28 Oct 12
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFWell then maybe your statement a while back was a little clumsy. Because you didn't say you are here to "iron out inconsistencies."
Not so. For the most part my posts argue for the sake of ironing out inconsistencies, pointing out contradictions, and confronting the hypocrisies of those here who make pronouncements and denunciations on moral matters based on their often inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas. My posting record confirms this.
I said: "You seem so eager to challenge anything said by those whom you oppose."
Your answer, if you are here to simply "iron out inconsistencies," should have been NO., followed by a correction. Instead, you answered in the affirmative:
You said: "Yes, I challenge things that I oppose. That is what debate and discussion is all about."
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidIndeed I do. I challenge the inconsistencies, the contradictions, and the hypocrisies of those I oppose, as my posting record shows. When people's contributions are founded on inconsistencies, contradictions, and hypocrisies, I frequently find myself opposed to what they are claiming.
You said: "[b]Yes, I challenge things that I oppose. That is what debate and discussion is all about."[/b]
Originally posted by sumydidOriginally posted by sumydid
Being a deep-thinker and an intellectual, and making the effort to claim something 3 separate times---I think we should all assume that you are completely and entirely convinced. In fact, you have been so emphatic about your claim, that if you are wrong, it should indicate that you aren't the intellectual you seem to be.
You still don't see the irony. It was you who attacked my observation by incorrectly calling it "clumsy" and a "strawman."
It seems to me that you use clumsy straw men very often. For example, I have quite simply never claimed to be "a deep-thinker and an intellectual". This is your claim, not mine. Lo and behold, one sentence later you yourself are knocking down your own claim by saying "you aren't the intellectual you seem to be" because you disagree with me about something. This is another straw man - of no great significance - but a clumsy little on nevertheless. You seem to use a lot of them.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFI have learned through much debate with skeptics, that it is a hallmark tactic for them to pick apart the nuts and bolts of a metaphorical statement, rather than the message of the statement itself.
I have never once argued something like "the molecules in the atmosphere [reflect] other colors as well" in answer to an assertion like "the sky is blue". Nothing remotely like it. It has never been the kind of thing I post. It is something of your own invention and misrepresents my posting record. That's why it's a straw man.
Like I said, the "sky is blue" and you arguing against it, is completely unimportant.
If you're going to insist on using grown up terms, you might want to make sure you understand their meaning and usage before you deploy them. A metaphorical observation is not a "clumsy strawman" simply because the imagery used in the metaphor doesn't specifically apply to real-life events. You keep returning to this irrelevant argument that you've never denied the sky was blue in the last 7 years, etc.
You're leading me to believe that not only do you not understand the meaning and usage of the terms you use against others, but you also struggle with the meaning and usage of simple things, like metaphors and imagery.
I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to disagree with my opinion. But what you effectively did was seek to prohibit my opinion by declaring it a violation in the rules of engagement, i.e. a "clumsy strawman."
You are not entitled to cast my opinion aside and declare it dishonest or wrongful.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFIf it's a strawman, then I withdraw it.
Originally posted by sumydid
[b]You still don't see the irony. It was you who attacked my observation by incorrectly calling it "clumsy" and a "strawman."
It seems to me that you use clumsy straw men very often. For example, I have quite simply never claimed to be "a deep-thinker and an intellectual". This is your claim, not mine. Lo and b ...[text shortened]... nificance - but a clumsy little on nevertheless. You seem to use a lot of them.[/b]
But you do understand, that by declaring it a strawman, you are denying being a deep-thinker or an intellectual.
I can accept that. In fact, I'm glad you admitted it. I withdraw my claim. You are now officially not a deep-thinker, nor are you an intellectual.
Glad that's settled.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidI am not "prohibiting" you from coming up with a few examples over the last 7 years of me having ever argued something like "the molecules in the atmosphere [reflect] other colors as well" in answer to an assertion like "the sky is blue" and then questioning the "integrity" of the poster on that basis. Perhaps if you can, the the impression that you are a mere purveyor of clumsy straw men will disappear.
I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to disagree with my opinion. But what you effectively did was seek to prohibit my opinion by declaring it a violation in the rules of engagement, i.e. a "clumsy strawman."
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMF"Everything you add to the truth subtracts from the truth. When truth is discovered
I am not "prohibiting" you from coming up with a few examples over the last 7 years of me having ever argued something like "the molecules in the atmosphere [reflect] other colors as well" in answer to an assertion like "the sky is blue" and then questioning the "integrity" of the poster on that basis. Perhaps if you can, the the impression that you are a mere purveyor of clumsy straw men will disappear.
by someone else, it loses something of its attractiveness." -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidI never claimed to be one in the first place. It was just a claim of yours that you threw in so that you could rebut it in the very next sentence, apparently in order to try and add some spin to your clumsy straw man about my posts on this forum.
But you do understand, that by declaring it a strawman, you are denying being a deep-thinker or an intellectual. I can accept that. In fact, I'm glad you admitted it. I withdraw my claim. You are now officially not a deep-thinker, nor are you an intellectual. Glad that's settled.
Originally posted by FMFAll you had to do was ask me. No sense asking for help from the gallery.
I wonder if anyone else finds it odd how sumydid is banging on and on and on about my intellect?
The reason I opined that you seem to fancy yourself an intellectual, is because you use uncommon, fancy terms that one would expect to come from the mouth of one who fancies himself an intellectual. For example, recently you said you are here to challenge "inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas."
Inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas? Wow. Those are high-level terms.
Then there's the regular use of "clumsy strawman" in your description of things people say that you claim to be incorrect.
People that use grown-up terms like this, either use them among intellectual groups, sipping brandy in fireside chats about deep subjects, or, as I suspect you do, they use them to make themselves appear to be highly-educated, supremely intellectual, and intimidating.
I find your use of these terms to often be out of place and.. ironically.. clumsy in some cases.
As you have been kind enough to point out, I was *mistaken* in believing you to be a deep thinker and an intellectual. You are neither. That case is settled. But, at least now you know why I mistook you to be such. It's because of the way you talk.
Beloved St. Paul the Apostle was one of the most charismatic individuals in history. That can hardly be denied, as he has won over Christian converts by the millions if not billions, in simply speaking to them from the heart. One of the secrets to Paul's success as a charismatic was that when he spoke to the Jews, he spoke as a Jew; but when he spoke to the Gentiles, he spoke as a Gentile.
I bring that up because in this forum, with the grown-up, intellectual, "professional" language you use against your opponents, you are not speaking on our level. Instead you seem to be setting yourself aside as superior and more sophisticated. I don't dare say you are doing anything wrong; I merely say this to make it clear--since you asked--why I or some others may walk away thinking you fancy yourself an intellectual.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFWhen ever you refer to a straw man, you should define what is a straw man to you. If such terms are not clearly defined we will likely continue to arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing. Can you be clear about this straw man. It may not be as obvious as you think. 😏
Attacking what you "expect" me to say is a textbook straw man, sumydid. And they don't come much clumsier. Attacking what you "expect" me to say is about as arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing as it comes.
Originally posted by FMFThis is correct. The problem is I didn't attack what I "expected." I merely opined. Again, if you're going to use grown-up terms, use them when they are appropriate... otherwise you make yourself appear foolish and amateurish.
Attacking what you "expect" me to say is a textbook straw man, sumydid. And they don't come much clumsier. Attacking what you "expect" me to say is about as arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing as it comes.