You said "rational interpretation", which to me sounds like a modern interpretation, given that rationality is a rather modern thing (and if you disagree then please look to the witch hunts, alchemy, etc of the past).
Fine, if you want me to remove the "and" then I will. "Breaking the rules; being insulting to people for no reason". I am not judging your reason, I am judging the fact that when someone keeps on disagreeing with you, you either start insulting them, avoiding the point/question, or attempt to play the victim. Neither of these are honourable in any way, shape, or form.
To say that chatpilot was insulting you is just plain ridiculous. He told you to go out and read some more, he didn't tell you to go and fuck a donkey. Actually, I suppose for a theist, going out and actually learning about something might be interpreted as an insult...I do apologise!
I think your statement "my years of study outnumber his" is a baseless assertion. He never claimed to have more years of study than you, so why do you feel it necessary to say that you supposedly do. You are meant to be refuting his points, not claiming they are "rubbish" and "groundless" without actually giving evidence you know.
Fine, if you want me to remove the "and" then I will. "Breaking the rules; being insulting to people for no reason". I am not judging your reason, I am judging the fact that when someone keeps on disagreeing with you, you either start insulting them, avoiding the point/question, or attempt to play the victim. Neither of these are honourable in any way, shape, or form.
To say that chatpilot was insulting you is just plain ridiculous. He told you to go out and read some more, he didn't tell you to go and fuck a donkey. Actually, I suppose for a theist, going out and actually learning about something might be interpreted as an insult...I do apologise!
I think your statement "my years of study outnumber his" is a baseless assertion. He never claimed to have more years of study than you, so why do you feel it necessary to say that you supposedly do. You are meant to be refuting his points, not claiming they are "rubbish" and "groundless" without actually giving evidence you know.
