Falsity of the Quaran Bible and Torah

Originally posted by FMF
Look, you made an unfunny, presumptuous little remark and then tried to pass it off as a "rhetorical question". Calling you on it seems to have upset you. I have no idea what's inside your head. That, in my book, disqualifies you from speaking on behalf of "we" or "society".

No, FMF, it was always a rhetorical question. I have absolutely no interest in your particular knowledge status and would invite you to not inquire about mine.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
No, FMF, it was always a rhetorical question. I have absolutely no interest in your particular knowledge status and would invite you to not inquire about mine.

If you feel you - or even somebody else you know - has yet to learn something about people stoning people then just say so. Don't drag me into. You perhaps thought you were communicating clearly. But you were not.

Here's another "rhetorical question" like the one you attempted: ""Hey, did you see those two gay guys holding hands in public? When will we ever learn?" Now, if you said that, am I supposed to nod knowingly and go "Ho ho well said Paladin!" No. Of course not. I'd call you on it: "What on Earth do you mean, Paladin?"

Whatever you feel you still need to learn about people stoning people is a matter for you. You have no business speaking on behalf of "society".

I have absolutely no interest in your particular knowledge status and would invite you to not inquire about mine

If I am not allowed to enquire about what you think, then how is it you're presuming to pontificate evasively about what "we" have yet to learn?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, read the Holy Bible for your answer, however I doubt you will
understand if Dasa is right about dishonest people.

I don't have one,
Please elaborate a little more on what you think (the bible thinks) is different
about the sun as opposed to the stars.
Other than the sun being a lot closer than any other star.
And your insistence that you call it a sun rather than a star.

And btw, no one I know in the real gets confused if I talk about the sun as a star.

Originally posted by FMF
If you feel you - or even somebody else you know - has yet to learn something about people stoning people then just say so. Don't drag me into. You perhaps thought you were communicating clearly. But you were not.

Here's another "rhetorical question" like the one you attempted: ""Hey, did you see those two gay guys holding hands in public? When will we ever ...[text shortened]... it you're presuming to pontificate evasively about what "we" have yet to learn?

If you feel you - or even somebody else you know - has yet to learn something about people stoning people then just say so.

I did just say so: "He [ahosyney] seems to support stoning for philanderers provided certain conditions are met. When will we ever learn...?" It is clear that I thought that those who support stoning for philanderers provided certain conditions are met are in need of learning something. Is that such a contentious position?

If you were unclear as to what I meant you might have asked neutrally, like I did: "Do you support ahosyney's position on stoning for adultery provided certain conditions are met?" instead of the mean-spirited and condescending response "Actually I have absolutely no idea what you consider you have learnt or still need to learn, let alone whether you will 'ever learn' it."

Don't drag me into.

I never "drag[ged] you into [sic]". I have absolutely no interest in your particular knowledge status, FMF. On the contrary, YOU "drag[ged] me into" with your mean-spirited and condescending response.

Here's another "rhetorical question" like the one you attempted: ""Hey, did you see those two gay guys holding hands in public? When will we ever learn?" Now, if you said that, am I supposed to nod knowingly and go "Ho ho well said Paladin!" No. Of course not. I'd call you on it: "What on Earth do you mean, Paladin?"

See also above.

In fact, you didn't say "What on Earth do you mean, Paladin?", you said: "Actually I have absolutely no idea what you consider you have learnt or still need to learn, let alone whether you will 'ever learn' it." Detect a difference in tone?

You have no business speaking on behalf of "society".
I don't "speak[...] on behalf of society". Rather, I endorse a position that is shared with all members of society that do not think that stoning philanderers provided certain conditions are met is justifiable.

If I am not allowed to enquire about what you think, then how is it you're presuming to pontificate evasively about what "we" have yet to learn?

My particular knowledge status doesn't pertain in any meaningful way on the question at hand beyond being a member of class (2) above. Is that such a contentious position? One you, in fact, hold yourself.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
I endorse a position that is shared with all members of society that do not think that stoning philanderers provided certain conditions are met is justifiable.

Then that renders the clumsy "When will we ever learn...?" meaningless. If all members of society that do not think that stoning philanderers is justifiable share the same position then why is there even a "rhetorical question" about whether all these people you presume to speak for "will ever learn"? You are a poor communicator.

Originally posted by FMF
Then that renders the clumsy "When will we ever learn...?" meaningless. If all members of society that do not think that stoning philanderers is justifiable share the same position then why is there even a "rhetorical question" about whether all these people you presume to speak for "will ever learn"? You are a poor communicator.

Well, you're a poor reader.

I was referring to (1) those sections of society that are able to justify stoning for philanderers provided certain conditions are met, and (2) those sections of society that do not think stoning for philanderers provided certain conditions are met is at all justifiable. My question "When will we ever learn...?" means when will those members of the first class become members of the second class? Since I am a member of the overarching class, society, I used the pronoun "we". All of this is implied in the context. But you know this because you're not stupid, merely a bully.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Well, you're a poor reader.

Nope. The explanation you quoted above is a dud too. Your "rhetorical question" was a dud. The more you try to explain it, the more of a dud it turns out to be.

Originally posted by FMF
Nope. The explanation you quoted above is a dud too. Your "rhetorical question" was a dud. The more you try to explain it, the more of a dud it turns out to be.

GFY, FMF.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
GFY, FMF.

Are you for real?

You attempted an intimate little nod-is-as-good-as-wink-to-a-blind-horse type "rhetorical question" in a post addressed directly to me. I have no idea whether or not you are a Islam-Is-The-Greatest-Evil-In-The-World crackpot so I immediately distance myself from your pretentious "we". I have no reason to indulge you and your daft and slightly conspiratorial "When will we ever learn...?" which, after 4 more pages you still haven't turned into something sensical. What is it I have yet to learn?? What is it you have yet to learn?? What is it society has yet to learn?? What is it "we" have yet to learn?? You make no sense at all.

Originally posted by FMF
Are you for real?

You attempted an intimate little nod-is-as-good-as-wink-to-a-blind-horse type "rhetorical question" in a post addressed directly to me. I have no idea whether or not you are a Islam-Is-The-Greatest-Evil-In-The-World crackpot so I immediately distance myself from your pretentious "we". I have no reason to indulge you and your daft and slight ...[text shortened]... society has yet to learn? What is it "we" have yet to learn? You make no sense at all.

😴

Originally posted by Green Paladin
😴

Yep! The yawn. That is exactly how I should have responded to the pompous and dimwitted post of yours that started all this! 😀