Let it go.
FMF, I'm glad that you eventually came to your senses (whether it was through another's private help or not, doesn't matter), and realized that my entire statement hinged on the two words, "I expect."
Now you understand why I immediately answered your "clumsy strawman" charge with the correction that it was an observation. The specific size and shape of the nuts and bolts of my observation, i.e. believer says sky is blue and you might argue that sometimes it isn't... was completely unimportant. What matters is the overall point of my observation. The obvious point was, that you argue for the sake of arguing against those whom you oppose. And of course, this observation is competely relevant to this thread as the initial post levels the exact same charge (though it does not call you out by name). You practically admitted to such as I opined in multiple posts anyway, so I don't know how why took exception. Anyway, I still cannot agree with your assessment of my observation/opinion. It's not a strawman on any level. Sorry.
*edit*
No, wait a second. I do know why you took exception with my observation, though it was hardly debatable. The reason why you took exception was staring me in the face! You took exception because you argue for the sake of arguing against those whom you oppose.
Irony reigns supreme once again! And I am among its victims!
Originally posted by sumydidAttacking what you "expect" me to say is a textbook straw man, sumydid. And they don't come much clumsier. Attacking what you "expect" me to say is about as arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing as it comes.
FMF, I'm glad that you eventually came to your senses (whether it was through another's private help or not, doesn't matter), and realized that my entire statement hinged on the two words, "I expect."
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357I could be wrong, but my hunch is, the poster was making a rhetorical point; asking all of us to step back and ask ourselves.... are we making an effort to reveal truth? Do we even seek truth? Or do we have pent up frustrations and just come here to destroy others, score "points," and make ourselves better?
I think this thread has fully answered kd2acz's original question, as follows:
Seek -----------------------------------------------------------------> Argue ------------------------------------------------------------------------> * This thread
I think the poster had something of a different model in mind.
seek -------------------------------> discuss and debate ------------------------> arrive at truth
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI didn't attack anything, my friend. I attacked nothing. I simply said, in my opinion you argue for the sake of arguing against those whom you oppose. Your myriad responses to my observation have done nothing but prove my point.
Attacking what you "expect" me to say is a textbook straw man, sumydid. And they don't come much clumsier. Attacking what you "expect" me to say is about as arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing as it comes.
You still don't see the irony. It was you who attacked my observation by incorrectly calling it "clumsy" and a "strawman."
It was neither clumsy, nor a strawman. Had I attacked my observation and used it against you in a further argument, then it would have been a strawman. But I didn't do that, did I.
I would love to agree to disagree, if that's what it takes. I'm completely satisfied, and you can have the last word... get to it, and let's get this overwith.
Originally posted by sumydidNot so. For the most part my posts argue for the sake of ironing out inconsistencies, pointing out contradictions, and confronting the hypocrisies of those here who make pronouncements and denunciations on moral matters based on their often inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas. My posting record confirms this.
you argue for the sake of arguing against those whom you oppose.
Originally posted by sumydidI have never once argued something like "the molecules in the atmosphere [reflect] other colors as well" in answer to an assertion like "the sky is blue". Nothing remotely like it. It has never been the kind of thing I post. It is something of your own invention and misrepresents my posting record. That's why it's a straw man.
I didn't attack anything, my friend. I attacked nothing. I simply said, in my opinion you argue for the sake of arguing against those whom you oppose. Your myriad responses to my observation have done nothing but prove my point.