(January 20, 2016 at 7:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 20, 2016 at 7:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: My, that's a strong reaction to me providing an example of an "atheist being backed into a corner" after Evie asked for it.....you kinda proved Drich's point.

Only if you presuppose that your position is the correct one, which I don't. Since I also don't buy Drich's posturing "all them atheists couldn't prove me wrong!" rhetoric, I'm not proving his point in the least. But then, the big weakness that both you and him share is that you both work from the position that what you say is necessarily right, all of the time, so...

Quote:Btw don't act like that's the only example, I'll be more than happy to provide other examples if you'd like.

Like I said before: we're all aware that you hoard these things, all the while refusing to be corrected on any point, as always, for years if necessary, just to get a feeling of self satisfaction whenever you trot them out. From outside of the Huggy echo chamber, where such things can be considered with a smidgen of objectivity, it just appears sad.

My position of Denmark NOT having a secular government IS the correct position, it isn't even up for debate (at least it shouldn't be).

The fact that a church of Denmark exists is all you need to know.

So you make a rule against douchebaggery and all the douchebags show up. IDK, man; they're testing you. 

(January 20, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Drich Wrote: Would it be considered 'disruptive' if a theist 'sought the last word' in an argument or a civil disagreement? vise versa would an Atheist be considered 'disruptive' in a similar situation?

Not even close. I'm talking the human equivalent of a viral attack. Everything I have said about this has been on that point.

And yes, both theists and atheists (no need to capitalise it, btw) are addressed equally.

(January 20, 2016 at 7:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: My position of Denmark NOT having a secular government IS the correct position, it isn't even up for debate (at least it shouldn't be).

Well, who can argue with such cogent debate as "I'm right, and it's not something you're allowed to argue against"?

See, this is sort of the problem I'm talking about: you collect all these little "wins" to trot out whenever you need an ego boost, but who decides that they're wins? Oh, you do? Gee, isn't that what we'd call a conflict of interest? Or just plain bias?

And of course, whenever they come back up, this is as substantive as it gets: just "I'm right, so tough." But of course you're going to come to that conclusion if you've appointed yourself the arbiter, won't consider alternative positions, and won't even consider the possibility of being wrong (and if there's one thing anyone should learn from interacting with you, it's that you never do that.) Nobody else is as obsessively devoted to their own smugness to actually go back and cover the old ground on them except you (and I'm beginning to suspect you've got a little candle-lit shrine to these moments somewhere), nor reopen issues just to challenge the sad delusions of a religious malcontent, and so in your own little fantasy world you get away with it. We're literally all just watching you take victory laps you haven't earned, and the fact that you can't see it is what makes it sad.

Quote:The fact that a church of Denmark exists is all you need to know.

Oh wow, a religious person attempting to hide the complexities and subtleties of an argument in order to shove forward a vague, single-sentence piece of glibness to advance their own position? Shocker.

Incidentally, do you know what happens if I type "Church of America," into google? Or "Church of Australia"? Hmm, I guess the existence of a church of Denmark really isn't, on its own, sufficient reason to accept your position! I'm sorry, I know how it burns you to be wrong.

Also, I'm not sorry.

(January 20, 2016 at 4:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: A: P-K4

T: Q x K WINNNN!!!

A: That's an illegal move. You promised you'd play properly this time.

T: Okay, okay. P-K4.

A: N-KB3

T: Q x everything!

A: No, you can't do that.

T: You don't get to say what the rules are!

A: Ugh.

You get extra points from me for using descriptive notation, instead of that needlesly-complicated-and-impossible-to-visualise algebraic version.

My new special power is the ability to bounce bullets off other peoples' chests.

Anyone want to help me demonstrate?

(January 20, 2016 at 8:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Incidentally, do you know what happens if I type "Church of America," into google? Or "Church of Australia"? Hmm, I guess the existence of a church of Denmark really isn't, on its own, sufficient reason to accept your position! I'm sorry, I know how it burns you to be wrong.

Also, I'm not sorry.

The church of Denmark is what the STATE church of Denmark is called.....

The fact that this STATE sponsored church (The church of Denmark) exists, is all you need to know.... got it?

And you guys refer to me as pedantic.

(January 20, 2016 at 6:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If we truly wanted to do that we already have that power, and we have no need at all to tell you people about it first, either. Hell, religious forums do that all the time. But we don't, and that's not what's happening.

That's the ridiculous thing, isn't it? All Staff have the equivalent of Evil Kirk's Tantalus Device from the Mirror Universe. We can literally ban anyone's account and erase their entire post history from the forum at the press of a single button:



(Image for illustration purposes only. Actual product may differ.)

Why is no-one pissing their panties about that?

Oh right - because they know we don't use it irresponsibly. They know they're not doing anything to warrant it being aimed at them.

Now I'm wondering why we haven't made use of this new rule on anyone even though it's coming up to two weeks since being initially implemented.

Lmao at these paranoid theists.

Looks like they're going to get a lesson in tolerance ... whether they want it or not.

(January 20, 2016 at 10:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Lmao at these paranoid theists.

Looks like they're going to get a lesson in tolerance ... whether they want it or not.

They won't notice it.