Oh, darn, forgot the “//”. Somebody fix this, please.
-
Except when I am 'wrong"- will YOU just let me 'drop it"- until & unless I admit I was wrong? OK, I suppose that I should be more 'forgiving than you-so i will drop it. However, just for your own edification, do read something about OT dating. It is very interesting.
-
Umm, I hate to says this, but your actual words were, and this should be an exact quote: "You realize I expect you to back this up, don’t you?
". So I was confused which of several thoughts included in that one quote of mine you did want me to back up. So I backed up the one about Slavery in US History. Finally, after several posts, where you grew somewhat more strident, did i understand part of what you wanted- and then I did back that up. The one thing i could not back up was the part you apparently misunderstood my sentence to say- which, in context, I think it is clear i did not intend.
Now look, gaudere, you are better than I at linking & searching the web- that I will agree to. And, sometimes, in my haste, i overgeneralize, or state my opinions or facts too strongly. But I do, unlike far too many here, back my stuff up. Oh, maybe not to YOUR exacting standards, but compared to the total lack of even a feeble attempt, such as old “double standard Ben”, I think i do pretty good. Now, do you want to encourage those who are at least trying, like me? Or do you prefer the “bens”, who will outright refuse to back up their statements? At least I give you an arguement that you can sink your teeth into, that makes you think. So, instead of attacking me, next time, ignore those old athesistic prejudices 
, and try some more contructive critism. I promise to listen to THAT with my mind open.
Daniel, I misinterpreted what you were saying, which I admitted. I thought you were saying that you thought archeologists were wrong and you were right. I never said that all archeologists must agree to a single date for the Exodus, despite your repeated attempts to claim I did so. Please either quote a statement in this thread where I claim that 1260BC is the one and only date Exodus could have happened on, or shut the hell up. I have corrected you multiple times on this point, and I am getting tired of it; but for as long as you keep claiming that I “misunderstand” Biblical dating, I will keep correcting you.
I clarified on my later posts, even saying specifically: "I didn’t ask abotu the treatment of slaves in America; I asked about your rather sweeping claim that Jews 3000 years ago were “far more liberal & humanitarian to their “servants” than any other culture.”
Daniel, honestly, what you often make me think is “Oh, geez, what misstatements and falsehoods is Daniel posting now in an attempt to make Christianity and the Bible better than it is.” I don’t mind an agenda that promotes the Bible, if you get your facts correct. People like tomndebb rarely post sources to back them up, but I trust them because I’ve never caught them in an error and they back up their statements immediately is requested, and never dodge a request for more backup or attempt to claim they didn’t “really” say what they plainly said. You, on the other hand, were flat out wrong about many of your statements about OT slavery, and your errors were almost without exception made in a way that made OT slavery appear kinder than it actually was. As well, you’ve been pounding the “Infidels is inaccurate” gripe for months, despite the fact that the evidence you point out is completely unconvincing, and your argument against them keep changing. It doesn’t seem like you really believed any of the particular gripes you had about Infidels were true; you just seem to assume that “they’re an atheist site, they must be biased and use facts incorrectly” and then you’ve tried several different “falsehoods” that you claim to have found them in, only to see them shot down one by one. The only thesis that seems to hold consistent through your posts is “I don’t like Infidels; they use facts correctly, but I don’t like the conclusions they draw, so they are misquoting liars.” If you used the same sort of judgement on Time magazine that you apply to Infidels, you’d be squawking in every thread about how biased and unreliable those atheists at Time are. You have a very strong bias against any “atheist” site, and I think it clouds your judgment.
Although you may not like to hear it “back your facts up, dammit!” is constructive criticism. In case you haven’t noticed, your “facts” are not held in very high regard by many posters here, primarily due to you having been wrong before and a refusal to admit that you are wrong or to provide sufficient evidence to support your statements. It’s only going to get worse unless you start being more careful about what you post and backing up what you do post. Remember, if you post bad facts in Great Debates, you almost certainly will get called on it, and your posts are probably looked at more closely since you’ve had several errors in fact in just the past few months. Making false statements and refusing to back up your arguments is the one unforgivable sin here; unless you want your reputation to spiral still lower, you better shape up.
Oh, great. So you decide to play vindictive games in which you demand cites for irrelevant details of my posts, and when I refuse to go along with it, that means I never, ever back up anything I say.
:rolleyes:
Of course, DITWD’s real motive here is obvious. If he can’t handle an atheist arguing that the Bible is wrong, then how can he possible handle an atheist pointing out his lies?
-Ben
I looked over the previous threads, and found some interesting quotes:
Originally posted by me:
“And remember, your claim was that in general essays at II take quotes out of context. Thus far you have, at best, shown that a single essay containing an out-of-context quote slipped past the editors at II.”
And again by me:
“Since you claim that the Internet Infidels have a chronic tendency towards distortion, it should be easy for you to choose another of their essays, with an eye towards choosing one for which you have your evidence readily available.”
Also by me:
“DITWD has claimed that II is riddled with lies. The essay on Kenyon is the same one he used in the past when asked for more details. Now, I’d like to see what he has to say about other essays, and in particular I’d like to see how he explains the quote about Exodus.”
By Gaudere:
"DITWD: 0
Infidels: 1
IMHO, at least so far, etc. Time for round 2! Which person has II perfidiously misrepresented now!"
And me again:
“Uh, but what about Gaudere’s request that you address some of the other II essays? I mean, if II is so bad, then surely you can talk about something other than the Kenyon essay you keep bringing up, right?”
Me, again:
“If the Infidels are so chronically unable to tell the truth, why not just move on to a different essay where you could more easily prove that they are distorting the facts? I think that proving that ten, or five, or even two Infidels essays are false would help people overlook the one essay that you got wrong.”
And me again:
“When we asked him to prove it, he could only point to one single essay that he could claim had out of context quotes. This is already problematic, since he said that the Infidels site was riddled with errors; repeated requests that he discuss more essays were met with typical DITWDian silence.”
Me, yet again:
“Plus, DITWD has been asked several times for other examples of bias in the Infidels site. Not once has he deigned to respond to these questions.”
And me once again:
“We’ve asked you many, MANY times now for even one more essay which you claim to be biased, and, despite your frequent claims of widespread bias, you have not once even acknowledged that you have been asked to point to more essays.”
Here’s a little encyclopedia entry I felt was relevant to this conversation:
weasels
1.small, lithe, carnivorous MAMMALS of the family Mustelidae, which also includes the MINK, FERRET, WOLVERINE, SKUNK, BADGER, and OTTER… They hunt small animals at night, often killing more than they can eat.
- People who are asked a question nine times and not once even so much as acknowledge that the question has been asked. They argue archaeology on message boards, often biting off more than they can chew.
-Ben
Hark! Somehwere off in the distance, there is a faint, but annoying sound, like fingernails on a blackboard. I think it is a Pissantious Benous, a sort of mutant pissant, with a strident, but annoying cry. Despite many similarities, they are not related to the Obnoxios Hypocritious- however, as they occupy the same environment niche, thay have come to sound very much alike, and have many of the same habits. If you simply ignore them- they often go away, however, for a while their cries become even more strident, but even less convincing.
-
No, you never said that all archeologists agree to a single date for the Exodus. However, you did seem very eager to point out that since Kenyons date was some 40 years BEFORE the Exodus, Joshua could not have attacked even the “town” that Kenyon was willing to allow.
-
No- I was NOT “flat out wrong” about any of my arguements re OT slavery. I gave some specific rules as more general rules, true- but that is at least “partially right”. And, we had 2 contradictatory quotes- yours turned out to be the one that zev ruled was correct. However, my verse was still quoted correctly etc. This is hardly being “flat-out wrong”. You were not right every time, either. My thesis held true-but, you had more minor points right than I did. I cannot see how this is worse than “wrong on several details- but correct overall”.
-
When do I NOT back my statements up? When have I refused to back up my statements? And, just in the last couple of debates- i have repeatly admitted i was wrong on several minor points. Very few folks EVER admit they are wrong in GD, or anywhere here- yes, I could be more humble, yes- but I do sometimes admit I am wrong. When have I made a 'false statement"? Ok- now you back these up, bubba.
When you have annoying idiots like ben & satan, who, without any evidence at all, say things like “DITWD was wrong” “Daniel won’t admit he is wrong” and “Danielinthewolvesden won’t back stuff up”- sure, if folks like this say these lies over & over again, they will make some of the more gullible buy their Goebbels-like “Big lies”- but I thought better of you.
That’s it?
Let me get this straight. I point out that DITWD has been asked NINE times to gives examples of bias from the Internet Infidels other than the essay about Kenyon, and not even once has he acknowledged that the question has been asked. His response? He still doesn’t acknowledge that Gaudere and I have asked him for other examples; he just calls me a pissant.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but that has to be the most counterproductive argument I’ve seen from you yet.
Do you expect it to work against Gaudere? I mean, are you going to reach a point where Gaudere repeats her quotes from you which clearly show that you’re lying about your past claims, and you just reply by calling her a pissant?
Somehow I don’t think that anyone is impressed with your argumentum ad pissant other than yourself. Could we have a show of hands of those who, having heard DITWD call me a pissant, are now convinced that he isn’t a weasel?
I mean, think of it. I call DITWD a weasel, and I give examples to back it up. DITWD accuses me of being a hypocrite. Well? So? When was I a hypocrite? Have you ever provided any proof that I am a hypocrite? For that matter, why am I a hypocrite? Because I don’t cite my arguments? I cited my argument just now, by quoting nine times when you were asked to provide more examples, and you just ignored the question!
I mean, what next- are you going to accuse me of being a Nazi? A pedophile? A poopypants? Talk is cheap, DITWD, and as far as I can see I’m backing my accusations with facts, and you’re backing yours with adolescent wordplay.
-Ben
**
How about when you claim that the II is riddled through and through with bias, but never provide more than a single, wishy-washy example? Or perhaps when you accuse me of never citing my arguments?
**
Yeah, nine quotes constitutes no evidence at all…
Hey- he did compare me to the Nazis! The wonders of simulposting!
Ok, guys, a number of you have voiced support for DITWD’s position. Who here thinks that DITWD is justified in saying that I am promoting a “big lie” by making accusations which I don’t back with evidence? (Hint: I just posted NINE QUOTES in which Gaudere and I asked him for more examples of bias on the II site, and DITWD even now ignores them.)
-Ben
Go away boy, you bother me. :rolleyes:
In case anyone has not figured it out- i don’t give a crap if ben asks me what day it is. He harrassed me with constant demands to back my stuff up- when i complied, he argued with the sources- when the sources were good, he claimed i was “argueing from authority”. Well-maybe he is just pickier than even gaudere- but no. He out & out refused to back up his own statements in GD. We all gotta play by a set of rules- hopefully it is the same rules for us all. ben wants ME to play by one set of very stringent rules- but he does not even have to try.
ben- shut the fuck up and go away. Is that plain enough?
Thank you.
As I noted before, that was in reference to your less than convincing quote of Kenyon’s, where she says there is no evidence and the town is difficulut to reconcile with a date for Exodus. Since it took you about 10 days to find another quote to support you, for quite some time all I had to go on was that quote, and I must admit I’m a little amused that you still think it supports you strongly; that belief betrays an amazing degree of selective reading.
I am frankly surprised that an adult non-fundamentalist Christian would be so ignorant about the Bible and the interpretation of verses thereof (not to mention, you were wrong about the Code of Hammurabi, too). Your argument looks very poor and weak when you support them with facts that later turn out to be false; the fact that nearly all of your errors have been on the side of making the Bible appear better leads me to believe that you have such a biased reading of the Bible that you frequently get facts incorrect, and that I should check your “facts” very carefully. This is not a good impression to leave with people.
You have said:
slaves were freed after 6 years (this applies only to hebrew male slaves or unbetrothed female slaves)
gentile slaves were freed at Jubilee
Exod 20:20-1 referred to the slave being punished, not the master
gentile slaves were “made Jewish” by circumcision and were thus set free after 6 years
the Code of Hammurabi had no laws regarding the fair treatment of slaves
No vital cites for cities are ever abandoned for good
These are all false statements.
:shrug: Are you still harping on the time I said “those quotes don’t back up your statement that all slaves are circumcised for all time” (I was correct, it was another verse that commands this) and questioned why they would say gentile slaves were slaves for life if they were freed after 6 years? I don’t see a false statement there.
You shouldn’t use bad facts to back up a thesis. Even if people agree with your premise, they will cringe to see you wrong on so many points of your argument. Don’t you see that it hurts your arguemnt badly to post bad facts? I certainly wouldn’t want someone supporting an argument of mine by using bad facts. If God gave you a brain and the ability to research, I think you have little excuse for having multiple errors of fact in one argument.
Do you recall how often I asked you to back up the statement that Jews 3000 years ago were more humane than any other culture? It was like pulling teeth to get anything out of you. In this thread, I have asked twice for a reputable archeology site that explains the difference between “town” and “village”, and I have not yet gotten one. You have not even responded to the request at all, to my recollection. When you do not respond to such things, I must ask again and again.
:rolleyes: Daniel, I object to your statements and attitudes becuase you are often wrong. Ben and Satan have nothing to do with this. Being a snot doesn’t help you out here, either.
Daniel, in case you missed it, I have asked you for more evidence of Infidel’s bias before, too. Your evidence so far has been remarkably unconvincing, and indeed I think shows far more of your powerful bias against “atheistic” sites that any evidence of misquotes or lies on the site themselves.
>1. My freind, in case you have not been reading my posts on the Christian religion- I have repeatedly said that the OT has very little to do with the Christian religion, or at least my branch of it. To us- the OT is simply background material- the Gospels are “the Word”. A Christian needs to know as much about the OT as an American needs to know about the “Articles of Confederation”- an interesting historical document, and a predesesor to the Constitution, yes, but hardly critical to a knowledge of hoe the USA runs today.
>2, >3, >4, >5. There is a difference between being 'wrong" and a 'false statement"- as you know full well- a “false statement” indicates knowingly & willfully lying. In several cases these statements were “literally true” if you must get pedantic. >6 And I maintain that a Law requiring a slave to be set fre under certain very limited circumstances is NOT “laws regulating the FAIR treatment of slaves”. >7. I still maintain this, and have not been proved wrong.
>8- and you forget that zev stated that just becuase there was no specific penalty for beating a slave severly (exept that in many case the slave had to be set free)that that did NOT mena that it was “perfectly OK” under OT Law to mistreat ones slaves- even gentile ones. It was wrong to do so. You also forget your statement that I thought the archeologist were wrong in their dating.
>9 Ferkrisake, gaudere- every freaking time you asked for “back-up” on that issue- i gave you “back-up”. It is not my fault that you misunderstood my statement, or that your original query was vague. As to “town & village”- i never stated anything like: “Well, that site had a population of xxx, so that makes it a “village”, whereas that other site had a pop of xxxx, so that is clearly, by definition a “town””. You asked a QUESTION- not a demand for “back-up” on a statement I made- a question- which i am unable to find an answer to. I am looking- however, being unable to answer a question is not the same as not providing back-up for a point I made. Kenyon used the term “town”, infidels used the term “small village”- I did not. Ask them to define their terms. I’d be happy to give you a nice dictionary definition, if you like. “Village: A group of houses and associated buildings, larger than a hamlet, and smaller than a town, esp in a rural area”.
>10. First of all, we all agreed "infidels was “biased”. What we disagreed with is whether they can be trusted, and whether their “bias” slips into falsehoods & misquotations.
I maintain, that if you quote an author or authority correctly, but out of context, so that that quote gives an impression which is contrary or against the thesis of the author/authority- you are being untrustworthy & misleading. However, after much arguement, I will have to concede, that at this point that I cannot find an out-and-out lie, or falsehood. However, if one is going to say that Kenyon(or any other respected authority) states or thinks or supports “X” one should get that from a neutral, unbiased source- to avoid quoting out of context. Note that I do not use any of the large numbers of religous, pro-Bible sites as sources, either. They are just as biased as “infidels”, and just as likely to take quotes out of context, and use them ina misleading way.
For example- one could (and has) take different quotes out of Kenyon to show she has both de-bunked & supported the Conquest model. Where, in actuality, she has done neither. Her work primarily focuses on showing that Garstang, et al, who originally dug Jericho, and though that that “dig” showed that the Conquest story was supported- were incorrect in their dating, and that “Great jericho” came long before the Conquest. However, she certainly leaves open the possibility of a lesser “conquest hypothesis”, with a town that could have been possibly “conquered by Joshua”. In general then, altho one could say that she debunks a literal & inerrant reading of Joshua, she supports a reasonable 'historical" viewing of that same book. In other words, like Oxford & most archeologists, she supports a “LIMITED Conquest hypothesis”.
::shrug:: It is still one of your Holy Books, and I expect Christains to have a decent idea of what goes on in it. Hey, you wanna remain ignorant of it, that’s your business, but if you’d read it maybe you wouldn’t be caught in errors by us godless heathen who do read it.
No, it doesn’t necessarily mena that at all, and I never meant to say that you were lying. A false statement is one that is not true. Certain of your statements were not true. Therefore they were false. a falsehood is a deliberate lie; a false statement is not necessarily so, and I have never claimed that you were deliberately lying, although I may at times evidence surprise that you do not know you are wrong.
Geez, is this all you have left to bitch about?
Oh, so the OT law about freeing slaves who were injured is NOT a law regulating the fair treatment of slaves? I’ll be damned. Or is it only the laws in the OT that dictate the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances that count as “fair”, while the Code of Hammurabi doing so does not? I think your bias, once again, is showing. Look, it is a law mandating treatment of slaves that was considered fair at the time, just as the OT did. Neither strictures are fair by today’s standards in America, since slavery is considered flat-out wrong by most. But both are clearly laws regulating the fair treatment of slaves. I would bet dollars to donuts you didn’t bother to research that first statement about their being no such laws in the Code before you posted it, or else you wouldn’t have said that. Fifteen minutes of searching and you’d not be in this position, Daniel; isn’t it better to get your facts right from the start than to try to avoid the consequences of your lack of research?
:snort: So far as I can tell, the way you maintain this is that when anyone brings up a city that has been abandoned for good, you claim it was not “vital”. You are using circular logic by claiming that no vital cities were ever abandoned for good, and them cliaming that any city that was abandoned for good was not vital. If you truly wish to contest this, may I point out that your original statemnt was “Through-out history, a vital site for a town/city has never been completely abandoned. If it is a good site for a city, there will be some sort of City,” followed by an arrogant “name one” when challenged by Collounsbury. You then back-tracked and said you really meant “few”. Now apparently you’re back at “none”. And you wonder why you’re accused of weaseling? Do you think our memories are that faulty that we will not catch you shifting your argument from post to post?
Er, do you realize your statement here appears to have little to do with the actual #8 above? Why are you bringing this up?
Let me reiterate what I said before, if you wish to talk about the laws against “mistreatment” of slaves:
- Most slavers were Christian. Christians are commanded to love their neighbor as themselves.
- Slaves were considered property.
- There were laws on the books declaring that there was to be no secular punishment for brutally beating slaves.
- Were slaves frequently brutally mistreated? Yup.
Now, how does this compare to the OT Jews?
1)Most slavers were Jews. There was no command to love your neighbor as yourself, but there were general commands to be nice to other people and animals.
2) Slaves were considered property.
3) There were laws on the books declaring that there was to be no secular punishment for brutally beating slaves.
4) Were slaves frequently brutally mistreated? I consider it highly likely.
I see no reason why apparently quite mild religious commands regarding the treatment of animals should have more of an effect on the treatmnet of slaves by the OT Jews than Christianity’s commandments affected the treatment of slaves in the Pre-war South. Some few undoubtably did not mistreat slaves due to religious beliefs, but to the majority, I believe they were property, given to them by God to serve them and their children. The fact that their are laws on the books in both the South and the OT declaring no punishment for brutal beating of slaves seems to me to indicate that the practice was fairly common and accepted. If religious commands to love their neighbor as themselves did not stop slavers in the south, why would a command regarding animals truly prevent mistreatment of slaves by OT Jews?
You may believe that all the OT Jews were kind to their slaves, but given the parallels between them and Southern slavers, I don’t consider minor–or in the case of Christians, even major–religious commands powerful enough to prevent slaves’ mistreatment. For a society to genuinely show strong abhorrence for mistreatment of slaves, it should have actual secular punishments, such as were handed out for mistreatments of their fellow Jews. Freed Jews certainly did not depend on religious commands alone to force their brothers to respect their rights; they had secular punishments.
When I ask for backup, I am not simply asking you to reiterate “I say it’s true”. I wanted a damn cite. After approximately six requests I got a few secondhand quotes. Forgive me for being frustrated. In GD you are expected to back up your argument with a cite if so requested, and as soon as possible, not after multiple requests.
You have implied that the difference between a village and a town is so significant that Infidels was being deliberately misleading to call Jericho a “village” rather than a “town” at that time period. If you cannot show that the difference between a village and a town is clear-cut and significant, I suggest you drop that argument for lack of support.
Well, it certainly was not directed at anyone else. All you had to do was say “I’m sorry, I can’t answer that”; instead you ignored my question–twice. This sort of behavior undertstandably makes you appear shifty and unwilling to support your claims. I certainly was not talking to myself; at the very least, you should have acknowledged my question.
If your point is dependent upon an archeologist’s definition of a village and town, I would argue that it hurts your argument to not be abvle to provide such a definition. You were the one who hammered on the idea that “city” to an archeologist meant “walls”; given your insistence on the archeological defintion of “city”, I think knowing the archological defintion of “village” and “town” is rather important. I strongly suspect what was considered a town in 1300BC is a lot closer to our current defintion of “village”; for that matter, the Village of Lombard has, IIRC, 39,000 people. That would be enormous in ancient times.
Oh dear, here we go again. Quotes by DITWD, yet again: “I postulated a smaller town, surviving in the ruins or the much greater former city. Thus, indeed, there WAS no “city” there, at that time- there was a 'town”, or perhaps even a village…I will leave you with these quotes from the books I have on hand- (Don’t know much About the Bible)= “In the 13th century BC, the likely date of entry of the israelites into Canaan, jericho was an unfortifeid village. In other words, the familar tale was most likely embroidered upon in later tellings”. You did, in fact, use the village term yourself, and one of your sources does as well. Yet you make the preposterous claim that Infidels is biased against the Bible and misreprents facts because they use the term village, yet you and your source call it a village and you are both, of course, unbiased against the Bible. I’m sorry, I can’t follow Daniel-logic, which seems to accept as axiomatic that even when Infidels says the same thing that you or your sources do they are still somehow misrepresenting.
So, if someone does a study that they wish to use to promote banning guns, and you can use that same study to promote less gun laws, you are untrustworthy and misleading to do so? Bull. Facts is facts. Besides, if you are operating from that premise, you have much bigger fish to fry; Time and The Holy Land Tourism Guide claim there is no evidence of any destruction in Jericho’s time, and that Jericho was likely abandoned. Go get those atheistic lying bastards, Danny!
Good.
Not so good. Bias or no, you should go for the souce that has good facts. Daniel, isn’t Time unbiased? Yet they twist Kenyon’s research far more than you can claim Infidels does! You should get the facts from a source that gives the facts, and you admit that you cannot find a “lie, or falsehood” in Infidels. (I note how you assume that an error would be a deliberate lie if it was at the Infidels site, yet argue vehemently when you think anyone could be accusing you of a falsehood when you state as fact things that are not true. Bias again, Daniel. You should at least admit that Infidels may possibly make an honest error despite their bias, if you wish us to believe you could make an honest error, despite your bias.)
So far, all this seems to have proven is that I was correct in trusting Infidels to get their facts right. You have not shown otherwise. Your previous attempts to discount the statements at that site because of their “bias” ring hollow when you cannot prove any statements at Infidels false. Quite honestly, at this point I would trust Infidel’s fairness and fact-checking abilities far above yours; they’ve yet to be caught in an error, and you have been caught in several. You might wish to think about that when you blast them for their bias–biased they may be, but you could not find any lies or errors in their article, and we are quite sure that you tried your hardest to do so.
Gaudere, don’t take this the wrong way or anything, but you have the patience of a saint.
I lurked in both the GD threads that are constantly being referenced to, and I must say Gaudere is doing quite a good job at pointing out that DITWD is being… well, foolish is an understatement. I’m not going to take the ball out of her hands, but I think she let this “DITWDism” slide:
I can’t believe he can make a statement like this when the discussion about Infidel’s apparent bias is STILL raging. As a matter of fact, a statement closer to the truth would be, “None of you agreed that II is biased, and I have yet to demonstrate that fact.”
Ok, I’ll go back to lurking.
Quix
Guadere- for now the 10th time, I did back up my statement every time you asked. However, I agree i did not give you the back-up you WANTED, as your request was too vague. When you finally made your request clear, it turned out you wanted me to back up an assertion I never made. Next, I noticed you also mentioned 'refusing to back things up"= when have I done that? And if you are so hot on folks backing things up, how about when ben posted 3 OT theories he had- for which I asked for back-up- and he refused. Or when ben posted that “fundamentalists are ignorant” for which I asked for backup, which he REFUSED to give. And several times I have asked folks in GD to backup their assertion that Clinton perjured himself in grand jury restimory- response has been nil. Or when the folks post these wierd police entrapment stories- backup- none so far. Hmm, does it seem like gaudere’s search for truth and backup ends when it is something she has a bias about?
next- if you are going to use the “logical definition” as a “falsehood”, which it appears you are- then by that definition, since I did not use “all” or “every” when I gave those statements about slaves, which turned out to be true primarily about hebrew slave- then by that “logical” definition, those statements are all “true” and not “falsehoods”. You can’t have it both ways.
And, yes, I did give some quotes which used to term “village”- however I did not say these were my favorite theories. In any case, infidels used to term “small village”, which is deifferent than “village”. Of course you are right about definitions changing. Archeologists use Great Jericho as an example of a big walled city- where by modern cities it would not be impressive at all. I saw one estimate of a big 50,000 pop, at its greatest- which today would be small potatoes indeed. In any case- a ‘town" is certainly larger than a “village”, and clearly a "village’ is larger than a “small village”. I do not know if there are any accepted archeological definitions that clearly deliniate the line between tham. I have gone thru 3 books so far, without anything solid. There is a usual definition of a “city”- but you already know that and it is not very relevant to the question anyway. In any case, my point is not dependent upon the actual definitions of “town” and “village” or evn 'small village"- except that in context the following is smaller.
Still, whether or not the actual quotes are correct- as you well know searching can find several quotes in many works that, taken out of context, can give the impression that that study or work says something very different than its main thesis/thrust/conclusions. If you take a quote from a BIASED site, like infidels or “fundie” sites, although that quote may be taken literally, its meaning may be warped when taken out of context. Thus, if one is going to quote Kenyon, one should use the original source or an unbiased 2nd hand source, instead of relying on a 2nd hand biased source. Again- I apply this rule to myself also. You have no idea of how easy it would be to respond to requests for backup by giving in to very “religious” sources. I will sometimes do this- but only after a fair warning.
quix- gaudere & I have both agreed that infidels is biased- they do not try to hide or deny their bias. What we are argueing about is whether such biased sites, and especially infidels, can be “trusted”. I guess it depends on ones definition of “trusted”. I am guessing that her definition would say that if the site does not actually lie or misquote, then it can be trusted. My definition has been that if the site gives quotes out of context, which support conclusions that the quotee did not seem to agree with in their main body- then those quotes should not be trusted. We are coming closer to an agreement, it appears- despite the acrimony. Despite our evident biases- both gaudere & I are intelligent reasonable people. Sometimes- when our bias comes into play- our reasonableness goes away.
Well, as a single example, after we shot down your first argument about Infidels when it turned out you were completely wrong about what you claimed they said, Ben and I asked for the next example you believed you had found of Infidels quoting out of context. You have yet to do so. Since your first attempt to discredit them has failed so spectacularly, I would suggect you either drop the argument that Infidels is an unreliable source or back up your claim. It also does not look good when you must be asked repeatedly to respond to a request for a cite.
That’s right, Danny. If I ask YOU for cites, then I must also scour the boards to ask for cites from every single person who has ever stated anything. Otherwise you will whine that I am unfair. :rolleyes: Look, people ask each other for cites all the time, and I’ve never seen anyone whine that it was unfair to ask a person to back up their statements if you don’t also ask everyone else. That’s just flat-out silly.
If you have noticed, I do often ask people for cites. I usually ask when: 1) it is a subject I am interested in or 2) it is stated by someone whose statements have been suspect in the past (see my response to WB’s “abstinence” OP) or 3) it is a statement that I do not believe is true. Any one or combination of these factors may compel me to request a cite; or I may not request a cite at all if I am short on time, distracted or busy.
Well, one rather glaring difference is that I did not intend to call you a liar, and you did believe all slaves were freed after six years. [sub]weasel[/sub] I may have phrased my remark in a way that could be misinterptreted by a overly-sensitive poster, but you both believed that all slaves were freed after six years and intended to say exactly that. And you did. I never intended to call you a liar.
And later, you claimed repeatedly that you said no such thing. This is the sort of reason why you are considered weaselly, Dan.
Er, yeah, and if a quote says someone has humongous feet, and I paraphrase it as saying “he has really big feet”, since “really big” is considered smaller than “humongous”, I must be a malicious evil athiest misquoter out to debunk the Bible. Well, it seems to make as much sense as your current town v. village argument.
Yet somehow, though both Time and the “Holy Land” quoted Kenyon and claimed that there probably no one in Jericho when Joshua found it, you don’t run around claiming that they’re biased and can’t be trusted. Hm, wonder why not? Probably becuase they don’t have anything to do with atheists–you know if a site is run by atheists, it must twist facts, but of course a Christian or Jewish site can be utterly unbiased. :rolleyes:
Oh good, since you haven’t found anything concrete against Infidels, you’ll resort to vague innuendo. Lovely.
Yet, you have not been able to show that Infidels did so. Hell, you’re biased and have been caught in multiple errors, not to mention that quote you truncated (that just coincidentally supported you a lot better when you only look at the half of the sentence you posted) and the fact that you misrepresented (intentionally or no) Infidels. I think the only conclusion we can draw from your harping about “don’t trust biased sources” is that you are arguing vehemently that we shouldn’t trust you. You are clearly both biased and make errors, though I do not assume they are deliberate (unlike your belief about Infidels).
Neither is Infidels in any way comparable to the typical “fundie” website. Do you see complete ignorance about science there? Do you see Darwin quoted out of context to make it appear he disbeleived his own theory? Do you see arguments about the dust on the moon or the dinosaur tracks next to “man tracks”? Have you found even one genuine error in Infidels despite all your nitpicking and evident deep dislike?
Look, if the facts are good, the facts are good! I would not object to you posting Christian sources if you have confirmed that their facts are correct. And ya know, that first website you found Kenyon’s quote at was quite biased and I believe its theories are far outside the archeological mainstream.
No, we are not. I grow more mistrustful of you with every passing post. I hope that you will start doing a little more research before you post, and then you will not have to back out of your statements later. I cannot trust a person who does not check his facts, drags his feet about backing up his statements, changes his argument while trying to maintain he never has and tries to wiggle out of what he plainly said and meant. Nevertheless, I am more than willing to change my mind if you start being a little more circumspect about what you post.
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-19-2000 at 06:33 PM]
The relevant threads are:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47897
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49294
What DITWD isn’t telling you is that he demanded that I take a position solely in order that he could harass me for cites (yes, he admitted this. Check the links.) I decided to parrot three of his own positions back at him- those are the “3 OT theories” he says I refused to back up. As you can see, when DITWD says I refuse to back up my arguments, what he really means is that I refuse to play into his vindictive games. One has to wonder what Jesus would do in DITWD’s place.
As for “fundamentalists are ignorant,” I was asking for book suggestions from people who felt that fundies were ignorant of their positions. Although I was clearly not trying to argue the position that fundies are ignorant, DITWD tried to hijack the thread in order to attack me, as shown in this quote:
**
Bear in mind, too, that I didn’t “refuse to provide cites.” I told DITWD that I was speaking from personal experience, and DITWD demanded cites from academic papers from me. When I pointed out that Opus1 had already posted such cites to the thread, he said that I had to provide cites, not Opus. After all, he was trying to hijack it into a “Ben is wrong” thread.
Moderator, are false accusations permitted in the Pit? DITWD knows that his accusations are false, and he has repeated them over and over again. He won’t even cite them- I keep finding myself providing all the links to the threads he is referring to.
-Ben
Now THAT was funny. DITWD said that since Ben linked to Opus, who linked to the original cite, Ben was using a secondhand source (Opus) and not a primary source (the original cite). I think I should cite Ben’s post, which cites Opus’s post, which cited the original cite. That way, the information contained on the original cite would now be a tertiary source and be even LESS valid. We can keep this citing back and forth, until the original page has been totally debunked because it’s a decaquaternary source! (Ok, so I made that word up).
Quix
Pretty much, yes, unless it rises to the level of slander (calling you a pedophile or rapist or somesuch). Everyday vanilla false accusations are par for the course here; the only defense is to refute them.