SingleDad, need your help on debating

Great Debates
21

Techchick:

Please explain to me where there is a requirement, or even an expectation within the Christian faith that everyone will be without sin all the time?

My argument was not that Bush (or anyone else for that matter) never lies. We all lie. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” That is, after all, the point of Christianity, is it not? If man were infallible, man would not require a saviour in the form of Jesus Christ, would he?

So, if we agree that Bush lied about so-and-so on such-and-such a date, etc., et yada., we still have not demonstrated hypocrisy because “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, David B included.

When David uses the sin concept, which he only marginally comprehends anyway, to attempt to point our someone else’s hypocrisy, he is only amplifying his own.

::

22

Yeah, but you need to show that. It is certainly possible for DavidB to understand what sin is without believing it himself.

That is a logical point on which to attack DavidB’s statement, one which I would even agree with. Can you see the difference between this statement and your original one?

23

“Dubya” does indeed refer to George W. Bush. It’s fairly widely used in informal conversation and topical writing, to distinguish him from his father, George H. W. Bush.

CalifBoomer:

Your use of personal insults (referring to me as “Fidel” and DavidB as the “Great Simian Guru”) is inappropriate and contrary to the rules of the GD forum. Regardless of your skills (or lack thereof) at debate, you are expected to follow a simple set of rules.

You are arguing my point. Your second paragraph states that because DavidB is an atheist, he has no “right to argue” that Dubya is a sinner.

However, sin is a rational concept: It can be rationally determined that a specific behavior is “sinful” from the rational premises of Christianity. To argue otherwise is to say that no Christian would be qualified to evaluate his own behavior according to the premises of Christianity; sin would be whatever each person believes to be a sin.

DavidB’s argument is that since Dubya committed a sin by Dubya’s own belief system implies that Dubya is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is a character flaw by secular standards, regardless of where the hypocrisy lies. Therefore DavidB’s has standing to make his argument.

As an atheist (an assumption; I don’t know specifically if he really is an atheist), DavidB and I both lack standing to argue whether or not lying is a sin according to the Christian religion, since we don’t accept the fundamental premises of Christianity.

A quick correction: the term pro forma (for the form) indicates an action taken on procedural grounds, not on substantive grounds. For instance, my original “zealot” quote was worded as such pro forma to comply with the stated rule of this forum (to avoid personal references).

To claim that DavidB’s modus operandi displays “zealotry” by my definition (as you assert) you would have to show that in the preponderance of his conflicts he does not offer rational arguments to support his disagreements. Having seen many of his posts, I have not noted that lack. Additionally, you are directed (again by the rules of the SDMB in general) to make such a case in the Pit and not here.

hardcore:

It would be hypocritical of me to remind CalifBoomer to adhere to the rules and omit your infraction as well. Boomer’s character has been extensively discussed in the BBQ Pit. It is unnecessary and an infraction of GD’s rules to insult him here.

Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

24

The glory of simulposting.

Gasp! Boomer offers an actual rational argument! Not only that but one that is somewhat persuasive! Boomer, I’m offering you sincere praise (as if my good opinion were important to you ;)).

To lie itself is a sin, but sin iteself does not, as CalifBoomer persuasively notes, constitute hypocrisy.

Is Dubya’s claim to environmentalism a lie? And if so, does Dubya know this? Who gets to define “environmentalism”?

If lying is a sin, and Dubya knows he’s lying, and doesn’t seek repentance by correcting the lie, then we could brand him a hypocrite by his own standards. Boomer correctly notes that such a determination is more difficult and subtle than DavidB originally points out.

Two notes: Boomer states that “My argument was not that…” I don’t know if this argument actually appeard in the other thread; I didn’t follow that thread very carefully (as I consider the deprecation that a politician is hypocritical equivalent to the deprecation that a professional wrestler is freakishly musclebound).

Boomer, if you start making actual rational arguments like the one cited above, I will be forced to change my opinion of you from a putz to an intelligent person that I often disagree with. God forbid!

Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

25

Calif,

Your intial post in that thread was:

This is the reason I brought up the whole idea of debate in the realms of rational debates.

You didn’t question it, you ridiculed his position. You used words of emotion rather than ask David what he meant.

You didn’t ask him where he is coming from with regards to his topic. This is why I felt it important to bring up the fact that many debates end up with emotional posts because the process is abruptly halted by a response like this.

If you felt the way you do about his topic and responded they way you did in this thread although you need a little less frustration from what I can tell, then I am all for it, but those kinds of responses are a vehicle for flaming.

Again, I must stress, I brought this up not as a means by which to poopoo you and your ideas, but as a debate over people’s responses in general.

Clearly you are showing you can debate in a semi-rational manner, so take those responses you have in here and apply them in other threads.

Again, I am not trying to be critical, but you seem to go based on a gut instinct rather than a rational idea or means by which to get your idea across.

So, ask David if he is simply creating a post to be anti-religion. I bet you will get a straight answer, but if you do that, do it nicely.

< now I am coming across as an asshole >

Sorry, but I often wonder about certain responses to certain people. I often wish that from what I see, emotion is taken out of it and if emotion is what you want to convey, then maybe the Pit is the place to take it?

I don’t know. The Pit is the Pit, and GD is meant for meaningful discussion…I only hope that you can see where I am coming from.

26

SingleDad, I hardly think calling Calif a troll is an insult. He (and you) may construe it as such, but nevertheless, it is an indication of his posting style, not a disparagement of the person. You should rethink your statement.

27

techchick:

I understand your point and it is well taken. On the one hand you know as well as I that after a while we all get to know each other’s frame of reference around here - we all understand where the other is coming from. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions about David’s motives, perhaps not.

In any event, perhaps I should become more incremental and less automatically judgemental in my responses. It is certainly food for thought.

Boomer has been stressed out at work lately. Boomer’s boss has given Boomer Monday off, so I’m taking him to the mountains for a couple of days. You kids have fun, we’ll be back next week.

::

28

CB, any particular reason you’ve decided to refer to yourself in the third person all of a sudden?

29

hardcore,

Since this is my thread, I would ask that you kindly refrain from using troll.

The use of troll should be confined to the Pit, I am in agreement with SingleDad.

I am talking about rational debate, and within rational debate calling someone a troll doesn’t fit into the intention of my OP.

Actually, that’s the point, the emotions get all wrapped up in a debate that people end up calling each other names.

Calif does have some rational tendencies, but if you belittle him like he did (although troll is pretty harsh) to DavidB, you are no further into rational debate.

I mean no harm by that, I am just simply pointing out the irony in calling a person a troll in the same thread where someone is trying to bring out a discussion of rational debate.

30

hardcore:

[quote]
SingleDad, I hardly think calling Calif a troll is an insult. He (and you) may construe it as such, but nevertheless, it is an indication of his posting style, not a disparagement of the person. You should rethink your statement.**

Relax :slight_smile: I’m not a moderator. They will make the determination as to whether or not you made a trivial violation of the rules. Second, I merely felt that in a thread regarding hypocrisy, I should bend over backwards to be consistent.

CalifBoomer: I know what it’s like to become cranky from stress. Enjoy your time in the mountains. :slight_smile: If you read this, I hope you will give some thought to this challenge: You have a point of view that you seem to have given a great deal of thought to you. You seem to have a desire to persuade others to your views. No one is going to be persuaded based on one argument, regardless of how well crafted. And certainly no one will change his beliefs merely because you have insulted those beliefs. You will have more sucess at acheiving what I believe to be your goals if you adopted the qualities of patience, respect, and the principles of rational debate.

Additionally, neither you nor anyone else is infallible. If someone asserts that you made a mistake, asserted an incorrect fact, or prolumgated a fallacy, they are rebutting your argument, not making a personal attack. Show some humility, and recraft your argument or rebut the argument in rational terms.

Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

31

Calif,

Jumping to conclusions can be a very bad thing.

I know this first hand. I have been burned by this, and probably still haven’t learned from it.

It is always wise, even if you think you know the person, to ask his/her intentions.

Life is a funny thing, just when you think you know somebody they surprise you and give you something you never thought would come out of their mouths.

32

Calif,

You said:

Perhaps we think that, SingleDad and I used to “spar” (right term?) but we came to an understanding to which we are now friends…in fact I should give him a call.

Anyhow, unfortunately a message board doesn’t reflect a communication as subtle as a voice or a gesture. Through this medium I have learned that I may not always see through the intention and have to stretch a lot of the time to find the intial intention of the post. Even I fail at that, I understand this.

I can only hope by bringing up this subject we, all can become more rational in the proper forums and give grievance in the forums allowed.

Hope your weekend goes well and you find yourself well rested :slight_smile:

33

What I think both of you (SingleDad and techchick) are missing is the irony that I copied CalifBoomer’s statement about David, changed sin to logic and atheist to troll, then posted it back to him to try to demonstrate how silly it was. It is particularly distressing to find both of you admonishing me after I had already apologized for it.

34

I admit that I didn’t notice until I went back and re-read you post. Very clever :slight_smile:

35

I know I’ll get slammed for pointing this out, but I just don’t care anymore. How many times is CalifBoomer going to go overboard in his attacks and illogical statements, only to suddenly backtrack at the very last moment, saying “I am planning to change when I get back from (fill in the blank).”
How many times are you people going to buy into his act?

I will watch the adventures of The Repentant Pitbull , but I have a feeling I know how it’s going to turn out.

Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.

36

I don’t get this. If you fully understand that it is, why can you not argue it?

Why is your belief relevent?

pax

37

SingleDad wrote:

I have argued in the past, and have continued to insist, that actions, or inactions, contrary to one’s stated beliefs do not constitute hypocrisy. Hypocrisy means claiming to hold views which one does not hold. A person who fails to live up to his stated views is not a hypocrite because of it.

Yes, I know. If everybody uses the term wrong, it can’t be wrong. Nonetheless, I insist that it’s wrong although everybody continues not to give a shit what I think.

In any case, I don’t understand why it is that hypocrisy is treated as a deadly sin. If a person is being hypocritical, in the popular sense, then he’s already committed a sin worse than hypocrisy – otherwise, why bother to put up a front?

38

Forgive me for not reading this entire thread as it is 3 am here and i’m tired.

But Calif. face it, fuzzy logic doesn’t work in the real world. That is why computers can not be programmed with true cognative abilities(I.e TRUE AI). Rather you must take into consideration the implications and the implied meanings of ones words/actions. Without doing this it is impossible to understand someone since so much is implied.

On another account stop using semantics THAT YOU KNOW are simply semantic problems for your arguments. Take the implied meaning. If you truely don’t understand then by all means, go attack the logic. Ok… this paragraph was more of a rant, but oh well.

Oh one more rant… can you people at least define some of this Latin? Or point me(e-mail please as I might not visit this thread again due to bad memory =) ) to a website that has the definitions?

yawn… soooo tired.

~Bored2001

39

When a person professes a belief, but his actions are contrary to that belief, it is strong evidence that their profession is hypocritical. If they truly held the belief, they would not act contrary to it.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

40

Did someone mention hypocricy?