Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-27-2002, 04:04 AM | #101 | |||||||||||||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
|
Part 1:
Quote:
Quote:
I treat her differently because of that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This argument comes up every now and then, and is absurd; just because someone doesn't complain about something themselves, does not mean that they are not offended, nor does it mean that no-one else has the right to complain on their behalf. Quote:
Quote:
But I'll be keeping my main words on this for my promised opus on these matters. Quote:
And you're still missing the point, Arrowman; in the previous <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=" target="_blank">Deaf Lesbian Shock-Horror-Scandal thread</a>, you objected to me being unbearably sarcastic about some of the more simply abusive posts in that thread; you insist that it's OK to be rude if one is "in the right", even when the appropriateness of that rudeness is called into question in a hard way. I.e. here, you're saying it's OK for others to be rude about Theist Gal, and you've also (possibly) said it's OK for Kally to be rude about me, but it's not OK for me to be rude about the rude people. Now just where do you get off, hmmmm ? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You objected to me being unbearably sarcastic about all the condemnatory amateur moralists boiling out of the woodwork on that Shock-Horror thread; and then when I produced all the reasoning as to just why, you threw up your hands and went away, rather than deal with it. So enough of the bullshit re cheap shots; how about actually answering me for once ? Quote:
Quote:
Too much like hard yakka, mate, for you to actually answer me there rather than simply condemning me ? Quote:
Let's be all in there together ! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Watch me getting slowly sarcastic as we get further down the track on this. |
|||||||||||||||||||
06-27-2002, 04:06 AM | #102 | |||||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
|
Part 2:
Quote:
Quote:
CHAPTER AND VERSE: Quote:
The final evasions are to be found at the end of that cited thread. ______________________ Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Watch me getting slowly sarcastic as we get further down the track on this. Quote:
Perhaps I should think <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000719&p=6" target="_blank">about simply "flipping you the bird"</a> on this ? Quote:
And I doubt I could be any clearer unless I was to draw diagrams. Quote:
Pardon me if I laugh my guts out. Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, I see no reason yet presented as to why my concerns are invalid. And you simply trundle on about "projection". Tsk tsk tsk. So, Arrowman, here we are once again; here yet again you become condemnatory of me, do not adequately ground your disparagements of my good self, demand full grounding from me, then probably you'll simply throw up your hands and declare you should have never gotten involved in this if I produce requested grounding, and that it's all just too difficult to justify your moral condemnations when requested to do so. See any problem here in your behaviour ? hmmmm ? [ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p> |
|||||||||||
06-27-2002, 04:24 AM | #103 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
|
Quote:
First off, Helen, would you like to specify your question and things a bit more ? Should you feel I have been abusive, please quote context and words, then I'll answer you. I kinda love these five-way fights. |
|
06-27-2002, 04:27 AM | #104 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
|
Oh, and Helen, I'll give you a partial serious answer now;
Look over all my previous posts. I tend to defend under-dogs, though with some judgment as to when to do so; I tend to be only abusive of abusive viewpoints. |
06-27-2002, 04:34 AM | #105 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
|
Quote:
I thought that all theists here are 'underdogs' by definition... Anyway, I wasn't alleging that you had been abusive in any given situation. I could look and see whether in my judgement you'd crossed the line from 'aggressive debate' into 'abusive comments'. But even if I did you may disagree; so, I'm not sure it's worth me taking the time. And in saying that I'm not intending to say "Yes you were abusive but I know you'll deny it". If I had meant that I'd say it. I'm truly saying "I am not taking a position at this moment on whether in my judgement you have posted abusive comments or not, since I haven't had time to do adequate research into it". Of course, you're free to assume I am lying/being evasive/dodging the issue/being disingenuous... But as I think I've said before, I much prefer it when people read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote rather than what they think I might have meant. Otherwise it's very difficult to have any sort of meaningful [online] conversation at all. love Helen |
|
06-27-2002, 04:46 AM | #106 | ||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
|
Quote:
Quote:
Theist with a chainsaw, there ! Besides which, why should I defend masochists from their masochism ? (joke) Quote:
Quote:
You pass up the opportunity for more deep insights into my sordid character, simply because it's all too much work ? My overly huge ego is distraught; there's no such thing as bad publicity, but you're not even giving me an iota of that. Quote:
1) I'm not important enough to you for you to keep track of me and my stances, even those on you 2) In the posts where you managed to get me going, you were reacting far more to your own preconceptions rather than me, so you don't really remember my responses to you 3) You have other priorites rather than hammering out this one. 4) As you intimate yourself above, you're not prepared to be challenged; you're not prepared to be disagreed with. A basic difference between ourselves, possibly, there ? Quote:
So sue me, but I think my attitude makes sense, especially in terms of ongoing development. [ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p> |
||||||
06-27-2002, 05:00 AM | #107 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
|
Originally posted by Gurdur:
HelenSL: How can I qualify to be an 'underdog'? Gurdur:with difficulty (to me) in your case. D'OH You're warmly accepted and treated very nicely by most people here; and my own reservations vis-á-vis you have to do with how I perceive your integrity. Could you and would you elaborate? I take my integrity seriously and hope not to be thought lacking in it. But...I try to balance truth and love OTOH and that might mean I do not always share everything I know, think, or believe. If you see that as lacking in integrity then there's probably not much I can do about it because love is as important to me as truth. Helen: I thought that all theists here are 'underdogs' by definition... Gurdur: Have you been paying much attention to Tercel ? Theist with a chainsaw, there ! I haven't been paying much attention to him in particular but I certainly have been dismayed many times by the tone of posts by self-professed Christians, here. Besides which, why should I defend masochists from their masochism ? (joke) Fair enough You pass up the opportunity for more deep insights into my sordid character, simply because it's all too much work ? Well, as a Christian I'm supposed to do this: whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things (Phil 4:8). So I'm not supposed to focus on sordid stuff... My overly huge ego is distraught; there's no such thing as bad publicity, but you're not even giving me an iota of that. Maybe I know a thing or two, huh? Naw, I assume three things, seriously: 1) I'm not important enough to you for you to keep track of me and my stances, even those on you In a sense that's true but only because I have many things I know I should be focusing on and only 24 hours a day. It's not that I think you are unimportant relative to any other human being in a general sense. It also has to do with - I'm not sure it would 'achieve a constructive end' for me to examine your posts with an eye to what I might think is 'abusive'. I factor that in in deciding how to spend my time. I'm not saying my time allocation is perfect; in fact I daresay it's quite problematic in some ways. 2) In the posts where you managed to get me going, you were reacting far more to your own preconceptions rather than me, so you don't really remember my responses to you That may be true although it's unfortunate and I apologize if I prejudged you as much as it sounds like I did from what you just wrote. 3) You have other priorities rather than hammering out this one. Oh, well, yes, I can't deny this since I just said it in response to your 1)! I respond often with the history of the person to whom I am responding in mind; quite often, one thread is just a continuation of ongoing conversations for me. So sue me, but I think my attitude makes sense, esepecially in terms of ongoing development. I think that's a very good way to respond and I did notice that the way you seem to have applied it to two people posting on this thread is to be kinder to them. I liked that a lot. I think it's great as long as you are open to people changing over time rather than assuming that they will always respond as they did on one thread or one occasion. Because - everyone has bad days and we can all learn... And I don't have evidence that you aren't open in that way; it was a general comment about appropriately applying that method. So, I guess I agree with it too much to sue you...this time, anyway! love (are you one of the people who hates that I write this? ) Helen |
06-27-2002, 05:13 AM | #108 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
|
Quote:
IOW, I see you as deriving many benefits from us here - our openess, our acceptance etc. - but without being fully upfront yourself. Quote:
Helen, I try very hard to be honest as possible unless someone proves themself not worthy of it; if asked for my honest opinion, very often I will give it --- which is why I am now giving you my opinion. [ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p> |
||
06-27-2002, 05:37 AM | #109 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
|
Originally posted by Gurdur:
On 711, you've attacked liberal Christians as being too liberal, and by implication all liberal Christians; when called out on that, you simply asserted you knew them better than I. Without a link I can't comment on what I replied to you - and you evidently have a different username there because I don't remember interacting with 'Gurdur' there... But I can tell you this: on a board that clearly states that only posts in line with it's own theology are acceptable, then, yes, I might well oppose anyone who deliberately and persistently flouts that rule because it's disruptive. And I might well use the Bible to show that they are posting things contrary to the rules of the Board. Why not? You rather brutally patronizingly put down a very nice bloke (damn, I can't remember his name, the theologian from Virginia) on 711, when he expressed shock over your fundy attack on liberal Christians. Again, I'd need a link. I don't recall doing that to anyone except those who've persistently and deliberately violated the 711 rules on what content is acceptable. You've expressed desires for Christian revivalism on 711. That's rather vague and you gave no link. I don't deny that I do not agree with those who think that Christianity has no beneficial effect in the lives of its adherents or on the world. Of course I wouldn't want anything about it that I see as problematic to be 'revived'. I've never lamented the demise of witch-hunting, etc... You've ducked the issue on your forcing of your own church upon your children, despite the fact that you complain often enough about your church. We simply disagree - me and many people here - about whether my kids will be harmed by me making them go to church. As I said when this was being discussed - in reality kids have to do all kinds of stuff that their parents make them do. And it's not necessarily 'bad' that they learn they don't always have all the choices they want in life. They'll have to respect that if they ever have an employer and want to keep the job, get promoted etc. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of my church I am better able to be careful that my children aren't harmed by their involvement. I would think it would be more worrying if I thought my church was perfect - that would show me very unrealistic. Nothing involving humans is perfect! You've attacked other Christians here for their "terrorist God", while often enough refusing to be upfront about your own fairly hardline Calvinist beliefs. I try to encourage other Christians to think out of the box' a bit more and to be civil in their posts here. Those are my goals. Discussion of my own beliefs doesn't further my goals. You've used what I consider emotionally manipulative comments on me at various times, including in this thread -- yes, I can cite them. Since you know what they are I assume you chose not to be manipulated . It's up to you whether you quote them or not. Are you ever emotionally manipulative? I use whatever resources I have available to me that I do not consider immoral to use... IOW, I see you as deriving many benefits from us here - our openess, our acceptance etc. - but without being fully upfront yourself. Many people here don't even share their real names; and you call them 'open'? I could say more if I was anonymous too; but I don't like anonymity and I think it might lead me to say things I'd rather not say. I think you're somewhat out of touch with the reality of this board if you're assuming most people are more upfront than me Helen: love (are you one of the people who hates that I write this? ) Helen Had you paid attention to the second-last time we butted heads together (about 2 weeks ago), you would know the answer to this. Had you been the only person I interact with I might have remembered; but I get confused who is who after a while. At least I have noticed that it irritates some people here... Since you didn't answer the question I won't consider - yet - whether not to use it in replies to you. Helen, I try very hard to be honest as possible unless someone proves themself not worthy of it; if asked for my honest opinion, very often I will give it --- which is why I am now giving you my opinion. And I appreciate it very much. One thing I wonder is whether you understand that it's not always a matter of "I'm right therefore you're wrong". Or vice-versa. There are times when we will disagree and there's no way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong". Or vice-versa. Not only that but when it comes to what I do with my own children, I obviously know them better than you or others here and it's my responsibility to raise them as best I can, not yours. So it wouldn't make sense to me to change the way I raise them simply because a stranger, with different values from me, objects to an aspect of how I am raising them. I do try to listen to what people say here, to me, but it would be foolish to leap to making major changes in my life just because a stranger thinks I ought to... love Helen |
06-27-2002, 07:45 AM | #110 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LALA Land in California
Posts: 3,764
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the secure comments. Could you explain? Thanks, Kally |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|