|
Post by goz on Feb 11, 2019 3:38:56 GMT
That would be in YOUR country if abortion was banned, not mine. YOU started that red herring, abut Australia and universal health care. As pointed out previously we have systems in place to accommodate whatever children are born and the fewer sick and deformed ones the better. I have to wonder why you even give a damn what goes on in my country. Are you planning to move here someday, or what? You don't want citizens to own firearms for defense against criminals, but you're perfectly okay with life being snuffed out while it's still in the womb. 1. Everyone on here uses your country as default, whether international posters like it or not. It sucks butt people think this is an American board. 2. I don't like the snuffing out of any life, except the prior to end of 1st trimester future deformed and/or neglected babies who would be better off not born, which is ahy I am pro choice and not pro abortion. I guess you could say I am pro healthy good life as far as is humanly possible!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 14, 2019 22:44:02 GMT
Best cognitive dissonance post of the week:
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 14, 2019 22:47:04 GMT
Best cognitive dissonance post of the week: Who wrote that post?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 14, 2019 22:58:52 GMT
Best cognitive dissonance post of the week: Who wrote that post? Cool
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 14, 2019 23:27:02 GMT
Best cognitive dissonance post of the week: Who wrote that post? It was me but very much out of context as usual
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 14, 2019 23:31:49 GMT
It was me but very much out of context as usual So you don't stand by those sentiments, as expressed? How could context make any difference? It is a statement of an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 2:24:12 GMT
It was me but very much out of context as usual A statement with no lucid subtext or reasoning. There was no context to be had, only one that projects back at your own distorted logic. What are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 3:07:52 GMT
What are you talking about? We'll explain it then if you can. Your deflection and denial is oh so very transparent cool. 😶 Deny what? All you have to do is go to where goz pulled the quote where you can then say something loony with the full statement.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 5:17:53 GMT
Deny what? All you have to do is go to where goz pulled the quote where you can then say something loony with the full statement. It wouldn't make any difference. I am not the one with the loony deluded beliefs. Why are you so prideful cool when you get called out on your thought process? It only endorses how wrongheaded you can be. Well, that quote was not calling me out on my thought process or beliefs but this is too hilarious to let you stop talking about it. I can only hope and pray that you continue and must once again thank Goz for including me in this idiotic thread!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 11:38:01 GMT
Well, that quote was not calling me out on my thought process or beliefs but this is too hilarious to let you stop talking about it. I can only hope and pray that you continue and must once again thank Goz for including me in this idiotic thread! You were included because of your idiotic statement, which you are still in denial about. Again, what am I denying?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2019 16:32:07 GMT
You were included because of your idiotic statement, which you are still in denial about. Again, what am I denying? At the moment you are denying the casual reader a context for the words you say are misrepresented.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 17:02:57 GMT
Again, what am I denying? At the moment you are denying the casual reader a context for the words you say are misrepresented. Giz is the one missing context. This is a quote thread and she decides what context to place. Really she could just completely make up a statement if she so chose. Admittedly I could waste time defending myself, something that most certainly wouldn’t work with Cheesy, but I get more enjoyment out of the thread seeing people desperate to believe their biases.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 15, 2019 17:11:38 GMT
Again, what am I denying? At the moment you are denying the casual reader a context for the words you say are misrepresented. Let's take care of the context right now (from the thread, "Religion Should Help People With Their Lives"):
Feb 13, 2019 15:27:30 GMT -5 Isapop said:
Religions tell people that GOD has a plan to make them happy. Making you happy is the goal of God, not of religion. But you have to make God happy first. The leaders of religions see it as their goal and responsibility to tell you what behavior will make God happy, so that he will in turn make you happy later. Some of these rules might make people unhappy.* The leaders can't help that. Their goal is not concerned with making you happy. Their goal is to tell you what makes God happy. ("And you should train yourself to derive happiness from the thought of making God happy.")
*Examples: You must not eat pork. You must not use condoms, or other birth control. You must not use some medical procedure, even to save the life of your child.
And here is Cool's reply (I bolded the statement at issue):
Making God happy is not a high bar to pass, but the benefits from it can be immense.
If a religion is basing it's tenets on making God happy (Although I am applying this to any religion. Even Satanism will promote the good things it provides for its members), then it automatically sets up ways that the membership is happy too.
Religion presents matters in ways that provide happiness for its followers.
"You can't eat pork, but there is far more variety in food options than to eat an unclean diseased animal." "The basic purpose of sex is procreation, so enjoy sex for the pleasurable experience it is in marriage and look forward to the joys of parenthood" "Thanks to medical advancements pushed by JW's and Jews, there is rarely a need for blood transfusions which conflicts with God's view of blood and it spares you the risk associated with transfusions"
Everything has a reason and few if any of them involve a focus on suffering, but on the basis of how happiness is derived regardless of the rule.
Of course, the argument also assumes perfection in following the religion which I never understood why anyone thinks is an expectation. So Jews and Muslims will eat bacon if they feel like it, Catholics will have birth control if they;re hiorny but don;t want kids, and scared JW parents can give their kid a blood transfusion (Although the court will force one on a kid anyway. The only issue is if the baptized kid themselves has a right to choose).
Each decision they make contrary to their religion's view could have an affect on their happiness, naturally, but that is a different topic.
It's all about perspective. Ones within an organization will realize th happiness derived from it while ones on the outside will focus on the lack of freedoms they think everyone should have. The blessing vs. the malediction...
End of Cool's reply. So there it is in context. A religious rule that I said would make people unhappy is somehow presented by the religion in a way to "provide happiness for its followers". (Happiness in that having to follow the rule probably won't come up? If anything, the context might make his statement worse, not better. Look at how he deals with a religious rule against using birth control.)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2019 17:25:42 GMT
At the moment you are denying the casual reader a context for the words you say are misrepresented. Giz is the one missing context. This is a quote thread and she decides what context to place. Really she could just completely make up a statement if she so chose. Admittedly I could waste time defending myself, something that most certainly wouldn’t work with Cheesy, but I get more enjoyment out of the thread seeing people desperate to believe their biases. Whatever you say. Personally I think a firm self defence, when honestly based, is never time wasted while not offering one just looks weak.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 17:35:25 GMT
At the moment you are denying the casual reader a context for the words you say are misrepresented. Let's take care of the context right now (from the thread, "Religion Should Help People With Their Lives"):
Feb 13, 2019 15:27:30 GMT -5 Isapop said:
Religions tell people that GOD has a plan to make them happy. Making you happy is the goal of God, not of religion. But you have to make God happy first. The leaders of religions see it as their goal and responsibility to tell you what behavior will make God happy, so that he will in turn make you happy later. Some of these rules might make people unhappy.* The leaders can't help that. Their goal is not concerned with making you happy. Their goal is to tell you what makes God happy. ("And you should train yourself to derive happiness from the thought of making God happy.")
*Examples: You must not eat pork. You must not use condoms, or other birth control. You must not use some medical procedure, even to save the life of your child.
And here is Cool's reply (I bolded the statement at issue):
Making God happy is not a high bar to pass, but the benefits from it can be immense.
If a religion is basing it's tenets on making God happy (Although I am applying this to any religion. Even Satanism will promote the good things it provides for its members), then it automatically sets up ways that the membership is happy too.
Religion presents matters in ways that provide happiness for its followers.
"You can't eat pork, but there is far more variety in food options than to eat an unclean diseased animal." "The basic purpose of sex is procreation, so enjoy sex for the pleasurable experience it is in marriage and look forward to the joys of parenthood" "Thanks to medical advancements pushed by JW's and Jews, there is rarely a need for blood transfusions which conflicts with God's view of blood and it spares you the risk associated with transfusions"
Everything has a reason and few if any of them involve a focus on suffering, but on the basis of how happiness is derived regardless of the rule.
Of course, the argument also assumes perfection in following the religion which I never understood why anyone thinks is an expectation. So Jews and Muslims will eat bacon if they feel like it, Catholics will have birth control if they;re hiorny but don;t want kids, and scared JW parents can give their kid a blood transfusion (Although the court will force one on a kid anyway. The only issue is if the baptized kid themselves has a right to choose).
Each decision they make contrary to their religion's view could have an affect on their happiness, naturally, but that is a different topic.
It's all about perspective. Ones within an organization will realize th happiness derived from it while ones on the outside will focus on the lack of freedoms they think everyone should have. The blessing vs. the malediction...
End of Cool's reply. So there it is in context. A religious rule that I said would make people unhappy is somehow presented by the religion in a way to "provide happiness for its followers". (Happiness in that having to follow the rule probably won't come up? If anything, the context might make his statement worse, not better. Look at how he deals with a religious rule against using birth control.)
spoilsport. However my goal was never about my statements looking good to you it was about the ridiculous notion you hold that religion is not there to make the follower happy which is completely and totally wrong . Now enough about you and back to this thread, I just found the notion of goz mentioning cognitive dissonance in a piece of quote was hilarious and toasty picky up from there and then ff going fin there just made me so happy I chose my user picture.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 17:40:32 GMT
Giz is the one missing context. This is a quote thread and she decides what context to place. Really she could just completely make up a statement if she so chose. Admittedly I could waste time defending myself, something that most certainly wouldn’t work with Cheesy, but I get more enjoyment out of the thread seeing people desperate to believe their biases. Whatever you say. Personally I think a firm self defence, when honestly based, is never time wasted while not offering one just looks weak. Thats because you may find it interesting to repeatedly defend yourself over things that have no basis. Again it’s more fun to listen to people’s assumptions. It would be different if something in my actual life depended on it , but the notion of defending my self to the likes of goz is bonkers to me.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2019 17:55:09 GMT
Whatever you say. Personally I think a firm self defence, when honestly based, is never time wasted while not offering one just looks weak. Thats because you may find it interesting to repeatedly defend yourself over things that have no basis. The fact that some thing has no basis is all the more reason to defend oneself against it, I would have thought. And again, finding extended justification not to defend oneself instead of just doing it to me looks weak.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 18:19:41 GMT
Thats because you may find it interesting to repeatedly defend yourself over things that have no basis. The fact that some thing has no basis is all the more reason to defend oneself against it, I would have thought. And again, finding extended justification not to defend oneself instead of just doing it to me looks weak. yes under normal circumstances defending oneself from things that have no basis should progress the argument. When it doesn’t then it’s a waste of time unless harm is caused. This place is harmless. I’m ok with looking weak since that’s just an extension of a unsupported bias. It’s akin to saying only people who fight are brave which is something a lot of people ascribe to just not me. I’m pretty confident I’ve stuck to my views against ones who disagree with me enough to know weakness and cowardice shouldn’t have any reason to be mixed up with boredom and hatred of endless circular arguments. There is a sufficient paper trail on this board to get my views on matters if one is interested. If they aren’t interested they will never reference them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2019 18:27:32 GMT
The fact that some thing has no basis is all the more reason to defend oneself against it, I would have thought. And again, finding extended justification not to defend oneself instead of just doing it to me looks weak. yes under normal circumstances defending oneself from things that have no basis should progress the argument. When it doesn’t then it’s a waste of time unless harm is caused. This place is harmless. I’m ok with looking weak since that’s just an extension of a unsupported bias. It’s akin to saying only people who fight are brave which is something a lot of people ascribe to just not me. I’m pretty confident I’ve stuck to my views against ones who disagree with me enough to know weakness and cowardice shouldn’t have any reason to be mixed up with boredom and hatred of endless circular arguments. There is a sufficient paper trail on this board to get my views on matters if one is interested. If they aren’t interested they will never reference them anyway. Your logic is interesting. Now you are defending yourself not defending yourself lol
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 15, 2019 19:04:29 GMT
At the moment you are denying the casual reader a context for the words you say are misrepresented. Let's take care of the context right now (from the thread, "Religion Should Help People With Their Lives"):
"Thanks to medical advancements pushed by JW's and Jews, there is rarely a need for blood transfusions which conflicts with God's view of blood and it spares you the risk associated with transfusions"
End of Cool's reply. So there it is in context. A religious rule that I said would make people unhappy is somehow presented by the religion in a way to "provide happiness for its followers". (Happiness in that having to follow the rule probably won't come up? If anything, the context might make his statement worse, not better. Look at how he deals with a religious rule against using birth control.)
Well... Not for nothing... but: People can be happy knowing that they held to their principles even when following those principle leads to some hardship or death. You might not understand why a person would rather die in a Nazi camp than renounce his faith. You might not understand a person dying because they don't want a medical procedure that they believe goes against God's principles. But.. They do. They might die.... but, they die happy. Isn't that the best we all hope for?
|
|