Slavery (on Thursdays)

[fr0d0]

Nice,

The funny thing is, I have been called "immoral" many times in this thread but yet it's the "atheist" who having nothing of substance to add... stoops to making a mockery of the disabled.

No, what's really funny is seeing you blame everyone else, while ignoring that you yourself are the common element in all the sniping on this thread.

Your first post on this page.

Sniping as usual.

[Esquilax]

No, what's really funny is seeing you blame everyone else, while ignoring that you yourself are the common element in all the sniping on this thread.

Your first post on this page.

Sniping as usual.

That was my first post on page sixteen of a then-nineteen page thread. Try again.

[fr0d0]

Are you saying that I'm lying about my view of the forum? Seems this is something else you are ignorant of: options for posts per page. Mine is left as default for the mobile site AFAIK.

[Esquilax]

Are you saying that I'm lying about my view of the forum? Seems this is something else you are ignorant of: options for posts per page. Mine is left as default for the mobile site AFAIK.

Gosh yes, it's terribly ignorant of me not to know how you, a person I've never met, has his view of the board configured. I'll have to work on my omniscience, it seems.

In my default, PC view, there's a much more recent, much lengthier post at the top of page nineteen that details the objections I had so far. If your view is so much more expansive, you would have had to pass it, but it's at the top of page nineteen, just sitting there.

[fr0d0]

It'd be too hard for you to quote it and therefore link it of course. Plus if you're on the full site isn't there a post number and permalink? So much fail young padawan!

[Esquilax]

My point is the same as it has always been: no matter the particular words the bible uses, what it describes is a situation in which desperate, penniless people are left with no choice but to enter into a system of slavery or continue in their destitution until they die, that they can be passed on as inheritance- which is something you can only do with property- and that there's no sense in which forcing a person to work for no money while being passed down the family line like that is not immoral. There's so much in the bible that supports that this is the context in which these words are employed, and yet Huggy's response is to harp on individual words in order to twist the meaning of whole sentences.

Not to mention, he's spent an awful lot of time avoiding points that I've made; when I call him on the fact that even as a matter of simple grammar his claim of what the bible says makes no sense (it's "a possession," which doesn't jive with his claim that it means "take possession.") he just skips over it. He tries the usual sloppy apologetic of attempting to talk solely about the seven year Jewish slavery, and when called on the fact that there's more than just that one type he just moves on as if he hadn't just lied. He presents one example of a willing slave and then attempts to push it as a template for all of them, and when I respond with an example of an unwilling slave... nothing.

I responded with insults because I don't think enlarging the text in one of my quotes to score a petty point is really a response, especially when I spelled out in several posts before that what I was actually asking, which has gone ignored. He'd rather do his victory dance over the fact that I used one wrong word, while my actual point remains unanswered.

You want to talk about things being already answered? Aside from pointing out that I incorrectly used the word "noun," where has he answered the question that I actually asked, which is this: can you see no difference between "X person is a possession," and "X person will be taken possession."?

Now just why would I want to make it this easy, Frods?

You and your boy got answers for this?

[fr0d0]

You're arguing with the strict, most accurate translation from the pov of a person with a vested interest in deliberate mistranslation.

Your objections are completely groundless, and huggy nor anyone else owes you a more thorough explanation than that which you have been given already.

[Esquilax]

You're arguing with the strict, most accurate translation from the pov of a person with a vested interest in deliberate mistranslation.

Mistranslation? I'm using the preferred bible of Huggy himself, and it directly states that these people are "a possession." What mistranslation is going on here?

Your objections are completely groundless, and huggy nor anyone else owes you a more thorough explanation than that which you have been given already.

So basically, you've got jack shit, but don't want to admit it. Gotcha.

Huggy's answers were pure sophistry, nothing more.

[ronedee]

You're arguing with the strict, most accurate translation from the pov of a person with a vested interest in deliberate mistranslation.

Your objections are completely groundless, and huggy nor anyone else owes you a more thorough explanation than that which you have been given already.

Just read my quote emblazoned [by him] in his signature.... and it will become very clear what matters to Exlax. And the fruitlessness of any conversations with him.

[Esquilax]

Just read my quote emblazoned [by him] in his signature.... and it will become very clear what matters to Exlax. And the fruitlessness of any conversations with him.

Oh, I just thought that quote was a hilarious, histrionic overreaction...