As if you hadn’t already broken the wording and spirit of the agreement.
Douchebag.
[QUOTE=Sauron]
Evil Captor summed it up best.
I, among other people, made the argument that it was possible to speak of christianity as supporting certain views. You conceded that it was theoretically possible to do so, but not practical, in post #45, on the first page.
Woo-hoo! Debate over! But no, instead, we chewed the fat for a while about a variety of different subject. Eventually, Kalhoun made the claim that
You proceeded to mistake social conventions for morality, made some wild claims about the word origins, and then preceded to storm away when I showed you how the dictionary proved you wrong.
Slipping up once is hardly “running roughshod”, and as I said earlier in this thread, I will (and have) go (gone) back to posting question only in that forum, as per John’s clarification of the agreement.
Scott, I really didn’t intend to re-hash that debate. However, since this might serve as another chance to illustrate what folks in this thread have been saying ad nauseum (and which you seem bound and determined to ignore), let me point out some inconsistencies in your post:
One more time: Christians, if you want to view them as a homogenous mass, agree on two (and only two) rules of the faith: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Those are the only two rules that all Christians are commanded to follow. Once you get beyond that, it’s not possible to say all Christians support any one view. Heck, it’s not even possible to say all Christians support the two rules they’re supposed to follow; I’ve known several who were bigots. I was trying to make you understand that pigeonholing a person based on your interpretation of what they believe is a mistake.
-
I did not mistake social conventions for morality. I gave examples of various social mores (there’s that word again!) and how they changed over time as an example of how society’s view of morality can change.
-
I made no wild claims about the word origins. It’s amusing that you’re the one making this statement.
-
You did not show me how the dictionary proved me wrong. You provided a blinding illustration of your ignorance. The fact that you STILL hold this up as an example of your debating skill speaks very, very poorly of you.
-
I did not “precede” to “storm away.” I was afraid of being sucked into the bottomless morass of your idiocy, and fled to save my reason and sanity.
Debate over? As in you think you “won”? I don’t see anything in your selected quotes where you did anything. I don’t think the debate was over by a long shot, neither side had conceded defeat, the only reason it likely fizzled out was because you showed up and it became incomprehensible shortly thereafter.
Just by riding on the coattails of intelligent posters and saying, “Aha! I won!” ain’t gonna cut it. I don’t know how many times you’ve said something along the lines of "I, among other people, " and then take credit for their POV. Just like having somebody agree with your POV does not make you “win” the debate, popping in and saying, “Yeah, what HE said. So I win!” does not make you the winner.
No, but admitting that you know you are fucking up and then doing it anyway isn’t slipping up, it’s more like…oh, yeah. Running roughshod!
I said I wouldn’t do this, but I lack the willpower to stand by my word, so here I go. (Paraphrased freely).
Yep; roughshod.
Actually, they are commanded to follow many more rules then just that. You brought up all this “New Covenant” nonsense. However, as I said in the thread, Jesus’ own words contradict this.
And as I said, a change in social mores has nothing to do with actual morality. Mores, means what is consider normal, while morality means what is right. Besides, you were not using the words “view of morality”, but “the prevailing morality of the time”. Two different things entirely.
You claimed, although the third page that public mores has anything to do with morality. I claimed that if people all [del]jump of bridges[/del] support slavery, that is social mores, but not morality. You disagreed.
I don’t hold it up as an example of my “debating skills”, but instead, on your refusing to admit you had no case for your claim, and that I did. Scintillating debate? Hardly. However, it was a victory for me, nonetheless.
You refused to admit you are wrong, and/or thought you were saying “view of morality", instead of what you were really saying, “the prevailing morality of the time”.
Did it work?
Look folks, I’m dropping out of this thread. I’m not going to ask for it to be closed as there is still the Shodan/Scott Plaid agreement to discuss here. But I’ve had enough.
I’d like to add that I am completely and absolutely impressed by the saint-like patience many posters have shown here. If we ever get custom titles, I am willing to pay for Scott Plaid’s to be: The Brick Wall of the SDMB.
As a point of clarification, Scott Plaid: you seem to believe that “morality” is absolute. As an atheist, what do you believe is the source of this absolute morality? In the absence of an absolute arbiter of “the good”, ISTM there is no more reliable authority than societal consensus - the “prevailing morality of the time”.
Scott wins another one! 
Something tells me he will eventually beat us all into submission and claim victory. His reasoning has the same effect on my brain as Slim Whitman had on the Martians in Mars Attacks!. And as we all know, Slim finally defeated the Martians. He won.
sigh
I doubt he does.
There are many ways of teaching. One is to be direct and to the point. Scott is oblivious to those attempts, at least as from the many posters in this thread. A second method is to construct problems suffering a similar flaw as that shown by the student, and let him discover those flaws.
That, too, appears to be an abject failure.
Smacking his hand with a ruler might work, but, alas, that method is unavailable in this medium.
That is odd. Why then, do I have quotes earlier in this thread agreeing that I was correct to say something a certain way, or to make a certain argument?
Yes, I think so. How many quotes of people taking an argument I made, and expanding on it to argue against someone we both oppose do you need? How many examples of people proving your arguments null and void do you need to show that you aren’t standing on as firm ground as you think you are do you need to wipe the smug off? Tell me, how many examples of some one an incontrovertible fact I pointed out and an expert (Zev, Polycarp) agreeing that I was right on the issue does it take before you admit that while may not be the best communicator, I am no mental slouch.
Dear, sweet Og, please… please never let me sound like Scott even if I am ill, sleep-deprived, and doped to the gills with cold medicine. Please let me have the presence of mind never to declare “victory” in a matter that is clearly subjective.
One is reminded of the “kid in the helmet” referenced in Clerks : the Animated Series, banging his head against the wall…
Having this…
Followed up with this…
was more than my irony meter could handle.
Wow, goddamn, it took me a long time to get through this thread.
Everyone has said it all better than I could, so I offer up only this: Scott, I like you and I think you have interesting things to say. However [and this is the big one], if you’re viewing this board as a series of skirmishes to be won/lost, you are woefully missing out on the best part and main point of the SDMB. Try to learn, Scott, and stop writing down the tally points on your notepad.
I registered in September of last year and have roughly 700 posts, and you registed five months later and have close to four fucking thousand – yet, somehow, I feel like I’ve probably learned more from GD than you have. The funniest part yet is that I’ve never written a single true post in GD, except for two extremely brief asides to another poster. I don’t post for two reasons – I lack the education and writing skills to participate in that forum. I’m trying to learn, but I’m not up to par yet, so I just read. You, OTOH, have the education but you do not have the comprehensive writing skills to debate there. I’ve read your posts and they are a mishmash of opinions, facts, half-truths [not intentional, I don’t think], butchered punctuation/grammar, and half-snappy comebacks, none of which have served you well. If you do have the writing skills needed, you haven’t applied them in a manner that I can see. Example: Your protests aside, you do not proofread. I’ve seen you make several errors in the vein of “oike” instead of “like”, which is glaring evidence that you just didn’t take the time to look over your post.
With that in mind, your use of the strikeout tag in GD is glaringly misplaced, and it only makes you look juvenile and out of your league. Several people have pointed this out to you, but you still continue to use it! Scott, if no one else on a board of nearly 50,000 people uses the strikeout constantly, you shouldn’t either! That’s a given, but you refuse to stop doing it!
I promise you, I don’t say any of this to join a pile-on or to treat you badly – I say this because I’ve gained a tremendous amount of education from the SDMB, and you can do the same if you decide to. I do think you’re intelligent and have things to say, but you’ll never get a chance to say them if you don’t slow down and listen to the good advice you’re getting in this thread.
Just stop. Stop your poorly constructed defense in this thread and stop posting so much. Watch. Read. Learn.
OK - then here’s a challenge.
Find someone who’s willing to come along into this thread and say that in his or her opinion, you’re very smart.
Apparently, you can start with Zev and Polycarp. Should be no problem.
Actually, it seems to me that past arguments have been more like the following:
Scott may post a thread saying that the “New Covenant” is nonsense. When asked why, he points out bible verses that contradict such a concept.
Some posters then point towards verses they have intentionally misread to indicate that they can to eat pork, so there!
Many people agree with Scott that the actual words of the bible contradict their wishful thinking.
People for the “New Covenant” still believe that there is something to what they are saying, but don’t manage to actually say anything that Scott has not already shot down. They try to restate their case, but others point out that their new arguments could be applied to absurd situations. They then don’t post anything more - therefore, he has won!
So, in short, if there are more reasons for something then against it, then one side has won. True, there might be more reasons why something should not be, but if neither side brought that fact up, then their side loses.
Okay, tag…
Scott, the reason people abandon debate with you is not that you’ve made an unassailable argument, but that your argument is slippery and incomprehensible. You seem to think that if you make five separate assertions, while your opponent makes only one, that you win. But that is not the case. Five paragraphs of gibberish do not offset one cogent statement.
And mine has run out. Scott, if you say you are going to take a hiatus from posting, so you may improve your posting style, then fucking take one. That does not mean dragging your “debates” here.
The initial cross-references were made in an effort to point out what others percieved as your weaknesses. They were not meant to engage you in an argument over here, but rather to show you areas where improvement could be made.
You said you heard me when I said “Read more. Post less”. But you’ve posted 14 times since then. That was less than 24 hours ago. Obviously you didn’t.
Obviously not.
Piss off.
Wrong.
Let me illustrate.
Each post you make is an assault on my psyche. I have thousands of reasons, then, to wish harm to your person.
I have one or two reasons to not do so.
If I were to open a thread “Should I desire Scott’s horrible disfigurement?” - assuming it would be allowed, which it wouldn’t - I could present thousands of pro arguments, and there would be, generously, a dozen con arguments.
Does that mean I’ve won? No. Quantity is not Quality.
The side that wins is not the side that talks the most. But if this is your philosophy, much is explained.