You are looking at posts that were written in the month of February in the year 2008.
Posted on February 29th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Feb 29, 8:52 pm, Drafterman wrote:
> On Feb 29, 6:09 pm, Dev wrote:
>
> > As far as me being serious and me kidding, consider this: if you can
> > refute my logic, I’m kidding. Now, I acknowledge the arrogance of
> > assuming I never say anything _seriously_ that can be refuted but
> > frankly nobody can say this isn’t the case. It has never happened.
>
> Not arrogance, merely the luxury of the fact that only you get to say
> what of your posts is satire and what is serious. So you post
> something, if it gets slammed you say it was satire, otherwise claim
> it was serious. It is not a bad position to be in.
You know what? I understand your suspicion here and it even crossed my
mind in writing this. Now, there are posters here I am closer with who
will tell you this is not my strategy. This is not my point. My point
is that even my satirical points are generally not refuted. Now, how
can you know for certain _what_ is a satirical point and what is not?
I guess if you can’t refute _anything_ I have to say it must be hard.
Some people here manage to differentiate somehow, though. If you
can’t, just let me know and I can help you with that.
> > The
> > fact that not you or most people can’t even refute my _satire_ is the
> > whole point of the satire in the first place.
>
> It’s hardly a fact. I’ve stopped responding to what I consider your
> “satire” because just about every time I have responded to it, you
> either accuse me of being a theist, or victimize yourself.
Ok. Maybe I did compare you to theists, at least. It was probably
because your reasoning was comparable. I think it is right now,
honestly.
> > I say things that,
> > evidently, nobody is capable of refuting but me to prove that extremes
> > proving my point are still evidently over all of your heads.
>
> It isn’t evident.
It is evident because I lack evidence of the alternate possibility–
that the refutes to me are a big _secret_ that nobody wants to share.
> > I _do_
> > think I’m the most logical person here, and you probably think the
> > same thing about yourself.
>
> No, I don’t.
I expected this response, of course–I even said as much. Now, I
really question this. I don’t think you’re lying to _me_, but I think
you’re not being honest with yourself. Here’s why. Let’s assume that
you actually believed that there was someone here more logical than
you. How would you come to this conclusion? You would have to evaluate
another person’s logical capabilities to make this assessment–if you
considered your logic to be _inferior_, then how could you possibly
make a logical assessment of _superior_ logic? How, in other words, is
inferior logic authorative in evalutating superior logic? I think
you’re too smart to make such a logically fallacious assessment, and
simply prefer to think of yourself as a more modest person than you
are. I think if you take anyone on this group, that person thinks he
or she is _the_ most correct person here. But I don’t think they would
put it quite like that. And I think the reason _why_ they don’t say
that is because they are worried it would make them look like
assholes. But of course it’s true. Nobody here is arguing thinking
they are more wrong than the other guy.
> > I think most people on this group feel that
> > way but won’t admit it out of ego–it is more egotistical, I think, to
> > say you _don’t_ think you’re more right than everyone else here
> > because that perspective is based on an illusion of humility that
> > stems from vanity.
>
> That is one of the more twisted things you’ve said. Humility is
> vanity, egotism is humility?
I’m reading between the lines here. I think when most people express
humility the motive is largely selfish. I think it is less egotistical
to admit that I think I’m the most logical person here because I
_know_ it makes me look like an asshole–if I were to put my ego above
honesty, I would act more humble and self-deprecating in this regard
because it would make me look better and not get the same criticism
from you and others. I’m simply admitting to an opinion I have of
myself that does not exactly make me look that great. I’m being
honest, despite the fact that I _know_ this is going to be used
against me.
> > If you think you are _less_ right, then what the
> > fuck are you doing on a debate group? Who goes to a debate group to be
> > wrong?
>
> Your main error, I feel, is that you think everyone, on the inside, is
> like you.
Um, I certainly don’t but I think all of us utilize ourselves as a
frame of reference for considering other human beings. Your mistake
here, I think, is that you are failing to refute very simple deductive
reasoning. You don’t even really try. You kind of back off from the
reasoning, and make an assertion about how you feel about me. Now, I
do think you honestly feel this way but I _know_ you aren’t being as
reasonable as I am in this debate.
> Same motivations, same tactics, etc. So when you admit to
> being like you, you have the claim of being honest, but when others do
> not admit to being like you, your assumption that they are allows you
> to call them liars.
No, Drafty. I call people liars because there is evidence of them
being liars. I am sick of all the tired “alterior motivations” for why
I might call people liars–I put one and one together and make two and
people act like there’s some kind of a sinister, dishonest motive
behind this.
> I don’t debate to be wrong.
That’s my point.
> That does not preclude
> the fact that I have been wrong. It’s unavoidable. I already told you
> why I’m here and it has nothing to do with how right I think I am.
_Here_ is where I disagree. Your stance in, for example, _this_ exact
debate is _exactly_ contingent on the fact that you think you’re
right. If you thought you were wrong, would you be arguing with me
right now? Really? I don’t think so.
> I
> have my beliefs and the only way I can know if they’re right is by
> putting them out there and seeing what the objections there are to
> them. If there is a convincing refute, my beliefs change. That can’t
> happen if I have the presupposition that their irrefutably right. And,
> despite your predilection for doing so, lack of response is not
> validation, it is argument from silence.
Is silence an argument? Sure. Everything is kind of an argument by
some definitions. If I say something “is not an argument” it’s kind of
like saying “that’s not music”–I know that technically some songs are
music, but I might say they aren’t because I think they suck and
that’s the way people are going to understand what I’m saying–”that’s
not an argument” will likewise be understood as to mean “that’s not a
good argument” by intelligent people. The silence in refuting me is
not a good argument any more than passing out on stage is a good song.
I know a lot of you would _enjoy_ refuting me, so I figure if you can
do it you will. I don’t believe that the refutes to me are some kind
of a mass conspiracy–a huge secret. I don’t believe that you all have
keys to some pyramid in a basement where the refutes to my arguments
are somehow locked away and must never see the light of day so they
can survive a nuclear war. I simply think you’re bluffing when you
claim to have them, because that is way more likely.
> I have mentioned the two whose posts I enjoy the most and learn from
> and the reasons are because they do precisely that, show how my
> thinking is lacking. Simpleton’s Socratic method is near flawless.
> *Everyone’s* thinking has contradictions in it. It is merely the
> patience to walk them through it. Rappocio I learn from in a less
> relevant sense, since I have an interest in physics.
This goes back to the other point. Now, you are evaluating the logic
of Simpleton and rappoccio. I agree with your assessment that they are
more logical than you are and two of the most logical posters here.
But I submit that you think your logic is _at least_ on par with
theirs, otherwise I don’t really see how you would think you would be
qualified to make this assessment. Like, for example, let’s take a
retarded lizard. Would you consider a retarded lizard qualified to
decide _how_ logical Simpleton and rappoccio were? I doubt it. A
retarded lizard is stupider than rappoccio and Simpleton, so it lacks
the resources to make such a judgment. That’s the difference you hold
between yourself and a retarded lizard–you think you _do_ have the
resources to make such an assessment because you hold your own
assessment of your own intelligence in such a high regard. I think you
privately _do_ think you are smarter than everyone else here because
you think you are in a position to _determine_ the intelligence of
other people, which would require you being intelligent enough to hold
_their_ logic against your own.
> The *real* question is if you do feel you are the most logical here,
> if you feel that your posts are over *everyone* else’s head, and you
> have nothing to learn, and thus nothing to gain. Why are *you* here?
I think I addressed that, actually, Drafty–in this thread right here.
I admitted it was largely for fun.
>
>
> > I am just requesting from what I am requesting from the theists. If
> > you don’t like what I have to say, refute it.
>
> At this point, for the most part, I choose to simply let it go.
But you don’t. You are replying to me. That isn’t letting it go. You
think you’re making a point.
> > That’s _all_ I really
> > want.
>
> I doubt that.
Fine.
> > Don’t just say I’m wrong–explain why.
>
> I’ve done so before, and had it fall on deaf ears, the only response
> to be insults.
And this is why I compare you to a theist. I insult people. So you
utilize this fact to make a true ad hominem in an association fallacy
in which you can simply dismiss every word I say because I’m a big
meanie. Whoopie.
> > Isn’t that what debate is
> > about?
>
> Technically, it isn’t that simple with you.
I’m honest, Drafty. If you’re right I don’t think it’s hard to deal
with me at all because I’m not evasive or deceptive–even when I’m
saying things about killing theists or whatever that I don’t mean I
even _say_ I don’t mean them but for some reason being clear about
things is way too much for some of you.
> > If you suspect I’m kidding, why is it so _hard_ for you to do
> > it? If what I’m saying is so stupid, _why_ can’t you do that?
>
> I have, your failure to recognize it notwithstanding.
You sound a lot like Brock right now. You’re doing exactly what he
does. You’re _asserting_ that you are correct but you are not
explaining why you think that’s the case like I do. I always support
my assertions.
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 12:08 pm, Drafterman wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 1:33 am, Dev wrote:
>
> > > > So–Trance, rappy, Simpleton, cathy, Medusa, LL, Zonk, EG, JP, bod,
> > > > bon, Obs, Drafty, Lawrey and the rest of you–what the fuck are you
> > > > doing here?
>
> > > I like to argue/debate. To put it succinctly, that’s about it. It’s
> > > almost a compulsion, when I read what I perceive to be something
> > > fallacious I have to reply and a good portion of the time I am not
> > > even aware of who I may be replying to. I have no delusions about
> > > converting anyone, so if there is anything productive I expect to get
> > > from here is to refine my own beliefs by listening to others. I would
> > > say that I’ve learned mostly from Simpleton and rapp, not to disparage
> > > the contributions of others.
>
> > > > What do you think of what I’m saying here?
>
> > > On the site in general I tend to give you a wide berth, honestly.
> > > Sometimes I really lack the ability to know when you’re serious and
> > > when you’re not, so I’ve stopped trying since the few times I’ve
> > > stepped in it wasn’t pleasant.
>
> > > As far as this post specifically. I agree. It’s sad that there really
> > > aren’t any new theistic arguments when there really should be, while
> > > the atheistic side grows ever more refined.
>
> > > > Do you think
> > > > you can offend me?
>
> > > I don’t know, can I?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Posted on February 29th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
No, yer wrong. I never even got an upset stomach from God concepts.
On 2/29/08, LL wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 29, 9:24 am, “Keith MacNevins” wrote:
> > God concepts do not produce nausea; only in nauseating atheists.
>
>
> LL: No, you’ve got it wrong. It’s nauseating theists it produces.
> >
> > On 2/28/08, LL wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 28, 8:03 pm, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
> > > Machine wrote:
> > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829102048.htm
> >
> > > > God concepts affect atheists, but they won’t admit it.
> >
> > > LL: The only way god concepts affect atheists is to produce nausea.
> >
> > > Atheism affects believers, though and they certainly won’t admit it.
> >
> > –
> > Ambassador From Hell
> > Keith A. MacNevins
> > Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> > copyright- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
Posted on February 29th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
What I’m not being banned for being OT?
You’re losing your grip at Mod Bonfly ;-)
We’re going to have to replace you for being such a softy! Lol.
On Mar 1, 12:34 am, bonfly wrote:
> Meow. Meow, meow meow. Meow meow. Scritch.
>
> On Mar 1, 12:54 pm, Trance Gemini wrote:
>
> > Meow.
>
> > On Feb 29, 9:50 pm, bonfly wrote:
>
> > > God is not a ‘moderator.’ God is Love. God is righteousness. God is
> > > omnipresent. God likes to smash little babies and homosexuals against
> > > igneous rocks. Thank God, God doesn’t exist.
>
> > > On Feb 29, 4:39 am, Neil Kelsey wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 10:33 am, bonfly wrote:
>
> > > > > It wasn’t me … it was one of the ‘other’ moderators.
>
> > > > Was it God?
>
> > > > > On Feb 29, 4:15 am, Neil Kelsey wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 27, 11:33 pm, bonfly wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I’m sorry rappoccio, but you swore and this is a civil thread so I
> > > > > > > will unilaterally ban you if you do it again.
>
> > > > > > Why did you delete my post?
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 28, 1:13 pm, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > LOL! Very funny!
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 2:22 am, bonfly wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Hi guys and gals (teehee, we don’t have women at ACRD). Firstly, I’d
> > > > > > > > > like to thank Joe and Brock and my bestest friends Deidzoeb and Keith
> > > > > > > > > for making this the most wonderful google group thread EVER. : ) Tee
> > > > > > > > > hee hee.
>
> > > > > > > > > The !Practice your ACRD writing skills on this thread! is a great
> > > > > > > > > thread because we can discuss things about the most wonderful living
> > > > > > > > > God, Jesus, and whether or not he exists and also whether Calvinism
> > > > > > > > > and presuppositionalist positions are the best doctrines for an
> > > > > > > > > atheist to disbelieve in.
>
> > > > > > > > > I want to ask you guys - what do you think the definition of “Homage”
> > > > > > > > > should be ? Then I want to know what the definition of “eggwhite”
> > > > > > > > > should if there’s no egg in it. Then, I’d like to get a group of five
> > > > > > > > > of you together to discuss the topic “why religion is better than not
> > > > > > > > > being a christian.”
>
> > > > > > > > I define “eggwhite” to be “junk bond salespeople” and therefore all
> > > > > > > > people that order eggwhite omelettes are cannibals. Therefore they
> > > > > > > > suck. The end.
>
> > > > > > > > > Any body swearing on this thread will be subject to a motion for
> > > > > > > > > censure and a five minute time out.
>
> > > > > > > > Can I get a spanking instead? Oooohhhh, I just LOVE it! Give it more!
> > > > > > > > Yes! YES YES YES! TALK TO ME DIRTY!
>
> > > > > > > > But don’t swear. That’s for meanies. Meanies are burning in hellfire
> > > > > > > > for all eternity and their souls are black and twisted, but I didn’t
> > > > > > > > say “fuck” so I’m still being nice.
>
> > > > > > > > > If the swearing is only one word,
> > > > > > > > > that’s ok, but three words and over is too many and will be dealt with
> > > > > > > > > by forming a committee to decide if it was too rude or maybe not rude
> > > > > > > > > enough.
>
> > > > > > > > > Please feel free to post your responses. Joe. is that ok to put this
> > > > > > > > > thread up? Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean that Catholics
> > > > > > > > > aren’t right. After all, everyone likes the Pope except people who
> > > > > > > > > swear. Awwww. God bless everybody. I hope nobody is offended by
> > > > > > > > > anything I did or didn’t say.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -