Jesus was a white as Muhammad.
Cognitive dissonance demonstrated in two sentences.
No, I won’t, since I’m not debating Multivac and the comments I made were relevant to your own comments about emotions.
i.e. not at all.
Nonverbal, and therefore void in a “great debates” discussion.
The post quoted there includes a general statement. Please explain your original claim.
Again, there is no demonstration here. Nothing but claims supported by no arguments.
Please refrain from making comments about my person. We can discuss my posts and the ideas included in them.
“General”, my ass. It’s the tail of a conversation chain that’s very much personal.
Like I said - you first.
A debate involves referring to the opponent’s positions, statements and ideas - it is okay that one should make comments about these. It is inappropriate to discuss the person.
Your reply includes vulgarity again, which undeniably makes it vulgar. I find this debate style inappropriate for a “great debate” conversation.
The rules of this board refer to comments about the person one debates with and the use of the pronoun “you.”
Please refrain from making comments about my person. We can discuss my posts and the ideas included in them.
MrDibble you’re a potty mouth and you need to be junior modded . . . unlike that other poster that made it clear either you agreed with their position or you were pro murder, which isn’t personal at all.
They do? Must have missed that one. Care to post a link to this rule?
I can only find the new rules, which clearly stipulate the following:
We’re here for fun, not harming others. Personalizing posts is usually a bad idea. Comment on the content of the commentary and not on the person making it.
So, absolutely nothing like,
Referencing your stated debate position is harming you, now? The obvious intent of my rhetorical questions was to reinforce the same point the subsequent sentence made more directly.
Great Debates is not Lithium Logic Camp. Affect and emotion are very much a part of debate rhetoric and always have been.
A debate is not great if it lacks arguments for the position one chooses to support.
I stand by what I stated about emotions and their contribution to bias, “where all the racism seems to stem from.” - because we all seem to be against racism here. Bias may be difficult to circumvent or overcome, but that is why we should resort to reason as an instrument to fight inherent prejudices. I am against the excessive use of emotional techniques and lenience toward bias because they are likely to lead to negative results.
I am willing to abide by the new rules of the forum, which still mention the obligation that people should comment on the content of what one posts and not the poster. Please do not refer to me as a robot or anything else. I am willing to discuss my posts and the ideas included in them. I think this is what the new rules recommend as well:
Never did (in this thread). Do you not know what a rhetorical question actually is?
That was a false rhetorical question - it was a loaded one. It implied that if one chooses to resort to reason instead of emotion, one would be reduced to some kind of machine or fictional character.
This is the last time I reply to one of your posts containing the pronoun “you”. It may not be specified in the rules, but I think there are better ways to carry out a “great debate.”
Slightly off topic, but I’m seeing self-censorship now, such as a nice YouTube video on Dante’s Inferno, where the narrator bluntly said, “I’m going to skip ahead a bit now,” and went right past Mohammed eviscerated in hell. Are we going to see bowdlerized Dante in future?
Probably. Why would anyone risk getting murdered by some zealot for doing something that might be interpreted as saying the wrong thing about Mohammed?
Moderating: Closed at the request of the OP because it has gone too far off the rails.
Moderating: This has gotten so vitriolic, I am moving it to the pit.