MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

I'd like to move to part 3, but I need to know whether the forum God's are going to stretch out their almighty hands and fuck with my post for the simple fact that they don't have anything else to do on here besides watch me and find out ways they can limit my effectiveness, even if it is just by unjustifiably merging my threads just so they can hi-five each other and have themselves a few beers and a good night's sleep.

[Esquilax]

Here:

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Since he says that all I am doing is poisoning the well, he is attempting to pre-empt me with the intention of discrediting and ridiculing.

Couple things: one, if you're saying what I presented was "adverse information," I take it you're admitting that the word choices I bolded were obviously dishonest and would portray you in a bad light if people were reminded of them? Because... they were your words; if you knew they would only reflect poorly on you, why say them at all?

Two, there was nothing "pre-emptive" about what I said, since you'd already presented your case and, in fact, had spoken well before me.

Three, I had no intention of discrediting you, as I actually have no dog in this fight; I have no strong opinions on what you're discussing. I just saw you implying that everyone here (people you don't know at all, I'd hasten to remind you) is simply disagreeing with you because they hate you and your religion, and that the only honest position to take was to agree with you, and I wasn't going to let that slide without pointing it out as dishonest well poisoning. See, I feel no need to discredit your argument, or to ridicule you, I just hate it when people try for these rhetorical ploys rather than just presenting their damn position and the evidence that justifies it. It drives me nuts.

Finally, I didn't say that all that you were doing was poisoning the well, and I simply can't imagine why you would think that; the whole reason I bolded specific phrases was to point out the parts of your post that I felt was poisoning the well. There was plenty more there than what I bolded; as it happens I don't think you presented your case very strongly there at all, but I left it alone specifically because I didn't care about the case, so much as the tactics you were employing in presenting it.

So, to recap: didn't pre-empt you, didn't try to discredit you, and if you think what I highlighted was adverse information then that's more of a problem for you and your argumentation than it is for me.

I'd like to move to part 3, but I need to know whether the forum God's are going to stretch out their almighty hands and fuck with my post for the simple fact that they don't have anything else to do on here besides watch me and find out ways they can limit my effectiveness, even if it is just by unjustifiably merging my threads just so they can hi-five each other and have themselves a few beers and a good night's sleep.

And two things for you, too: One, grow the fuck up. It's not your forum, and we are not your goddamn lackeys; we're here for the forum's benefit, not to cater to your petulant whims. If we don't want you littering the boards with dozens of irrelevant threads on the same topic as your first, then that's something that we get to enforce. We didn't mess with the content of your posts, we didn't negatively affect you in any way, so where exactly do you get off having these passive aggressive tantrums every time you don't get to control absolutely every part of the conversation, front to back?

Secondly, how exactly is putting all of your content in one place for ease of reading "limiting your effectiveness"? Right now you sound like a two year old pouting about having to put away his toys, rather than someone with a legitimate grievance.

[Free]

I'd like to move to part 3, but I need to know whether the forum God's are going to stretch out their almighty hands and fuck with my post for the simple fact that they don't have anything else to do on here besides watch me and find out ways they can limit my effectiveness, even if it is just by unjustifiably merging my threads just so they can hi-five each other and have themselves a few beers and a good night's sleep.

Dude ... I think the merging happens automatically when you make consecutive posts.

[Tonus]

Dude ... I think the merging happens automatically when you make consecutive posts.

He's referring to separate threads he made that were merged to create this one.

[Cyberman]

Tell me where I'm wrong.

The obvious intent was to insult me. He compared me to "any other theist shithead."

That's where you are wrong.

Now you're objecting to an intent to insult, rather than an actual insult.

I'm sure that's what Min had in mind, but I'm not going to convict just on that basis. Maybe you ought to consider why he felt it appropriate to make the comparison.

[Free]

Here:

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Since he says that all I am doing is poisoning the well, he is attempting to pre-empt me with the intention of discrediting and ridiculing.

Couple things: one, if you're saying what I presented was "adverse information," I take it you're admitting that the word choices I bolded were obviously dishonest and would portray you in a bad light if people were reminded of them? Because... they were your words; if you knew they would only reflect poorly on you, why say them at all?

My response was directly to the person who brought up Humprehys position in the first place; Minimalist.

Poisoning the well is something that is done pre-emptively, not after the fact. Since Minimalist brought up, and linked to, the Jesus Never Existed website first, then no accusation of poisoning the well is valid.

My response was directly related to what I previously viewed on the Humphreys website, as opposed to me bringing it up and then pre-empting it's credibility.

I don't think I need to respond to the rest since it would not apply to one who did not poison the well.

[pocaracas]

Oh, joy!! Part 3 is coming!!

Or should we call it part 1.3?
Can't wait...

[Cyberman]

If that is their pre-suppository, subjective experience .. how are you going to argue with a thing like that?

Minor point, but I rather think you meant "pre-suppositional". Whatver the "pre-" prefix means in terms of a suppository, it does leave a peculiar taste in the mouth.

[Free]

The obvious intent was to insult me. He compared me to "any other theist shithead."

That's where you are wrong.

Now you're objecting to an intent to insult, rather than an actual insult.

I'm sure that's what Min had in mind, but I'm not going to convict just on that basis. Maybe you ought to consider why he felt it appropriate to make the comparison.

meh ... doesn't matter. If he wants to think of me a theist shithead, I will help him in that regard. I will place it under my username.

Edit: All done. I am a "Theist Shithead" now.

[The Valkyrie]

Oh, joy!! Part 3 is coming!!

Or should we call it part 1.3?
Can't wait...

Neither.

It will be a "reimaging" of threads one and two.

The story will be the same, as will the claims, but they'll be presented anew as if they're original.

Watch out for the sun flare . . .