Are you like this face-to-face? page 5

160 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I will give certainty over the goddamn atheists over to the TORists.

A few points:

a: they won’t last. A few years at best!

b: all things heal, including what temporary damage it does to you.

c: Nothing, and i mean nothing, damages at all. nothing. you are monarchs with the exception of caesar, and caesar, with my blessings, is a fucking moron, and has always been one.

Are you drunk?

 
Flag Post

Nice counter-argument Janton. But next time, might I suggest you use it against an argument that’s arguing what you’re trying to counter?

I never claimed math or science were the only paths to critical thinking – in fact I went out of my way to point out that they are not the only paths. This is because, wait for it, this is a shocker: they are NOT the only paths to critical thinking skills.

But, and this is equally a shocker (as you did not read the post above where I said the exact same thing): Both math and science provide ways of thinking, that are not present in other disciplines. Each discipline adds a unique tool to the mind’s toolbox, and the more tools we have, the better.

You also went on to say I was not aware that different brains are different. If that was the case, why would I be arguing continually, for education to be tailored to the individual interests and capabilities of each individual student? Is it not implicit in such an argument that I am acknowledging that each individual student is different, and to teach them most efficiently you need to cater to those differences?

You keep pointing out that you had a crap experience in high-school, as if that somehow voids any arguments I make, that your school wasn’t teaching you in the best way possible to your individual brain structure. If anything it reinforces my point. Until we treat every individual student as an individual, and tailor make a dynamic curriculum to that individual taking into account their shifting interests and radical divergences in capability, we will not reach the optimum in terms of education for each individual.

Math and the sciences are as important as theoology and language, because each addresses a different part of the brain, a different group of specialised neurons. We thus promote the development of the whole brain, allowing the individual the ability to then choose what is right for them.

I’m sure you’re going to come back with some crap about how historically choice has not been important in education. If so, don’t bother. You keep living in a joyful past of brainwashing and absolute fachist order where women had no rights and cripples were killed at birth. Keep pretending such a primitive world is somehow superior to the one the rest of us are trying to make, looking forwards. But keep such claptrap to yourself. Nobody wants to hear it, the same as you don’t wish to see wheelchair users and other ‘freaks’ as you put it, out and about on the streets, bespoiling your view of the perfect world.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I will give certainty over the goddamn atheists over to the TORists.

A few points:

a: they won’t last. A few years at best!

b: all things heal, including what temporary damage it does to you.

c: Nothing, and i mean nothing, damages at all. nothing. you are monarchs with the exception of caesar, and caesar, with my blessings, is a fucking moron, and has always been one.

Are you drunk?

Extremely so. Yet, as insane and Michael Richards-esque as it is, it nevertheless beats out most arguments on SD.

I’m sure you’re going to come back with some crap about how historically choice has not been important in education. If so, don’t bother. You keep living in a joyful past of brainwashing and absolute fachist order where women had no rights and cripples were killed at birth. Keep pretending such a primitive world is somehow superior to the one the rest of us are trying to make, looking forwards. But keep such claptrap to yourself. Nobody wants to hear it, the same as you don’t wish to see wheelchair users and other ‘freaks’ as you put it, out and about on the streets, bespoiling your view of the perfect world.

You know what your problem is, vika? Let me facilitate. Your problem is, it is perfectly easy to throw out most of my arguments, but at the end of it all, you feel it necessary to troll. Just like me! I recognize the symptoms, you see. So you give a well-reasoned accounting, then end it with this trash, where you see fit to accuse me of ALL THE SORTS OF BIGOTRY I mentioned you accuse people of earlier! Very good. Not that there’s any grounds for actually accusing me of being a misogynist or such, you really would have to be a fucking moron to say it, but in your case that works out fine, because, again AS I SAID, you’re nothing more than a troll.

Therefore, there’s no point answering your various accusations. Anyone who’s seen my posts knows I’m no misogynist or eugenicist. But thanks for living up to my expectations. Thanks also for equating fear of your creepy futurist opinions with fears of bigotry that anyone can ‘get’ – yet not bigotry that I’m on the record for. Strange. It’s almost as if…as if racism doesn’t really do the trick. No, in order to make luddism sound less appealing you have to throw in nazi-like ideas and…sorry, you mispelt it or i’d have caught it earlier. You actually DID accuse me of being a nazi. Very good!

I hear you still keep in contact with Darkbaron. I bet he taught you how to troll so subtlely.

 
Flag Post

說者無意,聽著有心…
Its hard not to trigger heart lines in arguments… which frequently misunderstood as trolling…. Ignore to have a better discussions?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Let me make an illustration for you then, and don’t take it as an insult, as your friends don’t.

Imagine that you and I are sitting at a table having a debate. I put forward my points in a logical fashion, and then you pull down your pants, bend over on the table, pull your cheeks apart, and push out a nutty brown loaf. That’s how some atheists act on the internet. I don’t care if your friends like the smell of your shit. I don’t.

oh look, someone has watched South Park!

but really, the amount of crap from theists will always be far larger than the amound of crap from atheists. please point to any such brown loafs you find particularly smelly…

Ah…no.

In real life i’m fairly confident the population of asshole-theists greatly outnumbers the population of asshole atheists, not counting what I’ll call celebrity assholes like pat robertson or Dawkins, respectively, who are about equal in numbers and attention.

Online, however, the asshole atheist population is the majority, and the theists are in the minority. I sympathize with mytie because what he’s describing is pretty accurate; most online atheists are blind jerks. They are incapable of any sort of accord with theists that involves equal respect. I well remember a thread awhile back where I personally claimed a belief in the human soul, despite being a nominal deist, and proceeded to get shit on by every single atheist on that thread, including many of the fine folks apologizing for atheists on this thread. Online atheists tend to have an exaggerated belief in the limits of logic to the point where one might wonder if they are actually Vulcans, except that Vulcans tend not to go in for incessant trash-talk as a way to prove their points.

In point of fact, all the positivist bullshit that these atheists depend on to maintain their arguments are the remains of a system of thought abandoned over sixty years ago, mainly because it was deemed too excessive to hold up to any sort of rational scrutiny. ‘Magical thinking’ indeed. Btw that term is extremely condescending when applied strictly to theists and children; I defy anyone to claim that they never indulge in non-rational thought, and even the craziest religions have their own coherent internal logic; it may not be understandable to outside observers, but it is not (or rarely, anyway) capital-i Irrational.

So yes, I can sympathize with mytie. But on the other hand I can understand why people are leery to acknowledge his point. First off, mytie is a major jackass himself and deserves no pity from anyone. He’s played the victim card way too many times to be particularly convincing this time around. Second, as I said, theists are the majority in RL, and they tend to be irritating people when they decide to express their beliefs openly. I imagine many internet people are from the US, and the US is the most religious Western state; so it makes sense to me that fairly nice atheists come on the internet to unwind, which they do by tearing into the often-moronic beliefs that assail them every day.

I understand it, I just won’t tolerate it. I mentioned previous threads before – when I first came to SD, Darkbaron and Spaghedeity were the high hogs of internet atheism on the forum, and they were complete assholes…in many ways I wouldn’t be nearly as much the jerk that I am now if I didn’t learn it from them firsthand. They were not welcoming in any way; they were trolls, and they poisoned every thread that discussed religion to the point where I – who, in RL am not really pro-religious at all – BECAME pro-religious in the threads simply because the alternative was so shitty. None of the atheists around currently are as bad as they were, but there’s lots in common.

Last point: Darkruler mentioned earlier in the thread that he comes to SD to teach, and that he believes many of the online atheists have similar motives, which is why they become frustrated when their ‘students’ don’t accept the lesson. I’m sure I’ve said this previously, but darkruler’s teaching act really fucking gets on my nerves. It’s an excuse for bad behavior, and I have no patience for him or anyone else who acts like that. I’m as much interested in learning from SD regs as I am interested in changing my POV, which is to say, not at all. Most people here, if they are being honest, will say the exact same thing. I myself have been guilty of teaching my ‘subject’ in the past, and I’ve found it to be a waste of time for both myself and those I was trying to instruct. No more. If people want to learn more about a particular area, they can go on wikipedia. It is insulting, I think, for equals (which, given anonymity, we all are) to condescend to each other without permission.

It is also dangerous because, of course, the threat of bias. I trust my phd accredited prof, for example, to teach me about modern philosophy. But I know my prof is also a Straussian and therefore anything she drops about American political culture is untrustworthy because it feeds into her bias. How much more untrustworthy could someone be than to be an anonymous internet person trying to win an argument? An argument about religion, for that matter? And education, in particular, is a common tactic among online atheists as a sort of final solution to religion, by the process of drumming out the dangerous nonsense and drumming in the cold hard facts. Except that idea in itself is a dangerous nonsense – it’s education as indoctrination, regardless of the ‘logic’ behind it.

so, they’re “jerks” and that’s bad, and you’re a jerk but it’s only because they were? boohoo. so, you admit to being a jerk, and you clearly, very clearly and repeatedly in your essay-length post paint yourself a hypocrit. any more confessions?

anyway, i probably wasn’t around this place in that particular era that you are refering to. but this supposed atheist-majority…it really depends what kind of website you’re on.

but anyway, i said “crap”, and it doesn’t necessarily refere specifically to being a dick. religious people are not typically dicks, at least they aren’t trying to be, but they’re still full of crap. i see very little threads created specifically to target religion, but i see plenty of threads created to target atheism.

maybe you should expect atheists to be a bit dickish if you constantly insinuate their moral inferiority because they don’t take it from a book.

of course, i may well be biased and not have a problem with insinuations of rational inferiority, because i agree with one and disagree with another, but atheists never started it, did they?

better to be reactionary than proactionary.

I hear you still keep in contact with Darkbaron. I bet he taught you how to troll so subtlely.

she*

 
Flag Post

so, they’re “jerks” and that’s bad, and you’re a jerk but it’s only because they were? boohoo. so, you admit to being a jerk, and you clearly, very clearly and repeatedly in your essay-length post paint yourself a hypocrit. any more confessions?

We all get a little emo sometimes. You’d know better than most.

of course, i may well be biased and not have a problem with insinuations of rational inferiority, because i agree with one and disagree with another, but atheists never started it, did they?

I’m missing the rational part of that sentence that makes who started what relevant.

Don’t believe everything you see on people’s profiles. I can’t calculate pi that high either.

 
Flag Post

So wading in to the Education and it’s impact on Religion. I feel in many ways we are losing the forest for the trees. We all went to High School and learned some stuff there, the maths, the sciences, what have you.

But what I feel is really being argued for is “knowledge” more then any particular bit of “high school”. When we accuse earlier, more primitive religions of being an explanation for the unknown, say lightning, where do we draw that line for contemporary ones? The fact that we know basic evolution, the shape of the earth, the shape of our solar system, hell even science based farming techniques ( no more sacrificing virgins to the wickerman. ) are a tremendous progressive shift. I feel more important then our big what if’s are the small, very concrete, very reliable things we have discovered.

I cede that the most basic frame work of religious thought may answer questions that science will never be able to finalize. But none of the contemporary mainstream religions are so pure that they are not tangled amongst a myriad of fields, providing answers to things that we really know better about now. Whether this is the genesis of earthly life, or sociological problems, or so on. The vast meat and drink of any religious system are claims without proof. The more proof we accumulate as a culture the more we can immunize ourselves from pedagogues making things up as they go along, or recounting it from a book.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

so, they’re “jerks” and that’s bad, and you’re a jerk but it’s only because they were? boohoo. so, you admit to being a jerk, and you clearly, very clearly and repeatedly in your essay-length post paint yourself a hypocrit. any more confessions?

We all get a little emo sometimes. You’d know better than most.

of course, i may well be biased and not have a problem with insinuations of rational inferiority, because i agree with one and disagree with another, but atheists never started it, did they?

I’m missing the rational part of that sentence that makes who started what relevant.

Don’t believe everything you see on people’s profiles. I can’t calculate pi that high either.

of course it’s relevant. hey, just a second ago you tried to justify your own dickishness that way. but the point is, the only thing i see atheists do is point out where theists are wrong in their presumptions on which they base their generally condescending attitude towards atheists. in this, some may be a little aggressive, taking some kind of intellectual rather than a moral high-ground, which, on a case by case basis, may perhaps not always be called for. but in a general sense, and you have already agreed on this in your essay, they have a reason, it’s not unprovoked, if we treat people as groups.

now, feel free to question why provocation makes a difference, but you know it does. you may just as well make me prove that every word i use actually conveys any meaning and then question why dictionaries have any authority on what which word means.

 
Flag Post

I think I made my point pretty clear already. offline, the theists act like dicks. online, the atheists do. the difference is that offline, the atheists are attacking moderate theists who do nothing to deserve it. Now, unlike you, I’m not actually committed to one side or the other. But, if i’d had to choose, i’d pick the online theists who, in general, aren’t looking for trouble, granted the idiots who are and get rightly scorned for it. It’s the other guys i try to look out for.

Online atheists have a reason, certainly. As I said in my ‘essay’, it’s a bad one. They attack people who are in no way associated with the people they’re really angry with except a vague association to a particular group. If I hate terrorists, should I hate on the online muslims who don’t endorse the terrorists? Where’s the logic?

 
Flag Post

well, agreed. but same goes to you then, doesn’t it? maybe you should go think why you keep accusing people of things you also have already confessed being guilty of yourself eh?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

well, agreed. but same goes to you then, doesn’t it? maybe you should go think why you keep accusing people of things you also have already confessed being guilty of yourself eh?

When will you get it through your head that being a hypocrite doesn’t (in)validate the other person being a moron – they’re still wrong. The only difference is that I can’t claim a moral high ground when I call them on it. I’m cool with that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I’ve never met an atheist that was as intolerant as the ones on the internet.

I guess I could say I’ve had the same experience. If I share my Christian views with a real life athiest (a gay guy who really disliked Christianity that was in my class is coming to mind), they tend to either ask questions or listen politely. Bring it online, and it’s a whole different story. I can’t really share any religious experiences or perspectives I might have just because they seem to be shot down and attacked rapidly, and sometimes vehemently.

Interesting the difference between online and offline is coming up, too—that gay friend I had previously mentioned is a perfect example. He was polite when I spoke with him in person, but when he wrote on the school discussion forums he dropped quite a few snide, anti-religious comments. I guess for certain athiests, coming online just opens the floodgates a little and makes them more assertive, I don’t know.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

well, agreed. but same goes to you then, doesn’t it? maybe you should go think why you keep accusing people of things you also have already confessed being guilty of yourself eh?

When will you get it through your head that being a hypocrite doesn’t (in)validate the other person being a moron – they’re still wrong. The only difference is that I can’t claim a moral high ground when I call them on it. I’m cool with that.

yes it does. if a dickhead calls another person a dickhead, then either he means there’s nothing wrong with being a dickhead (making it incedentally a defence), or he’s creating the situation where one person is accused of being a dickhead (by a dickhead hypocrite), while the other is irrefutably known to be not only a dickhead, but also a total hypocrite…and since the latter implication is so much stronger than the accusation, it trivialises the accusation itself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

yes it does. if a dickhead calls another person a dickhead, then either he means there’s nothing wrong with being a dickhead (making it incedentally a defence), or he’s creating the situation where one person is accused of being a dickhead (by a dickhead hypocrite), while the other is irrefutably known to be not only a dickhead, but also a total hypocrite…and since the latter implication is so much stronger than the accusation, it trivialises the accusation itself.

So basically, ad hominems are valid as arguments?

 
Flag Post

Of course, I’m NOT “like this” (my demeanor on-line in SD forum) as I am in RL.
Since a lot of the ppl I come into contact with is of a repeat nature, my intercourse w/ them is (alert: bell-curve time) measured by at least two factors: the degree of our “relationship” (knowledge level of each other & correlation of ideologies) and my interest in the direction I want that relationship to “lean into”….in regards to future “considerations” of anticipated “needs” which might/could result from the relationship—including both directly & indirectly (indirectly,, to mean: “proximity effect”…what said relationship is expressed to other ppl.)

On a forum, the relationship is “limited” to a much, MUCH more narrowed & “taller” gut of the bell-curve…with the “flanges” still extending quite widely.
This means, for the most part: ppl’s reactions to me are going to be a great majority of them being not all that much different within the range of good & bad. But, yet allows for those very few ppl who are going to react quite strongly to my persona & ideology…both good & bad.

It’s like I say in my profile: I am here to have fun. I seek neither friend nor foe. Should one care to like me or hate me,,,,that is entirely on them. I have very little control of that. I can only be me,,,take it or leave it,,,,,,,OR,, “deal with it” if ya can’t “leave it”.

While that is what I present as a representation of myself for this forum, it also pretty much is my “philosophy” for RL. However, as I “explain” above, because of the greater likelihood (possibility?) that there will be many other occasions for interactions ( of various degrees & of various “flavors”) w/ particular individuals…I certainly conduct myself in a manner befitting said greater atmosphere to demonstrate that I well know there is a need for as poignant human-social interaction as is possible—the "desirables of social intercourse.

And, of at least EQUAL, if not MORE important, the need to avoid unintentional miscommunications of intent, needs, etc.— the “undesirables” that all too often we fall prey to…usually because our much larger (exponentially increasing becasue transportation & transmission of communication rapidly advanced) scale of “sphere-of-influence”.

This huge expansion has so left our social skills so badly “lacking” that a greater middle-ground for our world society has “developed or been exposed to be” (which came first: the chicken or the egg?) to be nonexistent and a wide (and deep?) gap appears to separating two very polarized segments who (ever increasingly?) are failing to even care to consider building bridges across that chasm….let alone work on some form of plans to do so…AND, heaven forbid anyone should actually break ground to begin construction of any form of a bridge.

N O !
We would seem to prefer to huddle w/ those who are like-minded on a relatively FEW, yet very volatile, issues that differ w/ those on the other side of that chasm. We then use such “combined power” to hurl huge volleys of vitriolic rhetoric back-&-forth…which causes very little damage due to a very strong “wall” constructed by two factors: closed minds & a very calloused/ “thick-hide” which—for the most part—successfully thwart most (if not all?) penetration of the other sides points on an issue.

Two great examples of this are: Abortion & Guns.
I really shouldn’t have to go into any real “explanation” on what the divided chasm on these are. And, (interestingly enough?)…the two camps on these two issues are extremely consisted of the same “soldiers”.

What so greatly saddens my heart & soul is that so much time//enery//resources of all nature is pissed down our pant legs “debating” these two issues when there are soooooo many others that go begging for attention. I put “debating” in quotes because there appears to be NO REAL such reasonable discussion of these issues, some kind of consensus arrived at and then they can be “tabled” for a period of time (to be revisited from time-2-time…as needed),,,and other (probably more?) serious issue be given some attention?

I deeply believe (or just wonder?) all of this “division of our society” isn’t some very effective & diabolical method being used by “those in charge of us” to “conquer” our freedoms for chances to attain our deserved share of what we as a society produce.

To me, this “divide-&-conquer” strategy has produced another huge, HUGE chasm other than the social issues “they” so want us to fight over. I’m talking about the “other” factor that so impacts our lives….MONEY. The chasm between those few who have lots&lots&lots of it and those great numbers of ppl who have a considerably less amount of money (right on down to the lowest level of ppl who have money ONLY BECAUSE of the generosity of those “above” them)….this chasm is extremely wide and growing wider at a faster rate.

I believe we all know this as: The rich keep on getting richer….and the poor keep on getting poorer. This human factor (usually a result of simple GREED & selfishness) is what has (very likely?) been the downfall of most advanced civilizations to have ever historically developed.

And, sadly, it appears America is poised to follow in their footsteps.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

But what I feel is really being argued for is “knowledge” more then any particular bit of “high school”.

No.

Knowledge is relatively easy to impart. What we need to instill as early as possible, is as many different ways of looking at the world as possible. Math gives a highly analytical mindset. Science gives a structured approach to thought. Theology gives a storytelling flow to the thought process.

Each imparts a different way of looking at the world, and if the brain can integrate them early on, that person can switch between modes of thought at will, as everything that comes later will integrate all three. At the same time, teach them how to search for information, how to go about structuring a query to get the types of results they’re really interested in.

After they’re in, we can teach the children knowledge. Give them the knowledge basics – everything they need to survive as a member of our civilisation – and then let their own interests dictate which areas they choose to focus more heavilly into.

Don’t cut the schooling out at a particular point in their lives either. If they wish to continue learning, continue specialising their whole lives, let them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

yes it does. if a dickhead calls another person a dickhead, then either he means there’s nothing wrong with being a dickhead (making it incedentally a defence), or he’s creating the situation where one person is accused of being a dickhead (by a dickhead hypocrite), while the other is irrefutably known to be not only a dickhead, but also a total hypocrite…and since the latter implication is so much stronger than the accusation, it trivialises the accusation itself.

So basically, ad hominems are valid as arguments?

uhm…what? i didn’t say that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

uhm…what? i didn’t say that.

You did. You said that a given argument is less valid if it comes from a person with a certain trait. Sounds like a typical ad hominem to me.

 
Flag Post

lol, that’s creative nonsense. look, if Hitler calls you a racist, or Ad van den Berg calls you a pervert, would you care? no. it wouldn’t mean shit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

lol, that’s creative nonsense. look, if Hitler calls you a racist, or Ad van den Berg calls you a pervert, would you care? no. it wouldn’t mean shit.

You still haven’t explained how that’s not an ad hominem though.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

lol, that’s creative nonsense. look, if Hitler calls you a racist, or Ad van den Berg calls you a pervert, would you care? no. it wouldn’t mean shit.

Thanks for the Godwin.

 
Flag Post

What Omega is trying to say, is that it depends on the reputation of the individual as to how seriously you can take character slurs from them. For example, the poster ZombiestookmyTV constantly insults everyone who does not share the same beliefs as him. If he says something about your character, you don’t take it as a character flaw of your own you need to examine, because he throws these insults out constantly.

So if someone who cannot make a point without trolling for emotional responses calls you a troll, you ignore it, because of the nature of the person who is trying to demean you.

 
Flag Post

I fail to see why I should take groundless insults serious from anyone.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

I fail to see why I should take groundless insults serious from anyone.

It depends on the poster really. If they have a reputation for only saying such things if they believe there is a grain of truth to it, then it is worth pausing and examining how you come across to others.

If they admit they are just trolling themselves, and most of their posts troll anyway, then there’s no point taking any character flaws they claim about anyone else, seriously.