By 
-
Subscribe
4,900 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Recent Comments
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... QotD: Kids?
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... QotD: Kids?
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... QotD: Kids?
Jasowah: “They don’t go beyond those emotions, and that’s the... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
DarkMatter: And funny that most of them are huge in size in the vid. Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
-
408 Comments
Like.
Seriously. It’s brilliant. :D
Clean hand writing?
Check.
All words spelled correctly?
Check.
Correct grammar?
Check.
Spacing planned out ahead so there is no crowding of the letters?
Check.
Used the correct synonym?
Check.
Before I even read the sign, I knew they weren’t Teabaggers. Well done!
:D
I also like, but many of those angry about same-sex marriages probably would like to roll that back as well, so unfortunately it’s unlikely to have any effect. Not that anything would have an effect on such entrenched beliefs; Jesus himself could come down on a cloud and declare same-sex marriages lawful and they’d still have a problem with it.
That would just add more contradictions to the Christian religion, so perhaps they’d reject his words as being a mistranslation.
They just wouldn’t accept it was Jesus. “What would Jesus do?” Whatever the person asking thinks Jesus would do. He’s an abstract concept, not a person.
They would assume he was a false prophet and get him crucified. Oh wait – the Jews already did that once. I doubt anyone would recognize the second coming unless it really was the end of days and he would definitely have to come rolling down on a cloud carpet. I bet science could explain that pretty quickly as well though.
So Very Like
I’ve been so accustomed to seeing biracial relationships (I’m currently in one, and my mother’s family are black/white mixes) in my area of London that at first this picture went over my head. But this is pretty hard hitting.
Excellent.
Yeah, London (and Britain in general) has rather less background racism than America. Remember that it was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court declared that states didn’t have the right to limit marriage to same-race couples.
If these people happen to live in Texas, their marriage is illegal.
Ummmmmmmm….. I’m from Texas and I can assure you that their marriage is LEGAL. Don’t be daft.
I mean, seriously, did you even read the wiki you quoted???
Uh…. Yeah, Texas Prop 2 is about civil unions for gay people. Pretty sure there’s nothing in there about interracial weddings.
Pics of Texas, anyone??? (It’ll surprise you, I promise!!!)
http://www.krausesprings.net/
I’m not sure what’s surprising about the picture.
most people think Texas is a giant desert…
Yooooo gots a puuurrrrdy state.
Aww, thankee. Yuck, yuck!
I think what he means is that the amendment was so inartfully worded so as to make illegal *all* marriages in Texas, as the link outlines. Of course in reality the amendment would never be interpreted that way in a court.
Oops! I didn’t realize that… not a legal expert, just a biology and special needs expert.
:D
Haha, wow. The state can’t recognize anything identical or similar to marriage? All they have to do is add the words, “except marriage itself” or something.
Christian faith was never against interracial marriages, maybe this dreadful exception that was American puritanism, so this argument only shows that civil laws are sometimes wrong, and they will be if there would be one which said a union between people of the same sex is marriage.
A marriage (a Christian concept, everyone be sure of this) is a bond between a man and a woman, based on heterossexual sex and the hope of children.
I would like also to stress that “marriage” usually was a conservative require. It’s somewhat ironic (or just cynical) that homossexual pairs want to have a “traditional American family”.
Yeah, because only in Christian Nations do people get married. Any only married people in these Christian Nations should even want to have children.
And infertile or sterilised couples or those not interested in raising children need not apply.
Marriage isn’t a Christian concept exclusively. It existed before Christianity in various different cultures globally.. And in some societies even males could get married. I suggest you read up on the Bugandan and Native American (I can’t remember which nation) homosexuality.
You forget that in modern society marriage entails a lot of rights under the civil law such as joint tax filing or the ability to visit your partner in the hospital and receive information from their doctor. Do you think that these rights should be restricted to christians who are in heterosexual marriage with other christians (no same sex or interfaith couples allowed).
ROFL. I’m sure to tell my Hindu friend she’s not really married.
Glad to know I can’t marry either being a) an atheist, b) not interested at all in children or procreation.
“Christian” marriages never required a state certificate. So it isn’t even relative.
I’ll let the others counter your claim it is a “Christian” concept.
Study more.
Actually marriages are most definitely NOT a Christian concept, but a business proposal for two families –mostly selling their daughter in the hope of gaining a higher socio-economic status.
Marriage is a religious union. I am not really pro-gay marriage, but I am pro-Constitution. The US Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. So long as there are churches that will join them in marriage, the government has no excuse to ignore this union while supporting another.
I don’t understand the need for people to follow books. The Bible, the Constitution, whatever. Can’t you think for yourself? Do you really need some document to tell you whether it’s okay or not to let people who love one another to marry? If the Constitution said slavery was great, then would it be great to you?
Humans tend to gravitate toward “law”. Makes it easier for some of them. You know, where there is mandate, you get bare minimum action.
Marriage is a religious union.
For what it’s worth, I disagree. Marriage was a secular affair for centuries before Christianity made it a sacrament.
Frankly, given that Christianity spent half it’s existence telling people that the authentic life was one lived in celibacy, it’s a little galling to hear people act as if it’s got a monopoly on marriage.
? Christianity spent half it’s existence telling people authentic life was celibacy? Elaborate, since the biblical text promotes a lot of sex. And in fact, wants couples to have it OFTEN.
I think even today, vatican is not denying it
that the authentic life was one lived in celibacy
for priests you mean.
I see nothing in the Vatican’s teaching that implies all Catholics are to be celibate to achieve an authentic life. There is much teaching on chastity however. Which isn’t the same thing.
If I’ve missed something, direct me to it…
“for priests you mean.”
You mean priest were lied by vatican into priesthood? This is interesting.
celibacy is promoted for PRIESTS, not all members of the catholic church.
I have no idea where you are coming up with lies.
“celibacy is promoted for PRIESTS, not all members of the catholic church”
What! all catholics are celibrate? What are you talking about?
Theres that business with John or Paul, one of those fellas who hated women. Something about not giving into temptation and if you did you were best to do it with your wife because that was what she was there for.
So basically yeah, celibacy unless you are married.
“So basically yeah, celibacy unless you are married.”
Then you mind the things of the world. Who say that again?
celibacy unless you are married? That makes no sense. You are talking about chastity. Not the same thing.
Chastity deals with proper outlets for sexual gratification. Celibacy is decision to abstain to gain spiritual awakening.
“Chastity deals with proper outlets for sexual gratification. Celibacy is decision to abstain to gain spiritual awakening.”
By keeping it secret until marriage. No, I am not talking about you. I know, you said it many times- celibacy is for priests.
by keeping it a secret?
You aren’t making sense DM.
Oh I do, you just don’t know John and Paul.
Remember, Christianity is more than just the Bible. It also ingested a strong dose of Platonic philosophy, if for no other reason than to make sense of the Incarnation. That philosophy had it that humans were composed of pure spiritual souls encased in base material bodies.
So Christianity tended to denigrate those things that had to do with the body, like sex. And therefor you see many of the church fathers, like Jerome, Augustine and Tertullian, emphasizing that really good Christians should remain celibate.
Many of the apocryphal gospels emphasize this as well. For example, the Gospel of Peter has Peter being crucified upside down because he had been convincing women not to have sex. (DagoodS just did a post on this one.)
Eventually, this idea got outsourced, so to speak. Monks and nuns took on the responsibility of living the authentic Christian life, and the common person just tried to support them as they could. Of course, even the the common person was supposed to stay chaste most of the time; see the Medieval Sex Flowchart.
Chastity and celibacy are not the same thing.
I know that. As I said, celibacy was considered the ideal by many Christian authorities for a very long time. Even after they accepted that most of humanity wasn’t going to stop getting married and reproducing, they laid down religious laws that limited what times a couple could engage in “proper” (i.e. chaste) sexual intercourse. No sex on Sundays, no sex on feast days, no sex during Lent, etc.
Again, see the flowchart. Though be aware that all these regulations weren’t necessarily active in every part of Christendom throughout the middle ages. The chart is more a distillation.
I would disagree about motivation on the rules regarding chastity. I don’t see that as having anything to do with the claim that was made that “christianity claimed celibacy is necessary for authentic life” (to paraphrase slightly).
The laws regarding chastity and sex stem from the idea of love relationship between spouses and procreation “naturally”.
I’m not seeing that one has anything to do with the other.
Certainly I concede that many may suggest that celibacy promotes spiritual awakening, much as any sort of fasting would. If that is what is meant by “for authentic life”, I can wrap myself around that understanding – having been celibate myself for several years, and having enough knowledge of the principles behind “denial of flesh/desire” being spiritual weights so to speak in the gym of religion. So, if that is what is meant by “ideal”. Okay.
But again, not all of Christianity promoted this kind of fasting. And it wasn’t even limited to just that religion.
The concept of fasting (anything) and purity gained through denial of desire is common in many cultures and religions.
“But again, not all of Christianity promoted this kind of fasting. And it wasn’t even limited to just that religion. ”
Besides the point – whether it was practiced by every Christian strand or not, it was mainstream in Christianity for a long time. It’s even Biblical. Therefore, Vorjack’s point remains valid.
Vorjack hasn’t explained the statement “authentic life”.
I already conceded I can appreciate the statement regarding ideal. But no, Christianity didn’t promote celibacy for all in the church.
That the teachings promoted chastity doesn’t necessarily mean the teaching stated “authentic life”. There needs to be clarity on that.
Don’t you read what I actually write?
Yes, I read it. Don’t you?
It’s pretty clear that the authentic life is the ideal life. The church promoted celibacy as the ideal. They knew it couldn’t be expected of all, but that they at least should try. Ergo, you have already admitted he was right, so why are you still arguing?
I’m not sure why you are challenging my statement to Vorjack since you haven’t added a damn thing to the discussion.
The statement that authentic life=ideal life is nonsense. They are two different words and terms with entirely different meanings. That’s why I said if he is stating authentic=ideal, I’d concede based on spiritual muscles so to speak.
But the claim that chastity=celibacy is false. And vorjack used chastity in his explanation. Not celibacy.
Celibacy being taught as a higher call and free from the distraction of spouse isn’t the same as the teachings on chastity and sexuality between those who are not called to celibacy.
“That the teachings promoted chastity doesn’t necessarily mean the teaching stated “authentic life”. There needs to be clarity on that.”
Where did he say that?
vorjack used teachings on chastity to back his claims about teachings on celibacy. there was a chart and everything. catch up.
No, he did not. You are not saying that chart existed during the apostles time, are you?
DM: Are you high today? I mean, it’s cool if you are, but you are coming out of left field with these posts.
Clearly Vorjack addressed chastity.
“Clearly Vorjack addressed chastity.”
Of cause he did. But the teachings of celibracy is from the book, hence his argument. You do have a right to argue with even higher authorities if that is what you are talking about. Just go do it wherever they are.
The book? Are you talking about the biblical text?
The teachings promoting celibacy in the biblical text are limited to a very few people. It is noted that it is a higher call and while beneficial in regards to the “present times” and no distractions – it is also not a blanket statement that all followers of the Way be celibate.
Chastity however is encouraged throughout. And within marriage, hell, sex is something the couples ought to be doing practically non stop.
So, if you are going to argue from the “book” (if you mean bible), then you won’t get far.
I understand various church leaders promoted the higher call to be celibate. And I also understand various church leaders promoted chastity among members. Apples and oranges.
‘I understand various church leaders”
Your percieved understanding now does not change vatican history, let alone history of christianity. You might prefer grapes and strawberries.
omg.
requiring priests to be celibate is not the same as stating all members of the church should be.
and teaching on chastity is not teaching on celibacy.
What the hell don’t you get about that?
That you can’t change history according to your perceptions with your conflicting arguments.
DM: you must be high. There is no conflict here, and I haven’t attempted to change history.
Now, you admit it.I already know you are lying about Vorjack’s.
Actually, the government didn’t need to get involved in the first place sans contracts between parties. That “marriage” became something more than just ceremony and benefits were added, the government messed it up.
There were governments before Christianity as well.
yes. i know this. point?
You’re acting as though marriage always was what you specifically define it as, and now are annoyed at the government subsequently messing around with it. Both marriages and governments that controlled them existed before your definition of what a marriage is did.
What are you talking about?
I’m talking about the United State’s government (you know, the thread started on that vein) and the decision for *that* government to get involved in the first place. It was unnecessary. And began the slippery slope it now wrestles with.
elizabethdamaro is from of old. Don’t ask her age.
Yes, I know which government you’re talking about. I also know what kind of marriage you’re talking about, and you seem upset that the government is ‘interfering’ by changing what they see as marriage, even though marriage predates both that government and your own idea of what marriage is. Marriage has been more than just a ceremony for a long time. The US government getting involved is hardly exceptional.
You are adding a hell of a lot of assumption to my statement.
You also will be hard pressed to find me defining “marriage” here according to my idea.
I never once claimed it was only a ceremony. Or that it always was. I was speaking in context of marriage in the states and the states involvement in it. I said that “marriage” (did you not see the quotes?) became more than ceremony and that benefits were added is where the US government messed up.
Pay attention.
I am paying attention. I am seeing a whole lot of squirming on the hook, and a lot of snark, a clear indicator of someone losing their cool.
Again, you are acting like the US government’s involvement is somehow exceptional and a reason that marriage is, by your definition, screwed up. Why?
Not once did I say marriage was screwed up. Nor did I ever claim the US government is the only government to ever be involved.
You are seeing a hell of a lot of your own assumptions.
John shame on you for falling for her silly trick, She brought up the US govt and then claimed it really wasn’t what she was talking about. She’s mad about Governments in general giving benefits to married people.
Sunny: work on your reading comprehension. Since, I never suggested any such thing.
I’m specifically talking about the US Government, and have said so all along. And “mad” is a dumb word to use, since I stated it only caused the slippery slope that is now wrestled with.
I do find that the biggest problem with the US government’s involvement in marriage though to be that it endorses “couple” over single. Which is understandable, yet, rather also further promotes the notion that somehow singleness is of no great advantage in a society.
Which is rather barbaric, since a society can thrive and benefit through individuals as well as couples. That there is no tax break for not wasting the court’s time with licenses or I dare say, subsequent divorce proceedings is rather ironic, considering.
But that is a new discussion…
Keep your grocery spreeing to yourself. There is no need for a new discussion.
“A marriage (a Christian concept, everyone be sure of this) is a bond between a man and a woman, based on heterossexual sex and the hope of children. “
Have you even read your own “holy” book?! The “Christian concept” of marriage includes polygamy and forcing victims to marry their rapists among many others, so YOU need to be clear on something: The Bible DOES NOT DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
I personally could not give a good phuk what the Bible says a marriage is or isn’t – but since you’re so keen to use it as the basis for justifying your own homophobia, I suggest you read it. That way you might not get spanked on discussions.
“It’s somewhat ironic (or just cynical) that homossexual pairs want to have a “traditional American family”.”
Phuk you, you homophobic, bigotted, arsehole waste of skin. Clear enough for you or do you want me to spell it out a little clearer?
“The Bible DOES NOT DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.”
Only antichrists will argue so.
Sorry, but the “christian concept” of marriage does not at all include polygamy. You are wrong. The biblical concept of marriage included polygamy, but in no way was it sanctioned by the God of Abraham as the ideal. And the NT specifically states monogamy between man/woman.
However, you are correct that rape victims were instructed to marry their attackers.
Most of those teachings were cultural and practiced among many of the ancients, not just the Hebrews.
Many people confuse what the Hebrews did as something their god commanded. When, that just isn’t how it worked.
It’s his book, and they are written as instructions. Yes, these are things that god commanded. Including polygamy and marrying your rapist.
Yeah, that’s how god works, since he never change.
No. Wrong. The “Christian concept” of marriage does NOT include polygamy at all. It’s addressed pretty clearly in the NT.
READ AGAIN: Many people confuse what the Hebrews did as something their god commanded. When, that just isn’t how it worked.
Tolerated, accepted, condoned does not equal commanded or even instituted.
Commanded equals commanded, though. If you want something to read again, I suggest the bible.
There is no command for man to enter into a polygamous marriage. There are regulations of a practice well established. Again, condoned doesn’t equal commanded.
@elizabethdamaro
God, you’re an idiot. Seriously, READ THE BIBLE — you are WRONG! You are FRACTALLY WRONG!
Cite ONE COMMAND from the God of Abraham to be in a polygamous marriage. Cite ONE PLACE in the text where this practice is instituted and commanded by the God of Abraham.
There is a huge difference between regulating a practice well established and tolerating it and actually commanding it and instituting it.
The biblical text in no way supports that the God of Abraham instituted polygamy or was even a fan of it. In fact, there are countless examples where the God of Abraham is not pleased with man’s actions in this regard.
“The biblical text in no way supports that the God of Abraham instituted polygamy or was even a fan of it. ”
Oh, it was goddess Sarah speaking to King David about it.
The God of Abraham did not command King David to take multiple wives.
Again, allowing for and tolerating is not commanding and instituting.
And David is actually reprimanded for his actions. The passage in Samuel, where Nathan addressed David speaks to this displeasure of the God of Abraham. It’s an “all the kingdoms of this world” kind of lesson. You had it all and still wanted more. And I’d have given you anything, but you had to take from one who had so little.
To try to suggest in any way that is the God of Abraham instituting polygamy is absurd.
The instructions regarding marriage always dealt with (as addressed farther up in the thread) that a spouse is a distraction from whole devotion to the Lord. And those with high calls to the God of Abraham are encouraged to consider carefully the concept of marrying, especially NOT taking many wives.
Going back as far as Abram, his taking of Hagar was out of the command and plan of the plan of his god and resulted in trouble all the way around.
Again, no command from the God of Abraham that even comes close to suggesting polygamy was instituted and desired by him.
“To try to suggest in any way that is the God of Abraham instituting polygamy is absurd.”
Except he didn’t mind blessing them and their decendants.
So what?
This god is depicted as blessing Hagar as well, even though it is clear in the text that marriage was undesirable. All you show there is a god that bestows grace in spite of man’s depravity (which is the whole frickin theme of the text).
You can’t show that polygamy comes from this god or that it is a practice he doesn’t want. That this god tolerates a well established ritual among the people in no way means polygamy is any more than a norm/tradition/more of men. NOT something instituted by their god.
You done now?
So what?
This god is depicted as blessing Hagar as well, even though it is clear in the text that marriage was undesirable. All you show there is a god that bestows grace in spite of man’s depravity (which is the whole frickin theme of the text).
You can’t show that polygamy comes from this god or that it is a practice he wants. That this god tolerates a well established ritual among the people in no way means polygamy is any more than a norm/tradition/more of men. NOT something instituted by their god.
You done now?
No, because of God’s bountyful blessing, except you can kill somebody’s husband to get it.
That is insane.
There was no cause/effect quid pro quo here.
David was not blessed because he killed Uriah. David was blessed in spite of his killing of Uriah.
Big difference.
That’s what I am saying.
You need to learn to use words correctly.
“killed to get” implies a trade.
that isn’t what happens in the story.
No, in spite what you think I am saying.
Gaaaaaa
Is that a zombie-like groan or a disgusted grunt?
Is that a zombie-like groan or a disgusted grunt?
Daniel’s talented. It could be both.
I am speaking out of my memory, so I may be wrong.
1.- God never condemn any polygamial relationship because of it being polygamial, but for other reasons.
2.- In fact, he “blesses” with kids some of those relationships, or he blesses the good wive instead of the bad wive.
3.- God never institutes polygamy.
So, God is neutral in respect to polygamy? Yeah, right, you are forgetting that we are not speaking about a legal process. God is supposed to be Hebrew’s source of morality, He even condemns mixing different types of fabrics. Why should he have condemned polygamy?
“The instructions regarding marriage always dealt with (as addressed farther up in the thread) that a spouse is a distraction from whole devotion to the Lord”
Hey, that was Vorjack’s point you were discussing before, wasn’t it? Anyway… that kind of spiritual crap is probably -nop, I don’t have good references to say that- a result of oriental influences through Hellenic culture. So it was mixed with Abrahamic’s religion much later.
A question: Were they polygamial marriages in times of jesus amongst jews?
Oops, one las thing: Allah is also an abrahamic God!
No, Vorjack made a claim that the church promoted celibacy as the authentic life, then cited celibacy and chastity. They are different things entirely.
And I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that the God of Abraham was to be the Hebrews source of morality. While the Mishna definitely assists in understanding ethics and decision making, and the Torah outlines law… Judaism and the understandings about their god dealt strictly with obedience to law. Morality really doesn’t and didn’t have anything to do with that.
It was more akin to following directions.
So, regarding polygamy (and I already addressed the blessing *in spite of* not because of), there is no law against it… where there is no law, there is no sin. And where there is regulation in the law, it is followed. But many customs and cultures were *allowed*, while some were *off limits*.
Again, to the Hebrews, morality was moot. It was only about law.
Sure, polygamy was still practiced by some, not necessary the Romans or Greeks though. Monogamy was taking hold as the preferred union… but there were still many sects and cultures that held onto the previous traditions. But I can say the new testament writings lean toward monogamy and the original (I’ll say design just for point) *design* that stems from the creation story.
Again, polygamy was a very acceptable cultural rich, and even beneficial arrangement for men *and women* during these times. By the time the early church was taking root away from judaism, it was becoming less necessary and less a norm. As many mores go.
Regarding “Allah” and the God of Abraham.
The lineage through Ishmael gives us modern day Muslim religions. The lineage through Issac gives us Judeo-Christian religions.
While some suggest all three worship the God of Abraham, the texts disagree completely. The Koran, The Torah, and the Biblical Text all point to the truth that the Name of the Lord, the Name of the God *represented* the character of said god.
All three of these religions hold completely different understanding of the character of their god. While the lineage to Abraham is common, that is where it ends. For it is at this place in the stories, the crossroad develops and each one of these religions walk away worshiping an entirely different concept of that god.
If you want to get technical, their god didn’t command anything, since he doesn’t exist. It’s all just stuff the Hebrews did.
;)
I’m coming at it from a study of the text teaching standpoint.
That the Hebrews also enjoyed the “god concept” theory (as other cultures did)… is a point… but there were differences in what was attributed as to coming from the god and what was simply cultural norm/practice.
…?
As Daniel pointed out, coming from the “text teaching standpoint” (whatever that means) doesn’t really make sense. Even if the ancient Israelites said, “Ok,*this* commandment comes straight from God!” it’s still coming from their cultural practices/norms, since the deity on whom they’re basing their cultural practices doesn’t exist in the first place.
Did you really never pay attention in English Lit class?
Shakespeare’s plays were fiction too. But people discuss them all over the world.
And no, it isn’t – because what they attributed to their god often times conflicted with the social norms. Often not.
See, that’s your problem. You jump right in with the ad hominem and then start writing stuff that doesn’t make sense.
What does English Lit have to do with what you’re saying? Are you making an argument about textual criticism and the Bible? And “no it isn’t”–what isn’t? How did “what they attributed to their god often times [conflict] with the social norms”?
In short, what the frak is your point in posting in this thread? I have no idea what perspective you’re coming from. It seems that you’re being argumentative to be argumentative, and you’re not even arguing all that well to begin with.
That wasn’t ad hom.
And it does make sense. You seem to think that because there isn’t a “god” that it isn’t important to discuss a text where people stated there was one.
The God of Abraham was credited as being the one who redirected some of the cultural expectations and norms that were being practiced.
There are times the ancients state “god commanded” and other times they simply didn’t. Some things have law attached, some don’t.
And you can slam me all you like, but it won’t change that it does matter if one is trying to limit theism’s impact, and the force that is christian doctrine and biblical texts, that it behooves the person attempting to make that change to know about those things – and I’d submit to a greater degree than even the theist.
You seem a bit fragile. Perhaps you should take some time away from the Internet and work on your argumentation skills.
Wow. You’re full of assumptions aren’t you.
Perhaps you should not project so much?
So we can agree that the buybull is an unreliable source to what your god want even if it actually existed and therefore should not be taken into consideration when making decision about 21st century laws.
People make those decisions on law for a variety of reasons. Yes, I think it is nonsense to base current laws on social norms of old, but then again, some of those social norms prove consistent. Some don’t.
I’d argue the concept of universal morality is totally flawed. So, laws will be based on a thousand factors. Hell, some people want a law based on something their grandfather once said.
But I’d also argue that the United States law (or, I’ll say Constitution) isn’t based on a god anyway.
Elizabeth, I understand your argument (God didn’t command it, the NT argues against it), but I have a couple of points:
Many fundie Christians follow many teachings in the OT that the NT rules out – in fact, didn’t Jesus basically say to disregard the OT and follow his word instead? My point being, people pick and choose what rules and traditions they want to obey from the Bible all the time; people like Fred Phelps would argue that following the book of Leviticus is an entirely Christian thing to do. You and me don’t get to define what isn’t “Christian”, because the very word “Christian” is so nebulous and means so many things to so many people. On the basis, though, that there are many people who self-identify as “Christian” who also regard OT traditions as being indicative of good Christian values (so to speak), I would say that anything that is done in the OT which Story God either blesses or accepts without comment is fair game to describe as a Christian concept to some Christians.
This is the joy of theology – it’s based on belief without evidence, therefore argument from opinion or authority is the only valid (if you can call it that) method of arguing it.
No, Jesus never made any such statement about disregarding the Septuagint.
I don’t really care if people want to accept the mores and norms of the ancient Hebrews. I have never stated the ancients didn’t participate in things. I’m simply stating the text in no way attributes some of it as being pleasing to their (the ancients) god.
And theology is not belief based without evidence.
And by the way: People like Fred Phelps are after law suits. That people (like you) take the bait and call him “christian” is saddening, still. Because anyone who does enough research about him and Westboro will logically conclude the goal is $ and exploitation apparently seems to work for them. Let’s be smarter than that. You know?
OH, you should have SAID! People who don’t follow YOUR definition of “Christian” are No True Scotsmen ™ .
And you’ve got the brass neck to whinge about straw-man arguments?
Crusader: There was no fallacy committed there. I didn’t even define “Christian”.
I stated that I hoped people understand the Phelps are about exploiting and making $ and I stated that people take this bait and call them “christian”. That is their goal. In other words, they are relying on that fallacy to bait folks like you who will use them as an example.
If they are not christians, what are they? Are they atheists? Would you say maybe they are jews? If you assert they aren’t christians, what is your definition of christians, and is it up to you to decide what a christian is, that these people must be something else?
I see. Claiming that your unambiguous statement was somehow ambiguous and blaming me for you being a hypocrite. You officially just became not worth talking to.
I never made a claim of what their belief system is outside of their motive to exploit and bate others. It doesn’t matter what system they use to do that. Anyone who has done any research at all on Westboro can logically deduce that they are utilizing this tactic as a means to file lawsuits and generate income. They are preying on it. And apparently, fooling many people on all sorts of the side of the spectrum.
And I wasn’t a hypocrite at all in that statement about the Phelps. I never once made any statement that they were or weren’t “christians” or “true christians” or whatever.
I could care less if they are or aren’t. Or what they personally believe about a god. That doesn’t change that they are exploiting the very fallacy that was brought up and the belief systems themselves to make a buck.
That’s practically obvious.
I guess when same-sex marriage is legal, the next hurdle will be same-sex-interracial marriage.
And according to our right-wing friends, marrying a donkey.
ar least the donkey wont complain if you come home to late if you go out.
I thought the next hurdle would be marrying a dog! Dammit, someone needs to send me the latest update on Destroying Western Civilization!
Some people is far ahead of you:
- 2003; Residents of Bangalore marry two donkeys (the bride called Ganga and the groom called Varuna) at the Maha Ganapathi temple in Rajajinagar, believing that this ritual will bring them rain.
-February 2006; Charles Tombe is forced to marry a Sudanese goat (subsequently named Rose), after he was caught having sex with her. He also had to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars (£25) to the goat’s owner.
-November 2007; P. Selvakumar, a 33 year old farm labourer, who believed he had been cursed for stoning to death two dogs, atoned for his sins by marrying a four year old stray bitch in a traditional Hindu wedding ceremony, on the advice of his Astrologer.
-Korean Lee Jin-Gyu married his pillow.
We are doomed!!!111!!1
There was also a chick who married a dolphin.
…And it’s still inadvisable given that hat.
Never has ‘tl;dr’ been more adequate to describe this ‘debate’ festering in here.
LOL! I have no idea what this “elizabethdamaro” person’s beef is. At least John C can sum up his crazy woo in one or two posts.
It does the non theist no favors to slam concepts that they state come from the biblical text, that don’t. It makes the person look like an idiot (theist or non theist).
Pretending celibacy is the same as chastity, or that polygamy is a standard of the “judeo-christian god”, or any such incorrect assessments makes the non theist sound as crazy as the theist that perpetuates false statements as well.
If you are going to slam theists or mock their belief system or try to call their text immoral, you’d better know what the hell you are talking about.
You know at first when I started reading the debate, I do admit to getting what Elizabeth was saying about some shit. It was trivial, but I could see her point. I’ve mostly forgotten it because the replies started getting more and more…What’s the word I’m looking for? What adjective could I use?…You know that feeling where you’re listening to some friends talking about trivial aspects of paint production and its ramifications upon the carpet industry and because it’s so lame you zone out, only to return seven hours later and find out they’re talking about each other’s mamas? That’s what the endless streams of posts feels like.
LOL–I know, right? I’m like, “OK, she’s objecting to some interpretation of the text…okay…now she’s…what? What the what?”
Dude, I don’t even know what the hell anyone was arguing about. It’s 2:44am in the morning right here in the UK, so maybe it’ll be clearer to me in the morning and when I actually read in detail, but still. Being on this site makes me feel like a baby whenever I skim through boring shit like this.
Maybe when I’m older I’ll understand the importance of paint [and that probably wasn't the debate subject matter, but does it really make a difference?].
(edited the a** part of post)
I think it makes a difference in that if the goal is to rid the silly mystic notions and get a smarter humanity that doesn’t rely on on these religious teachings… it behooves the individual to be educated in their counters of it.
A person who has studied the subject matter, and this text, fairs better at showing the theist where it is flawed. And that isn’t rehashing poor arguments cut and pasted from militant, anti-theism, hate religion sites or groups or forums.
Slamming the bible as being about a jerk of a god or having different mores or social norms is mute. Those terms are totally relative and mores change all the time.
Any slam to theism or Christianity that includes an ignorant statement like the one in this thread that christianity or the biblical god supported or called for polygamy will render the debate or discussion worthless to the theist who has studied the text.
*moot*
It seems quite clear that Yahweh/Jehovah was pretty okay with polygamous marriage in the Hebrew Bible. While “he” may not have commanded that men take many wives, the Levitical codes sure did have allegedly divinely ordained regulations about taking wives.
Sure, I said that. Tolerate, condone, accept, even legislate around the practice doesn’t equal command. And in many cases, the God of Abraham is described as being displeased with it.
Similar to divorce. Certainly there are permissible ways for the hebrew to divorce, but that in no way means it was something their god was for or promoted.
Loverly…now that we know what you’re reacting against, why don’t you present a positive argument? Since it appears to be your claim that some folks here don’t “know what the hell [they] are talking about,” hows about you do some enlightening?
Bonus points if you actually keep your arguments relevant to the point of the original post regarding same-sex marriage and the prior illegality of interracial marriage.
I already addressed the United States involvement with marriage, and the mess it got itself in.
Is this what you mean when you say you addressed the US situation? “Actually, the government didn’t need to get involved in the first place sans contracts between parties. That “marriage” became something more than just ceremony and benefits were added, the government messed it up.”
Yeah, see, you’re not making any sense here. I think your use of the word “sans” is at best awkward, at worst, completely confusing. Your second sentence is also very confusing. You seem to be saying that gay marriage should exist alongside heterosexual marriage and that both should not have government sanction. Is that correct?
I elaborated on that point also. I even went as far as describing how the US favors couples over individuals.
What I said was exactly what I said. The government didn’t need to get involved in the first place sans contracts between parties.
What about that statement do you struggle with? You can’t appreciate the use of the word “sans” in that statement?
I also stated that making “marriage” something more than just ceremony and adding benefits was a screw up on the government’s part and led them into the slippery slope mess they are now in.
When you’re using “sans” you’re saying, “The government didn’t need to get involved in the first place without contracts between parties.” See? That doesn’t make any sense.
So, you’re cool with gay marriage, then?
Sigh. Broaden your mind please.
“the government didn’t need to get involved at all” = all laws gone, all mandates gone, all legislation gone. That is the logical conclusion to that statement. No government involvement means NO LAW.
sans = without (or when you read the above , remove what is coming next from that list – in other words, there is going to be an exception to it)
removing contracts between two parties.
I could care less about gay marriage or straight marriage. But I do care, as I said, that these couples get benefits just for being a couple. I’m for contracts. “Marriage” is unnecessary for this. Individuals in a society ought to be able to enter into contracts with whomever they choose. That the government gives some of those folks benefits and not others is Unconstitutional. In other words… it’s a slippery slope. And the individual is the one who is the most disenfranchised by it.
See, and that’s why you have so many people ticked off with you in this thread. The “sigh. Broaden your mind please” is just plain condescending–you’re trying to get people to sign on to your apparently libertarian argument; you’ll need to try being a bit less…crotchety in your presentation. I tried to point out that the use of sans in that sentence isn’t syntactically correct–”sans” doesn’t mean “at all,” and when you throw it willy nilly into that sentence, you veer very close to having a double negative. It’s not about having a “broad” mind; it’s about communicating your ideas effectively and clearly.
Syntax aside, I am gratified that you recognize that LGBTs deserve the same constitutional protections as heterosexuals.
I think you are confusing who was insulting who here first Roger. If you find it condescending, that’s on you, not me.
And, arguments stand or fall regardless of whether or not you like the person presenting them. I don’t care if you don’t like me. Your dislike of me doesn’t in any way change the truth of my statement. And sans is not incorrect usage in that statement. I didn’t say it meant “at all”.
I can be against the government getting involved but without being against the contracts. Get it yet?
I never said heterosexuals or homosexuals deserved those rights. I actually said the opposite.
I think you are confusing who was insulting who here first Roger. If you find it condescending, that’s on you, not me.
And, arguments stand or fall regardless of whether or not you like the person presenting them. I don’t care if you don’t like me. Your dislike of me doesn’t in any way change the truth of my statement. And sans is not incorrect usage in that statement. I didn’t say it meant “at all”.
I can be against the government getting involved without being against the contracts. Get it yet?
I never said heterosexuals or homosexuals deserved those rights. I actually said the opposite.
Saying that your grammar and syntax is confusing is not an insult.
And you’ve got a LOT to learn about rhetoric and the art of persuasive speaking/writing. I assume that when you began writing your posts, you were attempting to persuade people, correct? If you were, then it’s highly unlikely that you’ve won anyone to your side with your condescending tone. If you weren’t, then the question is begged: what was your point in responding in this thread in the first place?
Usually, when I see someone who pops up in one thread and only one thread and posts the way you have, I tend to think, “Hm, this person hasn’t shown up or posted in any other thread…this smells like a troll.” Your posting style also lends credence to my thinking that you’re a troll—a more sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless. Of course, it’s entirely possible that you’ve gotten off on the wrong foot. It happens.
And yes, dear, I get it. By any chance have you read Nancy Pelikoff’s critique of the gay marriage movement?
Never did I once imply or state that your comment on my grammar was an insult.
And, you didn’t use “beg the question” right. Don’t you mean “prompted” not “begged”. For someone who is claiming to be so versed in language, shouldn’t you have gotten that one right?
It’s cute that you think I need to learn more about the art of speaking and writing. And by cute I mean, I really don’t care what you think I need or don’t need. That you likely googled “sans” and then posted a definition based on that tells me enough.
That you are ignorant about the times I have visited or posted on this site is evidenced by your silly claims about being a troll.
Again, I don’t care if you like me or if I rub you wrong. It doesn’t change that the points made are valid. The claims that folks made regarding the text and it’s teachings were false. I corrected them. And the challenge to my statement about marriage was nonsense.
Drop your assumptions.
And no, *dear*, I didn’t care to read it.
You do know what the term “begging the question” means, right?
I’d also suggest you google “sans,” because it’s clear you don’t know what it means or how to use it correctly.
And it’s a shame that you didn’t care to read Pelikoff’s book; why did you not care to read it?
“I can be against the government getting involved without being against the contracts. Get it yet?”
Apparently you didn’t. Sans was used correctly – as demonstrated in that statement there.
Against the government’s involved sans basic contracts. Against the government without (sans) being against the contracts. You are being an idiot.
And you used begging the question wrong.
“I assume that when you began writing your posts, you were attempting to persuade people, correct? If you weren’t, then the question is begged: what was your point in responding in this thread in the first place?”
That isn’t begging the question. What you mean is “then the question is prompted”. Not begged.
Begging the question deals with circular reasoning. Not prompting, asking, or leading to inquiry.
*involvement*
Gaaaaaaaaaa!!!
That’s it, I’m locking up the troll food.
Finally!
Who are you calling a troll?
I believe that would be you, dear.
Oliver: “Please, sir, I want some more.”
“I believe that would be you”.
You must be referring to Kitty,
If you are referring to me, It’s nonsense.
If Daniel blocks me suggesting I am a troll that would be absurd. I’m trusting he is smarter than that and can clearly see who is the guilty party in inciting “attack” posts and slams, and contributing nothing to the discussion but those things.
Liz, I have no intention of blocking you, but you seem to be arguing just to argue here. It’s getting a bit ridiculous. You seem to be making a lot of enemies — not because of your points, but because of the way you present your ideas and arguments.
I’ve noticed this many times before, as it seems to be something in your personality. I’m sure you’re used to it by now — you seem to think the problem is everyone else and not you. I’d suggest reading Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends…” and look back at your comments and see if you’re really making friends and influencing people, or just ticking people off.
Of course, you may not care about making friends here or actually convincing people of your ideas. But if that’s the case, then why comment?
Me? A troll? Bitch, PLEASE!
Ask around, I’ve been here a while, and while I may be snarky, at least my wit entertains people!
You, on the other hand, are about as entertaining as a yeast infection.
keepin in classy kit.
/sarcasm
I love woo too Roger :)
Hi, how are you doing? My name is Mark.
@elizabethdamaro — How DO you remember to breathe?
Ad Hominem is not an argument. It’s a tantrum.
Try again.
Wasn’t arguing, just asking a valid question, as you clearly lack the brain-power your “god” gave the common flea.
Seriously, STFU, already — you’ve been shown time and again that you are wrong, HOW you are wrong, and WHY you are wrong, but you just keep going. Give in and admit it, already. Unless you’re a masochist, of course….
She over shopping her purse. Now, she needs to blame someone, esp if she had injured herself.
Shorter elizabethdemaro: “I’m right, I KNOW I’M RIGHT, LALALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!1!”
you should consider getting a new hobby. internet trolling is so… 2007.
Did you just say I had a god? WOW.
And you are delusional, since your second claim there is as outrageous as the first.
You’re the one defending the disgusting notions of “chastity” and “celibacy”, and trying to back it up with Christianity.
Now STFU and get back under your bridge.
Wow. You really that slow? The discussion is about a text and what that text states. If I were discussing that the big bad wolf ate Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother, that in no way would mean I was advocating wolves eating grandmothers.
Marriage IS a contract between two people, therefore government involvement IS necessary. Now PLEASE go back to your church or wherever it is you came from.
You aren’t paying much attention are you?
No, government does not need to be involved in “marriage” at all with the exception of already established contracts on partnerships/ventures.
Marriage is simply a social union, an institution that promotes partnership. It often includes a ceremony, and often stems from religious expectations or cultural ones. while it is a contract between the parties, there is no need for it to be set aside from other partnerships or contracts.
Really, a better hobby. Try knitting maybe?
I’m done with this … thing.
It can’t comprehend that marriage IS a contract, and fails to understand that its tone and utter idiocy are becoming boring.
It needs to go. Now.
I, for one, am done playing with it.
You gotta hand this to her; she helped drive up the comment count (and page view!) in a way that you usually see only in a post dealing with abortion. She’s a blogger’s dream come true. ;-)
if knitting isn’t for you, maybe you might like bowling?
Yeah, Roger, I’ll at least hand her that.
Let gays marry, so they can be miserable like everyone else.!
Heh–could you imagine a gay version of “Say Yes To the Dress”? I guess for guys it’d be called “Say Yes To the Tux.”
LOL! I could *totally* see a show called “Groomzilla”. :D
I just realised that was on one of Chris Rock’s standups. Hah, excellent.
It’s cute how everyone misunderstands our poor little lizzy. She’s really quite put upon to tolerate everyone’s short comings. It’s just so adorable when she goes off on a little huff and condescends to everyone around her. If only we weren’t so dull and dim-witted she could quit insulting us and we could truly appreciate her magnificence.
what a waste of your time to spend it expressing your displeasure about somebody.
Isn’t apathy a better solution for you?
See what I mean? Worrying her pretty little head about the dreary old things people would waste their time upon.
She’s just so precious!
She’s precious, all right…and there’s really no winning with her. Try being nice–and she acts a fool. Take a harder line and she still acts a fool. I wonder if she’s ever gone on PZ Myers’s blog and spouted her tripe. For the time that I’ve been responding to her, she’s been quite the entertaining troll.
Ad Hominem is not an argument. It’s a tantrum.
Really guys, why spend your time complaining about someone. Apathy is the way to go.
And, learn what “trolling” means.
Oh, my how Delightful!
Is anyone else here beginning to suspect that elizabethdamaro is a christian in disguise? I’ve noticed a pattern that all her comments are essentially just meant to tell people they are wrong. Never why they are wrong or what she thinks is right. Just that they are wrong.
Early in my attempt to “debate” her on the thread:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/forum/topic/proof-disproving-christianity
I came to the conclusion that she is not here to participate in a discussion. She is here to stop discussion. The big clue is her refusal to ever state an actual position on anything as opposed to just saying someone is wrong. So about the time I decided to put her on my ignore list I asked myself, “who would be here behaving in this manner?” and what I came up was an embittered christian who felt like the atheists on this site were calling her an idiot and took up a personal crusade to call them all idiots back.
NOX:
False. I have most definitely explained why, and elaborated on my positions.
Refusing to answer loaded questions, chase your herrings, or entertain ad hom is not “refusing to state a position”.
Your conclusion about me being a “christian in disguise” is laughable. And very very bad logic.
I suggest you get better at learning how to come to good conclusions.
I don’t think she’s a Christian in disguise; however, just from perusing her interaction in the forum discussion you linked to, there’s a distinctly condescending, arrogant, and insulting tone to her writing. But there are other threads where she’s not condescending, arrogant or insulting. I think–hope!–that time will make her a bit less acerbic to those with whom she might actually have agreement.
You ought to be able to deduce from that that I speak to *individuals*, and I respond based on the person and their approach and response to me and their strengths and weaknesses as well.
An old term from theist days still holds true in many regards:
“law to the proud, grace to the humble”. Use that analogy if it helps you understand better the approach. As I said to El, you’ll see that in my very first post and the others that subsequently followed.
Elizabeth! (the page is being weird) But your point concerning that not all members of the church need to follow the celibate lifestyle priests lead… is pretty damn flawless. I didn’t get the hoopla, tbh, your argument was solid.
If that was her point, why didn’t she just SAY so, instead of going about the way she did?
Its definitely the HOW, not the WHAT. Though she doesn’t seem to want to adapt to the forum, or show some flexibility with how she conducts herself, which I respect but at the same time cringe at. Jmo.
The constant dancing AROUND her point, and rushing off on tangents, and — good BASEMENT CAT! — the condescending tone are all really irritating.
Seriously, people, if you have a point, please, MAKE your point clearly, concisely, and within the first post or two.
I did. Again, get better reading comprehension.
Based on your posts, you didn’t even read anything I wrote. You claimed I went to church, worshiped a god and had been shown that I was wrong. None of those things are accurate.
Had you read my posts, there is no way you would come to the conclusion that I was a theist, especially.
You’d have also seen my statements that chastity and celibacy aren’t the same things and that celibacy was required just for priests. I mean, that was I think one of the first two posts.
And it wouldn’t matter anyway. It is ad hom that you’ve got. Trolling with ad hom because apparently you hate religion for some reason.
Yes, I “hate” religion… that must be why I *gasp* HAVE ONE!
Christ, you’re stupid!
you can apparently hate religion and have one.
( you don’t know what apparently means do you? )
really, I meant what I said… and after reading that post, I’d suggest the hobby be related to some sort of education.
I may be a lot of things kit, but stupid isn’t one of them. try again.
Mmm, yeah, can’t make a coherent point, so you resort to snide insults and insinuations about other posters. I’d expect someone who claims to be an intellectual to be able to:
A) MAKE THEIR DAMN POINT, CLEARLY AND QUICKLY.
B) Not go off on weird tangents about scripture. (Yeah, that was ALL you.)
and C) Not get her panties in a bunch because OH NOEZ SOMEONE DISAGREED WIF ME!
If you can’t handle snark, disagreement, or, you know, opinions, you’re in the WRONG PLACE.
Incidentally, being a condescending bitch isn’t a quality that makes people like you. In fact, it rather makes people DISLIKE you, as is apparent in this thread.
Now fuck off and go troll some other site, kthxbai.
Are you somehow under the impression that your comments bother me?
I think you might be projecting kit. Maybe more ice cream in your diet if a new hobby isn’t something you want?
“Every single person misunderstands what I say. Therefore, my argument is perfectly cogent, but they all have problems with comprehension.”
That about sum it up?
Not even close.
But there is enough evidence in this thread that a few folks didn’t even read what I actually wrote and added assumptions.
*that* about sums it up.
I did. Get better reading comprehension and drop the assumptions.
Oh, fuck off, already.
you aren’t very good at keeping your own word are you?
apathy: try it.
:)
Yeah. While I’m 100% for being objective, it seems to be working against you atm… And obviously the discussing of you as if you’re present probably wasn’t helping matters ^___^; lets keep the playground politics out of it D:
*NOT present
I don’t really care if people want to spend their time talking about me. It’s their time, not mine. I think it’s silly and counterproductive to their claim about me… I mean, seriously, it’s more than juvenile, it’s just plain a waste of their time.
Who cares?
“It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to” ~ Wilde
It’s even cute when she Lies.
If you didn’t care you wouldn’t mention it. Keep giving that apathy thing a try snookiums, you’ll get the hang of it eventually.
Actually, most of the time you’re only being pedantic, which, after reading your back-story, makes sense. However, it seems to have produced an unhealthy amount of snark :O I would attribute that to tone.
Gaize, just because someone disagrees with or challenges your point, does not necessarily mean that they fall under the theist umbrella.
Tried to read this whole thread. Brain hurts now. Gonna make an observation (and probably get flamed to death for it:
Elizabeth, you do seem to know your stuff, but you come across so arrogant, condescending and all-around insulting that I genuinely thought for a while that you were Lyin’ Fo’ Jeeeebus about being an atheist (i.e. pretending to be an atheist and being a bit of an arse so that your alter ego could point and go “Look! Atheists! What arses!”).
You can state a fact or opinion without also expressing a giant superiority complex. Or, alternatively, you can go the Custador, Jabster and WMDKitty route and just all-out insult people with no holds barred – but those things have different intended results. The way you write comes across like you’re intending to educate, but you’re so far up your own arse that nobody wants to admit you’re right because you just piss them off too badly and they’re offended at you. Then you claim “apathy” but still dedicate reams and reams to trying to justify why you’re right and everybody else is wrong (which is hardly apathetic) – when if you’d have just altered your tone in your original statement, people might have just said “Oh right, good point”.
Please don’t think I’m saying all of this to offend you. I’m perfectly capable of doing that without also producing constructive criticism and it’s more fun for me that way – this is aimed at actually helping you.
It would also help that, when someones induces something (evident?) from her comments, she wouldn’t say “I never said that”. Maybe she could try exposing more clearly her statements.
Only suggesting.
Why on earth would I accept someone’s strawman as correct? If you extrapolate from my statements and make an incorrect assumption about my point, that is on you…
Good points. I think Elizabeth’s tone & style is the problem, not usually her points. My dad has a similar personality — a lot of times, he doesn’t realize that his tone & attitude sets everyone on edge around him. It makes people want to knock him off his high horse and then never talk to him again.
I’m not sure what the problem is, but it seems that he can’t read people’s emotions when he’s talking. He also loves being in control and feeling superior. The way he talks makes everyone infuriated, but he doesn’t seem to realize it. He thinks everyone else is the problem. Needless to say, he’s not well-liked in the family.
I can has cookie?
In my humble little opinion if you have someone who posts on your blog and the majority of the threads they are involved in quickly degenerate into slanging matches and nitpicking about minor points of posts then you have a right to ban them. If the same person refuses to accept that this can be in anyway connected to their behaviour then you probably have a duty to ban them.
Oh and if you want to work out what the problem is look up personality disorder as that may point you in the right direction.
Why on earth should I be responsible for your behavior? That makes no sense. If you don’t want to engage, don’t. But suggesting a person be banned because of the way *others* react to them is just nonsense imo.
See! EVERYONE ELSE IS THE PROBLEM. If we were only half as brilliant as our little precious s’mesious Lizzy we’d all get along much better.
I’ve already John C’ed her.
Its much eaiser to ignore her posts and simply read what others say in response to her. This way I can use the community as a filter against her blisteringly self important condescending bullshit.
I have to disagree a bit. I don’t think the problem is tone. Let’s face it, the tone around here gets downright nasty sometimes, and for the most part we all handle it pretty well.
Elizabeth’s problem is with clarity. She often makes statements that appear to support a given position without making further explanation. When people then assume she is supporting a position she in fact appears to be supporting, she comes back and says that’s not her position at all. Often she does this by asserting that her statement should be read in the most narrow way possible. But she never clearly states what her position is, and when asked to claify she refuses.
Elizabeth – I think you will find this is an interesting bunch of smart people. If you want to engage in debate though, you are going to have to clarify your arguments.
No, that is not what she has been saying. Uh, wait, I think she will disagree with my statement.
But will she disagree with your disagreement concerning her disagreement?
Nothing is impossible with her, I think. She can always disagree whith you questioning about her disagreement with my disagreement concerning her disagreement.
It is not my responsibility to play with strawmen. If someone makes an assumption about my statement, that is on them.
If you aren’t clear, ask. But I won’t be held accountable because someone assumes I am on a side or not. This thread is a good example. I made my statement about the government’s silliness in getting involved. And clarified regarding the fact that we already have contracts in place. I also asked Vorjack to elaborate on his statement regarding celibacy and then very clearly stated that chastity and celibacy are not the same. In addition, I made note that polygamy is not something instituted by the god of abraham according to the text.
Those were very clear statements that meant exactly what they said. And they were on point.
That others assumed it meant I was a theist or defending theism, that some then stated it meant I was for gay marriage (which I said nothing of the sort), or against gay marriage (which I said nothing of the sort), is not based on my statements, but their assumptions.
You said it yourself, people assume… that’s a bad idea.
Actually, assuming can be a bad idea but isn’t always. Assuming you are supporting a position you in fact appear to be supporting isn’t really bad.
You have made at least one thing pretty clear – you aren’t going to change your style at all. That’s unfortunate. Eventually people will get tired of your shtick and just ignore you. (See, C. John) I have a sense you may have something interesting to add to the conversation, and that is going to be lost.
By the way, making an assumption is not the same as building a straw man.
Yes it is bad. Since it is assumption and not conclusion or deduction.
And I didn’t say they were the same thing. See, you did it again. You ignored the actual statement and added to it.
If someone uses assumptions in building their strawman… and that happens… I won’t play with it regardless.
You tend to group all inductive inferences, whether they be legitimate or not, as “strawmen”. This makes it much more difficult to take your complaint seriously.
“It is not my responsibility to play with strawmen. If someone makes an assumption about my statement, that is on them.”
You really can’t see how a reasonable reader can look at the above statement and colclude that you are lumping “assumption” and “straw men” together?”
No El, Strawmen are mischaracterizations of my statements/arguments and then arguments against said mischaracterization.
Bill: Assumptions are often a part of how strawmen get built. I’m expecting (perhaps idealistically) that most people who understand what strawmen are and what assumptions are get that.
I’m quite familiar with the concept of strawmen. I simply disagree with you that all things you have identified as such in fact are.
I only identify something as a strawman when it is, or I identify when I see one being built.
You can tell when someone is building a strawman. It’s not that difficult.
“It is not my responsibility to play with strawmen. If someone makes an assumption about my statement, that is on them. If you aren’t clear, ask.”
People have. Repeatedly. That is the problem.
“Some then stated it meant I was for gay marriage (which I said nothing of the sort), or against gay marriage (which I said nothing of the sort)”
Exactly. If you refuse to clarify your position then you can call both sides idiots. Then if someone tries to criticize your position you can honestly say “I didn’t say that” (since you were careful not to actually say anything) It’s a cute trick, but people are catching on. And the more times you repeat it the more likely it is that you are doing it intentionally. Until you break down and actually state some actual position on something (anything), then the only thing people can guess about your opinions is the inverse of whatever you say is wrong. This is not the same thing as a strawman. You can’t accuse people of misrepresenting your position when you have never represented your opinion. I know you are trying to avoid that since you obviously realize that to make a specific statement is to invite criticism.
I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person who has made this “assumption” about you. But if it pisses you off as much as I am sure it must (doesn’t everything), you could do a lot to counter the perception that you just like to act opinionated by stating any actual opinion that you have about anything (literally anything). What I mean by “actual opinion” is not “this person is stupid” or “this statement is wrong”. I mean “this is a thing that I Elizabeth Damaro actually believe”. Just a thought.
“You can state a fact or opinion without also expressing a giant superiority complex. Or, alternatively, you can go the Custador, Jabster and WMDKitty route and just all-out insult people with no holds barred …”
Well as Ben Goldacre said recently … “The best we can hope for is the simple, enduring pleasure of baiting morons.”. Anyway back to little Lizzy who’s probably done her back in trying to workout where that sunshine’s coming from … I pretty much gave up on her when I realised that she’s more interested in showing that she’s right and others are wrong than discovering some sort of truth. Combined with a personality that would make Fred West think twice about renting a room out to her and she was quickly put into to the category of not worth bothering to reply to (try reading Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb if you want a proper dilemma between someone having something worth while to say and being a bit of an arse). Saying that I was thinking of calling her a stupid bitch (I would have preferred stupid little cow but Americans have always been a bit inward looking so she probably wouldn’t have understand). The only reason I didn’t was because I was afraid of the many thousands of innocent casualties as a head that large exploded.
“Please don’t think I’m saying all of this to offend you. I’m perfectly capable of doing that without also producing constructive criticism and it’s more fun for me that way – this is aimed at actually helping you.”
Tried that didn’t make a sod of difference as little Lizzy has a personality that takes any criticism as a sure sign that she’s right and you’re wrong …
Yeah, but now if she starts being a twat to me, I can feel all righteous that I gave her a chance before I unleashed the profanity :D
Good point … and I look forward to the profanity. I was even rather touched that I was mentioned, along with yourself and WDKitty, as one of the out and out insulters!
p.s. It’s about time that a good-ole YECer started posting again isn’t it?
Hells no – my profane vocabulary is only so large.
The joy of profanity is the ability to create new profane terms. They can usually be compound profanities, like “shitf*cker” or “f*ckerbitch.”
Typical bloody American … what’s wrong with a more English term like cock spanner?
:-)
I still like “donkey raping shit-eater” and “cuntyslutfuck”, personally.
“I pretty much gave up on her … and she was quickly put into to the category of not worth bothering to reply to”
And yet, look at the length of that post you have there. Not being worth bothering to reply TO, but plenty worth replying ABOUT?
Doesn’t sound like giving up if you ask me.
You don’t see your contradiction?
Apathy Jab. Then you’ll be consistent. Try it. :)
A person can be totally uninterested in interacting with you but still concerned about the effects your presence and behavior have on the community.
Jab’s comments were pretty clear. Not being worth replying TO, worth replying ABOUT.
As to behavior: way to mention the behavior of others in this thread. Tell me, will you be chiming in only to address *me*, or do you have things to say to others who are wasting the thread talking trash about another member?
Doesn’t matter to me what you do, but at least work on consistency yourself.
You’re the new guy. Your behavior, whatever it may be, is the proximate cause of the turbulence. I’d readily say, as Custador did above, that nobody really acquitted themselves with grace in this here thread, but nevertheless they weren’t reacting to a phantasm. I’m not a moderator here, just a guy, and in the comment above, merely pointing out that a person can legitimately talk *about* someone that they have no interest talking *to*, and like it or not, your presence and behavior is remarkable enough to provoke such comments.
Personally, also like Custador, I found your point trivial but mostly correct. You can choose to value being correct uber alles if that is your prerogative, but the community has other values besides that one, like social comity. We’ve also talked about his on the forum; new guy is an outsider, new guy has a duty to learn the rules of social interchange, and has no beef if he/she gets called out on running afoul of convention. People who have been around longer have earned leeway in how they express what they think, by demonstrating they more often than not increase the value of the discussion.
I’d suggest that REACTION to me causes the turbulence. Again, all it takes is one person in the bar talking smack about the new patron for the regulars to jump on board.
The groupthink doesn’t lean towards objectivity. You can’t deny that, and have already conceded that previously. I won’t bend to that silly notion that the new guy needs to adjust to the crowd. Again, that isn’t a free forum or a dialogue, that isn’t exchange. That isn’t a community, that’s a club. If I thought this was a club, I’d never have engaged. Communities aren’t static. Clubs are.
That you suggest the regulars in the bar get the leeway because they more often than not add “value” only represents they come and spend money regularly (hence their name). But to dismiss their actions towards the new patron – and actions that subsequently DERAIL discussion rather than allow for added value – is negligent and irresponsible if the bar is open for business. In other words: that you would give the regulars the freedom to heckle the new patron and then suggest their heckling has nothing at all to do with how that patron is being received or the atmosphere in that bar, or suggest it’s allowable to any degree.. and then suggesting the new patron isn’t or hasn’t spent enough money there is just bad business practice.
The regulars ought to know how to keep themselves in line. Unless again, this place is club and not an open community after all.
Just because a number of people have registered their displeasure with your attitude does not mean it is a result of groupthink. That is your delusion. You really like to think people only “gang up” on you because someone else did and we are all followers, and at that, that is talking smack about some fairly independent thinkers who do not agree with everything or each other all the time. You like to think so, and it’s obvious you have made that your excuse for not being well-liked or able to get along with people who belong to groups.
The only explanation you can come up with is poisoned groupthink! How arrogant.
It wasn’t the bomb that caused the casualties, it was all the stupid people milling about.
Why is it so difficult for you to own the effects you have on others? Sure there is *shared* responsibility, and in no small measure a person chooses the manner of their reaction, but that is borne only to a point. There is a reason why even societies with free speech commitments have a fighting words doctrine, as they recognize that people are reasonably vulnerable to provocation from “mere” words.
I’m all about people poking things with sticks, but that comes with the expectation that sometimes what flies out afterward might sting the bejeezus out of you. I’m not about to blame the bees.
Kodie: It is not a delusion. It is a very widely proven knowledge that groupthink clouds objectivity and that masses influence. It is hardly delusion at all to acknowledge that reality and address it. You can pretend all you like that groupthink isn’t a part of the dynamics here, but you are evidence of it in high degree. Most all your posts towards me align yourself with the group and I as the outsider. You have even stated yourself there is a ‘list’ and regulars are on one and new folks are on the other.
I also never stated that all gang up only due to groupthink. I’m sure some individuals just don’t like the way I rub them. That’s fine. So what? But I don’t deny the power of the influence of the groupthink either, and that it contributes to that already predetermined distaste. And I won’t pretend it isn’t at play.
And I do get along with lots of folks in groups. You are leaping to conclusions based on silly assumptions and ignorance about me.
“I’m all about people poking things with sticks”
It’s true! Nope has poked me with a stick a few times… LOL!!!!
But I luvs ya anyway, Nope. :)
I didn’t blame the bees El, I simply asked for acknowledgment of shared responsibility and the acknowledgment you conceded to already that you side with the group over the newbie. Fine.
I won’t be held responsible for the reaction of others. People are to own their own responses and reactions. I own my personality. I’ve said repeadetly I don’t care if you don’t like me. I’m not here to win a popularity contest.
Pretending that I have claimed martyr or victim is nonsense. I get and have stated that I’m more abrasive. So what? Get a spine. If you don’t like it, don’t respond. If you don’t like me, don’t waste your time. Don’t waste even any energy about me. Hell, why let it even be a factor? That’s silly.
I’m not too fond of emoticons or folks who are all sappy, fuzzy, lovey dovy, big deal. Some people are like that. I don’t go out of my way to harp on them to change so I will like them more.
I’m not so certain I understand your fix with doing the opposite and expecting me to be someone I’m not just because some strangers on the internet have ignorant incorrect assumptions about who I am.
You don’t like my personality? Fine. It isn’t yours. It’s mine. So it shouldn’t bother you one minute. That it does, is your own problem to deal with. Work with it, or ignore it. But pretending I’ll change it just to please you, is idiotic.
A) Your words are all we have to go by. How could so many people make the same mistake? Because we’re ignorant? Or because you don’t choose to adapt your writing to communicate better?
B) Who the F are you to make ignorant, incorrect assumptions about everyone else, and exempt yourself?
I take it you have a dislike for the word “ignorant” and have attached negative to it for some arbitrary reason? Is that right?
No, my words are not all you have to go by Kodie. Not even close. I addressed this with JonJon at one point. You could ask me questions, hell, you could get to know me in a thousand ways if you wanted to. You could also drop the groupthink that clouds your ability to see me one on one. You don’t. And I already addressed why people might believe similar things. Sure, I am abrasive and more instructional when posting online. So what? Some people don’t like that. Also, there is the groupthink bias in play. And there is just that some people don’t like to be shown their statement is incorrect. Plus, there is just good old fashioned differences in personality. Attraction and rejection stem from our own biases and desires and innate chemistries working in the brain. I didn’t say it was a mistake. Not once.
But it is ignorant. Because it lacks knowledge. And there are assumptions. Which are evidenced all throughout this thread.
And I don’t remember making any assumptions about you, I do remember I evaluated you in a thread once, then asked if I was close or not and you never responded. I didn’t exempt myself at all.
I have made determinations of some of the folks here. And I base them on who they are individually. What kinds of threads they participate in, what books they have read, the vocabulary they use, etc. We all do that. I don’t dislike anyone here. I think every person has a unique personality and I imagine every person here contributes something, and can contribute something to me. That doesn’t translate into being buddies, or agreeing, or even not acknowledging that they may not like me. But so what? What do I lose? What do you gain?
Do you think it bothers me that much that you don’t like me? Or that kit has only juvenile slams? Or that El and I disagree about communities? Do you think it bothers me that Jab wants me banned because he just can’t stand that the dynamics changed upon my entry? Or that LRA hasn’t cared to see if she and I even have something in common? Or any number of other things… It doesn’t.
It’s just a board. Sure, it is rich with atmosphere and dynamics. Sure, there is community here. I get that. It’s not the first online community I’ve known. But I also know it isn’t actually the local bar (though I’ve used that analogy), and I can’t actually just play a great tune and buy you a drink and get to know a member here outside of discussion/debate about all those taboo things most people won’t even bring up in bar. (I do, but that’s besides the point).
So Kodie… yes, your assumptions and conclusions about me are ignorant. As ignorant as my limited evaluations about you. The difference is: I’m evaluating and you are concluding.
And you did it again “everyone else”. Speak only for KODIE.
You don’t like my personality? Fine. It isn’t yours. It’s mine. So it shouldn’t bother you one minute. That it does, is your own problem to deal with. Work with it, or ignore it. But pretending I’ll change it just to please you, is idiotic.
There is a difference between a positive duty to “be nice” and a negative duty to “not be mean”. The first is a function of personality; people are either naturally nice and warm towards others, or they aren’t. I couldn’t give a smaller damn whether you are nice or not; there are a decent number of people here like anywhere else whose default is “not nice” and I get on with them just fine.
The second, though, is a function of following social rules. A person who is serially not nice is just a sourpuss. A person who is consistently mean is being sociopathic. That is something any community or individual in it has a right to care about, and they are in no way equivalent. Nobody has to LOL their way through controversial statements or use smiley-winky emoticons; those that do do because they want to. But there is an objective social beef with a person who consistently belittles others, is dismissive, argues in bad faith and assumes that the conventions of discussion and rules of argumentative analysis apply to others but not to themselves.
I can’t remember the last time you asked me what I’m really like, but you try to sum me up all the time. But I guess that is a tu quoque. I do think I know enough about you not be curious as to the rest of your glowing facets. That’s how “getting to know people” works. You’re either interesting or you’re a big turn-off. You’ve made yourself unappealing, and it’s stunning you expected some other reaction.
El, suggesting I am “mean” is a reach. And I have never once suggested I be any sort of exception.
Kodie: I don’t try to sum you up all the time. I honestly don’t even think about you unless you post to me.
I didn’t expect another reaction from you. I did however answer your question.
I, personally, and independently, dislike you very much elizabethdamaro. If everyone tomorrow decided to throw you a parade, for some reason (maybe it’s opposite day?), I would still think you were unreasonably antisocial and arrogant and refuse to participate. Your assertions otherwise are getting completely worn out. A lot of people of their own accord seem to agree with me, but not because I have any charisma. Everyone seems to be finding out on their own what you’re like and why you suck to try to have an argument or discussion with.
Is this proclamation of your ignorant opinion of me supposed to mean something to me?
You are asserting I have an ignorant opinion of you: proof?
see above.
and try not to load too much into the word ignorant.
Gee, thanks for the advice, but perhaps you want to use a word other than ignorant if you’re not actively trying to piss people off. You can live in your bubble where it’s a neutral word, but that’s not what it is out here, amongst people. Yes, you do have a responsibility to communicate effectively if you want to be received and understood correctly, and if a word is generally loaded and negative in effect, you have chosen the wrong word to explain just what you might mean. Just a tip.
Why? Ignorant isn’t a negative term. Hell, I’m ignorant about how to change oil in a car. It doesn’t piss me off if someone tells me that about myself.
It is a neutral word.
It simply means lacking in knowledge, unaware, etc.
You don’t make peeling back the layers of elizabethdamaro a very inviting offer, nor have I seen you interact with others as an example of getting to know them before you make up your mind about them and say ignorant things about them.
“Why? Ignorant isn’t a negative term. Hell, I’m ignorant about how to change oil in a car. It doesn’t piss me off if someone tells me that about myself.
It is a neutral word.
It simply means lacking in knowledge, unaware, etc.”
I think it would be helpful if you would provide a dictionary of all words you use in any given post. Please include not just the definition of the word itself, but also any inferences the reader is allowed to draw from the word or any phases it is used in. In addition please indicate whether the term is neutral or not. If not please indicate what the lack of neutrality means.
I think we could avoid a lot of conflict this way in the future, as you don’t seem to use language in the same way that many readers here do.
I was under the impression that people knew what the word meant.
Telling someone they are making an ignorant assumption about me means exactly that. An assumption that is ignorant about me.
Why do you keep advocating “apathy” when you clearly don’t exercise it yourself? Wouldn’t apathy have prevented you from commenting in the first place?
She wins the argument by default if everyone leaves the topic alone, but she really doesn’t like it when people hate on her, no matter how much she says she doesn’t mind it. I’ve never met someone so oblivious in my life.
There is always the first time.
Good point–perhaps she and I (and maybe others) see commenting differently. I tend to see commenting as entering into a discussion, not a moment of just making a pronouncement or two. If we were apathetic as she suggest we become, then a comment thread on a blog wouldn’t even need to be nested–it would be a bunch of drive-by comments.
Kodie: you are so wrong. You liking or disliking me doesn’t impact me one way or another. And again, arguments stand regardless of who makes them. If you toss the statements, just because they come from me, then you commit ad hom fallacy.
Um, I’m promoting apathy for consistency in the remarks of others. I’ve never claimed I was against interaction or that the members on this forum were not worth my time.
When someone claims that I’m not worth their time, then they spend their time on me.. that is inconsistent. I’ve made no such claim.
I don’t care what you think of me. I don’t care if you like me. But that in no way equals my stating I don’t care about *you* or what you have to say.
That is the difference.
I get that you “don’t care what we/I think of you;” don’t you care what people think about your arguments? When the consistent “beef” with your presentation is about clarity, then that is not about what people think of you; rather, it is what people think about your arguments and the manner in which you present them. The manner in which you present an argument can affect (adversely or positively) the reception of the argument. Your very first comment in this thread was antagonistic–telling a poster to “study more” is haughty, derisive, snide and does nothing for your overall argument. Again, this IS NOT about what someone thinks about you–this is how you will be received in general discourse. Now, you can come back and point fingers at eleventy other folk in this thread, but you can’t deny that (again) your very first comment in this thread went beyond being corrective and informational.
Roger: Pay attention because I want this to be the last time I have to say this…
Arguments stand or fall regardless of who presents them. You can hate me for all I care. You can think I smell bad, look funny, talk with a lisp, and am a total bore. That is totally completely irrelevant.
What is relevant is the argument. So, no, I don’t care what you think of *me*. That is no excuse for you to toss the statements being made. If you and I look up at the sky and I say “there is a bird flying by” and you say “you suck” and then deny a bird flew by – that is your problem, not mine. The accuracy of a statement does not rest on the person making the statement.
My first comment telling that poster to study more was no more antagonistic than those who posted prior to mine that ridiculed the claims being made. Mine was mellow compared to the mocking that poster would get anyplace and anytime making such an idiotic statement. Suggesting they study more is a kindness in comparison. To suggest that statement is “worse” than the slams you and others made in this thread against me *personally* is warped. But fine, I get that everyone has their own idea of what may or may not be offensive. I’d consider you consider that.
“Roger: Pay attention”
Sit Roger.
“Arguments stand or fall regardless of who presents them. ”
Speaking as one who argues for a living, I can tell you this is just not true.
Also, in order for an argument to “stand or fall,” people must understand what your argument is. You do an exceptionally poor job of communicating what your arguments are.
Arguments stand or fall regardless of who presents them.
I once believed this to be so. But it turns out, outside the fiction world of ideas, arguments are instantiated through persons, and stand or fall with them. Bound up tightly in any presentation of discourse are the subtextual motivations and interests of the people making the argument, and unless the argument is on all sides being engaged in “merely for fun” and not for some other purpose (like education, persuasion, or the like), those motivations and interests are material to the argument.
Yes, a hostile person presenting an argument is difficult to listen to. Imagine if you presented your dissertation to us on the *whatever the topic is now* in speed-metal format. I would not listen. I guess you could then say I wasn’t on your level. Some people here might like it even more if you did that. But your tone! The argument can be the argument but if people think your word choices are condescending, and you sprinkle statements and denials without as much clarity to get your point across as you might, and then you respond by saying, no, you don’t have to conform to the tone of the group, you are singled out as the oblivious windbag, no matter what you had to say.
I don’t care what law of logic that breaks — that’s just the way it is!
Here’s what you don’t get and seem to be resolute on not getting: I am not talking about your appearance, general hygiene, or whether or not you are a “total bore.” As I said–and as several other people have said–the manner in which you present your arguments (the words you choose as well as the tone in which you present them) are antagonistic.
Note, I spoke about your very first comment in the thread–NOT the later reactions to your increasingly condescending and snide writing. The problem is that you (a relatively new person) sashayed in issuing pronouncements. Your directive that someone “study more” is not a kindness–while you may think that you’re offering a kindness, you’re not. Why not suggest that that person read the sources that you read that informed your argument? Simply saying “study more” is curt and will likely be read as rude; however, saying, “Here’s what I read that influenced the way I think about governmental interference in marriage” is less likely to invite scorn and ridicule. As a positive example, I point to your brief exchange with vorjack–your comment to vorjack on 5/30 was well-written and free of unnecessary rudeness.
Kodie: your definition of hostile is suspect. And hardly objective. I suggest you take a good long look at the hostility in this thread and consider carefully.
El: I’ve never stated presentation doesn’t matter, but arguments do stand or fall on their own merits.
Bill: wrong. again, the accuracy of a statement is not dependent on the person making it. As one who argues for a living, you should know this. Credibility comes into play in any evaluation of all statements, so does presentation in the ability to receive any message – but again, a statement stands alone.
And I’ve already addressed the point about assumptions. I won’t be held responsible for what has been evidenced here (and conceded by some) as groupthink blurring objectivity. Nor will I be held responsible for the strawmen arguments people make.
There was nothing unclear about my statements that celibacy is not the same as chastity, that the government didn’t need to get into the business of “marriage” when we already had contracts for parties, or other such points.
“Bill: wrong. again, the accuracy of a statement is not dependent on the person making it. As one who argues for a living, you should know this. Credibility comes into play in any evaluation of all statements, so does presentation in the ability to receive any message – but again, a statement stands alone.”
You are shifting the goal posts. Your original statement was about arguments “standing or falling,” not about the factual accuracy of statements. The persuasiveness of an argument often depends on who is making it.
Moreover, in some cases a persuasive arguer can convince an audience of statements that are factually false. Happens all the time. Perhaps less likely when it comes to issues of fact, but nonetheless possible.
Fact is, the persuasive ability of the arguer is often closely tied to whether an argument wins the day.
I didn’t shift anything. If you’ve read this thread, I’ve used both those terms often to make the point I’m making.
Which is that it makes no difference if you like me or not, that in no way makes my argument false, nor does it make the truth of my statement incorrect.
Well, arguments are not disembodied syllogisms. They are ineluctibly tied to having proceeded from a *person* for some *purpose*. Arguments meant to persuade, quite apart from aesthetic or presentational factors, have integrity or not based not only on their internal consistency or factual accuracy, but also what purpose they are being put to (which normally hinges upon whether the debater is arguing in good faith).
“Bill: wrong. again, the accuracy of a statement is not dependent on the person making it.”
Are you thinking what I am thinking, Bill?
Roger:
Would you have preferred I did the laugh out loud that the poster prior to me did on that comment?
I really don’t think you read my statement with any sort of objective lens. In fact, you read that statement ONLY AFTER other statements were read, clouding your objectivity.
I stated clearly that poster was incorrect. Then I stated I’d let others address the other misinformation they put up. Then I said “study more”.
Should I have put a smiley face next to that?
“Which is that it makes no difference if you like me or not, that in no way makes my argument false, nor does it make the truth of my statement incorrect.”
If you are talking about a factual statement – like whether a car is red – whether I like you or not makes little difference as to the factual accuracy of that statement.
If you are talking about an argument with debatable points – like whether the text of the Bible condones or denounces polygamy – whether I like you or not may matter a great deal in whether you persuade me.
Further, if I’m persuasive enough enough I may be able to convince some people that the red car is blue.
Actually, the text of the bible condones polygamy… the debate is whether or not it is “permissible” as a cultural norm, or whether it was instituted by the God of Abraham. And, that can be shown as clearly as whether a car is blue or red, since, there is no command to do it and not one instance where it is credited as being fashioned by that god. In fact, it clearly states it was custom.
Now, yes, a person can persuade another the car is blue even if it is read. That doesn’t make the car blue.
*red*
“Now, yes, a person can persuade another the car is blue even if it is read. That doesn’t make the car blue.”
But it does mean that the person has won the argument on whether the car is red or blue – at least as to the convinced listener.
Which comes back to the idea that if you want to convince people that your statements of of fact – or arguments – are right, the way in which you present them matters very much.
Also, I’m pretty sure that you were the one who framed the dabate as one about whether “The God of Abraham Commanded Polygamy.”
“Should I have put a smiley face next to that?”
No, you shouldn’t have said it in the first place.
“Also, I’m pretty sure that you were the one who framed the dabate as one about whether “The God of Abraham Commanded Polygamy.””
Condoned does not equal commanded. I already said that.
The problem is this will roll off her back like water off a duck on top of a duck. She doesn’t cater to anyone who claims she has an attitude problem, or the “easily offended.” She’s going to continue to be a dick about everything because it’s everyone else’s fault we don’t “get” her; we’re just not in her league. This only exacerbates the issue(s). She also thinks any given person’s opinion about her is poisoned by groupthink and not because she is an ass to everyone who tries to have a conversation with her.
Well tbh I’ve only been peripherally aware of her on the forums (which I don’t read very often) and on threads here which I haven’t really looked at closely. It’s only because her reply (which I honestly didn’t think was offensive, taken in isolation) to my post seemed to generate such a shit-storm of pedantry that I bothered reading through the whole barrage and forming an opinion. Personally I don’t think anybody comes off particularly well in that whole comment chain, but Elizabeth certainly comes off worse than everybody else through the sheer size of the chip on her shoulder.
Speaking as somebody who does on occasion argue just for the fun of it, she can think I’m part of the mob or not – that’s up to her.
Reminded me of those times when I was a christian in some christian forums, even in the churchs I attended. I encounter quite a few of them. I am not saying they are only found among christians.
Kodie: Once again you are attempting to transfer my comments to *you* to all others. Just because I said you and I were not in a ring together, in no way means all other members of this forum are seen that way by me.
Again, I don’t think you see your own contradictions. You say you aren’t about group think, and yet, you *just* posted assuming *you* as the individual speak for or represent or are treated as *group*.
I am only using the power of observation. I represent only myself.
“it’s everyone else’s fault we don’t “get” her; we’re just not in her league.”
Kodie: read your posts again. That is one little excerpt. The whole post, as others before is all about “masses”. Gross overgeneralizations.
Now, I know you like being in a club, but then at least admit it and stop pretending you speak for only yourself when you transfer it all to “masses”.
When I see you treat others generally with the same snotty attitude, I’m capable of extrapolating. You’re not too popular, you don’t care, and you don’t care to tone it down to a human sociable level. Do not pretend I’m the only one who thinks you’re lame (for someone who thinks they are so great) or that I’m the only one you have had a personal problem socializing with. I think I can establish, you have people problemS.
I respect that of your presentation. Kudos to you.
A human social level? Are you kidding? You take this community that seriously? It’s on online forum Kodie. We aren’t signing a Constitution or having in laws over after a marriage ceremony.
I never said you were the only one, I said you are more interested in the group think, which you evidence again. And it isn’t the same attitude. Perhaps you don’t get it: when I reply to *you*, I am talking to *you*. When I reply to another, I am talking to them. Try to see yourself as more an individual perhaps?
Your armchair analysis is taken with zero merit Kodie. Again, you don’t know me. You aren’t in any position to make claims about my social skills based solely on my interaction on an online forum. Where there is no tone, no body language… and you have already conceded you are making your evaluation based on groupthink – which clouds your objectivity completely.
I think that I can establish through that that your council is… nothing to take seriously at all.
Why do you keep saying this? You want to assert I’m some sheep, but you don’t know me, you don’t know why I think you’re kind of stupid in a social way.
Sit. Kodie.
You conceded that in a thread on the forum not too long ago. I never said you were a sheep. I simply stated you conceded groupthink influences your opinions of others. And you said as much in this thread as well.
I’m sure I conceded no such thing. There is evidence that you’re kind of unwittingly offensive to just about everyone you come into contact with, and that certainly I can see with my eyes that you are not singling me out – however, you are in with your bandwagons and groupthink theories. It’s not the same thing to notice someone’s behavior towards other people, as well as their reactions to you. I’m not swayed by the latter, but it does paint a picture.
Kodie… you did. It’s on the forum.
Again, I think you need to acknowledge the very real scientific truth that dynamics in community involve groupthink. It’s hardly a debate anymore.
I think you are overstating this dynamic and you don’t want to acknowledge the very real scientific truth that sometimes a lot of people will simultaneously dislike engaging with you because you are too unpleasant.
Now I know you don’t even read what I actually write.
Kodie: I have never once stated that was the only or even the major reason people disliked me.
I was very clear about a few of the reasons.
Um, apathy about what others think of me *personally* isn’t apathy about about the statements I’m making. There is a difference.
Are you Antiutopia’s sister?
Daniel:
Whether or not the members of your forums or blogs like me is irrelevant to the statements being made. I already explained why I posted and when I do. And I think it would be dishonest to not admit that is a valid point regarding being educated on the subject matter. It *does* matter if theists or atheist are perpetuating incorrect information about religion, the biblical text, or belief systems.
You commented something about *tone*. You do realize, I’m sure, that there is no vocal inflection here, no body language. That I’m being more direct in my posts and don’t sugar coat them doesn’t in any way mean the *perception* others have can’t be attributed also to their own style or preference. That isn’t blaming everyone else for a problem. It’s simply stating that while others may not like me *personally*, so what? I know they don’t know me and I know most of that complaint is based on a person adding assumptions to text.
As I mentioned to El in a thread previously… I won’t take responsibility for another’s reaction to me. And I rarely see any action when it comes to keeping order with the mob when they get rolling in that reaction. Okay. I know that you will lean towards group over newbie. But one might say that the number of ad homs, insults, and even arrogant “suggestions” that I “fix” a “problem” isn’t all that stellar of personality type either.
I have no intention of changing my personality to fit in with a crowd. Especially when some of the personalities I’ve witnessed in the crowd are about as enjoyable as the drunk at a bar at 3am.
It is your call how you want to bring order to your community here. I’ve stated I will respect your decision if you ask me to leave. But requiring or requesting I change, will be of no avail. I think for myself, and am perfectly at peace with the point of my posts : clarity about the subject, even in the details, and at peace with myself. – whether you like me or not.
But then again, that’s because I suppose I view those engaging in online with my own lens as well, and imagine, or hope, in the ideal that we’re all grown ups here.
I got called out for (slightly* generalizing two subgroups under agnosticism the other day, and found my entire argument was based around ‘tone’ and the other person not seeing the bigger picture I was trying to paint. At the end of the day, they were *objectively* right, just being extremely pedantic and claiming that they really just can’t stand any misinformation, of false statements, no matter who says them. So I sorta understand Elizabeth. Kinda like L in Deaf N0at, who completely ignores any kind of social conduct, and as a result, is ‘free’ to be interpreted as an ego-centric, pompous bastard.
I think this is the case with Elizabeth, having observed the nature of her ‘arguments’ on the forum section of this blog (where everyone’s becoming quite amiable now—-only AFTER she explained, clearly and concisely, why she operates the way she does *HINT*). Its just her style, to object to ANY statement that she judges to be ‘false,’ and while she does seem to well educated on the matter, her rejection of wanting to use basic, basic internet ‘manners’ almost immediately puts her in the defensive.
All very noble, but the reality is: most blogs and websites have their OWN unique atmosphere, sense of humour, etc, and you cannot expect every single member that reguarly drops by at that site to conform to YOUR standards, tho I do think we should exercise tolerance, or at least co-existence.
Just my $0.02.
*puts her ON the defensive *any FORM of social conduct
Of herself? Yikes!
I tried posting this about three times during the day, but UF won’t let me. Anyone else having the same problem?
*looks at wall of text*
Evidently not…
Anyway, what I thought I posted about 1pm GMT was that I generally did agree with Elizabeth. In between the ranting, boring exchanges and dubious assumptions, she did make some good points about understanding Biblical text and some of the things she said about Christian sexuality which I can’t be arsed to look at again, because it’s all the way up *there*.
But honestly, how and why did everyone get so hostile. Don’t get me wrong, I love internet hostility and I hate to discourage it (seriously, it’s funny when it’s done right) but only when it’s generally over important contentious issues like politics, religion, science, etc. When that happens it’s fun to see people get so worked up. But I don’t think I can stress it enough: this was the lamest e-argument I’ve ever skimmed through. Nothing was at stake, nothing was particularly important was being debated on, but yet for some inexplicable reason the post count is 268 and roughly 200 of them are pissed off rantings.
I’m so mad, I just might find God.
Hi Mark, this is god. You’ve found me. Now just send a check and we can get this settled.
Do you accept Monopoly money?
Yes, money that can be used to buy Monopoly.
Lol.
Dis God is on a smart man ting, blad!
Does anyone notice that when you make a short sentence like “Hi! My name is Mark” It comes up on the recent comments feed as “Hi! My Name is Mark, Our Marriage Was Illegal Too”. I find that quite funny in a lame way.
LOL. Occasionally the way the text lines up in the feed will spit out real comedic gems.
” this was the lamest e-argument I’ve ever skimmed through. Nothing was at stake, nothing was particularly important was being debated on, but yet for some inexplicable reason the post count is 268 and roughly 200 of them are pissed off rantings.”
Yeah, that’s how ALL of the exchanges with Elizabeth are… and why I quit talking to her.
I like reading, but I gotta say; after seeing those huge walls of text she posted a few minutes ago, I didn’t even want to listen to an audio cassette of them when I find the time.
The post count went up because some here chose to derail to discuss *me* rather than other things.
I won’t be held responsible for that. Since, I’m not the one who initiated that derail at all.
If LRA wants to blame me for that, fine. Her call. It’s not logical, but whatever.
You seem not to.
BTW- You and I do have something in common… we are both stubborn b*tches.
I have the ability to clearly state my positions and to back down when I’m wrong.You seem not to.
Since you didn’t acknowledge you were wrong regarding your statement that “religious people don’t have any certainty!” and when you were shown clearly that people believe even incorrect things based on their senses and logical determinations (Santa come to mind?), I won’t take this as accurate.
Cite in this thread where my statement was wrong regarding: chastity/celibacy, polygamy in the text, the government’s involvement with marriage. GO:
No, because, as I’ve already pointed out, that would be a waste of time. You can’t seem to understand the difference between certainty (an epistemological term) and incorrigibility. As evidenced by your behavior on today’s thread.
You’re not open to learning how to get along with people here or improving yourself in any way? Or learning how to make people listen and consider your points instead of making them angry or defensive?
If you really have no interest in that, then perhaps you should consider leaving, because if you don’t get along with people here and are not interested in learning how to play nice with others, what’s the point other than being a troll?
When did I say I wasn’t interested in playing nice with others?
When did I say I never am open to improving myself? It’s highly arrogant to suggest I am the one in need of improvement. Would you suggest your other posters improve? Have you no problems with their derail? Have you no issue with the fact that they are hostile? It’s okay if you don’t, but again, holding me responsible for the reactions of others is not logical.
I’ve had very civil and decent exchanges with some on your blog and forums. And did not in any way enter this thread with hostility. Time stamps evidence exactly how it went down.
Claiming I am a troll would be false, as evidenced by the participation since I’ve come.
You can tell me to leave your blog Daniel. It won’t be of much consequence to me, aside from feeling it was rash and rather non objective. I would be greatly disappointed in that decision of yours, because again, as I said to El, it fosters a “club” more than community.
This of course is your decision. I would just hope you would make it considering all factors, objectively.
Can I plead on your behalf? I think you will dissagree with me.
I think everyone has room for improvement, don’t you? You said you wouldn’t change if we requested it. I’m glad to hear that isn’t the case.
Here’s the definition of a troll according to wikipedia:
I think on this thread you’ve been a bit of a troll — you’ve certainly evoked emotional responses, had people hoping you leave, and have disrupted normal conversation.
This is a community, and one that people freely join and leave. It is a very accepting community from what I’ve seen. Except in cases of dumb fundie commenters and sometimes John C… and I guess you?
Certainly everyone has room for improvement. I never suggested otherwise.
And I didn’t derail this thread off topic. Again, time stamps show this. So, who disrupted the normal conversation?
My initial posts, and many after have actually been on topic.
If you are asking me to leave, you should. If you are banning me, you should.
Because I’m rather confused at your post. You said it was an open community. I have read through your “rules” and introductions, your forums, blogs, and what not.. and you end with a question, not a statement.
If you don’t like it, you’re perfectly free to LEAVE….
Daniel, in order to keep me from breaking your comment filter with profanity overload, can I please start a petition here to ban Elizabeth? All in favour say “aye”.
aye … ban the stupid boring little c*w. Hope that gets through the comment filter!
She just called Daniel arrogant. On *his* blog!!!!!! Wow.
It’s a special sort of special.
Yuppers. Dang! Well, I refrain from voting… cuz I’ll go with whatever Daniel wants.
Reading comprehension off today LRA?
Nope.
“When did I say I never am open to improving myself? It’s highly arrogant to suggest I am the one in need of improvement.”
She is not finished yet. Time is on her side.
It is. Now, should we go back to English class in grade school and draw a diagram of the sentence?
What is highly arrogant?
The suggestion I am the one in need of improvement.
Now, that is a pretty accurate statement regardless. As Roger would attest to I’m sure. After all, when I told someone to study more, that was seen as a slam, negative, condescending, arrogant. Is telling a person to change any different than telling them to study more?
The suggestion is arrogant. Sometimes, arrogance is fine. Sometimes not. But most of the time, as in this thread, it is a glaring contradiction. Especially in light of the rest of the statement included (I like how you rip from context, it’s so honest/sarcasm). Can you not read full paragraphs?
And, let’s add context… *who* has suggested I am the one who needs to improve?
You don’t see a difference between dismissing someone as needing “more study” after your very first brief interaction with them, and making a character judgment after observing an extended conversation?
If both require arrogance (and I don’t think they do, but if they did) the quantities of arrogance are at the very least sharply different.
I see no problem with my response to the person who posted what they did about studying more. It is my opinion people are grown ups. They posted with confidence. They posted with certainty (to the point where they said “make no mistake about it). That kind of loftiness got exactly what it wanted. I played on their field.
Had that poster stated “and i think it was a christian concept”, they’d have gotten a completely different response from me.
That others made a character judgment on me because I said “study more” and didn’t take into consideration that it was perfectly reasonable and acceptable to respond to them based on their own approach is troublesome to me.
In other words, that poster was arrogant to start long before my comment to them to study more. And I didn’t mock them with ridicule and laughter. I was clear about my correction, bowed to others to correct other statements they made, and then stated to study more.
And WHO made the suggestion? Daniel. Egro, you called his suggestion and by extension *him* arrogant.
I have a degree in English and scored a 740/800 on the GRE verbal section (99th percentile) with a perfect 60 on the writing section. So for you to suggest that I need to go back to English class in grade school is offensive.
As I said, I’m a stubborn b*tch too, but unlike you my assertions are well stated and backed by facts. I don’t quibble over stupid bullsh*t and I don’t get and entire community of intelligent people pissed off at me on EVERY SINGLE POST.
You are a troll. You are obnoxious. An you aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.
LRA – The problem is that your study has not been in Liz Speak.
You haven’t been following this thread have ya L?
Loads of folks have made that suggestion. And Daniel didn’t. In fact, Daniel asked a question about if I was receptive to improving. And I addressed that as well.
For someone with a degree in English, you kind of screwed that one up big time didn’t you?
You don’t quibble over bull and yet you invest your time quibbling over your dislike in me? Wow. Get out more. And you get offended? Learn to let things roll off your back perhaps?
You keep making these assertions, and yet, you have just been shown incorrect AGAIN.
Catch up E.
You: “I’ve stated I will respect your decision if you ask me to leave. But requiring or requesting I change, will be of no avail.”
Daniel: “You’re not open to learning how to get along with people here or improving yourself in any way? Or learning how to make people listen and consider your points instead of making them angry or defensive?
If you really have no interest in that, then perhaps you should consider leaving, because if you don’t get along with people here and are not interested in learning how to play nice with others, what’s the point other than being a troll?”
You: “When did I say I never am open to improving myself? It’s highly arrogant to suggest I am the one in need of improvement. Would you suggest your other posters improve? Have you no problems with their derail? Have you no issue with the fact that they are hostile? It’s okay if you don’t, but again, holding me responsible for the reactions of others is not logical.”
Daniel: “I think everyone has room for improvement, don’t you? You said you wouldn’t change if we requested it. I’m glad to hear that isn’t the case.
Here’s the definition of a troll according to wikipedia:
A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I think on this thread you’ve been a bit of a troll — you’ve certainly evoked emotional responses, had people hoping you leave, and have disrupted normal conversation.
This is a community, and one that people freely join and leave. It is a very accepting community from what I’ve seen. Except in cases of dumb fundie commenters and sometimes John C… and I guess you?”
It couldn’t be more clear, E. You are the one with reading comprehension issues… as well as a crappy personality that leaves a path of snarky diarrhea everywhere you go.
LRA: Do you even read what you write?
You *just* proved my point: Loads of folks have made that suggestion. And Daniel didn’t. In fact, Daniel asked a question about if I was receptive to improving. And I addressed that as well.
My posts were not off topic, or inflammatory. In fact, I didn’t derail at all. However, many of your posts have been nothing but off topic – and inflammatory. I stink? Yeah, that’s adult.
Are you really that f*cking daft? REALLY??? Daniel was asking you RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. But, you wouldn’t know about rhetoric, would you?
No, I have not proved your ridiculous point. You have proved yourself at best- disingenuous- and at worst- truly stupid.
UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*throws hands up*
I’m done!
They were actually rather loaded questions. Some of them at least.
No sh*t, Sherlock.
“I stink? Yeah, that’s adult.”
It’s a metaphor. Try to pay attention*.
*See our point?
So let me see if I understand this LRA:
You acknowledge the questions are loaded… and yet, still think they ought to hold merit?
When you come out with stuff like this: “Can you not read full paragraphs?”
Why do you expect people to bother talking to you, or reading what you have to say? You’re grossly condescending and ill-mannered, and contributing but annoyance and dissent. You have had it painstakingly, and politely, pointed out to you that conducting yourself in this manner is off-putting, raises people’s hackles, and causes nothing but conflict.
For example, yesterday I mistakenly attributed something someone else had said earlier to yourself, and raised an issue with you about it. You then bit my head off with snark, making me think I had hit a nerve and sending me onward in arguing the toss with you before I gave up in the face of your pure hostility. I realised my mistake later but didn’t bother mentioning it until now, since you don’t seem at all interested in acknowledging mistakes of your own, and I can only imagine it just gives you the satisfaction of ‘being right’ that you appear to crave.
Despite the problems your manner and tone have caused, and despite it being explained to you that this is the case and why, you come out with stuff like the above post. Clearly you are not willing to take any criticism on board and adapt in order to deal with other people.
It is rather like an incident a friend of mine, who works at a library, told me about. They had a patron come in who had no sense of smell. Unfortunately, said patron also had no sense of hygiene, and though he was unaware of it, stank the place out. He was unaware of it, but everyone else was put off by the odour, and he was asked to leave until he could return in a state of cleanliness that would not be stomach-churning to the other patrons. Would it really be fair for him to sit there and argue “it’s not me that’s the problem, it’s your reaction to me that’s the problem”? That’s what you’re doing. You stink, and you’re blaming us for having a sense of smell.
Yes. She certainly does stink.
Let me get this straight…
*you* attributed someone else’s comments as coming from me and attempted to call me out on said comments.
I respond to that – not being aware you made said mistake.
You get offended at my response and refuse to simply acknowledge you made the error.
And now TODAY you say you made the mistake originally and yet *I* am to blame?
Show me ONE MISTAKE I made in my statements regarding those positions. ONE. Cite it. If I have been incorrect about the statement on contracts and marriage, on celibacy/chastity, or on the way polygamy is described in the text, or even on further comments made today regarding the lineage of the three faiths mentioned or the Hebrews view of law… I will stand corrected. Show the error in those statements of mine.
Did I say this was about your mistakes? Look at you, again, so desperate to prove yourself RIGHT, ignoring the rest of my post because you just have to get everyone to recognise your cleverness. This isn’t about your positions, again it is about your tone and how you conduct yourself. I already said I made a mistake, and the mistake was mine. However, you are to blame for how people react to you because you have had it pointed out time and again that there’s an issue with how you behave and you refuse to change and simply respond with even more snide remarks.
If you don’t acknowledge what you are doing and pledge to at least try to be civil in your interaction with people around here, I’m going to have to vote Aye.
I’m to blame for the way you reacted to me because you were too proud to admit you made a mistake? Sure. That makes sense.
That’s not what I said. I said I gave up arguing with you because you were clearly just being hostile and in the mood to snipe. I wasn’t aware of the mistake I had made until later, but never bothered coming back to correct myself since you seem the type to just thrive on being right rather than trying to actually contribute to and receive wisdom from a community at large.
Again, you’re not taking on board the point of the post, which is your demeanour and behaviour are the issues being discussed, and your complete refusal to even critically evaluate them are concerning. Stop concentrating on whether or not you were right about something, and start talking about how you can get on better with people.
I don’t understand how you can’t understand this.
It’s not that the points you make are wrong. (Necessarily.) It’s that the way you make points is wrong. Factual accuracy is not the be-all-end-all of interaction in a debate or discussion.
You claim I was being snark because I challenged your statements directed to me that were based on what someone else said?
You never bothered to admit the problem in the communication started with YOU until today, and now you still want to blame me for the communication breakdown?
Your apology reeks of “well, i’d be sorry but you suck so i’m not”.
Own your mistake and that it caused the reaction you got. hell, you might as well have hit me with your car and when I get pissed about a broken leg you say “well, if you weren’t so pissy about your leg being broken i’d pay for the bill”. That’s about the same analogy based on what you are saying.
I contributed plenty. You clearly haven’t even read all I’ve written. That you choose not to is fine, but spare me. If you can show my statements wrong, do it.
Why don’t you take your own advice and learn to admit your mistakes sooner and own that the issue between *you* and *i* stemmed from your errors, not mine.
El, I understand it plenty.
And I don’t see how *you* can’t see the glaring contradictions.
The man just said our communication breakdown started because he wrongly attributed something to me. And even when he realized it, he refused to admit it until today… when the herring is so far from there that no one will likely realize it and say “actually, yeah, that’s on him not her”.
It’s unreal.
I”m being called a troll in this thread which would require that I was off topic, inflammatory, and here for the sole purpose of doing so… when the time stamps and actual read of this thread show the exact opposite.
The rail against me is OVER THE TOP. And ridiculous. Hell, are some folks that bored?
here’s and idea… why not stop trying to change a person and instead use the opportunity to engage in a great philosophical and humanitarian discussion on how humans relate to each other, and how a person so many insist they don’t care for… are that offended by?
Hell, at least acknowledge the evidence of this thread. Who the hell cares if twenty people here can’t stand me. One might not feel that way. It doesn’t matter. Provided I have contributed and have made valid points, and hell, even attempted to be civil with the very folks slamming me ought to be evident.
Baseless claims are being made that I’ve been shown wrong on my statements – even LRA said she could prove that. It’s ridiculous. Her presence today was just to slam me. Not to mention others.
Take a fricken step back and realize that the call for my banning or accusations that I trolled this blog are totally without merit.
Totally.
No- my presence today was to *once again* point out that you make *yourself* ridiculous. I don’t have to slam you to to that. You do that all by your little self.
She’s not getting it, almost comically so.
Aye.
LRA: What a waste of your day. Sad shame.
John: I get it. You don’t know how to admit you screwed up.
I “vote” nay. At least for now. This thread was a clusterfudge not just because of the tenor of her comments but also because of the ferocity of the reaction, which towards the beginning especially was a bit extreme (perhaps disproportionately so). It is unreasonable to expect a person not to defend themselves if people are piling on.
My opinion would change if such things became commonplace.
I’d love to see you definition of commonplace Elem … ;-)
First time is happenstance, second time is coincidence. Third time is enemy action.
If a person manages by their involvement to nuke three threads, that’d be impressive. (And I don’t think the forums “carry over” in this issue.)
You’ve just given some of the regulars license to derail when I enter a thread. You equipped them with strategy.
All they need to do is slam me arbitrarily when I enter, and derail again as they did here… and do that two more times… and they get their wish.
Yes – because all regulars follow the holy scripture of Elemenope! (Peace be unto him.) Our group think requires that we bow at the alter of his alphabety goodness, and do as he commands!
“some” and “all” are two different words.
Indeed Betsy they are. You got me there. Some and all are different.
@Elizabeth, I think you’re reading too much into that. No one is going to pounce on you in another topic if you happen to say something which they don’t agree with. It’s the tone you say it I guess.
Oh come on. I’ve armed nobody with anything. besides, if they (we?) engaged in such behavior, it would be pretty transparently thus, and wouldn’t, I think, count against you.
To be honest, I re-read the thread, and didn’t find most of what you wrote tonally objectionable (except for the “go study” and “are you high?” bits), though you did get prickly and short pretty fast after that. And while “fractally wrong” made me ROFL a bit just because it’s a funny turn-of-phrase, it and some of the other comments directed at you were fairly uncalled for.
That aside, it does take a certain level of, heck, I-don’t-know-what, to be adamant that the problem is “other people”. The Ignatius Reilly comment was I think apt; if you believe us a confederacy of dunces arrayed against your genius, it is somewhat mysterious why you would grace us with your corrections.
“if you believe us a confederacy of dunces arrayed against your genius, it is somewhat mysterious why you would grace us with your corrections.”
I’ve never once grouped you all. I have never once stated I am not open to learning. In fact, I said the opposite today in this thread.
I have stated and continue to that I take each individual. But I also don’t deny dynamic of groupthink bias.
They are different discussions – but both at play.
“To be honest, I re-read the thread, and didn’t find most of what you wrote tonally objectionable (except for the “go study” and “are you high?” bits), though you did get prickly and short pretty fast after that. And while “fractally wrong” made me ROFL a bit just because it’s a funny turn-of-phrase, it and some of the other comments directed at you were fairly uncalled for.”
I basically agree with this, which is why my original point went to the issue of clarity not tone. This thread leaves me with little hopw that Beth is going to become more clear though.
who’s beth?
I also vote nay.
I hope Elizabeth is able to better state her positions in the future, but if not I think ignoring is much more effective than banning.
I’m gonna say ‘nay’. If we were to ban Elizabeth you’d have to ban everyone else who was acting immature and impolite. Would make no sense to single only her out, when it was a two way street. Besides, it wasn’t bad enough to warrant a permanent ban.
Elizabeth is starting to remind me of Ignatius J. Reilly.
Elizabeth, I’m just curious… would you do anything different if you could go back in time and start commenting on this thread again?
The time stamps in this thread show my first three comments.
I corrected the poster who made the incorrect claim they did about “christian marriage” and refrained from mocking them with laughter as I saw others do.
I also asked Vorjack for clarification.
And I addressed the government’s involvement in the marriage debate.
I would not change those three comments at all. Except perhaps the one on government involvement, since I’d rather have elaborated more on the way it totally screws over the individual in favor of couple. That is a good discussion, not enough people get into.
LRA you have to forgive lizzy.
Her ongoing battle with snarky diarrhea has impaired her reading comprehension.
When you said earlier, “I’m done!.” every other adult understood you meant you were done trying to get through to her. Poor wittle Lizzy doesn’t get it yet.
You claimed you could show those statements wrong. Do it. Cite the error LRA. You can’t. Because they aren’t there.
And I haven’t trolled. In fact, based on the definition and the comments in this thread.. you would fit that description more. I’d never call you a troll. Because I know you are a regular contributor to this community.
But you are totally without merit in your claims that you could show me wrong on those points, or that I trolled. Especially since of all the posts in this thread, I contributed *far* more to the actual discussions regarding the text, the teachings, and the law than you did.
What did you contribute? Baseless claims.
This isn’t about us both being stubborn LRA… you have not in any way shown yourself correct here. You were wrong about the statement on arrogance, wrong about saying you could prove those arguments incorrect, wrong about your claims about “senses/logical proofs”, and wrong about giving merit to loaded questions and ad hominems. So, no, you don’t admit when you are wrong – at least not if I’m the one who challenges you on it.
If all you’ve got is your moaning about me… you need to get out more.
ELIZABETH: Now: You claimed I can’t admit when I’ve been shown wrong: Cite in this thread where my statement was wrong regarding: chastity/celibacy, polygamy in the text, the government’s involvement with marriage. GO:
LRA: I can. Of course I can. I just don’t want to because you suck.
ELIZABETH: Baseless claims.
LRA: My claims (and I think everyone here but you would agree with me) and certainly not baseless.
Actually LRA, they are baseless. This is evidence enough.
I claimed that chastity and celibacy were not the same thing. And I even went as far as to show how/why. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
I claimed that the text does not in any way show the god of abraham instituting polygamy, but only condoning and regulating an already well established practice. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
I claimed that the US government got itself into it’s own slippery slope by getting involved in marriage to begin with when we already had and have contracts that establish unions and partnerships, and that benefits are not only unnecessary, but that they alienate the single and endorse the couple. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
Because YOU CLAIMED my statements could be shown wrong.
You now also claim that everyone in this thread would agree with you. Even though, the thread shows at least a few people already conceding to some of the above points I made.
This all stemmed because you said I can’t admit when I am wrong. I said feel free to cite where I am and back it up. You said you could. Then you didn’t.
That equals BASELESS CLAIM from you.
ELIZABETH: Now: You claimed I can’t admit when I’ve been shown wrong: Cite in this thread where my statement was wrong regarding: chastity/celibacy, polygamy in the text, the government’s involvement with marriage. GO:
LRA: I can. Of course I can. I just don’t want to because you suck.
ELIZABETH: Baseless claims.
LRA: My claims (and I think everyone here but you would agree with me) and certainly not baseless.
Actually LRA, they are baseless. This is evidence enough.
I claimed that chastity and celibacy were not the same thing. And I even went as far as to show how/why. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
I claimed that the text does not in any way show the god of abraham instituting polygamy, but only condoning and regulating an already well established practice. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
I claimed that the US government got itself into it’s own slippery slope by getting involved in marriage to begin with when we already had and have contracts that establish unions and partnerships, and that benefits are not only unnecessary, but that they alienate the single and endorse the couple. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
Because YOU CLAIMED my statements could be shown wrong.
You now also claim that everyone in this thread would agree with you. Even though, the thread shows at least a few people already conceding to some of the above points I made.
This all stemmed because you said I can’t admit when I am wrong. I said feel free to cite where I am and back it up. You said you could. Then you didn’t.
That equals BASELESS CLAIM.
Who is oversimplifying?
Those are very simple concepts to begin with. Either celibacy and chastity are the same and the teaching of them are the same in the church or they aren’t.
Either the biblical text attributes polygamy as being instituted by the god of abraham or it doesn’t. I mean, everytime the god of abraham institutes a practice, it says so.
Now, on the government’s involvement in the marriage laws… that I can concede could be a worthy debate and discussion – but you could hardly suggest that there aren’t already documents that cover partnerships.
Again LRA: you claimed you could show me wrong. And that everyone here would agree with you.
DO IT:
Cite where I got it wrong. Even one little aspect of the position. Any one of those posts on those subjects. Go:
I read some of the previous posts, and the idea that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage contracts does seem to be a very interesting one.
But I can’t really see any reasons why it should not be involved within them.
Why the hell did this come up here and not the bottom? What’s going on with the comment feature today?
The sheer number of comments probably broke the system.
For fuck’s sake, have a marshmallow and stfd.
I can’t even…
Okay I’m doing something I’ve never done before — I’m closing the comments for this entry.
Liz, if you troll another post like you did this one, I’m afraid I’ll have to ban you from commenting just to keep things in order. You’re relentless.
Um… LRA…
We were talking about certainty as defined by the context of the words: “faith” and “belief”.
You claimed religious people weren’t certain of it. That’s nonsense. Ask them. They will tell you how certain they are. And… you were shown that people believe things based on their senses and logical determinations (Santa!).
Now: You claimed I can’t admit when I’ve been shown wrong:
Cite in this thread where my statement was wrong regarding: chastity/celibacy, polygamy in the text, the government’s involvement with marriage. GO:
No. You’re done here.
Didn’t think you could do it. Baseless claims from you LRA. Baseless.
I can. Of course I can. I just don’t want to because you suck.
That is hysterical.
You are claiming you can show where the statements were wrong in those arguments?
So you are saying celibacy and chastity are the same? WOW.
And that the biblical text shows the god of abraham instituting polygamy? WOW.
And that we didn’t already and don’t already have contracts in place for partnerships that could adequetely cover a contract for unions without “marriage” being relevant? WOW.
Again, you’re being a stupid troll. It is ridiculous to state that the arguments weren’t more complicated than that. I read them. They were. It is pointless to answer your overly- and misleadingly- simple questions because you have shown yourself *incapable* of a genuine intellectual conversation because of your over-bearing condescension.
You claimed you could show those statements wrong. Do it. Cite the error LRA. You can’t. Because they aren’t there. You said you could but didn’t want to because I sucked. Truth is, you can’t.
And I haven’t trolled. In fact, based on the definition and the comments in this thread.. you would fit that description more. I’d never call you a troll. Because I know you are a regular contributor to this community.
But you are totally without merit in your claims that you could show me wrong on those points, or that I trolled. Especially since of all the posts in this thread, I contributed *far* more to the actual discussions regarding the text, the teachings, and the law than you did.
What did you contribute? Baseless claims.
This isn’t about us both being stubborn LRA… you have not in any way shown yourself correct here. You were wrong about the statement on arrogance, wrong about saying you could prove those arguments incorrect, wrong about your claims about “senses/logical proofs”, and wrong about giving merit to loaded questions and ad hominems. So, no, you don’t admit when you are wrong – at least not if I’m the one who challenges you on it.
If all you’ve got is your moaning about me… you need to get out more.
My claims (and I think everyone here but you would agree with me) and certainly not baseless. But you keep trying to bait me and see how that works out for ya. kthnxsbai.
not sure what is up with commenting… let’s try again:
—
ELIZABETH: Now: You claimed I can’t admit when I’ve been shown wrong: Cite in this thread where my statement was wrong regarding: chastity/celibacy, polygamy in the text, the government’s involvement with marriage. GO:
LRA: I can. Of course I can. I just don’t want to because you suck.
ELIZABETH: Baseless claims.
LRA: My claims (and I think everyone here but you would agree with me) and certainly not baseless.
Actually LRA, they are baseless. This is evidence enough.
I claimed that chastity and celibacy were not the same thing. And I even went as far as to show how/why. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
I claimed that the text does not in any way show the god of abraham instituting polygamy, but only condoning and regulating an already well established practice. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
I claimed that the US government got itself into it’s own slippery slope by getting involved in marriage to begin with when we already had and have contracts that establish unions and partnerships, and that benefits are not only unnecessary, but that they alienate the single and endorse the couple. YOU CLAIM that is wrong.
Because YOU CLAIMED my statements could be shown wrong.
You now also claim that everyone in this thread would agree with you. Even though, the thread shows at least a few people already conceding to some of the above points I made.
This all stemmed because you said I can’t admit when I am wrong. I said feel free to cite where I am and back it up. You said you could. Then you didn’t.
That equals BASELESS CLAIM from you.
Keep oversimplifying, and see where that gets ya.
(these comments appear to be duplicating – i will check my browser)
Who is oversimplifying?
Those are very simple concepts to begin with. Either celibacy and chastity are the same and the teaching of them are the same in the church or they aren’t.
Either the biblical text attributes polygamy as being instituted by the god of abraham or it doesn’t. I mean, everytime the god of abraham institutes a practice, it says so.
Now, on the government’s involvement in the marriage laws… that I can concede could be a worthy debate and discussion – but you could hardly suggest that there aren’t already documents that cover partnerships.
Again LRA: you claimed you could show me wrong. And that everyone here would agree with you.
DO IT:
Cite where I got it wrong. Even one little aspect of the position. Any one of those posts on those subjects. Go:
Awww, who missed their Nap Time? Did Lizzy miss her nap time? Poor wittle girl keeps throwing down that Big Heavy Gauntlet. It must be so tiring to heft that Big Stinky Metal Glove, and your dainty toes, they must be aching from all that stamping of your foot. Does someone need a Hug?
I know they don’t appreciate you as much as you want. It’s ok, maybe next time.