Questions to Christians

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think I have antipathy towards you in general.

That makes you rhetorical flourishes, and the visceral level of your antipathy difficult to account for. But okay.

In fact I often admire the way you argue. It's just that your fanatical religious ideology...

Ah, there it is! I suspected as much.

Well, you don't like my "ideology." And you don't have to -- either to warrant respect or to be respectful. However, beliefs can be honest, when one actually believes them; or they can be dishonest, when they're assumed merely as a posture. How you've managed to divine which I represent is a mystery, since you don't know me at all. You must fancy yourself a prophetess of some kind.

I suspect you've also got a stake in other questions I've addressed. And I suspect that stake is personal and experiential, not rational. But be that as it may, there's still no reason for spite. This is, after all, a philosophy site; and one who is unable to deal with contrary opinions is either going to struggle here, or is not going to be able to stay on the topic, and will lapse into things like ad hominems of the sort you're offering here.

[Immanuel Can]

IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

How enormously judgmental of you.

Well, there are things one should judge, and things one should not. And Scripture numbers both.

Why you don’t practice what you preach is mentally unhinged.

That's very interesting. I'm attacked as "dishonest," and then, when I reply, you want to judge me as "judgmental"? Lovely.

[Fairy]

If Henry had any sense he would be citing the fact that Fairy veered between 'Harbal's a saint' and 'Harbal's a dastardly demon' as EVIDENCE that her version of events might not be ENTIRELY reliable.

Can't see why I have to lay out the details when anyone with a mind to can review her posts and see what's what for themselves. There's ample evidence she's a loon. There's no evidence to support her account of what passed between them.

You can’t know the full evidence if that’s what you’re after until harbal’s account matches with mine. Which it will when he disclosures it to you. In other words my evidence is null and void without its corresponding counterpart.

I don’t know why that is so difficult for you brain to compute.

[Fairy]

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

How enormously judgmental of you.

Well, there are things one should judge, and things one should not. And Scripture numbers both.

Why you don’t practice what you preach is mentally unhinged.

That's very interesting. I'm attacked as "dishonest," and then, when I reply, you want to judge me as "judgmental"? Lovely.

Exactly, as lovely as the pot calling the kettle black. Were all lovely at being lovely.

The scriptures are past tense, dead as a door nail. I see dead people

[Fairy]

Just the fact that he seems to be trying to goad people into showing him ACTUAL pms and emails says that he wants to side with the male no matter what.

As I say, DAM is not a reliable source and I won't condemn hm or sympathize with her based solely on her account of what passed between them. And I don't think you should either.

If his buddy IC said anything similar it would be believed no questions asked.

Mannie wouldn't bring dirty laundry to a public forum.

IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

Mannie is one of the most honest people I know.

While that is true Minnie wouldn’t bring his dirty laundry to the forum, that dirty laundry must exist somewhere. I just bring all my shit into the open as I’ve got nothing to hide.

Tha makes me more real true and honest than someone reluctant to reveal their true and real reputation. Hiding shit is never a true and real representation of yourself it’s only a mere half truth.

[henry quirk]

my evidence

You have no evidence. You have an uncorroborated accusation.

[henry quirk]

that dirty laundry must exist somewhere

Projection. Not everyone is a mess.

[Atla]

IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

Mannie is one of the most honest people I know.

Then maybe, with that kind of judgment, you're about the last person who should play detective..

[Immanuel Can]

IC is about the most dishonest poster on the forum hands down.

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

You claim to another that you don't know me. And that would be correct...

Obviously so.

And yet IC you go on to judge others based only on what they have written.

In what way am I "judging" in some immoral sense? To have good judgment is good. To judge in a bad way is not. So show that I'm judging in a bad way.

You form their identities based on what they have written.

Show that I do that.

[henry quirk]

And yet, here am I, however poorly suited I am for the job, doin' just that.

And, really, what am I doin'? Pointing out the obvious: she accuses with no evidence. She is not a reliable source.

That's it, that's all.

My opinion on Mannie, offered as a counter, has no bearing on that.

[Fairy]

my evidence

You have no evidence. You have an uncorroborated accusation.

My accusation will be used as evidence, when questioned.

You have nothing but mystery.

[Fairy]

I'm amused...and bemused.

You don't know me. We've never met. I would suspect you don't really know a single thing about me. So I know you haven't got the foggiest idea whether I'm being honest or not, because you have no idea whether or not I believe what I'm saying...though I do. So I know what you do not know...that what I advocate, I do, indeed, believe. A review of what I've said pretty much confirms that: I've fairly consistently held to my positions, departing from them only when a substantive reason to do so has appeared...hardly the model of "dishonesty."

However, I find it interesting that you single me out, of all the many posters you could choose to allege. There are certainly some very flip-floppy posters here, and even some who seem a little mentally unhinged, to say the least...inconsistency is not hard to find. Even delusional stuff appears sometimes, or extravagant flights of emotional lunacy. So why you would choose me to find so offensive...that's a good question.

I suspect it has much more to do with the nature of my challenging of your views than it has to do with anything else. I've noted before that you seem to have developed such an antipathy to me that you've even failed to note when we've agreed...which, on a few things, we have. And you're known for being generally abusive, something certainly not exclusively exhibited toward me. But I really seem to get your goat, it seems...I think I get to you more than others do because deep down, you suspect I'm right...at least about the matters on which I've challenged you.

You claim to another that you don't know me. And that would be correct...

Obviously so.

And yet IC you go on to judge others based only on what they have written.

In what way am I "judging" in some immoral sense? To have good judgment is good. To judge in a bad way is not. So show that I'm judging in a bad way.

You form their identities based on what they have written.

Show that I do that.

You base people’s characters on what they have written or spoken. You have no other frame of reference in which to know them.

If you have another frame of reference, show what that is.


Good judgement is only good because it’s not bad, both have to be a part of the judged. For one cannot be known without the other to make distinction or differentiation.

[accelafine]

I don't think I have antipathy towards you in general.

That makes you rhetorical flourishes, and the visceral level of your antipathy difficult to account for. But okay.

In fact I occasionally like how you argue. It's just that your fanatical religious ideology...

Ah, there it is! I suspected as much.

Well, you don't like my "ideology." And you don't have to -- either to warrant respect or to be respectful. However, beliefs can be honest, when one actually believes them; or they can be dishonest, when they're assumed merely as a posture. How you've managed to divine which I represent is a mystery, since you don't know me at all. You must fancy yourself a prophetess of some kind.

I suspect you've also got a stake in other questions I've addressed. And I suspect that stake is personal and experiential, not rational. But be that as it may, there's still no reason for spite. This is, after all, a philosophy site; and one who is unable to deal with contrary opinions is either going to struggle here, or is not going to be able to stay on the topic, and will lapse into things like ad hominems of the sort you're offering here.

And there is is. Can't even take a mild compliment graciously, instead using it as another opportunity to be smarmy, smug and dishonest and to make nasty little personal insinuations about an alleged 'stake' I have in his particular pet obsession (gosh, I wonder what that would be ) My 'stake' in ANYTHING is far more honest than yours will ever be, because every single thought in your head is based around whatever religious nuttery you were brainwashed into from birth, while I was brought up to be a critical thinker.

[Fairy]

And yet, here am I, however poorly suited I am for the job, doin' just that.

And, really, what am I doin'? Pointing out the obvious: she accuses with no evidence. She is not a reliable source.

That's it, that's all.

What you are doing is accusing me of whitewashing the truth with no evidence.

Pot /kettle.

[accelafine]

Mannie is one of the most honest people I know.

I will take this in the way it this was obviously intended. You couldn't have typed that with a straight face