Philosophy Now Forum

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

I have to agree here. This statement seems the most truthful.

There's how you interpret the winky and there's how it was meant. These two do not need to be the same. You can take it for the joke it was meant to be or for Hobbes' misinterpretation of it as passive-aggressive. It doesn't matter too much to me. Of course, one of them requires a sense of humor.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Keep your hair on sweetie

Yes, please. The bald look does not suit me.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Contradiction is not an argument.

From anyone's objective point of view, you pretending to know the mind of god is no better that Trixie's. At least her view is in accordance with the evidence, were god to exist, your's is way off the mark.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote: Looks like someone never learned what the winky smiley is for. Further proof you're like a child trying to understand grown-ups.
I'm looking forward to the day when you can actually comprehend a post and then formulate a rational response rather than this blind, scatter-shot approach you take. For someone who seems to take reason so seriously, it's increasingly clear that you're the least capable of rational thought.

Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

That, or it's intended when making a joke. I know. Crazy, isn't it? The conclusion you jumped to was the wrong one. Again. I can't imagine what it must be like to be wrong so often.

You should read up on the Psychologist's Fallacy. It appears to describe you quite well.

The fallacy is true in some type cases as referenced, but of course there are other more broad and fundamental types of knowing your fellow human, that are indeed accurate. That one is guilty of such things does not necessarily mean that their projection is not accurate. Some things are so fundamental to be largely across the board in commonality.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The fallacy is true in some type cases as referenced, but of course there are other more broad and fundamental types of knowing your fellow human, that are indeed accurate. That one is guilty of such things does not necessarily mean that their projection is not accurate. Some things are so fundamental to be largely across the board in commonality.

Right. I agree wholeheartedly. That said, I would suggest that stating someone's winky should be interpreted in the way you would mean it rather than in the way they meant it is a textbook example of the PF.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The fallacy is true in some type cases as referenced, but of course there are other more broad and fundamental types of knowing your fellow human, that are indeed accurate. That one is guilty of such things does not necessarily mean that their projection is not accurate. Some things are so fundamental to be largely across the board in commonality.

Right. I agree wholeheartedly. That said, I would suggest that stating someone's winky should be interpreted in the way you would mean it rather than in the way they meant it is a textbook example of the PF.

And I would tend to agree, off the cuff, but context is everything. I'm not sure in your twos case as I've not read the entire thread. Know that I was not saying you were incorrect. Just providing an FYI, just in case you believed it an Iron Clad rule across the board. Sorry if I seemingly took sides.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[q

That's just your opinion based on nothing.
Islam says something else, so does Judaism. There are many other religions to choose from; all seem as incoherent as the next.

I think Gnostic Christianity the exception to that rule.

Regards
DL

How?

To some degree each religion alone has some coherence, but so what?

I am looking at the morality of the religions on our menu.

The mainstream is definitely homophobic and misogynous as well as divisive and trying to keep the various tribes and religions separate.

Gnostic Christianity is not homophobic and misogynous nor are we divisive. As a Universalist religion we cannot discriminate without a just cause and condemn all blanket discriminations as those used by the mainstream religions.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
I think Gnostic Christianity the exception to that rule.

Regards
DL

How?

To some degree each religion alone has some coherence, but so what?

I am looking at the morality of the religions on our menu.

The mainstream is definitely homophobic and misogynous as well as divisive and trying to keep the various tribes and religions separate.

Gnostic Christianity is not homophobic and misogynous nor are we divisive. As a Universalist religion we cannot discriminate without a just cause and condemn all blanket discriminations as those used by the mainstream religions.

Regards
DL

"WE"? Is that your religion of choice this week?

ReliStuPhD wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

I have to agree here. This statement seems the most truthful.

There's how you interpret the winky and there's how it was meant. These two do not need to be the same. You can take it for the joke it was meant to be or for Hobbes' misinterpretation of it as passive-aggressive. It doesn't matter too much to me. Of course, one of them requires a sense of humor.

Not passive aggressive in that way. But passive aggressive as 'im right your wrong' kind of way.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Yeah, winky-smiley is for people without an argument to disagree in a passive aggressive way. Dismissing their interlocutor, whilst pretending to be friendly.

<snip>
Not passive aggressive in that way. But passive aggressive as 'im right your wrong' kind of way.

Ah. That's a helpful clarification. So perhaps an explanation is on order:
You said the modern theist would call you crazy. As a modern theist, I don't see at all how it's crazy to maintain that Thor, et al were just aliens. It's certainly possible in that it's neither logically nor metaphysically impossible, nor does it contradict what we "know" about aliens (which is very little, so there's a wide-open canvas there). So while I did a good job of capturing what a modern theist might say to your theory, I considered it to be no more "airtight" than your suggestion. Hence the wink.

Might I suggest something for future conversations? If it looks like a comment was intended as a light-hearted response, let's not assume that the wink is some sort of passive-aggressive move. People can argue passionately for a position without losing an awareness of the chance for a light-hearted comment. If we're all going to wear our feelings on our sleeves, this will all get tiresome quickly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[]

How?

To some degree each religion alone has some coherence, but so what?

I am looking at the morality of the religions on our menu.

The mainstream is definitely homophobic and misogynous as well as divisive and trying to keep the various tribes and religions separate.

Gnostic Christianity is not homophobic and misogynous nor are we divisive. As a Universalist religion we cannot discriminate without a just cause and condemn all blanket discriminations as those used by the mainstream religions.

Regards
DL[/quote]

"WE"? Is that your religion of choice this week?[/quote]

I have not changed in years.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: I am looking at the morality of the religions on our menu.

The mainstream is definitely homophobic and misogynous as well as divisive and trying to keep the various tribes and religions separate.

DL

There's Gnostics, and there are non-Gnostics; that is divisive.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: I am looking at the morality of the religions on our menu.

The mainstream is definitely homophobic and misogynous as well as divisive and trying to keep the various tribes and religions separate.

DL

There's Gnostics, and there are non-Gnostics; that is divisive.

All who are not Gnostic Christians. There are a couple of non-mainstream religions that are also Universalist but most are divisive.

Vatican II did try to bring Islam and Christianity closer but that fizzled out quickly.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: I am looking at the morality of the religions on our menu.

The mainstream is definitely homophobic and misogynous as well as divisive and trying to keep the various tribes and religions separate.

DL

There's Gnostics, and there are non-Gnostics; that is divisive.

All who are not Gnostic Christians.

.... is not a sentence. and the rest you typed is meaningless.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[

There's Gnostics, and there are non-Gnostics; that is divisive.

All who are not Gnostic Christians. [/quote]

.... is not a sentence. and the rest you typed is meaningless.[/quote]

I agree. For the first part. I must have been tired.

The rest is a coherent thought though.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[

There's Gnostics, and there are non-Gnostics; that is divisive.

All who are not Gnostic Christians.

.... is not a sentence. and the rest you typed is meaningless.[/quote]

I agree. For the first part. I must have been tired.

The rest is a coherent thought though.

Regards
DL[/quote]

It does not answer my point. It does not even address it.