Is this a true Christian?

[Aardverk]

I think your own words have done a splendid job of characterising you as as shallow fool.

Come now padraic, you seem to be an intelligent person; I have enjoyed some of your other posts. Tell me which of my words characterise me as a shallow fool? Don't get confused by twisted versions of my words.

Coming from you,calling others idiots is the acme of irony.

So you, and others, can call me a fool and an idiot as much as you like but I am not allowed to respond in kind? I must have missed that rule.

Don't you find it odd, telling perhaps, that people are quite happy to make childish insults but they are NOT prepared to actually address the issue? I find it difficult to conclude anything other than - they are incapable of addressing the issue. Please prove me wrong.

Let me make it clear for you...... Epi raised the subject of Hitler. After condemning Hitler very clearly, I said that I admired the good things he had done. I see nothing wrong in that. I then suffered several half baked twisted versions of what I said. I gave other examples which were also twisted out of recognition; I can see nothing wrong with those either. No one has yet to point out any error in those examples nor have they given any reason why you should not admire the good aspects of a fool or a villain.

IF you can explain why I should NOT admire the good things that people do IF they have also done bad things, maybe I will understand why you can not bring yourself to admire the good things that bad or foolish people do (For clarity, I believe that bravery is a quality). Do you never praise your children just because they did some bad things?

I will say it again, because it is important to me, even if not to anyone else - I believe in fairness to all, even fools and villains. Rather that dishing out insults, just explain to me what is wrong with that principle which is at the heart of every civilised justice system.

---

No-one's run off, Aard: You have shown your face just fine-both cheeks of it. You can't handle that some of us find fault with your admiration scale, then you suggest you are more logical after contradicting yourself regarding your choice of verbiage and using the fallacy of appeal to authority, both of which I pointed out to you. Kichi and Pad are trying to help you see the way you have painted yourself.

Good to see you back Epi. Rather than continuing to twist my words and avoid the issue, let me see you explain why I should not admire the good aspects of a fool's or a villain's character. I am genuinely interested to see if you can make any case at all.

I just had a quick look back to see where you started going wrong. There are several places but the most telling is in your post #14 where you switch from me saying I admire bravery and courage - you then wrongly and misleadingly start saying that I admire convictions and you clearly imply that I admire Hitler's convictions. From then onwards you were completely lost and probably didn't even know you were misquoting me. You also made some bizarre comments about Hitler pushing advances solely for the purposes of mass killing - or something along those lines. I'm afraid that shows a pretty big gap in your knowledge of what was going on in Germany. I will explain it if you wish but be assured, Hitler achieved some remarkable, admirable things. That was why the Third Reich attracted so much American investment. I was not seeking a false appeal to authority, I assumed I was simply reminding you what was going on but it is now perfectly obvious that you didn't have a clue what was going on.

Go and read your post #14 again and then answer the question - if you dare.

---

Oh so sorry Verk, I thought you were intelligent.

I was mistaken...on to ignore with you

Insults are easy Kich. Sad to see you give up on trying to provide a logical answer too. See above!

[Epimethean]

Aard, you seem to love to point out how people have gotten you wrong and been lost, and yet, many of us have arrived at the same conclusion, which is that you are an insecure little prick.

You openly stated that you admired assholes for their convictions, and that we should, too. Then, when the subject of Hitler was raised, you went off the deep end praising the man for the good things he did and asking if that was not a good way to look at him, rather than exclusively negatively. When it was pointed out that Hitler himself did nothing good because he was a completely bad egg, you defended him even as you sidestepped and "condemned" him.

Here's a little line you sent out to all of us, who then proceeded to get you so wrong and to stumble over your massive logic:

"I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions."

This was the beginning of your jumping hoops. Then you started bouncing all around, from admiring the people for their convictions, to admiring what they did, to the net effect of what they did, to any fucking thing at all to keep from being pinned down as having made a foolish statement.

Let us get this clearly, master of logic: You have been all over the place on this, but the core kernel of your argument has been that, if someone believes in what he or she does fully, that person is admirable. It is a very simple point, although you have danced all around on it to try to make it stick. It doesn't.

The fact that you have been insulting people by suggesting they are less intelligent or logical than you, all while demonstrating thinking errors yourself has shown you to be an inconsiderate ass, but then, you revealed that early on in this thread.

[Aardverk]

You openly stated that you admired assholes for their convictions, and that we should, too.

Here you go again inserting your own words and mocking me for your words. Try to be honest for once. I was VERY clearly admiring the oaf's bravery. No one can read my words in any other way. I said, 'Whilst I do not accept a single thing he was saying (or believing).......he was brave enough to stand up and shout about it. You've got to admire him for that but at the same time you've got to laugh in his face.'.... You completely ignored the qualifiers and only quoted the bit that you thought you could twist. You only quoted, 'You've got to admire him for that' to which you replied, 'No I don't any more than I would have had to admire Hitler'. You deliberately of carelessly ignored what I had actually said. My response to you was that, 'I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions' which was very clearly relating to the oaf in the video. It is all there in black and white - just go back and read it.

Following that I responded to your comment about Hitler.

Then, when the subject of Hitler was raised, you went off the deep end praising the man for the good things he did and asking if that was not a good way to look at him, rather than exclusively negatively.

'went of the deep end'? Perhaps you don't know what good things he achieved. I feel that my praise was well balanced by my two clear condemnations of Hitler. If you can't take in a whole paragraph, I suppose it is not surprising that you get confused.

When it was pointed out that Hitler himself did nothing good because he was a completely bad egg, you defended him even as you sidestepped and "condemned" him.

I very clearly condemned him twice in my very first resonse to you. Not a 'sidestep' but a very deliberate part of my wording intended to make it clear to everyone who read them that I was not praising Hitler, I was just praising some of his achievements. To deny him any credit for the huge advances in Germany is rather like denying Napolean any credit for his military success. After all, it was all done by other soldiers, not Napolean ( I presume is your logic). What about the boss of NASA, he has never done a thing it was all his underlings and sub-contractors (I presume is your logic). What about every other statesman who has presided over huge advances in their country? Do you deny all of them any credit as well? Name me just one statesman who has had as many advances under their direction or even just their regime. The reason I introduced the subject of investment from American is that the whole world could see Germany catching them up and overtaking them at a vast rate - admirable progress under Adolf. If another country had been doing that, they would have got the American investment. You are either not aware of what happened in Germany or you are scared to acknowledge it now for fear of looking foolish.

Here's a little line you sent out to all of us, who then proceeded to get you so wrong and to stumble over your massive logic:"I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions."

I am not sure what you find strange about that. I do admire people with the courage of their convictions. It is the courage which is being admired, not the conviction. I made that perfectly clear in my words, ''Whilst I do not accept a single thing he was saying (or believing).......he was brave enough to stand up and shout about it. You've got to admire him for that but at the same time you've got to laugh in his face.'.... I don't see how I could have made the distinction any more clear yet you keep trying to put different words in my mouth.

This was the beginning of your jumping hoops. Then you started bouncing all around, from admiring the people for their convictions, to admiring what they did, to the net effect of what they did, to any fucking thing at all to keep from being pinned down as having made a foolish statement.

I have been completely consistent and have answered every question. It is you who has constantly avoided the question of why YOU think we should be unfair to fools and villains. You obviously have no answer that you think will stand scrutiny and are simply trying to avoid the issue by issuing insults instead.

Let us get this clearly, master of logic: You have been all over the place on this, but the core kernel of your argument has been that, if someone believes in what he or she does fully, that person is admirable. It is a very simple point, although you have danced all around on it to try to make it stick. It doesn't.

No, Epi, that is absolutely NOT what I said and you know that very well. Those highlighted words are instead the core of your twisted words. I admire people for their qualities which certainly includes 'courage', not for their convictions I have made that very clear, starting with my very first post in this thread - #11. Would you like me to quote it again? I don't immediately see how ANY convictions can be admirable - they are simply what they are. Perhaps I will start a new thread in the philosophy section asking that question: 'Can convictions be admirable?' Perhaps I should also start one asking: 'Should we be fair to fools and villains?' I am sure you would appreciate an opportunity to shine again.

The fact that you have been insulting people by suggesting they are less intelligent or logical than you, all while demonstrating thinking errors yourself has shown you to be an inconsiderate ass, but then, you revealed that early on in this thread.

I don't recall insulting anyone who has not insulted me first. If I have I apologise to them. I try not to do that. The person who issues the first insult is usually the one who has lost the argument.

Now, are you going to try to address the issue or run away from it?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Tell me which of my words characterise me as a shallow fool? Don't get confused by twisted versions of my words.

You asked:Your basic position is that if a person acts from conviction then they are worthy of respect. THAT is a shallow and simplistic position,which you have tried (unsuccessfully) to justify by special pleading and equivocation.

Nobody has twisted your words,your corkscrew logic does that all by itself.

Well done,you have just joined our group of resident village idiots.You can keep Abra company.He just joined too.

[Epimethean]

Pad has a BINGO there!


Aard, you don't use logic or argumentation consistently enough, and your constant need to "challenge" or "dare" people to respond to your flaccid arguments is not fear inspiring-and you have been addressed. You are not worth any more of my time because, simply put, you are small minded and a simplistic thinker who runs all around an issue with no conviction worth admiring.

Sorry, but you are petty and boring.

This is your main tenet, again:


"I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions."

Followed by, in summary form, because you played ring around the rosies on it:

We should admire people indirectly for the good they caused even if they were in no way good and actually bent on evil.

You can take that rot and keep it. It is silly.

[KichigaiNeko]

You know...my Ignore list is getting alarmingly long.

Sad to say but is it only The Mighty Tack, fr0d0 and G-C who seem to be the only theists who have any coherent thoughts? (being generous with G-C here)

[Epimethean]

Way generous with GC ...

[KichigaiNeko]

yeah I know.

But at least he is consistently batshit

[Justtristo]

I have a deep, profound respect for people like James the pleasant preacher, although not for the views they hold which are frankly disgusting. However they at least make a serious effort to do this biblical command as much as humanly possible.

All scripture is breathed out by god and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16 English Standard Version.

[coffeeveritas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ImdXvFB1...re=related

It's worth watching the entire video before you make your decision.

PS - I came face to face with this guy in Washigton DC at the Godless American's March on washington.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless_Ame...Washington

I wasn't sure if he was serious at first, I thought it was like, atheist performance art or something. I think it was my brain trying to defend me from the harsh reality that people actually believe things like that.