Ok. But just in case he wasn’t…
Dear Heavenly mswas,
I’m sorry for all the naughty things I’ve done.
Most of 'em.
Some of 'em.
Well, I’m sorry about that dead frog on Mike’s little sister’s lamp chain.
mswas is a fucking lightweight who would blow away in the slightest breeze if he were not so full of shit. It doesn’t take much to claim “I’m joking” or “It’s a fantasy” or “It’s a metaphor” whenever his feet get too close to the fire. His typical strategy is to start an argument, refuse to define his terms, and then claim that everyone else is forcing him into a box. He has an intellectual integrity quotient of less than zero.
Though I oughtn’t, I’ll take your invective seriously, using as a springboard to praise mswas.
How is the following “light”?
- He thinks through things on a deep level.
- His posts are full of erudition.
- He debates at a high level in GD. This is not MPSIMS fluff.
You may disagree, you may want to call him on his points. Fair enough, and I do the same from time to time. But he is, in fact, one of the deeper thinkers on the board.
Ah, but what’s really easy is parroting the skeptics’ talking points and never having to think through anything oneself.
The skeptics must get arm cramps, since at least one of those limbs is always reaching around for a backpat. I’m enlightened! I don’t believe in that shit anymore!
The algorithm is so fucking simple that a 13-year-old could do it. I know, because I did do it at age 13. What’s true is what’s in the science textbooks, and anything typically labeled “supernatural” or “paranormal” doesn’t exist. Mock those who disagree.
So, you’ve got your index card with a few lines on it. Meanwhile mswas is continuously working out an entire philosophy, learning what has come before and trying to break new ground. It’s easy to deny but hard to build.
What I’ve seen in GD and in the Pit is someone getting the typical pile-on from the Atheist Contingent, who used any cheap shot to invalidate what he is saying.
The important question in any debate is, “In what way can what s/he is saying be true?” That is, help your fellow debator create the best argument s/he can, then interact with that.
I don’t want your guilt, I want you to understand your actions. Your guilt is useless to me, if your focus is on what you have done and you expect forgiveness merely for apologizing then your apology wasn’t worth your breath or my time.
Understand what you did, why you did it, why it was the best you could come up with at the time, or whether it was the best you could come up with at the time. Learn from your actions so you don’t repeat them, so that you won’t be caught in a static loop your whole life, that you may save yourself and stop needing a messiah.
Live Long and Prosper*
Erek
*The hand gesture Spock makes is the symbol of the Cohen, the high priest of the Jews.
Hey, I take my jokes VERY fucking seriously.
And you probably need to learn a little bit more about metaphor if you think claiming something is a metaphor is a cop-out.
Erek
Aeschines and mswas
The more I read the last few comments the more pissed off I get. I am not arguing that mswas does not pose some interesting philosophical points, nor that I disagree with him all the time, but his methodology of redefining existing terms and poking fun at those that get lost in his lack of definition is disrespectful and makes his input not worthy of debate; not to mention it’s immature.
While I have a genuine interest in understanding what mswas believes and why, I feel as though rather than having an honest discussion, mswas would rather mislead the reader and lay traps for those inexperienced in dealing with those that litter their posts with nonsense. mswas routinely forces his readers to wade through this nonsense to get to the meat of what he really means.
I have, obviously, become one of his victims; having taken the bait.
mswas, if you are interested in an intellectual discussion leave out the crap and say what you mean.
Damn. I thought I could get away with a few Hail mswas’s or a self-flagellation or two, but since you’re gonna play hardball, well, then… I ain’t sorry! The look on her face was priceless!
PS- If it’s a continually repeating loop, how can it be static?
Well let’s go to the videtape, Verne.
He thinks through things on a deep level.
- Unless you are willing to concede that this is a subjective analysis I will ask you to give me a couple of examples of this. It would be helpful to me if you would include a working definition for “thinking through things on a deep level” that distinguishes it from the thinking that anyone else does around here.
*His posts are full of erudition. *
2. And quality too, I’ll wager. (Foreman on the Ford assembly line, “Allright people, lets get some more quality in these trucks, 'ya here?” That’s a joke, son.
Gosh, I know it seems as if I am asking for cites and such, but can you point me to a couple of these posts as well?
He debates at a high level in GD. This is not MPSIMS fluff.
3. Ah. High level debate in GD. Let’s look here. Friend mswas starts a thread where “God” is the focal term and and repeatedly refuses to define it. When called on statements of his that are directly contradictory he refuses to answer. If this is what you call debating at a high level then I wonder about your erudition. Or how full of it you are, for that matter.
There is a* huge* difference between ‘deep’ and ‘impenetrable.’ Sometimes when folks don’t understand you it’s because you are not making sense.
If this is referring to me I will ask you to point it out to me. Thanks.
See above.
**
mswas is being pitted here for doing exactly what he did on the linked thread–making statements of fact and then assigning special definitions to words that are commonly understood to mean something else. He claimed in a GD thread to know, to the exact minute, when Christ would return to Earth. Now most folks would think that “Christ” refers to the historical Jesus, the foundation of Christianity, and indeed, that is clearly what was intended in the OP.
mswishywas, however, has his own special meaning for Christ. It turns out he is** Christ, or at least is in the position of commanding His return, or deciding it, or some such shit. At the very least, this is dishonest debating. If he is as astute as you claim, surely he knew the context intended by the OP. What could be his motivation for posting in GD in such a manner as to be purposefully misunderstood, I wonder?
Using jokes, metaphors, special definitions, and fantasies in GD without labelling them as such is dishonest by definition. To make a blanked statement of fact and then defend it as a joke or metaphor is weaseling, mealy-mouthed bullshit.
Fine. Just don’t make jokes in GD that seem to be statements of fact without making it clear. The same goes for metaphors. If you want folks to understand you it is incumbent upon you to clear the waters, not muddy them. Metaphorically speaking.
Aint gonna happen. Really. Read the thread I linked, especially tomndebb’s post. ** mssillypants** exists here to grind his own axe, and has as much as admitted it.
That should be **blanket **statement of fact.
The heart of atheism/skepticism is a hard-core literalness and inflexibility of thought. Mswas is not debating in that fashion, so it’s asymmetrical warfare. Those who would beat him over the head end up panty-twisting and whining that he’s not debating right.
Does this mean that everything he is saying is correct, gets a free pass? By no means. But people are engaging him in such a clumsy fashion (butter knife) that my advice to those pissing and moaning about his debating technique can only be, “Get some skills.”
And so he enlightens limited thinkers.
Perhaps you too have taken a step forward, owing to his words.
Tortillas made from stone-ground maize always contain a bit of lime.
My advice is to reread the thread and be edified.
He’s a philosopher, and he posts in GD. So are others. It’s a different type of thinking/writing than one finds in MPSIMS.
Reread the thread and be edified.
Yes, he should also have defined “point,” “line,” and “plane.”
He answered.
I pity you.
Yet he is making sense.
“You.”
And he later explained what he meant… so?
To edify you. And you need it.
It’s only dishonest if he intends to mislead; in point of fact, however, his intent was to enlighten.
But he didn’t, so it wasn’t.
He used metaphor to clear the waters. It is you who chooses not to see. Perhaps it is tough for you to recognize an intellectual better?
So does guano. 
Which in itself is a valuable commodity, no?
No, he used metaphors to muddy the waters, not to clear them. He only explained himself after having his arm twisted.
Other people have done that here and have been called on it.
There’s NO water in his mud!
Congratulations on your 25,551st post.
But unlike your metaphor, I do not choose to eat guano.
A metaphor is not a choice.
but when debb puts it in the dinner, ya kindof have no choice.