Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The compromise thread
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 27 (451081)
01-26-2008 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
01-26-2008 12:05 AM


hello dr a. you would be more than welcome to participate in the bicamerality thread in which hoot mon essentially asserts that all religion is a mental illness on par with schizophrenia.
Talking to HootMon involves recondite problems of its own, which I have not the strength to overcome.
Nonetheless, you may pass on my point that he knows he's wrong. Would he rather spend a night in a dormitory with a dozen paranoid schizophrenics or a dozen Southern Baptists? Really.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 12:05 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 1:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 20 by Fosdick, posted 01-26-2008 11:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 27 (451082)
01-26-2008 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rrhain
01-26-2008 12:23 AM


First, what I said was not a personal attack but rather a simple observation. At no point did I ever state, hint, or imply that NJ wanted to engage in any activity, enjoyed such activity whether it be an abstract concept or a direct example, or ever gave any impression that it would be anything other than horrible.
you wrote that NJ fantasized about raping babies. now, perhaps in your little dreamworld, "fantasizing" about something is not implying that someone desires to engage in that particular action. but rest of us here understand what the word "imply" means. why just look at how buzsaw got slammed for his "innuendo" regarding obama, and how he retreated to the "well, i never actually said that..." position.
further, your accusations took a personal tone and did not logically follow. NJ never indicated that he fantasized about raping babies. he indicated that he thought homosexuality was a social ill and grouped it with other forms of sexuality he felt was immoral. these are substantially different claims. to jump from here to accusations that someone fantasizes about raping babies is quite the non-sequitor, especially when the person's reasoning for grouping the two together (however badly) is quite obviously not because they think about raping babies.
perhaps the question at hand, rrhain, is why are you continually fantasizing about NJ raping babies?
And again, by simple inspection, we notice that the subject only comes up with the topic turns to homosexuality. He never seems to bring up this thought of his when the subject is heterosexuality, for example.
many christians do not feel that homosexuality is a "normal" sexual orientation, and is a deviation. i'm sure you understand that people hold this position -- and do not similarly hold that heterosexuality is a deviation as well. NJ's logic may be flawed, but your misrepresentation of your opponent's argument is simply apalling.
And at no point did I ever say that I had the right to verbally abuse somebody, especially not because he was verbally abusive, himself. What I did say was that if you found my reasoning to be disingenuous, then there is another line of reasoning that is just as disingenuous that you need to pay attention to. In other words, the two lines of argumentation converge together: If one is not a personal attack, then neither is the other. If one is a personal attack, then so is the other.
it's always fun to watch you try to logically prove that black is white and vice versa. you were essentially arguing that your personal attack was no such thing. those of us who live in the real world understand the difference between a generally ignorant and bigotted position, and specific and personal slander. it is quite evident, as i wrote above, that you do not understand the difference. your argument continues to demonstrate this simple fact.
That does not excuse any personal attack I might have made. However, it introduces a second topic regarding the response to personal attacks. Since the two arguments converge together, to treat one as a personal attack while the other is deemed not to be so is confusing, to say the least.
i would suggest first consulting the dictionary, where one might the definitions of "ad hominem" and "personal."
But none of this has any real relevance to NJ's opinion of how he will conduct himself in the future. I simply wished to correct your misconception.
it would be nice if it was a misconception. the fact of the matter is that you personally and repeatedly attacked another member of the forum, and tried to excuse by the logical equivalent of "he started it!" it appears that you simply don't understand why attacking your opponent is both poor form, and a logical fallacy. or, really, what logic even is, as your abuse in this very post has shown.
and equivocating your behaviour with NJ's, which were two very different actions, is a poor starting assumption, especially when you're arguing against faulty equivocations.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 01-26-2008 12:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 27 (451083)
01-26-2008 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2008 1:21 AM


Talking to HootMon involves recondite problems of its own, which I have not the strength to overcome.
mostly, i'm just trying to demonstrate that people legitimately argue potentially offensive generalized positions on both sides. your comparison regarding christianity grouped with "other mental illnesses" was particularly good -- such topics do indeed exist here.
Nonetheless, you may pass on my point that he knows he's wrong. Would he rather spend a night in a dormitory with a dozen paranoid schizophrenics or a dozen Southern Baptists? Really.
hypothetically, are both groups in straight jackets? and which has more access to sharpened implements of destruction?
i'm really not sure what hoot thinks. feel free to investigate in the thread. my impression was that he assumes religious people are not capable of conscious thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2008 1:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Fosdick, posted 01-26-2008 11:31 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 27 (451110)
01-26-2008 10:55 AM


Reigniting smoldering embers
To all those that responded to me:
I really don't think it is a good idea to respond to most of you individually for the sole fact that some of you have brought up homosexuality in the process. There's no sense in reigniting smoldering embers.
Most of you seem to be receptive towards my gesture, and I'm appreciative of that. As I fully expected, however, others were not as receptive and chose to remain negative and combative.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 20 of 27 (451111)
01-26-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2008 1:21 AM


Dr. A writes:
Talking to HootMon involves recondite problems of its own...Would he rather spend a night in a dormitory with a dozen paranoid schizophrenics or a dozen Southern Baptists? Really.
A dozen spastic nymphomaniacs would be better.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2008 1:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 21 of 27 (451118)
01-26-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
01-26-2008 1:41 AM


Religions don't like "conscious thought"
arachno writes:
i'm really not sure what hoot thinks...my impression was that he assumes religious people are not capable of conscious thought.
If religious people are driven by "group think," as you have claimed on the Is bicamerality bullshit? thread, then we'll throw out "bicamerality" and replace it with "peer pressure." Now, ask yourself if religious people think for themselves. Or do they get their thinking done by the amassed forces of true believership?
”HM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 1:41 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 11:36 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 27 (451119)
01-26-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fosdick
01-26-2008 11:31 AM


Re: Religions don't like "conscious thought"
HootMon and Arach,
I would appreciate it if you discussed bicamerality in that thread. I'm trying to foster some kind of unity in this thread. Sadly, it isn't going so well.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fosdick, posted 01-26-2008 11:31 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 01-26-2008 2:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 23 of 27 (451122)
01-26-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
01-25-2008 1:53 PM


Evolve or die?
NJ writes:
This forum, with all of its members, have some soul searching to do. We are losing the heart of this forum more and more, day by day. We must evolve or die.
Nem, I'm not sure what aspects of EvC need to evolve. If people have thin skins about their religions or their sexuality should EvC seek to clothe them with Kevlar? And should EvC eschew a sense of humor for the sake of political correctness? I seriously doubt that we all will be very happy in Sunday School, writing our posts with stubby crayons like good little girls and boys.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-25-2008 1:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 1:21 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 27 (451129)
01-26-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Fosdick
01-26-2008 12:03 PM


Re: Evolve or die?
Nem, I'm not sure what aspects of EvC need to evolve. If people have thin skins about their religions or their sexuality should EvC seek to clothe them with Kevlar? And should EvC eschew a sense of humor for the sake of political correctness? I seriously doubt that we all will be very happy in Sunday School, writing our posts with stubby crayons like good little girls and boys.
Hoot Mon, I couldn't agree with you more personally. Be that as it may, I am trying to make a compromise, as the name of thread suggests. I want them all to know that while we disagree on certain things, I will try and do my part to get my point across without undue offense.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Fosdick, posted 01-26-2008 12:03 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 27 (451136)
01-26-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
01-26-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Religions don't like "conscious thought"
I would appreciate it if you discussed bicamerality in that thread.
agreed. take it there, hoot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 11:36 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 26 of 27 (451586)
01-28-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Granny Magda
01-25-2008 4:13 PM


Is this comment justified for either argument?
I think that's right and it is a very fine balancing act between keeping things civil and stifling debate. I do not envy Percy his task in drawing that line.
Part of what attracted me to this site was that the debate was quite fierce but not too acrimonious. If we want to keep things that way, I think that we should all ask ourselves "Is this necessary to my argument? Is it justified?" before launching into some argument which we know is going to cause upset. If the answer to those questions is no, perhaps better not to post.
I think it would be better if we asked ourselves, "Is this nessacary ot their argument? What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2008 4:13 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 27 of 27 (451626)
01-28-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Granny Magda
01-25-2008 2:27 PM


Re: Truth and Reconciliation
quote:
I agree with most of that. I think the thing to keep in mind is that if you are going to say something that is going to offend or upset people, you best be sure that it is on-topic and necessary to your argument. No-one has the right to not be offended, but where offense is caused, it should not be gratuitous.
I find the saqqara birds fascinating.
Other than that, you remind me of my former mother in law, who is pushing up daisies now, whose counsel was offensive and so is yours, grammaw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2008 2:27 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024