(June 13, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Eye of God Wrote: The lack of aggression is always useful.

No doubt the aggressor appreciates it.

(June 13, 2014 at 1:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But isn't that the point? For a guideline to be useful it ought to be difficult to "twist it" to imagine a scenario in which the guideline was counterproductive. Especially if that scenario crops up with regularity...like idiots do. Eh? The lack of aggression is most definitely not always useful either, hooah. In fact, when aggression is the best tool for the job it is very effectively used in a swift, decisive, and insurmountable way. Shock and awe. Make em put their heads down and stay down - on a dime. Overwhelming weight of payload, sustained covering fire..etc When you call for artillery, you don't want the guy with the pistol showing up asking where to fire...you want the big guns, aggression.

Again, twisting words. It was implied that I was talking about aggression in your daily life, not in war. Obviously, aggression is useful in battle, but I don't really want to get caught up in these petty word games you seem to like.

And you're wrong about guidelines being useful only if they are unable to be twisted. Anything can be twisted, that doesn't devalue the lesson behind the guideline. The Muslim extremeists regularly twist their religious guidelines, but many of their premises, if taken for what they were originally meant could be very useful in their lives.
I'm not speaking to the validity of their religion, only the fact that your assessment of a "twistable guideline" is dead wrong and quite frankly, simply ridiculous.

(June 13, 2014 at 3:03 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(June 12, 2014 at 12:21 am)Godschild Wrote: You are less than a sniveling little brat, you are the one who ruins most of the arguments that take place here, it was a sad day when you were born. It always has to be your way or it's wrong, moma raised a brat of the grosses kind, I hope she's proud of something less than human. I have more respect for worms and value them more than I would ever value you. I guess you're getting what you wanted all along to ban me well go ahead I couldn't care less, at least I want have to put up with your arrogant self serving snotty nosed cry baby crap.

Godschild

Might be a little over the top, but I have to agree with the bolded part. Exlax accuses everyone else of logical fallacies which he commits on a regular basis himself.

Cite one.

(June 13, 2014 at 3:03 pm)alpha male Wrote: Might be a little over the top, but I have to agree with the bolded part. Exlax accuses everyone else of logical fallacies which he commits on a regular basis himself.

If I wanted to get involved in this lovely pissing contest, I'd point out that the above is a stunning example of the fallacy tu quoque, but I don't, so I won't.

Could have swore I posted a long, well worded explanation of the same in this thread Cthulu...it was one of my better posts..no mean jabs at anyone or anything...ah well, into the great mysteries


Anything can be twisted, but the robustness of a guideline - or any claim really- is, in my opinion, it's resilience to those efforts. Try, for example, to twist the germ theory of disease, and all that it implies about our health and cleanliness. Not easy, is it, because it's a robust claim which then generates robust guidelines. Your bible derived claims thusfar seem vapid in comparison. "Godly advice", or "spiritually inspired advice"..or just "advice of the religious fringe" is trumped by single celled organisms. How's that for ridiculous?

But since we're talking religion, and you brought up muslims -twisting- the faith...it;s an even bigger can of worms. Maybe the extremists have it right. Did that ever occur to you? That theirs is the accurate pov...everyone else's is twisted. Tell you this, the extremists are definitely more committed to their pov.....

(June 13, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Could have swore I posted a long, well worded explanation of the same in this thread Cthulu...it was one of my better posts..no mean jabs at anyone or anything...ah well, into the great mysteries


Anything can be twisted, but the robustness of a guideline - or any claim really- is, in my opinion, it's resilience to those efforts. Try, for example, to twist the germ theory of disease, and all that it implies about our health and cleanliness. Not easy, is it, because it's a robust claim which then generates robust guidelines. Your bible derived claims thusfar seem vapid in comparison. "Godly advice", or "spiritually inspired advice"..or just "advice of the religious fringe" is trumped by single celled organisms. How's that for ridiculous?

How's that for ridiculous??? Even more absurd. You're comparing scientific law to religious guidelines? You're not anywhere near as bright as I thought. A law is a law is a law. A guideline by nature is something that is stable but pliable. It's a rule of thumb, not an established law. Comparing the two as the same just makes you look stupid.

Quote:But since we're talking religion, and you brought up muslims -twisting- the faith...it;s an even bigger can of worms. Maybe the extremists have it right. Did that ever occur to you? That theirs is the accurate pov...everyone else's is twisted. Tell you this, the extremists are definitely more committed to their pov.....

Please. It's not a can of worms at all. That's not twisting a guideline, this is an argument of interpretation and you are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about interpretation. Try staying on point. I also have no interest in debating the right and wrong of a false religion.

(June 13, 2014 at 4:28 pm)Eye of God Wrote: How's that for ridiculous??? Even more absurd. You're comparing scientific law to religious guidelines? You're not anywhere near as bright as I thought. A law is a law is a law.

Sure, so long as we say it's a law, i suppose...but what has this got to do with anything that follows?

Quote: A guideline by nature is something that is stable but pliable. It's a rule of thumb, not an established law. Comparing the two as the same just makes you look stupid.

Where were they compared? I didn't realize I was comparing law to nature...I was comparing two different guidelines for life..generated by divergent means. I came up with at least 2 examples of twisting your guideline idiotically..and obviously. But I didn't have to make it so amusing. I could have been dry, like this....

A guideline for life that advocates the avoidance of conflict resolution in favor of complicity in an effort to increase the quality of life is horseshit - and we know this to be demonstrably true- "it's just that simple".

Now, You could do me a favor and twist the guidelines we have based on germ theory just one time. Because right now its Rhythm and Germs 2, Godmen zilch. That's how this works. We state our claims, we give examples of our claims. We compare each others claims. It takes two to play the game...and I'm standing on an empty field holding the ball out for you.

Quote:Please. It's not a can of worms at all. That's not twisting a guideline, this is an argument of interpretation and you are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about interpretation. Try staying on point. I also have no interest in debating the right and wrong of a false religion.

It's such a can you'd just rather not eh? To tell the truth, I don't like debating the right and wrongs of false religions either..but I have no choice in that matter...as those are the only type on offer. I follow your points. I respond to whatever you (my fellow poster) wish to discuss. I have a long history of doing exactly this, some might even call it drilling a point - no matter how aggravating. Did I drag out a muslim boogeyman? No, I did not. Who was that then?

If I hadn't been away so long I'd feel insulted.

(June 13, 2014 at 4:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 13, 2014 at 4:28 pm)Eye of God Wrote: How's that for ridiculous??? Even more absurd. You're comparing scientific law to religious guidelines? You're not anywhere near as bright as I thought. A law is a law is a law.

Sure, so long as we say it's a law, i suppose...but what has this got to do with anything that follows?

Quote: A guideline by nature is something that is stable but pliable. It's a rule of thumb, not an established law. Comparing the two as the same just makes you look stupid.

Where were they compared? I didn't realize I was comparing law to nature...I was comparing two different guidelines for life..generated by divergent means. I came up with at least 2 examples of twisting your guideline idiotically..and obviously. But I didn't have to make it so amusing. I could have been dry, like this....

A guideline for life that advocates the avoidance of conflict resolution in favor of complicity in an effort to increase the quality of life is horseshit - and we know this to be demonstrably true- "it's just that simple".

Now, You could do me a favor and twist the guidelines we have based on germ theory just one time. Because right now its Rhythm and Germs 2, Godmen zilch. That's how this works. We state our claims, we give examples of our claims. We compare each others claims. It takes two to play the game...and I'm standing on an empty field holding the ball out for you.

No you're not. You're standing on a field claiming points for throwing the ball wherever you want. You compared a religious guideline to proven scientific law about germs and then claimed that the latter cant be "twisted" because they're "the same." It's a bogus comparison and I called you on it. Paint it any way you want. You're wrong.

Quote:Please. It's not a can of worms at all. That's not twisting a guideline, this is an argument of interpretation and you are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about interpretation. Try staying on point. I also have no interest in debating the right and wrong of a false religion.

It's such a can you'd just rather not eh? To tell the truth, I don't like debating the right and wrongs of false religions either..but I have no choice in that matter...as those are the only type on offer. I follow your points. I respond to whatever you (my fellow poster) wish to discuss. I have a long history of doing exactly this, some might even call it drilling a point - no matter how aggravating. Did I drag out a muslim boogeyman? No, I did not. Who was that then?

If I hadn't been away so long I'd feel insulted.
[/quote]

I'm unconcerned with the way you feel. I've been insulted since I arrived.

(June 13, 2014 at 5:09 pm)Eye of God Wrote: No you're not. You're standing on a field claiming points for throwing the ball wherever you want. You compared a religious guideline to proven scientific law about germs and then claimed that the latter cant be "twisted" because they're "the same." It's a bogus comparison and I called you on it. Paint it any way you want. You're wrong.

The health guidelines we have are not scientific law, they are based upon it. We used a tool to help demonstrate the veracity of such guidelines. Is there no such tool by which the value of religious guidelines can be measured? I think I've explained this very well, and I'm not sure why you have these ideas about general health guidelines being natural law. But if it;s still unclear..I'll keep trying...just to stay on point. You clearly have internalized this information yourself, and did not need me to bring it up for you..but you may be surprised to find it floating around in there. Go and reread your own response, top two boxes.....

Quote:I'm unconcerned with the way you feel. I've been insulted since I arrived.

Wheres all that concern for me and my soul, lol. Honestly man, you don't like my delivery and that's okay. Some people like Richard Pryor and some like Steve Martin. The real crux here is that I have presented you with a counterclaim, a criticism of your claim, a means of demonstrating my claim both false..and examples of it's being true. In response, you have been whining at me.......

Quote:  I've been insulted since I arrived. 

Have you? Only by amateurs. Christians do the best insults.

Eye of God, you are less than a sniveling little brat, you are the one who ruins most of the arguments that take place here, it was a sad day when you were born. It always has to be your way or it's wrong, moma raised a brat of the grosses kind, I hope she's proud of something less than human. I have more respect for worms and value them more than I would ever value you. I guess you're getting what you wanted all along to ban me well go ahead I couldn't care less, at least I want have to put up with your arrogant self serving snotty nosed cry baby crap.

There, now you've had a Christian grade insult, rather than a weak, lily livered atheist one. But it's apparently cool with God that I talk to you that way .

That felt good! Oddly, when I was a Christian, I never dropped that level of spite on anyone, didn't think it was very loving. If I'd known I could get away with that...