Originally posted by Seitseumm while i applaud this well researched and informative text which actually does attempt to address the content it contains some logically fallacious arguments, the first being that there is almost universal condemnation of Bobs position. This is an argumentum ad populum, many believe it therefore it must be true. For example ten thousand Elvis fans cannot be wrong. Ermm yes they can.
O.k., first let's set the ground rules. Anything not encompassing
a rational driven provision of arguments and a coherent stream of
thought (e.g. sliding every now and then the term lazy) will be
automatically slotted into the "fallacy" or "cognitive bias" locker and
end this discussion.
That said, what you are trying to defend is the [b]deliver ...[text shortened]... s his complete
disregard for others, his ignorance of the subject, and his utter lack of
tact.
While there may be no universal consensus among Christians (and even if there was it would not negate Bob holding a contrary position) and history does record what are considered some 'noble' and 'virtuous' suicides as in the case of Socrates or even the Samurai these have little bearing on Bobs perspective for they are only precedents of a kind and Bob may have rejected them on the basis of entirely different set of principles one of which was mentioned, the sanctity of life being paramount.
I must therefore sadly reject your conclusions for no one actually took the time nor the effort to ascertain what his reasons were. This is entirely the point of my objection, all they were concerned with was condemning him. Being clumsy or insensitive or inarticulate is not quite the same as being disgusting or abysmal. Bobs has the right to his opinions and perspective and should be free to air those opinions without being subjected to instant condemnation with little effort being expended to understand his position.
Understanding is the thing to be aimed for.
Originally posted by divegeesterdude please people are having a discussion, if you cannot contribute anything other than your this, your that, your disgusting cult blah blah its just gets monotonous, seriously.
You choose to believe the things that you do about marital rape, blood transfusions and the reporting of child sex abuse within your religious cult. You are regularly and thoroughly cross-examined in debate in the Spirituality forum for those beliefs and found to be either intellectually dishonest or morally bankrupt - to which you generally respond in a ...[text shortened]... y which is lacking in personal dignity and certainly makes you appear to be of low intelligence.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeActually, I think it was pretty unclear as to what it was exactly that Grampy Bobby did apologize for, and he completely ignored subsequent invitations to explain what the apology had applied to.
To his credit, [Grampy Bobby] did apologize for the comments he made. (Forget his precise terminology).
It certainly wasn't an apology for the insulting remarks that he made to those who had a different understanding of mental illness from him. It seemed to be more like one of those 'I'm sorry for those who got their shorts knotted' type apologies.
I don't recall him apologizing for talking of suicide being due to a lack of honour code, I don't recall him apologizing for claiming suicide was "insulting to the entire human race", or for calling disagreement with him "lies".
When you say he "did apologize for the comments he made", which of his comments do you think he apologized for?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNone of this addresses the fact that your hypocrisy regarding "civility", in terms of your own behaviour, is pretty much unrivaled in this community.
The sum total of our decisions and actions here and at home will either equal a net positive or net negative impact in terms of civility.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29255
Originally posted by FMFAt the time, i took his apology to mean he was sorry for having caused offence. I wouldn't expect him to apologize for holding a certain belief, which of course it is his prerogative to do.
Actually, I think it was pretty unclear as to what it was exactly that Grampy Bobby did apologize for, and he completely ignored subsequent invitations to explain what the apology had applied to.
It certainly wasn't an apology for the insulting remarks that he made to those who had a different understanding of mental illness from him. It seemed to be more li ...[text shortened]... "did apologize for the comments he made", which of his comments do you think he apologized for?
For example, i might apologize for making a crude comment about God not existing. I wouldn't however apologize for being an atheist.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhich of his numerous offensive remarks are you claiming he apologized for? Did he apologize for the 'dissenters are peddling "premeditated lies"' comment for example?
At the time, i took his apology to mean he was sorry for having caused offence. I wouldn't expect him to apologize for holding a certain belief, which of course it is his prerogative to do.
Later, when I reminded him of this comment, he said: "Facts hurt. Truth stings."
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29255
Originally posted by FMFI only recall the apology.
Which of his numerous offensive remarks are you claiming he apologized for? Did he apologize for the 'dissenters are peddling "premeditated lies"' comment for example?
Later, when I reminded him of this comment, he said: "Facts hurt. Truth stings."
Then, i moved on.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1. In here, the GF universe. And it does not prove that a
the first being that there is almost universal condemnation of Bobs position. This is an argumentum ad populum
and Bob may have rejected them on the basis of entirely different set of principles one of which was mentioned, the sanctity of life being paramount.
Bobs has the right to his opinions and perspective and should be free to air those o ...[text shortened]... subjected to instant condemnation with little effort being expended to understand his position.
point is right, it proves that he insulted a majority of people,
proving my point that it is a sensitive subject requiring tact and
most importantly, knowledge.
2. You are, again, putting words in his mouth. 'Sanctity of life' is
not an argument. It is a header, which demands an elaboration
of the train of thought. Particularly taking into account the variety
of theological positions within Christianity itself, not to mention
the whole spectrum of human knowledge throughout history.
3. His freedom to speak his opinions is equal to the others' freedom
to subject them to scrutiny, analysis and meta-opinions themselves.
Moreover, unlike him, I have taken the time and effort to actually
explain my opinion of his opinion, and what it transpires. So,
following that train of logic, I have used my freedom more maturely
and responsibly than him. Ironic, isn't it?
I appreciate your effort in being civil and argumentative, but I do not
see a refutal which actually makes my initial epistemic position to
vary.
Why is it so surprising that I am an actually thinking person? Do
you guys really think that I am in real life the persons I portray to be
on this forum for the sake of my own amusement --and that of a
select few who appreciate the Kauffman school?
I am sorry to disappoint you but I had to break character to, once
again, mop the floor with the hypocrisy, pathological narcissism,
and sociopathy of Bob. I will soon return to my usual routine but,
remember, this is the internet. We're here for the lulz 🙂
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29255
Originally posted by FMFLike i said, i moved on.
But you are unable to explain to me which of his comments his apology applied to. Does "Facts hurt. Truth stings" sound like he had actually apologized for the comment he was referring back to?
When you say, "Later, when I reminded him,," It only goes to highlight that you, FMF, hadn't. This of course is your own decision. I prefer to take an apology when it comes and then draw a line through the issue.
To recab:
1. I challenged comments.
2. Apology received.
3. Apology accepted.
4. Moved on.
5. Didn't bring up at a later date.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29255
22 Jan 16
Originally posted by SeitseI actually rather like your 'thinking personality.' Is it not possible to amalgamate the two?
Why is it so surprising that I am an actually thinking person? Do
you guys really think that I am in real life the persons I portray to be
on this forum for the sake of my own amusement --and that of a
select few who appreciate the Kauffman school?
I am sorry to disappoint you but I had to break character to, once
again, mop the floor with the hypocris ...[text shortened]... oon return to my usual routine but,
remember, this is the internet. We're here for the lulz 🙂
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
22 Jan 16
Originally posted by SeitseI remember you.
Why is it so surprising that I am an actually thinking person? Do
you guys really think that I am in real life the persons I portray to be
on this forum for the sake of my own amusement --and that of a
select few who appreciate the Kauffman school?
I am sorry to disappoint you but I had to break character to, once
again, mop the floor with the hypocris ...[text shortened]... oon return to my usual routine but,
remember, this is the internet. We're here for the lulz 🙂
Originally posted by SeitseNo one is claiming that its not a sensitive subject, nor that Bob could have handled it with more tact and finesse, thats NOT the issue. The issue was and still remains that not a single one of those self proclaimed moralists took a single second of their precious time to ascertain what Bobs position was prior to condemning him. He probably had a very valid reason, but they were not interested in reason. this is the point.
1. In [b]here, the GF universe. And it does not prove that a
point is right, it proves that he insulted a majority of people,
proving my point that it is a sensitive subject requiring tact and
most importantly, knowledge.
2. You are, again, putting words in his mouth. 'Sanctity of life' is
not an argument. It is a header, which demands an elaborati ...[text shortened]... tative, but I do not
see a refutal which actually makes my initial epistemic position to
vary.[/b]
You asked what those reasons may have been and were furnished with sound and valid principles and a thought process which could have lent itself through a logical progression to the conclusions that Bobs aired. Now you are saying that those reasons are not good enough??? holding that that sanctity if life is paramount and that suicide is therefore an affront to God is a valid reason, you may not like it, you may not agree with it, but its a valid reason. The variety of theological positions are of little relevance, we are talking of Bobs perspective which no one took the time to ascertain. No not a single individual, they were too busy putting the boot in.
No one subjected them to scrutiny other than to condemn them. This is my entire point. Had they ascertained what he meant and was allowed to explain his position, then they may have recourse to agree or disagree on the basis of reason but noooo, gripped by a villager mentality they went hysterically shrieking around, 'my goodness did you read what he just said', 'how despicable', 'how disgusting', 'how beastly', he deserves to be publicly humiliated the monster that he is.
Perhaps its my unwillingness to be judgemental, I don't know. I hold after all that Bobs sentiments are a reflection of no one but him and have no real meaning to anyone but him. Admittedly I have a really difficult time understanding why there is so much moralizing over other people by self assuming, self righteous judgemental people unwilling to expend any effort to understand another's perspective so as to make a rational and reasoned evaluation of their position.