Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-23-2002, 07:23 AM | #131 | |||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Once again The Loneliest you have demonstrated your inability to address my arguments as they are written in favor of falsely accusing me of what that you are most guilty.
Quote:
Quote:
If all you were doing was falsely accusing me of an argument I have never made, then my apologies. Now, if it isn't too much trouble could you address my actual arguments instead of redirecting once again to an argument I never made? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your attempts to redirect my arguments into your own terminology have been fascinating, but entirely masturbatory, so let's try and put this all back on track, shall we? Indoctrinating others into worshipping a fictional creature is what a cult does. Do Swinburne or Plantinga indoctrinate people into worshipping a fictional creature? If the answer is no, then kindly stop referring to them. Do Swinburne or Plantinga ultimately believe that a fictional creature factually exists and is in turn responsible for creating all existence as alleged by one or more previously established mythologies and indoctrinated in some manner by one or more cults formed around those mythologies? If the answer is yes, then, arguably, they are cult members. For the third time, if you are a member of the KKK, then you are a member of the KKK. It does not matter whether or not you are a member of the most comparatively "rational" branch of the KKK or that you do not participate in the same manner as other more militant members of the KKK. You are still a member of the KKK. I have made this valid analogy in several different forms now to help explain my position and you have never addressed it or countered it. I ask you now to address it and demonstrate how the analogy is not applicable and does not serve to illustrate precisely what I've been arguing for the past three or four pages since this nonsense began. If Swinburne or Plantinga support, live and/or teach the doctrines of the KKK, then they are, arguably, KKK members, are they not? Comparing them to other KKK members and saying things like, "Well, they're not as KKK-ish as other members," is simply childish evasion and not an answer to the question. Quote:
Here, let me pre-empt you so that you know what it's like. You are not interested in discovering the truth. You are only interested in obfuscating the truth through childish equivocation, redirection, redefinition and cowardly hiding behind pious declaration of what you think other people's motives are, because you consider yourself god, which is why you fight so hard against any slight; any nuance that would equate your beliefs with those "lesser" creatures out there. Only yours are the "rational" beliefs based on fictional characters and only you have the power of the lord almighty to discern what is or is not in the minds of all men. Only you have prescience! Quote:
I on the other hand have stated precisely what my intentions are, but you're god, so I guess your egomania supersedes the need for counter-argument, right? No wonder you keep after this pointless non-issue! You believe you're god and that I'm personally slighting you. Why didn't I see it before? Oh, that's right, because I was too concerned with presenting detailed deconstruction of my own arguments in order to demonstrate precisely what my argument was and how legitimate it is and that the application of the term is correct on every level. And since you cannot refute that or offer a single compelling counter-argument, you childishly lash out with false accusations because you're a self-deluded, mind reading faux deity who feels the sham of his own inner aggrandizement threatened by my proper use of the term that exposes your lies and calls a spade a spade! You have so carefully hidden behind semantics all of these years to support your delusions that when someone comes along and says, "No, that's white. Not 'off-white,' or 'eggshell,' or 'cream,' or 'Caucasian. It's just plain 'white,'" your carefully constructed house of cards comes tumbling down, exposing you for the fraud you are to your own self! That's the hell of it! You've been a fraud to your self and instead of admitting it and thanking me for showing you that mirror, you scramble and shake in the background, desperately rewriting the argument over and over and over again so that the piercing light of truth does not expose your darkness; the darkness of deliberate self-delusion. Those other institutions are cults! Those other proselytizers are cult members! Not me. Not the things I believe in! No, no, no! It must be that you, Koy, are the cult member! Yes! J'Accuse! You are the one who makes unsupported proclamations based on your biased opinion, because you hate, hate, hate! You see the beauty of my delusions and you hate that I can so easily delude myself into thinking that there is a qualitative difference on a fundamental level between someone who actively indoctrinates and someone who passively indoctrinates! I can't counter your arguments, this is true, but I can cast false aspersions upon you and label you a small and petty man, ridiculing your arguments! It matters not that I haven't addressed your arguments, just so long as I can make it seem as if you are evil in your intentions and vile in your motivations! Yes! That will do. That will do. Why do you say that I am insane? It was his heart, I tell you! The beating of his telltale heart! And Poe wept... Quote:
Quote:
You have not. Instead, you have repeatedly resorted to this childish bullshit in a pathetic attempt to cast pious aspersions upon my character like a good little cult member. Here's another example: Quote:
Please continue. You're a perfect study in Freudian projection and with everything you post you merely support my arguments. Quote:
In the meantime, now that you've posted the same childish evasion tactic twice in a row, could you please go back to my posts and directly address my arguments so that you can offer detailed counter-argumentation? Trying to read my mind and falsely accusing me of what you are most guilty in order to justify your unsupportable and undeserved piousness has been just a whole bunch of fun to be sure, but now I'd like to engage in the purpose of these threads: debate. I have painstakingly detailed every single possible angle of my argument and am awaiting just one counter-argument that would address the KKK analogy and the fact that you cannot demonstrate how I am using the term incorrectly. Your character assassination has been enjoyable as well (especially since I'm a keen student of Freudian projection), but if you'd like to continue to masturbate, I suggest you do it in private. It's grown exceedingly tiresome here. [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p> |
|||||||||||||
01-23-2002, 09:18 AM | #132 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 96
|
Koy,
One need not be a mind reader or a god to see when someone is trying to insult someone. As for your usage of "cult", I have pointed out that you are not using it as the majority of the public uses it or as social scientists use it. So you are ignoring the popular usage of the term and a more technical usage of the term. Moreover, you are using the KKK as an analogy. If you are only interested in the correct application of the term "cult", why would you use such an inflammatory analogy? I'll use my amazing grasp of the obvious and point out that the intent is to insult. The real difference between us, Koy, is that I can disagree with the theists without having to caricature their position. People like Swinburne and Plantinga are not dogmatic. They (along with many other theistic philosophers) give carefully thought out justifications for their positions. Do I think they are correct? No. Will I dismiss their positions as dogmatic belief in a magical creature? No, as that would be simply asinine. |
01-23-2002, 11:12 AM | #133 | ||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Quote:
Now, was I trying to insult you or accurately describe your consistent tone as you evade the argument? Quote:
You have offered no counter-argumentation as to the proper usage of the term in this regard; only personal judgment calls declaring what my intent is, directly contradicting what I have explained to you over and over again what my intent is. In other words, you're offering nothing salient, just your personal opinion, the same thing you've accused me of doing. So, once again, if someone is offended by the truth (i.e., the proper application of the term "cult"), then that is not my concern, yet you seem to be arguing that it is supposed to be my concern for some unknown reason and the fact that it is not is somehow grounds for your childish dismissive tone, false accusations and obvious redefinition of my arguments into your own duplicitous summary judgment. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is what is analogous to my position that if you are a member of the christian cult, it doesn't matter that you are a comparatively benign member of the christian cult, you're still a member of the christian cult. There. See how analogies work to illustrate the argument? Now, you are supposed to deconstruct that analogy in order to demonstrate why it is not applicable and does not serve to demonstrate my position, if you can. It is painfully clear, however, that you cannot, so you should try to be a mensch at some point in your life and concede that the analogy is valid and serves well to illustrate what I have been talking about and how such an analogy serves perfectly to illustrate the legitimate application of the proper, dictionary definition of the term "cult" that I have been championing. Quote:
The intent is to correctly label a cult for what it is so that equivocators such as yourself do not continue to hide behind semantics as a means to pretend that white is black. If you can't deal with that, then boo hoo for you. Whether or not you're insulted by the truth is not nor ever will be my concern, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the truth and that the term is properly applied. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, considering the fact that you have already asserted that their beliefs are not dogmatic, then you are quite right that it would be "asinine" to dismiss them as "dogmatic," wouldn’t it? Try to call upon that marvelous grasp of the obvious once more and STOP FALSELEY ACCUSING ME OF ARGUMENTS I'VE NEVER MADE OR INTENTIONS I DO NOT HOLD. Your opinion on this matter is worthless. Demonstrate that I am not applying the term properly or that my justification for applying the term properly is in error or piss up a rope, to put it delicately. Better still. Since the only observation you have made in this entire pointless screed has been your own opinion, let's end this simply and without fanfare. Here, I'll do it for you: Quote:
[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p> |
||||||||||||
01-23-2002, 11:28 AM | #134 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 2,210
|
Quote:
Bookman |
|
01-23-2002, 11:38 AM | #135 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Not nearly as amusing as when poeple misapply simple terminology!
It was intentional and not "irony," Bookman, but thanks just the same. I always find it ironic when people misapply the word "irony." What you meant to say is, "Of all the things that amuse me on the II forums, I think the pot calling the kettle black is my favorite." That is not, however, an example of "irony." [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p> |
01-23-2002, 11:54 AM | #136 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 2,210
|
Quote:
Bookman P.S. If you're going to pick liguistic nits, you may want to check your spelling. |
|
01-23-2002, 12:29 PM | #137 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Quote:
Quote:
As I stated before, what you meant to say is that it's an example of the pot calling the kettle black, but that is not "irony." No wonder you had such a hard time recognizing the reasons people should use the proper meanings of words. Quote:
Quote:
[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p> |
||||
01-23-2002, 02:52 PM | #138 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 96
|
Koy,
How is referring to someone as a theist a caricature of their position? |
01-23-2002, 06:25 PM | #139 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Quote:
It just goes to show you how important it is to correctly apply the proper definition of terms used in a debate. [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p> |
|
01-23-2002, 10:20 PM | #140 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
|
Quote:
There's far more to it than that. As for Bookman calling it ironic, I think I see Bookman's point quite clearly, and I agree with it. That makes Bookman's usage not only correct within the dictionary sense, but also within the intersubjective sense within this small situation. Quote:
Bookman was completely upfront, coherent and consistant. How does that make his phrasing a "weasel attempt"? Nonsense, and this looks like abuse for the sake of abuse. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your own definitions appear quite idiosyncratic on occasion; and properly defining terms within a particular discussion does not necessarily mean adopting your own definitions. [ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p> |
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|