RE: Is this a true Christian?
February 20, 2012 at 6:41 am
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2012 at 7:00 am by Aardverk.)
You may find the preview button helpful renew.
I was only agreeing with you renew! I have never defined courage but it has been defined two or three times in this thread.
I entirely disagree with you that ‘a little madness does not hurt anyone’. A 'little madness' may very easily get someone killed. There is 'courage', 'false courage' and 'madness'. For hundreds of years soldiers were given alcohol to give them the 'false courage' to go into battle. One step back from madness - and it got them killed.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by ‘referencing reason with thoughts that can be debated’! Would you like to expand on that or shall I just ignore it?
As you clearly stand by your belief that we should be unfair to fools and villains AND you deny the ability to ‘reason’ to anyone with whom you disagree, I will draw the obvious conclusion. The assumption made in my last post appears to be wrong.
No, renew. I have said nothing remotely like that. This is another example of you making up words. It’s that vivid imagination of your working over-time again!
What on earth does that mean? It could be a profound statement for all I know but I need a little context before I can even try to understand it.
The word you are seeking is ‘beliefs’. The oaf was standing up for HIS ‘beliefs’ in exactly the same way that the suffragettes stood up for THEIR ‘beliefs’. The fact that some of us disagree with his ‘beliefs’ is exactly the same as the fact that many people disagree(d) with the suffragettes ‘beliefs’. All people have a right to their ‘beliefs’ – there is after all nothing we can do about them except try to educate them (he was trying to educate you). In civilised countries all people also have a right to free speech except where that speech constitutes a crime. Fortunately YOU have no right to deny the oaf his freedom of speech. Equally fortunate is the fact that HE has no right to deny you and me freedom of speech. Are you really going to disagree even with that basic freedom? Take care now!
IF I had put a comma after, suffrage, my sentence would have meant that I believe in equality for everyone with an IQ over 99. There is however no comma, from which you should have realised that my quip about an IQ over 99 only applies to the universal suffrage. I have made it abundantly clear throughout this thread that I believe in fairness for all including fools and villains. That is, as near as damn it, equality for all. (I hesitate to say so, because it may confuse you, but I do actually believe that 'equality' can be conditional. That really is a different subject worthy of in depth consideration. I only say it now as we are in danger of changing from 'fairness' to 'equality' and you may think up an example where 'equality' should rightly be forfeited. Please note that whilst 'equality' and 'fairness' are similar, they are not the same thing.)
‘Universal suffrage for everyone with an IQ over 99’ was a light hearted quip and possibly in poor taste. I apologise for making it as it has obviously confused you. I’m sure those with an IQ over 99 will understand the quip but this is not really the place for a serious discussion on that subject. I apologise again; perhaps it can be a subject for a new thread.
As for the oaf’s IQ, neither of us have sufficient information to make a realistic assessment and I certainly said nothing which can have been read to imply that he has an IQ over 99. On the contrary, I said earlier in this thread, ‘he is a red-neck who has probably never had an original thought in his life’. That does rather imply a lower than average IQ – so on this small matter we are probably in full agreement.
I note that you have STILL not even tried to justify your beliefs that we should be unfair to villains and fools. Do you have doubts about that belief now?
"Bigot: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."
If the cap fits.........
(February 19, 2012 at 9:19 am)renew Wrote: Your reasoning does not define courage. You are referencing reason with thoughts, which can be debated. A little madness doesn't hurt anyone, as long as it is used in moderation.
I was only agreeing with you renew! I have never defined courage but it has been defined two or three times in this thread.
I entirely disagree with you that ‘a little madness does not hurt anyone’. A 'little madness' may very easily get someone killed. There is 'courage', 'false courage' and 'madness'. For hundreds of years soldiers were given alcohol to give them the 'false courage' to go into battle. One step back from madness - and it got them killed.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by ‘referencing reason with thoughts that can be debated’! Would you like to expand on that or shall I just ignore it?
As you clearly stand by your belief that we should be unfair to fools and villains AND you deny the ability to ‘reason’ to anyone with whom you disagree, I will draw the obvious conclusion. The assumption made in my last post appears to be wrong.
Quote:Well, then the ones that have been placed under physcological care and stand up on chairs and start rambling on about have great their aunt marys chocolate cake is, have courage by your understanding.
No, renew. I have said nothing remotely like that. This is another example of you making up words. It’s that vivid imagination of your working over-time again!
Quote:For you to define by universal terms then all terms apply.
What on earth does that mean? It could be a profound statement for all I know but I need a little context before I can even try to understand it.
Quote: Let's compare: Women standing up for equal rights vs. this man standing up for _____(you are going to have to fill the blank in due you seem to understand what he was standing up for) That is if you would like to keep it in universal thought.
The word you are seeking is ‘beliefs’. The oaf was standing up for HIS ‘beliefs’ in exactly the same way that the suffragettes stood up for THEIR ‘beliefs’. The fact that some of us disagree with his ‘beliefs’ is exactly the same as the fact that many people disagree(d) with the suffragettes ‘beliefs’. All people have a right to their ‘beliefs’ – there is after all nothing we can do about them except try to educate them (he was trying to educate you). In civilised countries all people also have a right to free speech except where that speech constitutes a crime. Fortunately YOU have no right to deny the oaf his freedom of speech. Equally fortunate is the fact that HE has no right to deny you and me freedom of speech. Are you really going to disagree even with that basic freedom? Take care now!
Quote: So you are giving this man an IQ over 99, interesting. I would have chosen a bit lower on the scale.
IF I had put a comma after, suffrage, my sentence would have meant that I believe in equality for everyone with an IQ over 99. There is however no comma, from which you should have realised that my quip about an IQ over 99 only applies to the universal suffrage. I have made it abundantly clear throughout this thread that I believe in fairness for all including fools and villains. That is, as near as damn it, equality for all. (I hesitate to say so, because it may confuse you, but I do actually believe that 'equality' can be conditional. That really is a different subject worthy of in depth consideration. I only say it now as we are in danger of changing from 'fairness' to 'equality' and you may think up an example where 'equality' should rightly be forfeited. Please note that whilst 'equality' and 'fairness' are similar, they are not the same thing.)
‘Universal suffrage for everyone with an IQ over 99’ was a light hearted quip and possibly in poor taste. I apologise for making it as it has obviously confused you. I’m sure those with an IQ over 99 will understand the quip but this is not really the place for a serious discussion on that subject. I apologise again; perhaps it can be a subject for a new thread.
As for the oaf’s IQ, neither of us have sufficient information to make a realistic assessment and I certainly said nothing which can have been read to imply that he has an IQ over 99. On the contrary, I said earlier in this thread, ‘he is a red-neck who has probably never had an original thought in his life’. That does rather imply a lower than average IQ – so on this small matter we are probably in full agreement.
I note that you have STILL not even tried to justify your beliefs that we should be unfair to villains and fools. Do you have doubts about that belief now?
"Bigot: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."
If the cap fits.........
