Well, that was spooky.
On planet yguy possibly…
No, according to my Sunday School teachers, accusing someone of lying when you know they’ve made an honest mistake (or are actually right) counts as false witness, too. In short, anything that deliberately gave a false or inaccurate view of someone else is false witness. Since Stoneburg was simply laying out his conclusions and asking you if they were accurate, he’s in the clear morally.
Damn my slow typing. The above was directed at yguy and his assumption that he’s not bearing false witness.
If you think that was scary: I still haven’t forgotten your Rush-bashing of the other day, friend. :dubious:
He didn’t ask me if they were accurate until I posted this thread, and he has yet to support the allegation that I misrepresented anything. How in hell can he be clear morally?
Perhaps you could flesh out your objection to my conduct here a little more.
All right. You pitted Stoneburg for apparently misrepresenting you. You cannot do this without stating your true beliefs in this regard. He’s saying “you come across as someone with such-and-such beliefs”. If you’re offended by his remarks, it would help to state whichever your beliefs truly are.
Not only would this be a lot less annoying, it would also save all of a a lot of time, as you are no doubt planning on dancing around this issue for pages on end. I’m just here to tell you that that’s not going to fly - you either explain why you were offended, or this thread gets closed.
There are actually people opposed to the theory of evolution who propose alternate scientific theories. Their positions may not be ones you find terribly convincing (I think they’re rubbish), but they exist. If you want to argue that they are all really religious apologists, fine, but in real debate one would actually refute their arguments (which wouldn’t be terribly difficult). But it’s generally bad darts to just assume we know what someone else’s motives or arguments are when that person hasn’t actually identified them yet.
I think it is also inarguable that there are those who find homosexuality “wrong” without using a religious foundation. The world is filled with rationales for why things are “evil.” And there are certainly people opposed to abortion on non-religious grounds. Heck, there are atheists who oppose abortion.
So, Stoneburg may be a reasonable chap and a fine addition to the board. And yguy may come across confrontationally. But that doesn’t change the fact that yguy is actually correct in this instance: Stoneburg has not proven his assertions, not as they stand in their entirety.
If you also feel his inferences were reasonable, that’s fine. But they are inferences, which I believe is yguy’s point. Retorting with some variation on, “But you won’t tell us whether Stoneburg is right or wrong, will you?” doesn’t really change this fact. In the end you might consider it a minor point, but it is the point of this entire thread.
If there’s more detail that would clarify the matter, please bring it forth. That other thread was filled with over-inflated posts to a degree that gave me a headache. I really haven’t kept up with everything. (Or, maybe the thread just gets closed. Whatever.)
What for? If I said I’m not a Bible literalist, why would you believe me, since you don’t believe me when I say my belief about abortion has no religious basis?
As for the age of the Earth, I have no opinion. The question doesn’t hold much interest for me. Although I do believe it could be a few thousand years old, I rather lean against it. Couldn’t tell you why.
I said in the abortion thread, BEFORE Stoneburg made a liar of himself, that I am not a Christian.
Do you believe me? Didn’t think so. It’s true anyway.
It means you think I’m an idiot. <sniffle>
Labels are only codifications of the collective perceptions of a group of people. How I may be perceived by others is largely out of my control, especially if they are predisposed to presume the worst, as some here obviously are.
If you’re not going to tell us anything else, yguy, please tell us about the “obvious truth” of homosexuality.
Hint: people are more likely to codify their collective perception of you as “idiot” if you play semantic games in lieu of actual discussion, and then whine about no one understands your real views on a subject.
You started this thread to complain about how Stoneburg made false assumptions about your opinions. Stoneburg explained why he made the assumptions he did. Instead of simply stating what your actual positions are and where his assumptions were incorrect, you went into a childish semantic frenzy. At that point, it doesn’t matter if Stoneburg was 100% accurate about you or not. Arguing like that makes you look like a dumbass. Thus, until I have reason to believe otherwise, I’m going to think you’re a dumbass.
You do have some control over whether or not I think that, since I base it largely on what you type. However, if you are in fact a dumbass, you probably can’t control it so I can understand your frustration about people being predisposed to slap the “dumbass” label on dumbasses. Reality can be painful.
Because by not doing so, you’re making yourself look like a chickenshit weasel.
If you refute what (the highly impressive) Stoneburg has claimed about you, then you need to indicate why he is indeed incorrect. By refusing to divulge the information, you look like Saddam in the last days before Shock and Awe.
I did, in the thread in question. As for my beliefs in general, how difficult do you think it would be for me to just lie?
Not at all. It won’t be long before I see exactly what Stoneburg is made of, and that will be the end of it, unless other posters in this thread just can’t live without me; i.e., at that point I will no longer be the aggressor.
I have explained EXACTLY why I was offended. He tried to conveniently pigeonhole me because he can’t deal with my arguments on their own merits. That’s what I call intellectual cowardice.
sniffsniff* Does anyone else smell anything?
Yguy - this is not a fairy tale messege board. Trolling is strictly forbidden and you seem to not be able to substantiate any of your claims. Maybe trying to be a little more maturity in your posting style and a little less pre-teen, someone may take you seriously.
What can I tell you, other than that it’s obvious to me?
You want proof? Fine, right after you prove that hypocrisy is wrong.
Hint: “All proofs lead to propositions which have no proof.” ~ Frank Herbert
What’s obvious to you? I’m not even asking you to prove it, I’m just asking you what it is.
For starters, exactly what is the truth about homosexuality that is obvious to you? Is it good for your teeth, bad for the complexion? Is it “sinful?” Is is delightful?
It’s a sexual perversion, of course.
It’s so nice when a tiny chunk of the future becomes totally predictable.
Since yguy is a weasel of gargantuan proportions, and can’t answer a question to save his life, Coldie is going to make good on his promise and shut down this ludicrous thread.
Then yguy is going to start a pit thread about why this thread got closed down.
I’m predicting full-on meltdown within 48 hours, or alternately, a big flouncy “You guys are mean, and beneath me, so I’m going away and you won’t get the benefit of my entirely undefined philosophy anymore” exit. To be followed within days by more moronic posts.
It’s not a pleasant future, but it’s inevitable.