Lafcadio

We're not talking about the man, but about the physicist. Likewise the analogy started that we don't talk about the Christian George which happened to be a king but about the king of England.

That still doesn't save your point.

You still haven't answered my question - is the war in Iraq a religious war? Is Christianity as an ideology responsible for the war in Iraq?

You shouldn't manipulate my claims in general.

I was talking about your attitude in this thread Well, a straw man again

Straw man. That was not my interest. It was a discussion started by you and fueled by you and me. We can go back talking on bias if you want to talk about my interest.

Ignorance it's not an excuse. You were the one calling these guys "breaking the shell of social constraints " so you just woke up talking about what you call now "my hobby horses".

If you think so

You still don't know my position, hence you can't tell its reflections.

Oh you googled for his name? :rolling:

I agree I'm using ad hominems but the hypocrisy I see not.

Most terms have a positive or a negative connotation. The latter show a disagreement.

You opened this can of worms and you're still ranting off topic. The moderator already asked us to stop it but you just chose to ignore it.

You still haven't answered my question.

You can call your actions however you want, scripta manent. Read the thread upwards.

I don't understand this answer.

To ad nauseam arguments the counterarguments tend to be ad nauseam.

I don't want to talk these consequences in this thread. Your whole rant about BCH is a pure hypocrisy, you don't want to bring this discussion in its normal course, in the topic of the thread.

You were the one claiming what atheism is (and your definition doesn't match nor the dictionary, nor the history, so it's a redefinition), don't switch the burden of proof.

Can you quote the argument from your own sayings? Maybe it was that obvious I didn't noticed it.

Fallacious rhetoric. You still haven't saved your tendenciosities regarding my location.

I wouldn't trade Llorente for Origen :rolling:

Well it's a non sequitur between that sentence and your challange - the argument that is missing. As for your challange it was refused on several accounts, the most severe being its bias and its irrelevance to the topics discussed.

Well, Classical Greece and Classical Rome are part of European history, not of Asian or African, though the latter had provinces in these continents. If by any means you wanted to say Modern Western Europe or Christian Western Europe then it's your inadequate terminology so quit blaming the other for your incapacities. Also between western europe and western civilization sometime the equivocation is allowed, sometime not. And last but not least, you're kept ranting about millenia(!) of Christianity, stripping Europe of its ancient history brings you in front of a contradiction - after all, what's the time and place you talk about?

What I want them to mean? I suppose you know since you make this affirmation.
You still haven't answered my question.

Margaritas ante porcos. They will think it's manure :wave:

My comments were a reply to some existing comments on the same topic. There were several comments in this thread that debated the bias in literature, the history written by winners. I threw one example if anyone would wonder what kind of literature I'm talking about, I couldn't imagine one with so much ignorance in this field will actually flame me and troll this thread.

Talking of clarity - both what?

I just I remember your comments about my location, about me adhering to the crimes of Christianity and other such decent comments, some made before I even gave a reply to you (so no, you can't bring up the reaction argument). Again I tell you, scripta manent. Denial will only make you look ridiculous.

I told you on several occasions that I won't go in such details. If you want to learn how to debate, open a thread in philosophy forum about fallacies and I'll gladly help you. Also this reply is somehow funny. I accused you of unsupported claims and you accused me back of the same thing? How's my request for you to back up your claims is unsupported? Do you think I don't want you to back up your claims or what??

It doesn't matter your perception but the reality from the thread. An insinuation can be offensive to others, your thoughts can't.

I don't think you know my capacity.

Don't worry. I already did.

I actually think "inadequate" is better than "false".

Unless you identify as one. It was your admittance, not my accusation.

I communicate the ideas I want, I expect questions not assumptions for more details. When I'll want to write an essay on this forum I'll let you know.

Then your requests are futile.

Whatever

I know the understanding you're showing in your replies.

My ego doesn't care about you missing the point.

I think you really lost the track of the discussion and now you're arguing by default against me.
me: Not more than people like you are a menace to truth and honest exchange of opinions.
you: Obviously not true. The past should tell you that. Western societies have been in christian hands one way or another in most part either since Constantine or since when the emerged out of a "savage" state. They have wielded a stultifying hand on their own populations all that time.
... then we went further with other comments, but this is where it all started. So I compare the harm done by christians to others to the harm you do to the truth through your rants. You deny what I say ("obviously not true") and then you add something about Christians (on the same line as your previous argument, actually). You haven't bother to escape my accusations against your bias. If you think it's not a plain denial or a non sequitur, please show how from your "The past should tell ..." you can infer that it's not true that you're biased.

You're dealing with western world post hoc and when you like to remember that. Your arguments were against Christianity in its two millenia of existence. Not against European Christianity, not against Western European Christianity. You haven't bother to bring a single nuance in it. I won't grant you "western world excuse" anytime you want it. Just make sure you add it in your sentence if you want to put it right.

Consequences can be irrelevant. We can't bring any ancient or medieval history discussion into present because some debaters are either ignorant and want about things they know or they're unable to focus.

No, because still it's not an argument. Your claim is that "pogroms (for instance) are a reflection of Christianity" not that "Christianity is less tolerant than Islamism/whatever religion/culture". This is the way you always pick up a straw man to fight.

Oh so now from Western Europe you expanded to Europe. Just a matter of time until you'll admit that pogroms happened (avant la lettre, of course) in other parts of the world

And you should realize that when you talk about it, with no further mention, no one can understand "western europe", Russia would be the first image one should have in head about pogroms - russian pogroms started from the second half of 19th century and were directly against Jews.

Ad hominem and unsupported assertion. All caused by a straw man - read above what was my point about the russian term.

So you just don't like the description

If that advice would lead to your mindlessness, no thanks. I like my eyes open as they are and my mind as it is.

The one that you wanted to discuss about it - how's your sex not part of the conversation.

You guess wrong. I don't label you as you do.

If you can't tell left from right there's certainly nothing to be discussed with you about modern history.

Yes, I understand it as a discriminatory, insulting comment. And I can see where it points at (trivial, I might add, considering your opening rant).

A mirror is not an artist.

I just opposed your rants. I even didn't claim Christianity, in all meanings of the term, is not reponsible. I claimed that their acts are not specific Christian, so you can't blame it as an ideology. You can blame Christianity as a community, as a sum of people (if you want scapegoats). But esentially you will find guilty people not guilty people because they are Christian.

Bla, bla, bla. Religious fundies would be proud if they could recruit such a good propagandist :rolling:

I was talking about history until you popped in with your modern world frustrations.

I think my conversation with spin can be removed from here and sent to Elsewhere or whatever other place can host it.

spin

Your noble opposition to my rants has been appreciated. You persecution complex has been noted. I'm sorry that you don't understand my comments about the Soviet Union and about your fixation with atheism in that context when I put the blame not on atheism but on the christian church. Your continued confusion on the matter is sad, but beyond my control.

You've been told how one can use the term "pogrom" in English yet you desire English speakers to be necessarily aware of the origin of the words they use, so that what you have mistakenly understood should also be mistakenly understood by English speakers. Such linguistic fixations on how you want the English language to be is an internal conflict of yours which you might one day deal with.

Your attempt to say what the conversation should be about ingenuously doesn't show any recognition that at least one other person is involved.

Your inability to follow a conversation through its various stages should stimulate you to include more of the original context in your messages so you don't lose track as demonstrated with your question "both what?". If you go back you'll answer your own question.

All in all it was a sorry tirade you indulged in to defend such abusive notions as christian bashing. Why seek out non-believers then talk about christian bashing, if not as a provocation? Why do you bother to come to a site called internet infidels and post on BC&H? You don't seem to engage in either BC or BH.


spin

spin

And yes, long suffering moderators, please excise all this stuff and send it elsewhere, leaving the thread enquiring about the the amount of persecution the early christians actually suffered.


spin

Lafcadio

Selective observation is never an argument. Nor fake medical diagnostics. Arrogance goes hand in hand with ignorance. Once the latter is displayed, the former won't hesitate to show up.

Your knowledge of SU's or generally of the communist history is under the minimum threshold for a decent discussion. I already invited you to back up your claims about russian atheism and all I receive were flames. A typical reply when arguments are missing.

No sir, you've been told that using "pogroms" in an accusatory sentence can't implicitely mean "western world" due to the specific origins of this word. You could post those monologues on a blog and spare me of your misunderstandings.

That moderator's interference was necessary says all about what the conversation should be. Your contribution to this thread was nothing about how this conversation should be.

You previously claimed you don't understand my answers - this is another hypocritical face you decided to show. Indulge my altruism that offered you a chance to get back. Your "both" still remains obscure, but unlike you I had the decency to ask instead of dismiss.

I haven't defended any notion nor I took part in your fictious wars, but can't stop you from attacking the strawmen you love so much. I haven't looked for you, nor provocated you (I can't guess your idiosyncrasies). The whole rant about christian bashing was open by you and about your intolerance. On my next intervention I will look for a more politically correct term, so at least I will avoid such off road trips.
But at least take responsability for your own actions. You started the off topic. My contribution in this thread and forum was about Christianity's persecutions before your wreaked havoc in this thread. My first quoted post by you in this thread contains more information about this thread's topic than you succeeded to add in all your replies to me. Read again posts #77 and #78 from this thread for any evidences you look for.

spin

Why take umbrage at me if I say that I couldn't parse a paragraph you wrote? It was not a dismissal, but a statement of fact.

Your position from within an ex satellite of the SU makes it rather difficult for you to judge the overall manifestation of the beast. Did you go to the SU when it existed? or to other satellites?

Why pass the buck on the christian bashing crap provocatively introduced by you into the thread? You were responsible. You knew what you were doing.

I have not attempted in one post to deal with the thread, bujt at least I'm honest. My first post was related to issues arising out of the post I was commenting on, your christian bashing and attempt to separate christianity (and its carriers) from its responsibility for various evils in western society today.

Insisting on what I must mean when I use a term is plain silly on your part. You have made abundantly clear your reception of the usage many times, but have not apparently twigged to the fact that there is a difference between transmission and reception, Meinung and Bedeutung, but don't let me stop you if you must equate your understanding with what must have passed my thought when I produced the statement. So crap on about it as much as you like.

And let me repeat: Why seek out non-believers then talk about christian bashing, if not as a provocation? Why do you bother to come to a site called internet infidels and post on BC&H? You don't seem to engage in either BC or BH.


spin

Lafcadio

If you say so I don't see how is this a make up for the fact you can't answer a clarification question and how does this make that you didn't even bother to ask a single question about the things you didn't understand which is the main source for the huge amount of straw men from your side.

Again, it's not my experience or position but the history written. It's a matter of literature read, not of experience. Your ad hominems have a pathetic way to show up just when you exhaust any other arguments. Unfortunately they don't cover your lack of knowledge in certain fields.

I am not responsbile of your posts. I didn't force you to write them. I'm reponsible for a terminology not for your actions. Let's divide the "guilts". Lafcadio guilty for using the provocative "christian bashing" terminology. Spin is guilty for dragging this thread off topic.

You gotta be kidding. You were asking me what my responses to your posts (which now you admit they are out of this thread's topic) have to do with BCH? Honesty is a really twisted concept in your head.

What your first post was it's not an excuse. It could be the best essay on modern world ever written. You could PM me or open a new thread if this terminology fascinated you that much.
Otherwise what you call as my attempts are just in your imagination. I was strictly talking strictly bias in literature before you popped up.

Not if you misuse it.

I refered to its usage only one time before you jumped up about his dictionary meaning, and that to show its incompatibility with the presuppositions you claimed from your argument. It's your misunderstanding and stop arguing on psychogenetic fallacies especially when you don't have a clue about my ideas.

Ad nauseam. I answered this question. Probably the paragraphs were too long for you to parse

spin

Your prescriptive theory of language is historically interesting.

I gather you have the right books to read about the SU.

I have clarified my position regarding why I came into this thread. Your problem with that clarification remains your problem.

I appreciate your attempts to shift blame after you dropped the crap about christian bashing.

I asked you: Why seek out non-believers then talk about christian bashing, if not as a provocation? Why do you bother to come to a site called internet infidels and post on BC&H? You don't seem to engage in either BC or BH.

You haven't answered these questions at all.

In the end however, I just don't care enough about your repartee, as I am involved in too many other threads here, which are more important than this little tete-a-tete.

I'll admit one thing: I responded to you assuming a point of view that I wasn't able to assume, that you would be aware of the context of a series of comments (regarding western society) you have made patently clear you weren't aware of, so much of your confusion is based on the wrong assumption of mine.

The slug fest has merely escalated and is continued for obvious reasons, without any fruit for effort. Have a last fling. Spit and belch. Enjoy.


spin :wave:

Lafcadio

<deleted>

Piggyheadness and repetition.

Modern western society was a context only in your head and you woke up a bit late to bring it into discussion when you realized that your antichristian agenda was a bit exaggerated in its initial terms. But because your aggresive tone and your blatant ignorance in several fields you couldn't win my willingness to discuss on your new parameters and I rejected your attempt, fairly, as a straw man and post hoc. More ad hominems and psychogenetic fallacies about my views of this western world only revealed your impotence and frustrations. A desperate attempt to catch me off guard and to nullify my arguments through sneaky hits at my person and my experience.
If you will really leave this discussion will mean nothing but the end of a long off topic rant. And I think it will be for the best of all, as you brought no value in this thread. Good riddance!