1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn page 34-35 we had this exchange:
that is still not a claim that lynching and criticising my religion are morally synonymous in themselves, you simply made it up. Why did you do it? why do you feel the need to misrepresent peoples positions here?
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 appalling this whole convoluted ad hominem is, here and on the thread where you tried it out the first time."
robbie: "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."
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOn the contrary, stating that something is symptomatic of an underlying moral disposition is not the same as stating that lynching and criticising my religion are morally one and the same. Its not me who has failed, its you who have blurted out a silly claim made on the basis of what you would like me to have said rather than what I have actually said. Its what you do, you think that by misrepresenting a position you can land some cyber rockets, pity for you that I had not made the claim that you said I have and infact i even deny they are synonymous, morally.
On page 34-35 we had this exchange:
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 ...[text shortened]... fort for your failure to tell us why this underlying moral disposition is in any way different."
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn the contrary, stating that something is symptomatic of an underlying moral disposition is not the same as stating that lynching and criticising my religion are morally one and the same. Its not me who has failed, its you who have blurted out a silly claim made on the basis of what you would like me to have said rather than what I have actually said. Its what you do, you think that by misrepresenting a position you can land some cyber rockets, pity for you that I had not made the claim that you said I have and infact i even deny they are synonymous, morally.
On page 38 you said to divegeester: "you have the same moral disposition as lynchers". On what basis do you make this claim? The only example you came up with of divegeester's supposed "ignorance, prejudice and bigotry" was his criticism of your religious group's doctrines. If you claim he has "the same moral disposition as lynchers", on what basis are you claiming this?
Originally posted by FMFI have already sated on what basis i will not do so again, its tiresome to repeat oneself again and again.
[b]On the contrary, stating that something is symptomatic of an underlying moral disposition is not the same as stating that lynching and criticising my religion are morally one and the same. Its not me who has failed, its you who have blurted out a silly claim made on the basis of what you would like me to have said rather than what I have actually said. Its ...[text shortened]... you claim he has "the same moral disposition as lynchers", on what basis are you claiming this?
