|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 0:08:05 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here] < clips >
- A lack of belief in God is not agnosticism
- The criteria of 'fantasy' is purely subjective
- I would ask you to provide an authority which disagrees with the WHO distinction
- Your dragging in of grammatical gender, which plays no part in the debate, is a non-sequitur
- Here's a clue. You are not fooling anyone. Either you or someone you blindly follow is trying to distort reality rather than communicate it. You do not appreciate the value of belief, think it is some kind of disease, and refuse to admit you have any. Almost any child over ten can see how hopeless your efforts are in that regard. By your definition of agnostic everyone in the entire world is. The group who identified themselves as "Gnostics" died out centuries ago without leaving any legacy. Now that everyone is not in that group your "definition" serves no useful purpose. It should be only listed as "archaic" if at all. You are too oblivious of the way definitions work to let go. People who are not retarded have already put the word agnostic to other purposes mainly meaning simply "without a decision," which can be the case or not all over modern society.
- The negative connotation of fantasy is purely subjective. Why don't you drop that? Can you not "celebrate" your fantasies? Why not? Other people do. "The faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable," like space travel or homosexuals making babies. It's not difficult to understand.
- I want you to count something. It might take a very long time. Yet perhaps you have enough to spare times being what they are. Please count how many times I told you that "all definitions are arbitrary." If the count takes too long just guess. Professionals do not "dispute" definitions. They simply strive to obtain definitions that serve an immediate purpose of clarity.
- I arrive at definitions by cataloging things known to exist, then choosing such terms as seem necessary to separate them in communication. You arrive at existence by forcing it into a rudimentary concept you believe is "the" definition. You have it backward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 0:15:14 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] - So can almost anything else. I would freely admit that the degree to which society accepts perversion makes a significant difference in the difficulty perverts have adjusting to that society. For example perverts in ancient Greece and Rome were not spurned. I debated people who noted that fact. My reply was that those societies failed and so will this one if it follows them. It's already failing.
- I have explained that I have no regard for your concept of "authority." You don't accept anything I say simply because I have a website that has endured over a decade without any dispute to it even being offered. Why should I accept your "authorities" who are readily and often disputed?
- See #1. Did you know they killed people for entertainment in ancient Rome. That was not really a society to which we should return. Talk about retrogressive now. (But he won't.)
- It only seems that way to people who deserve it and cannot see that they deserve it
So then: no alternative authorities quoted, entirely as expected even though, it seems, mine are readily disputed. The term "perversions' noted as just as bad, and as revealing of retrogressive social conservatism, as the previous use of "mental illness" towards homosexuals and those gender fluid. No examples of specific 'cultural determinism' that allegedly create notions of gender fluidity, so that evasion noted. Admission of gratuitous insulting. But at least we know that Arlon has a website that has to be endured.
This from someone who told me recently that he "would shoot anybody as stupid as you if you crossed my land." ? LOL And that you don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 2, 2020 22:55:36 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here] < clips >
- A lack of belief in God is not agnosticism
- The criteria of 'fantasy' is purely subjective
- I would ask you to provide an authority which disagrees with the WHO distinction
- Your dragging in of grammatical gender, which plays no part in the debate, is a non-sequitur
- Here's a clue. You are not fooling anyone.
Here's another clue. The dictionary definition of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' in a religious context are quite clear, as I quoted; so you are arguing with them rather than me. I am sure you hope to win again. Let us know when you claim your victory. Here you are just being disingenuous, since at the same time you call those who are gender fluid, as well as homosexuals, mentally ill and perverted. If 'fantasy' is not necessarily negative (even though still dismissive) such a view does not fit easily in with the rest of your prejudiced world view and, frankly, phobic language. If I was to count the number of times you offer no substantiation for your views then that it is surely the case. But I still do not know why you are still arguing this point, since you have already told me that notions of sex and gender are often muddled which, as already noted, implies that they ought to be separate and distinct to start with. The point was, and is, that it was precisely this muddlement that brought comment in the first place - probably you thinking 'all definitions are arbitrary' was what was causing the problem. Those would be the definitions which are arbitrary, i.e. just made up by you? Got it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 2, 2020 22:58:53 GMT
So then: no alternative authorities quoted, entirely as expected even though, it seems, mine are readily disputed. The term "perversions' noted as just as bad, and as revealing of retrogressive social conservatism, as the previous use of "mental illness" towards homosexuals and those gender fluid. No examples of specific 'cultural determinism' that allegedly create notions of gender fluidity, so that evasion noted. Admission of gratuitous insulting. But at least we know that Arlon has a website that has to be endured.
This from someone who told me recently that he "would shoot anybody as stupid as you if you crossed my land." ? LOL And that you don't. On the contrary perhaps you don't remember but I visited when on the old board for the full experience, and took the time then to critique one of your popular and insightful articles, which you had modestly referenced as an authority lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 23:07:22 GMT
On the contrary perhaps you don't remember but I visited when on the old board for the full experience, and took the time then to critique one of your popular and insightful articles which you had referenced as an authority lol. Where is that now? Were you qualified then? What happened to your qualifications? How does a person who cannot distinguish legitimate self defense from the utter depravity of ancient Roman slave owners get an intelligent audience?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 2, 2020 23:13:38 GMT
On the contrary perhaps you don't remember but I visited when on the old board for the full experience, and took the time then to critique one of your popular and insightful articles which you had referenced as an authority lol. Where is that now? Were you qualified then? What happened to your qualifications? I remember that instead of answering my questions you simply offered non-sequiturs and distractions, before ultimately moving onto some bracing ad hominems. How time have changed, eh? I have no idea what you are on about here. But since you say all definitions are arbitrary, you may wish to know that mine of 'distinguish' 'legitimate' 'depravity' are different from yours. Although I think we can both agree of what constitutes a non-sequitur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 3, 2020 0:01:20 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- The dictionary definition of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' in a religious context are quite clear,
- Here you are just being disingenuous
- you offer no substantiation
- Those would be the definitions which are arbitrary
- The essential point you still miss is that no matter how "clear" the definition is it remains just a label, not a fact. As I have explained to you changes in the world have made that label utterly useless. Your mental condition and that of many atheists and fundamentalists prevents you from distinguishing labels from facts. Have you noticed how fundamentalists are so determined for you to accept what is a label, "Jesus," without any clear idea to what facts that label attaches? The facts are that there are no more Gnostics. They died out after religion became sophisticated. They left no legacy. Everyone in the entire world is not a member of that extinct group. Everyone is agnostic by that definition. While the label is clear, your perception of reality is not and you cannot show any modern use for such a label. It does not distinguish one thing from another. My definition has modern use. The meaning "having no decision" distinguishes different existing people as some do and some do not have any decision. You are still trying to establish some "fact" by depending entirely on some "label." You absolutely need to stop doing that.
- No, I just have a larger, more versatile vocabulary than you do.
- That's just your delusion.
- While indeed definitions are arbitrary, reality is not. Here is your problem again distinguishing labels (arbitrary) and facts (not arbitrary). There is no "fact" in your label, and there is no use at all for your label, except to cloud the facts, which is rather obviously someone's intention. You absolutely must stop trying to establish facts with no more than a dictionary, which is merely a list of labels.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 3, 2020 21:06:17 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- The dictionary definition of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' in a religious context are quite clear,
- Here you are just being disingenuous
- you offer no substantiation
- Those would be the definitions which are arbitrary
- The essential point you still miss is that no matter how "clear" the definition is it remains just a label, not a fact.
Never the less it is a fact that the standard dictionary definitions of what constitutes 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' are quite clear and distinct (and accepted by everyone except you, it would seem). It might also be observed too that your preferred definition of agnosticism was one which was not (as you always insist should be the case) agreed by all parties in advance, so you are not even consistent. It is really time for you to stop wriggling on this hook. Indeed; although as you had to admit, it was not the primary one; the secondary use was not in a religious context as you ought to remember. There is a distinct sense of clutching at straws. And, one has to wonder how a dictionary definition is suddenly quite sufficient - when it suits you! Contradict yourself much? As mentioned thrice now, you arguing still about this is pointless since, you told me that notions of sex and gender are often muddled - implying that they ought to be separate and distinct to start with. Have you superior skills not taken this in? But if you have substantiation that there is after all no confusion, and that sex and gender are the same thing, then where is it? And why would you ever imply the opposite in the first place? I don't know either. And you ought to stop arguing with them and "winning". Since you have been caught being both contradictory and inconsistent while, being stuck in the same distracting over-concern with labels v definitions in lieu of directly addressing what you said, (and next will be the inevitable ad hominems), I shall leave you to it.
|
|
