|
Post by Admin on Feb 6, 2024 22:19:41 GMT
when there's only one option, there is no decision to be made. Well, duh. Oh, it's much too late for that. 14 pages too late, to be precise. Apparently you don't know what that means, either. You summarily dismissed scripture on page one, then tried several times to use it as support for your arguments. You just answered your own question, but let's pretend nobody else did, let alone repeatedly. Force is not persuasion. Is this where I'm supposed to repeat myself again so you can tell me to stop repeating myself? Pass. Don't presume to speak for me or my intentions. When you both acknowledge and deny the same thing, you're being dishonest. Fact. Even if it was intended to be insulting, it wasn't to dismiss or discredit your argument. Sometimes an insult is just an insult. An ad hominem, however, is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument, and it doesn't even have to be insulting. With that said: Which makes it not an ad hominem. This QED is all mine. LOL indeed. You just sabotaged your own argument, genius. This entire thread, you've been going on about "informed decisions," but when given the opportunity, you shrug it off with some childish retort. Thanks for the chat.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 8, 2024 16:47:22 GMT
Admin I noted it was going to be long... Pussycat above is definitely delaying. I'm flattered that you eagerly await my replies. Inbetween times, why not just catch up on your reading? There's plenty to be had in the bathroom. I noted it was going to be long... Pussycat above is definitely delaying. Addition : cc Typical manipulation gig, like I wrote. Baby is a late bloomer. I still love you, film flâneur, I pet you, coddle you... And you are still on the couch.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 8, 2024 16:51:18 GMT
Film flaneur Why is it that you wrote about god wanting to sell you anything, I write you about law and cults (criterium’of prosecution on cultism ground, when money is asked for by the cult), but you on go with a comparison of yours about doubt removal in buying a house and erase the part of what I wrote about cult. Is there anything signifying there ? Does that Hurt your feelings ? Hush, if so. Kiss you to soothe you. The bump Xxx
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 8, 2024 22:33:04 GMT
it's much too late for that. 14 pages too late, to be precise. And yet here you are... I have to, since you keep trotting out have the cake-and-eat-it argument as a reason having against an informed choice as if it is unanswerable rather than trite, when it really only answers the question "What now does Admin have left to say?" So what else do you have other than this? In this latest of yours we have you claiming I "don't what (cake-and-eat-it) means" when I clearly do. I used it as example and in fact linked to the definition at the time; or that, apparently, now I "summarily dismissed scripture" - a clear over-exaggeration when, although sceptical of the credulity and special pleading it invites, I actually have quoted from it several times. Next, you conveniently mis-define ad hominem so your insult apparently can be excused, or goes by the board. Nice. An ad hominem attacks some one instead of their argument. But then we read the obvious fact "Sometimes an insult is just an insult." which is just that QED, all over again. All the above appears just sniping as I have rebutted your arguments, one by one. Then we have your insight of "Force is not persuasion." When I all I have been asking from the start is to be persuaded, along with many others, as when I said "[God knows] what it would take to convince everyone of [His] existence.. ". (Later I added an "ought" you will recall, to make it less prescriptive) Convinced is to be completely certain about something. It is not the same as coerced. I hope that helps. But it will suit you for it not to. The informed decision you enabled was in regards to your picture of the bean and thank you again. Quite where wanting to eat it, or not, comes in - or why I would want to, is unclear and is just another diversion. Not every decision, as you really ought to know, is obligatory just as not every choice must be taken in favour of something otherwise compellingly obvious. It has been reasonable things like this that you have ignored all the way through our exchanges. You are welcome; I hope it works out better for you next time. In the meantime I shall assume that the need for God, who surely knows what ought to bring many to him, convinced through offering an informed decision, but still does not, remains the same - just as I still have strong suspicions why He does not. There's not been a single answer on this thread which has suggested this question as unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 8, 2024 22:39:34 GMT
Film flaneur Why is it that you wrote about god wanting to sell you anything, I write you about law and cults (criterium’of prosecution on cultism ground, when money is asked for by the cult), but you on go with a comparison of yours about doubt removal in buying a house and erase the part of what I wrote about cult. Is there anything signifying there ? Does that Hurt your feelings ? Hush, if so. Kiss you to soothe you. The bump Xxx Yes, it signifies I still don't know what you are on about, or why it is relevant, as I think I said already. If you exclude my comparison with one buying something needing as much information as possible then I can't think when I talked of God 'selling' anything. Maybe you read it in a comic?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2024 23:59:22 GMT
it's much too late for that. 14 pages too late, to be precise. And yet here you are... I have to, since you keep trotting out have the cake-and-eat-it argument as a reason having against an informed choice as if it is unanswerable rather than trite, when it really only answers the question "What now does Admin have left to say?" So what else do you have other than this? In this latest of yours we have you claiming I "don't what (cake-and-eat-it) means" when I clearly do. I used it as example and in fact linked to the definition at the time; or that, apparently, now I "summarily dismissed scripture" - a clear over-exaggeration when, although sceptical of the credulity and special pleading it invites, I actually have quoted from it several times. Next, you conveniently mis-define ad hominem so your insult apparently can be excused, or goes by the board. Nice. But then we read the obvious fact "Sometimes an insult is just an insult." which is just that QED, all over again. All the above appears just sniping as I have rebutted your arguments, one by one. Then we have your insight of "Force is not persuasion." When I all I have been asking from the start is to be persuaded, along with many others, as when I said "[God knows] what it would take to convince everyone of [His] existence.. ". Convinced is to be completely certain about something. It is not the same as coerced. I hope that helps. But it will suit you for it not to. The informed decision you enabled was in regards to your picture of the bean and thank you again. Quite where wanting to eat it, or not, comes in - or why I would want to, is unclear and is just another diversion. Not every decision, as you really ought to know, is obligatory just as not every choice must be taken in favour of something otherwise compellingly obvious. It has been reasonable things like this that you have ignored all the way through our exchanges. You are welcome; I hope it works out better for you next time. In the meantime I shall assume that the need for God, who surely knows what ought to bring many to him, convinced through offering an informed decision, but still does not, remains the same - just as I still have strong suspicions why He does not. I'm having difficulty accepting the likely possibility that you have some kind of memory problem or learning disability, but I'd like to because the alternative is that you do this on purpose. Take, for example, the cake. (Take the cake, lol.) You dismissed scripture on page one when you said, "And as for scripture, well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" (That's an ad hom, by the way.) But then you subsequently quoted the Bible several times as if you hadn't already dismissed it. That's you wanting the cake you already ate, as I kept pointing out every time you quoted scripture, and only when you quoted scripture. With suspicion that you still weren't getting it, I explained it in no uncertain terms in the very post to which you just responded. So when you say I was "trotting out have the cake-and-eat-it argument as a reason having against an informed choice," I'm left wondering if you honestly don't understand because 1) I never 'trotted it out as a reason having against an informed choice,' and 2) I'm not against informed choices. So apparently, not only do you not read what I write, you read things that I never even wrote. Something else that brings your reading comprehension into question is this statement: "Quite where wanting to eat [the jelly bean], or not, comes in - or why I would want to, is unclear and is just another diversion."You're the one who injected the decision to eat it, or not, into the chat. Surely you would remember my response if you even read it: "Who said you have to eat it?" That diversion is all yours, as are all the others. Here's another one: "all I have been asking from the start is to be persuaded, along with many others, as when I said "[God knows] what it would take to convince everyone of [His] existence..."Have you forgotten your own question? It was, "Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?" You do know this is a written discussion, right? Anyway... That's three more of your knots untangled. Again. I'm just going to leave the rest as they are now that I'm convinced you're just trolling, but I'll leave you with this: when there's only one option, there is no decision to be made. Well, duh. QED And here's your parting gift: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction." ― Albert Einstein ps. Just copy and paste this as my next response, thanks: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/6003490/thread
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 9, 2024 1:19:24 GMT
Yes, it signifies I still don't know what you are on about, or why it is relevant, as I think I said already. If you exclude my comparison with one buying something needing as much information as possible then I can't think when I talked of God 'selling' anything. Maybe you read it in a comic? Mmmm well no, I definitely refer to it, not going to exclude it. Next ? Xxxx
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 10, 2024 11:51:24 GMT
An ad hominem is still not an argument.
You have in effect 'dismissed' many of my points and arguments down through this thread, and others, down to, more and more the point of personal insults. ("It's what he does... spins and chops quotes to twist what you say into what he wants you to say") Does that mean that you are hypocritical in replying to me and using my words by way of reply? See how debates work? I do. "They would say that wouldn't they" refers to what has been, er, said and not the character of the authors. Good try though.
... Which only suggests how exaggerated your claim is. And, as already said, you still quote me after lately dismissing what I say through apparent issues with my learning and comprehension! How's that work then?
You used the claim that if one makes a choice (and I was talking about making an informed one, remember?) then one cannot have that choice to make anymore, which apparently, is a bad thing and a sensible objection to choosing anything. I remember things like that, even with my learning difficulties.
Then why are you still here?
Don't you remember this?
Admin : "now that you've finally admitted that the jelly bean does indeed exist, you can decide whether or not to "eat" it,"
I do.
Condescension noted.
Since this is aimed at me specifically I will see that as a another ad hominem. Which is still not an argument. Sorry about that.
"You do know this is a written discussion, right?" lol
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 10, 2024 22:41:30 GMT
An ad hominem is still not an argument. You have in effect 'dismissed' many of my points and arguments down through this thread, and others, down to, more and more the point of personal insults. ("It's what he does... spins and chops quotes to twist what you say into what he wants you to say") Does that mean that you are hypocritical in replying to me and using my words by way of reply? See how debates work? I do. "They would say that wouldn't they" refers to what has been, er, said and not the character of the authors. Good try though. ... Which only suggests how exaggerated your claim is. And, as already said, you still quote me after lately dismissing what I say through apparent issues with my learning and comprehension! How's that work then? You used the claim that if one makes a choice (and I was talking about making an informed one, remember?) then one cannot have that choice to make anymore, which apparently, is a bad thing and a sensible objection to choosing anything. I remember things like that, even with my learning difficulties. Then why are you still here? Don't you remember this? Admin : " now that you've finally admitted that the jelly bean does indeed exist, you can decide whether or not to "eat" it,"I do. Condescension noted. Since this is aimed at me specifically I will see that as a another ad hominem. Which is still not an argument. Sorry about that. "You do know this is a written discussion, right?" lol *sigh* Fine, I'll do it myself:
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 10, 2024 22:55:22 GMT
Good old Einstein ! Genius, courage, and maybe humility. Or humility is brave, somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 11, 2024 0:00:32 GMT
Good old Einstein ! Genius, courage, and maybe humility. Or humility is brave, somehow. Einstein is right. It takes very little effort to tangle shit up. It's the untangling that takes so much work.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 11, 2024 0:08:40 GMT
Well, let’s hope the one in charge of the tangling at least enjoys it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 11, 2024 0:51:37 GMT
Well, let’s hope the one in charge of the tangling at least enjoys it. Anything for that QED.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 11, 2024 11:51:45 GMT
You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation? That question presumes that he doesn't. See Romans 1:18-23. The OP's original question was for us to assume Yahweh/God/Lord/Jehovah exists. OP never asked us to suspend our belief that the Bible/Quran is anything more than a book.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 11, 2024 14:50:10 GMT
Rodney farber : Indeed, but litterature is not all there is as it comes to religion and god. Documents give the answear to film flaneur question. I studied these in law university and usually don’t instruct without postulating à fee, but here’s a historical hint : 16th Council of Carthage in 418, approved by Pope Zosimus, as it comes to the god of christians. And actually, imho law must not define moral, and I was taught that law is not defined by moral either. Now it occurs that there is three kinds of legal duties, to give, to do and not to do, and moral dictactes behavior and when bottom line legal duties do not also dictate behavior, well, duh. [Provided] Granted the authorities are not the same, I agree, but duh, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 12, 2024 20:51:31 GMT
Fine, I'll do it myself: "You do know this is a written discussion, right?" - Admin
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 14, 2024 21:44:11 GMT
Fine, I'll do it myself: "You do know this is a written discussion, right?" - Admin Is there a point to this other than demonstrating the apparent struggle you're having with remembering what you wrote?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2024 23:36:19 GMT
"You do know this is a written discussion, right?" - Admin Is there a point to this other than demonstrating the apparent struggle you're having with remembering what you wrote? The point here was that you claimed, in your supposed sign off, that this was a written discussion and yet you offer an image as a retort - rather ironically not remembering (or caring) what y ou wrote. And you do know that in Troy Agamemnon ends up not finding much to laugh at, right?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 14, 2024 23:54:02 GMT
Is there a point to this other than demonstrating the apparent struggle you're having with remembering what you wrote? The point here was that you claimed, in your supposed sign off, that this was a written discussion and yet you offer an image as a retort - rather ironically not remembering (or caring) what y ou wrote. And you do know that in Troy Agamemnon ends up not finding much to laugh at, right? You misunderstood. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2024 0:31:21 GMT
The point here was that you claimed, in your supposed sign off, that this was a written discussion and yet you offer an image as a retort - rather ironically not remembering (or caring) what y ou wrote. And you do know that in Troy Agamemnon ends up not finding much to laugh at, right? You misunderstood. It's that simple. No, you definitely said this was a written discussion. And I understand the irony of your image both in and out of context. edited for sense
|
|