Um, I had a stroke. Assuming that I had a mental health issue is again ad hominem.
I didn't assume this. I was told this by the very poster who you praised for defending you. I took it at face value and said it might help explain why you reacted to me the way you did. I didn't make the argument, "X has serious mental health issues, therefore we should find X's reasoning wrong."
You were not told this by Runtu. You either read that into his post, or deliberately inserted it in as a joke/insult. Go back and read the original post a bit more carefully this time, ALitD.
Um, I had a stroke. Assuming that I had a mental health issue is again ad hominem.
I didn't assume this. I was told this by the very poster who you praised for defending you. I took it at face value and said it might help explain why you reacted to me the way you did. I didn't make the argument, "X has serious mental health issues, therefore we should find X's reasoning wrong."
Ahh, it turns out he just said "health issue." I was quite wrong there. Then what on earth would that have to do with anything? A mental health issue would explain why you misread and attacked me and why it would be unfair to admonish you for it. A health issue? Not so much.
Um, I had a stroke. Assuming that I had a mental health issue is again ad hominem.
I didn't assume this. I was told this by the very poster who you praised for defending you. I took it at face value and said it might help explain why you reacted to me the way you did. I didn't make the argument, "X has serious mental health issues, therefore we should find X's reasoning wrong."
He didn't put mental in there, you did. I'm sincerely hoping that you're someone's sock puppet from FAIR, because if you believe in Jesus Christ, you have some serious work to do my friend. And it saddens me. You can call that what you wish, but if my pastor (and many others) were to see you on here, they'd tell you to check your salvation.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Um, I had a stroke. Assuming that I had a mental health issue is again ad hominem.
I didn't assume this. I was told this by the very poster who you praised for defending you. I took it at face value and said it might help explain why you reacted to me the way you did. I didn't make the argument, "X has serious mental health issues, therefore we should find X's reasoning wrong."
Ahh, it turns out he just said "health issue." I was quite wrong there. Then what on earth would that have to do with anything? A mental health issue would explain why you misread and attacked me and why it would be unfair to admonish you for it. A health issue? Not so much.
Can't clean your ass with your bare hand my friend. You've been caught. You started out here in argument, and you continued on to your flaming end. If you want a true discussion, apologize and start over.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
grayskull wrote:the relation needs to be explicated clearly as does the metaphysical questions, "what does meaning, mean?" and "What does morality mean?"
"Meaning" here has a particular definition that does not correspond to other ways in which the term might be used. I was hoping people would read the argument to provide the neccessary context. "Meaning" here means that our actions have some morally meaingful impact on the universe. One can still have "meaning" in the sense that one can obtain pleasure from snorting cocain. An action can't be meaningful in the sense that it causes some shift in value balance. It isn't morally meaningful if you snort coke, rape a hooker, or read the Demon Haunted World or not.
The need to be right is so strong, that we start discussions asking questions that we answer before the post is over, and then when true thinkers question us, we assume we've been attacked. We then make all sorts of insinuations about people's minds and characters in a vain attempt to defend ourselves. Quite amusing.
Ceaseless attacks on my character rather than addressing the argument this thread is about. You seem reasonable Grayskull. Is this her MO? I wasn't asking a question. I was making an argument in favor of a position. This is standard discourse in every facet of life, including academic. The paper I quoted isn't, "DOES MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM?" It's "MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM." There's nothing wrong with making factual assertions.
All you have done is come here and tried to intellecutalize your disdain for atheists.
Is that what Quentin Smith, the famous atheist, did? I can't honestly hold this view without it being based in hate? And you continue to deny that you are attacking my character? And you accuse me of ad hominem? This runs a lot closer to it than anything I've said. (Accepting that you have mental health issues to explain your behavior, even if false, wasn't an ad hominem, by the way. I really don't think you understand what that term means.)
Can't clean your ass with your bare hand my friend. You've been caught. You started out here in argument, and you continued on to your flaming end. If you want a true discussion, apologize and start over.
Go derail someone else's thread. At least on MAD, your troll-like disruption would've been put to bed by now.
I'm sincerely hoping that you're someone's sock puppet from FAIR, because if you believe in Jesus Christ, you have some serious work to do my friend.
Because a FAIR "sock puppet" - i.e. a Mormon - doesn't believe in Jesus Christ? I guess that is what you are implying, but this has nothing to do with anything this thread is about.
A Light in the Darkness wrote: (Accepting that you have mental health issues to explain your behavior, even if false, wasn't an ad hominem, by the way. I really don't think you understand what that term means.)
It might not have been an ad hominem attack, but it was, at the very least, quite a nasty Freudian Slip, since it betrays your preconceptions and prejudices. (I.e., that the posters on this board are probably mentally unsound.) Even if it was only an accident, I do think it would be in your best interest to apologize.
By the way: what is your nom de guerre over on the fittingly named MADboard?
*sigh* I see we have to speak to you as one would a child.
If...and I seriously say IF you are are a believer, and want to call yourself a disciple, you cannot minister to other people, or have theological discussions with others in which you hope to have dialogue or bridge gaps, and be successful by starting off on a negative note.
You started off by making assumptions about how the people here would react. THAT was mistake number one. You then posted in essence, the answer you wanted to the question you asked. You didn't come here to dialogue, you came here to thump your chest.
Pointing that out doesn't make me a troll. And you're only using that word as a decoy to take attention away from your behavior towards me for simply asking you what your point was. That wasn't an attack.
I just finished a class that focused on different religious worldviews. Christianity and nihilism were among the many we studied. Had you not been such an arrogant prick, talking with you would have been a dream, because I'd have been able to step outside the classroom into the real world on an issue we've been talking about for weeks. But you spoiled that in the way you behaved. Luckily, there is far more intellect available on this board and others, so your crash and burn isn't going to take up that much of my day.
But you seriously need to think about how you're presenting yourself if you think you're a Christian. I know it hurts to hear that, but as a Christian, I care. And as a true Christian, I know I'm human, and not afraid to be so. That's why I called you an arrogant prick. You brought the natural woman out in me, with your ad hominems and assumptions about my mental state. LOL
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi