Why are Christians under attack ?

Originally posted by FMF
I think the expression "'they are symptomatic of an underlying moral disposition" is failing you, not me. You are trying to use it to justify the preposterous comparison of criticisms of JW doctrine with lynch mobs murdering black people. On one level, I sense that you are trying to be a funny maverick but I think you are losing sight of how simply daft and appa ...[text shortened]... is whole convoluted ad hominem is, here and on the thread where you tried it out the first time.

sure you keep telling yourself whatever it is you need to find comfort for your failure to tell us why this underlying moral disposition is in any way different.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure you keep telling yourself whatever it is you need to find comfort for your failure to tell us why this moral disposition is in any way different.

Are you seriously suggesting that criticism of JW doctrine and murdering black people are not "in any way different" in moral terms?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you seriously suggesting that criticism of JW doctrine and murdering black people are not "in any way different" in moral terms?

Oh dear , have you stooped as low as misrepresentation, how vewy vewy sad for you, some would say pathetic in the original sense of the word. What I have actually said is that ignorance and prejudice are symptomatic of a moral disposition. The justification for the use of violence is also symptomatic of a moral disposition. That we find these similarities between critics of Jehovahs witnesses and those who engaged in and perpetrated lynching (you assume it was black people where statistics indicate that many white people were also lynched but for different reasons) may be coincidental but I am inclined to dismiss it on the basis that prejudice and ignorance can be found almost anywhere and at any epoch. The same with the justification for the use of violence. If you can state why they are different then please do so now.

-Removed-

oh dear another vain attempt to misrepresent what I have actually said, is it really the best you can do? How feeble. How embarrassing.

-Removed-

I thought the question was rather clear? tell us how your justification for the use of violence is in anyway different.

-Removed-

Whether criticising my religion is immoral or not i cannot say, what i can say is that prejudice and ignorance are symptomatic of a degenerate moral disposition. Symptoms that you have displayed.

-Removed-

Tell us how your justification for the use of violence is in any way different from the justification for violence used by those other Christians who lynched people. Its not a very difficult question but you seem to be having trouble answering it. Are you bent out of shape?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That we find these similarities between critics of Jehovahs witnesses and those who engaged in and perpetrated lynching [...] If you can state why they are different then please do so now.

Well, you disapprove of the lynchings and murders and you also disapprove of criticisms of your religious group, so that is something that is the same about the two things, I suppose.

You ask: "If you can state why they are different then please do so now". OK. Well, one is murdering people and the other is an expression of opinions that you happen to disagree with. That's a pretty fundamental difference right there.

Would you also ask me state what the moral difference is between trenchant dislike and opposition to Tory policies in Britain and lynch mobs murdering black and white people? No, you wouldn't because it is ludicrous. Even if a Tory supporter accused me of 'ignorance, bigotry, hatred and prejudice' against Tories, it would still not justify equating my criticism of Tories to lynch mobs murdering people.

-Removed-

Only twice? I would think someone as skilled at misrepresenting statements as you are should have been able to mine more than two examples. You bring this up from time to time but never actually say what it is you claim I was lying about. Why is that?

I remember both of those times, and one of them very clearly... you were attempting to extract some personal information from me and I refused to comply... the subject had to do with evidence. That's when I fully understood what kind of game you play here at these threads, so as far as I'm concerned that's when you were defanged.