Jesus Christ! (so to speak.) We’re losing one of our most erudite posters because he’s tired of being stalked and harrassed by an insulting jerk? I thought “don’t be a jerk” was the first rule of SDMB. Surely badchad has crossed that line so often it’s just a dim ghost on the horizon. Why he hasn’t been banned is a mystery to me. He certainly has no legitmate beef with the mods. “Bob” Dobbs himself couldn’t give anyone more slack.
Hey, Tom! If this joke reaches 15 pages, do you get extra jackboot points?
If? At this point what could stop it?
Pseudotriton ruber ruber and badchad have both behaved like jerks and trolls and appear to revel in it. Is this thread moving the bar for what is acceptable in the Pit? Or is my perception not shared by the moderators and long-time members?
Serious question.
I thought I did too. Are you saying I didn’t?
As I recall, I think he was agreeing with my argument completely. Perhaps you could email him and ask if he wasn’t.
Thanks.
Not at all, I think you should agree with me. I think that would be the sensible things to do.
I don’t really care much if I discuss this with you or not. I discuss things in my own manner, which I think is honest, but if you feel I am not, then you are free to not discuss things further.
As for your view of Jesus, if my representation is incorrect, it is because you have not made your views on him clear enough, and I have asked. Personally I don’t think your views are consistent within yourself yet, as per our conversations, I get the impression (in spite of some of your statements) that you aren’t sure whether you are Christian or not, or about the divine status of Jesus. You could enlighten me if you wish, or not.
Sure I could have responded to SM, but I didn’t. You are aware of how popular my threads are, I really can’t respond to everyone. Now if SM he wanted to say my argument was inappropriate or dishonest bullshit he could have done so too. He’s still a member here. You could ask him.
It is interesting. You said I could not know your reasons for avoiding my questions, but it seems you think you know mine. If you are that interested in taking this discussion further you could answer my questions, so I can fully clarify your position on given matters. At which point I will respond in such a way as to strengthen or weaken my argument that you are a mush brain, and I could do so with relative ease. So long as you take the fifth I would have to search your past statements for items of choice but I don’t think you’re worth that kind of effort, and I wouldn’t want you continuing to claim that I misunderstand you. I’d much rather have a clear and concise Q & A.
And yes, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have of me as well.
I’m confused by what you are saying here. Are you saying it’s none of our business why you believe in your god?
Actually I, as I recall, wasn’t claiming that people, not knowing what god knows, is a hole in Christian theology. I was arguing that Christians make the claim that they don’t know what god knows as an excuse to not accept philosophical arguments that in fact do kill the Christian concept of god. Again, as I recall, you made the claim that philosophical arguments in favor of god held up, I countered that they didn’t but that you would appeal to your own ignorance to fail to accept them.
I’m not sure what this has to do with the power of prayer, and your prayers about changing my behavior. You made the claim that once was not a sufficient trial and I was in error to say that it was. In doing so it seems you are ignorant of what Jesus said regarding the power of prayer, and how if you are really a believer he would do for you anything that you ask. Well I’m here to tell you, Jesus has not changed my heart, and this calls into question his promise to answer your prayers, or your belief in him. Which do you prefer?
Belief in the Christian god is ridiculous, sorry about that.
Sure, just as most atheists are quietly confident that someone just made your god up, and you believe in him primarily because you were brainwashed (sorry indoctrinated) to do so. BTW, nobody is saying that we wish for you to believe in the IPU, we are just saying that the evidence in favor of it, and against it, are equal to that of a deist god.
And I thought insults were allowed in the pit. So what thereby makes me a jerk, that doesn’t make everyone who insults me a jerk? Heck I bet I’m one of the most insulted of posters ever to log in here, but you don’t see me crying about it. Also, while you (a non-Christian) are here, perhaps you could tell me why you don’t think Polycarp’s theology is ignorant, assuming you disagree with my assessment.
As for stalking, I have only addressed Polycarp on religious matters and that time he claimed to have psychic powers. He can say anything, non-ignorant he wants and I will not, and have not, argued with him.
Hmm, another call for censorship; the last bastion of any good theist.
You are my new hero.
Apparently when you have no logical argument, one must resort to carefully worded name-calling. I at least understand why some are considering your style jerkish. You have shown yourself to be rude and obnoxious in this thread and others but **Psuedo ** outside of this thread is nearly almost always polite and a friendly guy.
While I think your behavior is near borderline, you appear to have far more logic in your arguments than **Zoe ** can muster on this subject. You also appear to only be a jerk to those who are able to get offended by their personnel belief being belittled. So, I do not think you are over the line, just rude. **Psuedo ** on the other hand is a very good poster that based on showing his ire at what he considers deceptive and deluded fantasies, now has to put up with being called a Troll? Shame on you Zoe, that is a cheap shot and intellectually bereft of value.
Jim
Is this an actual endorsement of a definition of jerks and trolls as “people I disagree with but have no ability to argue against”? If I’m booted off the SDMB for this, it will be the proudest booting-off you ever saw. I think I’m performing a real service here, not only in supporting badchad, whom I have more and more respect for every time he posts, but also in bringing up independently the questioning of the SD’s primary mission, to fight ignorance. It’s becoming clearer to me that this mission has the clear exception of “Christian ignorance,” which far from being fought is subtly and not-so-subtly being encouraged on this message board, mainly because the vast majority of its members are either believing Christians, nominal Christians (have you borrowed a dictionary yet, Tom, to decode the meaning of those obscure and mysterious words?), or atheists who want to be pals with everyone and lack the courage and consistency to persist in following through in questioning theists as to the implications of their belief systems. How the fuck is Christianity not an extraordinary claim? Even **Polycarp ** notes that Christianity requires the acknowledgment that miracles are possible–that’s NOT an extraordinary claim? In what universe? So where’s the extraordinary evidence? Basically, IMHO, that’s what badchad has been demanding–persistently, consistently, sometimes rudely, sometimes wittily, but always in keeping with the primary mission of this messageboard. For this–actually, for the reason that his questions are truly in line with the SDMB’s mission, but you can’t acknowledge that, of course–he is being offered an early and involuntary exit. If you boot him, or me, out the door over this, you have all but openly acknowledged that this place is built on hypocrisy of the highest order. I know most of you don’t consider “winning” a discussion to be a valid way of looking at discussions (especially when you’re getting your asses kicked), but banning me over this will be the clearest sign of victory I could ever imagine.
That said, I’m hoping more temperate heads will prevail, and that someone will see the validity of the argument I’m making, and give me permission to remain here.
Christ, are you one dumb old bitch. I was asking about doctoral programs in non-fiction writing because I was thinking of having my department offer one, not because I want to get another Ph. D. Did you READ my fucking post, or just cruise my past posts looking for some damaging material, and that’s the best you came up with?
A peer-reviewed society is a society to which one must be invited to join by one’s peers, as opposed to a society one might join by offering to pony up some dues. I haven’t had any complaints about the way I’m helping to run my department–why don’t you apply to join it, and maybe eventually I’ll need to pay some attention to your complaints about my lack of knowledge?
I don’t know who you think you are impressing with your inane nitpicks, grammatical lessons, or other crazy shit you’re trying to toss off, but you’d have to pay me a fairly hefty fee to tutor you, probably with more money than is in your state budget, I’m figuring.
Go visit Emerson’s grave for a few years, would you? Better yet, jump in it. I’m sure Waldo’s mouldy corpse will get a kick out of listening to you yammer. I don’t.
.
I just came up with another idea for all you jackasses convinced that no one with a Ph.D, or an academic job, or two brain cells to rub together, could ever write as moronically as I’ve been writing here the last four years: Why not report me, as a troll, for giving information about myself that is plainly contradictory and false? I believe it’s still a bannable offense to pose with false credentials and as something one is not. If the Mods discover that I’ve pretended to hold degrees or to have performed functions (publishing in prestigious journals, being an officer in literary societies, having worked as journalist and editor, etc.) that I clearly could not have, then it seems to me I’m banned, and rightly so. So report me. Or STFU already.
Of course, to be fair, I’d have to ask that someone who reports me and turns out to be wrong would necessarily accept a banning as well, or at least a suspension for making serial false accusations of trollhood. That would be the honorable thing to do, so I dont expect to be taken up on that part of my offer to you.
While waiting for my post to appear, I added a bt the final paragrpah above. It should now read:
Of course, to be fair, I’d have to ask that someone who reports me and turns out to be wrong would necessarily accept a banning as well, or at least a suspension for making serial false accusations of trollhood. That would be the honorable thing to do, so I don’t expect to be taken up on that part of my offer to you dishonorable swine who persist in calling me a liar where I’ve written the truth and as a braggart when I’ve referred to my background where it’s relevant to my positions.
I disagree in the strongest terms that Zoe has any post in this thread of which she should be ashamed. And as one of the long term posters to whom she’s appealed, I support and agree with her assessment of bad as a troll and of pseudo as a jerk.
However, although the former may most definitely be both a trollish and jerkish, the latter does not seem to be a troll.
OK, Dr. Ruber, you’re right on one aspect – we’re in the business of fighting ignorance here. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I consider that my belief structure is duly subject to critical analysis – done with courtesy and respect. In other words, in Great Debates, you are privileged to call my conclusions from my experiences into question. You are not privileged to call me names in GD, to assert in GD that I am willfully deluded and fostering ignorance. That of course is what the Pit is for.
And if someone takes the approach of redefining Christianity as “what the Bible says” and calls me to task for not adhering to his revisionism – whether that be Bible Man or Badchad – I am under no obligation to argue on his terms. If you choose to believe that everything on TV but Fox News is actually generated to confuse people by the Demon Moon Raccoons, you’re free to do so – but don’t expect me to buy into the premises of your argument. I buy into the same analytical, critical framework as Diogenes the Cynic and Tomndebb – the Bible is an anthology of writings by a bunch of people purporting to present their individual views of what God was doing in the world. As such, I think there are parts which can be reasonably well relied on, and parts that are the veriest horseshit. In a civil debate, I’ll be glad to present my reasons for which I think are which.
In the interim, since you have asserted that speaking of Christianity in any positive sense is “spreading ignorance,” the onus of proof has now passed over to you – you are under obligation to disprove Christianity to the satisfaction of critical analysis. And “insufficient evidence” is not disproof. You’ve made an assertion; now prove it. If your skills are what you claim, it will be a pleasure to see you at work ably setting forth a logical construct, rather than arguing in what’s been reduced to a set of whines.
Just one minor detail: Badchad, I know you have a personal agenda against me, but I cannot believe your reading comprehension was so bad that you failed to get my point in that “psychic powers” discussion: In my opinion, most “psychic powers” are in fact the product of subconscious, intuitive analysis of sensory cues and past data, giving rise to a “Eureka!” moment that is perceived as a flash of telepathy, clairvoyance, etc., but is in actuality not that. In support of that, I gave the one example I’ve experienced of “telepathy” – when I took in the young man whom I came to love as a son, and we were so closely involved with each other that we each could intuit the thought processes of the other, and as a result “read his mind.” In other words, observing the phenomenon he was experiencing and knowing as well as I did how his mind worked, I could conclude with pretty fair accuracy what he was thinking in reaction to that phenomenon, and he could do likewise with me. Not “psychic powers” at all, but intuitive analysis mimicking them.
You’re welcome to look down on me for buying into a variant on Christianity that you have conceived reasons to hate, for using an unfortunate metaphor about a kid I at one time though was going to do a “Christ figure”/Stranger in a Strange Land public role, or whatever else about me might piss you off, but be so kind as to remove that particular incident from your sneer list. While I claimed to be “telepathic” in that case intentionally, as a way of making my point, I did not say what you are seemingly claiming I said.
Poly, I consider myself under no such obligation. I’ve stated my views, and like any other poster, I’ll argue what I choose to argue, and couldn’t care less if you choose not to accept my views. Badchad on the other hand is much better than I at formulating arguments that tie you up in knots, and I enjoy reading his able arguments.
I freely acknowledge that sometimes he violates standards of civility, and that sometimes I seem to. But I also argue that Christians do so routinely (as viewed from an atheistic point of view), so routinely that they can’t even see how their nastier, most-evilly-intended, smuggest, most condescending assertions (such as “I will pray for you”) could ever violate civility from my point of view.
You’re a big boy. Endure his incivilities (if you must, begin your rebuttals with “Although you’re being incredibly rude to me, and hurting my feelings deeply with your snide and unwarranted jabs, I will respond to you as follows…”). We can still disagree, if we’re determined to, even despite incivilities on both sides. But I suspect that you simply don’t wish to engage in discussion, and are using **badchad’**s stylistic shortcomings (as you see them) as a fairly silly reason to decline to engage with him (as various people here light upon my grammatical lapses and typos as a reason to invalidate my argument. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how I failed to comprehend the meaning of “cosmology” if that’s what is indeed being claimed.) When in GD, you get all prissy and indignantly claim that civility is being violated and you refuse to engage in uncivil discussion, and in the Pit, you’re claiming what? That this place is unsuitable for proper debate? You get to cover your ass in both venues, while holding yourself responsible to support your claims in neither place. Very weak.
I’ve already explained how I support my claim that praising Christianity is spreading ignorance: Christianity, by your definition, requires an acceptance of the possibility of miracles, which is in itself an extraordinary premise. I want some extraordinary evidence, but don’t feel particularly well versed to argue about it, preferring to let others who are more deeply read than I (I just have a decade of religious training as a boy, and a few years of studying Puritan and other American religious thought on the graduate level, with some attention to its roots in England of course) such as badchad hold up their end of the argument with which I overwhelmingly agree. You don’t care for his debating style? That’s a shame.
I explained what I thought she should be ashamed of, and you conveniently snipped it. I was refering only to her last post where she was calling **Pseudo ** a troll. Do you really thnk **Pseudo ** is a jerk across his time as a poster, or just in this thread? I think that makes a large difference.
Jim
Thanks (honestly) for your willingness to see that I’ve behaved as an utterly irredeemable jerk only this thread, Jim, but please don’t forget that Zoe explicitly said that I am not only a jerk, and proud of it, but that I am a proud troll as well, both of which charges I defy her to substantiate. Rude? Yes, sometimes, but mainly in the Pit, where rudeness is tolerable, if not always appreciated.
I take your point about it being your choice and not your obligation, PRR – but it lays you open to the charge of inconsistency. If it is in fact your choice, why is it hypocrisy or cowardice if Tom~ or I choose not to engage in a debate because the attitude of another poster is to us very distasteful, or because, in Tom’s case, he does not debate his personal beliefs (as opposed to factual statements concerning the defined beliefs of, say, the RCC) as a matter of personal policy? That’s not intended as a “gotcha” by the way – I’m really interested in understanding your reasoning, because it seems inconsistent with what you’ve said before.
As for me, I have always endeavored to show respect for the atheists whom I may engage in debate. (Not so much for the fundamentalists and evangelicals – to me they are violating a pledge that both they and we liberals made to the same God, by their refusal to carry out commandments which He defined as fundamental to following Him.) If you care to show me where I, personally, have violated civility towards an atheist, you in particular or any atheist, in GD, I promise to make an apology and clarification. In this thread, I, like you, am arguing where my personal ox has been gored – and I think some incivility on either of our parts is excusable – though I believe you’re wrong in holding Zoe to task for her criticisms, by and large.
I was just taking off for the gym, so I don’t have time to search this thread, nor am I certain I would find some incivility by you in this thread anyway. Curious, though–have you never offered to pray for someone espousing atheistic views? If so, I commend your decency. If not, can you see why I classify that as a rude and condescending act? Finally, tell me what points Zoe has made here that you support, and I’ll argue them with you, since she seems incapable of sustained thought, as you do not.
The whole discussion of ‘inconsistency’ will have to wait, but not long, I hope…
Actually, I did not call you a jerk and in the post **xenophon41 ** picked and chose from, I said:
“Psuedo outside of this thread is nearly almost always polite and a friendly guy.” and “Psuedo on the other hand is a very good poster that based on showing his ire at what he considers deceptive and deluded fantasies, now has to put up with being called a Troll? Shame on you Zoe, that is a cheap shot and intellectually bereft of value.”
I was asking **xenophon41 ** if he thought you were a jerk in general or just this thread. While I do not agree with your arguments in this thread, quite often, I have seen nothing in this thread that warrants you a warning for being a jerk and apparently the Mods agree. I think Zoe’s labeling you a troll is extra insulting as if the Mods agreed, they would have to ban you. You have done nothing close to being a troll.
Jim
- Hopefully the “deceptive and deluded fantasies” is an acceptable summary of your opinions.