Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone here asks that anyone else "step lightly with their words" - they just ask that the people they're conversing with not be condescending, taunting, intellectually dishonest people who deliberately distort what others say in order to provoke them, and then throw up their hands and say, "who, me?" while patting themselves on the back about how clever they are. That's a long way from having to "step lightly." Many of the people who are calling out wallflash have long histories here of being able to conduct perfectly respectable debates with people who strongly disagree with them, but we all have serious issues with him. What's the common denominator there?
I had no idea, wall flash should be reported when appropriate. A few/weeks months ago, most theists around (the visible ones who put themselves front and center, often conservatives) were complaining about how atheists shouldn't be opening their mouths at all, because everything they say in regards to religion and atheism is automatically openly hostile, since to be atheist is to actively reject God's gracious offer to safe them from the set-up. There were complains about comparing religion to fairy tales, complaints about talking about the abuses from religious leaders, etc. Yet at the same time, there was endless onslaughts against atheist and atheism with threads whose's titles were awfully leading and poignant. I assumed the same kind of stuff was still going on, but these things come in waves, I suppose.
Albert bears a grudge from a past thread in which he , in the spirit no doubt of equanimity, tolerance, and conducting a perfectly respectable and civil debate , threatened to make a " smoking hole" out of another poster ( not me ) if she dared to disagree with him . I took issue with that , a protracted battle took place that ended when Albert essentially proclaimed me worse than pond scum that he wouldn't pee on if I was on fire , and he largely left the religious area for a while afterwards .
Obviously , noting the immediate and unprovoked animosity in post 6, he hasn't found himself capable of moving past that exchange .
Last edited by wallflash; 06-28-2016 at 06:13 AM..
Albert bears a grudge from a past thread in which he , in the spirit no doubt of equanimity, tolerance, and conducting a perfectly respectable and civil debate , threatened to make a " smoking hole" out of another poster ( not me ) if she dared to disagree with him . I took issue with that , a protracted battle took place that ended when Albert essentially proclaimed me worse than pond scum that he wouldn't pee on if I was on fire , and he largely left the religious area for a while afterwards .
Obviously , noting the immediate and unprovoked animosity in post 6, he hasn't found himself capable of moving past that exchange .
Albert bears a grudge from a past thread in which he , in the spirit no doubt of equanimity, tolerance, and conducting a perfectly respectable and civil debate , threatened to make a " smoking hole" out of another poster ( not me ) if she dared to disagree with him . I took issue with that , a protracted battle took place that ended when Albert essentially proclaimed me worse than pond scum that he wouldn't pee on if I was on fire , and he largely left the religious area for a while afterwards .
Obviously , noting the immediate and unprovoked animosity in post 6, he hasn't found himself capable of moving past that exchange .
And again with the "who, me?" incessant whining. Always the victim, always someone else's fault.
Couple of things. First of all, there's a difference between not liking or respecting someone and bearing a grudge against them.
You're not worth a grudge, but people with whom you interact form lasting (and even permanent) impressions regarding who you are as a person from the way you conduct yourself in your discussions with them. You can't get away from that. If you choose to conduct yourself a certain way, people remember it, and that will often have a permanent effect on the way they regard you and interact with you. I'm quite surprised that you don't seem to have figured that out yet.
"Moving past that exchange"? How do you define "moving past"? I don't spend any of my time thinking about you (in fact, I'd completely forgotten your screen name until I noticed the familiar writing style with the poor punctuation), but that doesn't mean that when I see you post, I forget the impressions I've formed of you. Nor does it mean I'm going to suddenly start liking or respecting you, or trust you to have an intellectually honest discussion.
You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. We may have cordial discussions from time to time, but there'll never be a day that I hesitate to call you on your bull**** when you start in doing what you're here to do. And it looks as though there are more and more posters here who've also figured you out, and have no more patience for you than I do. Poor you.
And again with the "who, me?" incessant whining. Always the victim, always someone else's fault.
Couple of things. First of all, there's a difference between not liking or respecting someone and bearing a grudge against them.
You're not worth a grudge, but people with whom you interact form lasting (and even permanent) impressions regarding who you are as a person from the way you conduct yourself in your discussions with them. You can't get away from that. If you choose to conduct yourself a certain way, people remember it, and that will often have a permanent effect on the way they regard you and interact with you. I'm quite surprised that you don't seem to have figured that out yet.
"Moving past that exchange"? How do you define "moving past"? I don't spend any of my time thinking about you (in fact, I'd completely forgotten your screen name until I noticed the familiar writing style with the poor punctuation), but that doesn't mean that when I see you post, I forget the impressions I've formed of you. Nor does it mean I'm going to suddenly start liking or respecting you, or trust you to have an intellectually honest discussion.
You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. We may have cordial discussions from time to time, but there'll never be a day that I hesitate to call you on your bull**** when you start in doing what you're here to do. And it looks as though there are more and more posters here who've also figured you out, and have no more patience for you than I do. Poor you.
Thanks for providing the working example of what I was referring to there Al
But remember when you try to pretend to the high ground in our exchanges that it started when you threatened to make smoking hole ( your words ) out of another poster if she dared to disagree with you , and then you tried the bullying on me when I spoke up , which didn't work and resulted in a protracted battle.
So spare me the drama .
Last edited by wallflash; 07-03-2016 at 12:26 PM..
I'd say that you are both right. And it looked to me as though you were both talking about the same thing (some theist apologists) and thought that you were talking about different ones. There is a trigger -action touchiness about those who talk about their faith and I have already explained why, elsewhere - as Luminous puts it "they require for themselves special privilege because they know not what else to do." which is why they start a fight about the rudeness of the other side, because it's all they have.
I agree to an extent, and I do believe that a number of the pro-religion posters do use that as an excuse to scurry out of whatever corner they find themselves trapped in. And yeah, it does get tiresome when used as an escape tactic.
But at the same time, they often have a point. Just to clarify for anyone reading this who may not be familiar with the players and their respective affiliations, I am one of the most adamantly anti-religious posters here - that's the "side" of the debate upon which i can almost always be found, to the extent that there are "sides". But I agree with many of the religious posters that some of "us" (to the extent that there is an "us") get pretty damned nasty and downright vicious at times. And, to be honest, I'm one of the ones who has gotten more sarcastic, more condescending, and just more mean-spirited than was appropriate at times.
But - in my defense - at least I stay intellectually honest, admit when I'm wrong, apologize if I feel I've gone too far, and always make it a point to give credit where credit is due. I probably rep more religious posters here than I do non-religious ones, because even if I don't agree with what they say, I respect their principles and their willingness to stand up for their beliefs (again, in general - there are some glaring exceptions to that).
In short, i don't agree at all that the "fights" that break out here every 48 seconds are usually started by the religious crowd. At the point where it becomes a "fight," it's usually started by the non-religious crowd, and the religious posters have a damned good point when they accuse us of being rude. There is rudeness on both sides, but it usually starts with the non-religious posters making snide, condescending comments to the other side. Now, that doesn't mean the religious group is on solid ground with their debating points - they very seldom are. But I do believe they are correct in their assertion that they're usually not the first ones to turn it toward nasty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And as always what fascinates me now is not the debate with theism (long since won) or even the mechanism of faith -based denial (long since sussed) but whether they really are patting themselves on the back for their cunning tactic of holding their own without a decent argument or they really believe that they are arguing honestly.
It's worth bearing in mind that simply being ignorant (1) is an excuse...once. When it has been explained ..many times, in some cases, andd they still persist in the same arguments, then Hovind's "Willfully ignorant..dumb on purpose" sums it up splendidly. My own "Do not understand and do not want to" and "The evidence only serves to prop up what they believe on faith, anyway" is appropriate, too.
I believe that all argument is not about what is valid evidence or even evidence at all, but about what wins the argument for what they know is true on Faith - not evidence.
Thus they do not care whether the argument is valid, relevant or intellectually honest. All that matters is winning.
That's true of people on both sides, and I don't respect it from either side. I think you see more willful ignorance from the religious crowd (generally speaking), but just as much intellectual dishonesty and deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of other people's positions, more strawman arguments, and a lot more vicious, condescending, petty meanness just for the sake of scoring points from the non-religious crowd. I can't quantify that, but it's my strong opinion, and I'm comfortable stating it and standing by it.
And that's the main reason i don't post much here anymore. I'm almost always on the non-religious side of the debates, and frankly there are people here on that side of the discussion with whom I don't want to be associated in any way. Even though I passionately disagree with the religious posters, and hate what they stand for, I think i may generally have more respect for them than I do for the group of people who agree with me. Add all that up, and there's really not much motivation to post here anymore.
Fun's gone out of it, and for me this forum has pretty much been trashed as a venue for worthwhile discussion. It's kind of like if you had a favorite bar, and it was gradually taken over by people who like to make racial jokes. After a while, you're just not going to enjoy going there anymore. And that's kind of what the Religion forum has become for me. If everyone here was like, say, Cupper - things would be different here. But everyone is not.
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 07-03-2016 at 12:42 PM..
Thanks for providing the working example of what I was referring to there Al
But remember when you try to pretend to the high ground in our exchanges that it started when you threatened to make smoking hole ( your words ) out of another poster if she dared to disagree with you , and then you tried the bullying on me when I spoke up , which didn't work and resulted in a protracted battle.
So spare me the drama .
I'm not going to waste time going back through a thread that really wasn't even worth posting in at that time, but I will at least say that once again you're... mm.... not quite telling the truth. What happened between us was about the fact that your only weapons in an argument are a sharp wit, which you often seem to confuse with genuine intellect, and strawman arguments, because you don't have the right kind of mind to compose deep, structured arguments. Our argument was not so much about our relative positions, so much as it was about the way you conduct arguments. Anyone who read it will probably remember it, anyone who doesn't can look it up if they like. You're really not worth discussing it in much more detail than that.
I'm not going to waste time going back through a thread that really wasn't even worth posting in at that time, but I will at least say that once again you're... mm.... not quite telling the truth. What happened between us was about the fact that your only weapons in an argument are a sharp wit, which you often seem to confuse with genuine intellect, and strawman arguments, because you don't have the right kind of mind to compose deep, structured arguments. Our argument was not so much about our relative positions, so much as it was about the way you conduct arguments. Anyone who read it will probably remember it, anyone who doesn't can look it up if they like. You're really not worth discussing it in much more detail than that.
Oh, I can go back and quote your phrase " I'll make a smoking hole out of you " that started it, and was said to a rather mild mannered poster, if you like . That things got heated AFTER your threat I readily admit to. My point is WHY they got heated . You threatened a poster , I responded to your post, you tried the bullying tactics on me , and they didn't work. You ended by throwing a temper tantrum about how I am a worthless POS and left the thread . But it started with YOUR threat to another poster .
Last edited by wallflash; 07-03-2016 at 01:34 PM..
Oh, I can go back and quote your phrase " I'll make a smoking hole out of you " that started it, and was said to a rather mild mannered poster, if you like .
That things got heated AFTER your threat I readily admit to. My point is WHY they got heated . You threatened a poster , I responded to your post...
A normally mild-mannered poster who said something insulting to me. I'm not proud of the way I reacted to it, and I said so at the time - but I don't see what it has to do with anything that happened between us, because you didn't even bring it up until you got mad about losing the argument you started with me. Then you decided to claim you were just sticking up for the other poster - the noble white knight, Sir Wallflash. For you to claim that was your reason for swinging down out of the trees and going after me is another lie on your part, because you didn't even mention it for at least a half dozen posts or more.
You chose to argue with me for one reason and one reason only - because you thought you could win. You failed miserably. And you're still crying about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
...you tried the bullying tactics on me , and they didn't work.
Oh, I think what i did worked just fine, but you're lying again. You tried to attack my position with your usual arsenal of strawmen, misdirections, and false equivalencies ("so what you're really saying is..."), and it didn't work because I wouldn't let you suck me into it. And you're not used to that, so you got frustrated and started whining. So, to you, "bullying" is when someone ragdolls you in an argument. Very revealing.
Look, I won't pretend I don't get a giggle out of playing you like a fish, but it becomes boring after a while. You were the one who was sanctimoniously pontificating about "moving on," so why don't you.... mmm... you know... shut up about it and move on? Why do you have to keep banging away at this? Grow up and drop it. And... uh... move on, eh?
A normally mild-mannered poster who said something insulting to me. I'm not proud of the way I reacted to it, and I said so at the time - but I don't see what it has to do with anything that happened between us, because you didn't even bring it up until you got mad about losing the argument you started with me. Then you decided to claim you were just sticking up for the other poster - the noble white knight, Sir Wallflash. For you to claim that was your reason for swinging down out of the trees and going after me is another lie on your part, because you didn't even mention it for at least a half dozen posts or more.
You chose to argue with me for one reason and one reason only - because you thought you could win. You failed miserably. And you're still crying about it.
Oh, I think what i did worked just fine, but you're lying again. You tried to attack my position with your usual arsenal of strawmen, misdirections, and false equivalencies ("so what you're really saying is..."), and it didn't work because I wouldn't let you suck me into it. And you're not used to that, so you got frustrated and started whining. So, to you, "bullying" is when someone ragdolls you in an argument. Very revealing.
Look, I won't pretend I don't get a giggle out of playing you like a fish, but it becomes boring after a while. You were the one who was sanctimoniously pontificating about "moving on," so why don't you.... mmm... you know... shut up about it and move on? Why do you have to keep banging away at this? Grow up and drop it. And... uh... move on, eh?
Sure , sure . You " played me like a fish " so well that you left the thread after a temper tantrum, and ran and hid for a while from the religious forum afterwards . LOL .
And I was not the one who got so frustrated that I went on a raging rant about how horrible a person I was . That would have been you losing your cool and ranting almost incoherently . You can post whatever nonsense you want to salve your pride , but the basics are you insulted poster , you lost your cool , went on a rant , left the thread , and then left the religious area completely for a spell .
But welcome back
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
andd they still persist in the same arguments, then Hovind's "Willfully ignorant..dumb on purpose" sums it up splendidly. My own "Do not understand and do not want to" and "The evidence only serves to prop up what they believe on faith, anyway" is appropriate, too. 
