Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Hence the sincere promise to obey and not annoy him in future (easy enough for an authoritarian to abide by).
Of course repeating what she said (and implicitly saying she has a point) puts you in an awkward position. I'll shut up about the mods and limit my point to how inconsistent rules are applied to commoners.
Oh, and none. What would compromise my morals was the position other people were floating that I should address condescending atheists who have never read any philosophy as intellectual equals.
But regarding "calling someone an idiot", like I said, I think that was an exaggeration and a reference to your use of that Batman meme, which he took completely literally.
Speaking truth is counter-productive, unless it's a true promise to obey. Of course, I also erred in phrasing the promise in a way he didn't want to hear. I appreciate you being patient with conveying what he does want to hear.
was just that, and that you didn't mean to offend anyone with it,
That's what I would say, yes.
I could also say that I will refrain from repeating internet memes in the future as unbecoming a gentleman, if that wouldn't offend him.
Eddie hates most Internet memes, anyway.
Rott: I apologize for being overleyharsh and unfair towards you a page or so back.
I would just like to say, as a mod, that I'm keeping this thread open mainly because the banned individual in question and a current mod on the site he was banned from are able to talk to each other.
Now, as a member, time to respond to some of the things said since I last checked this thread. You people keep on generating walls of text...
ROTTWEILER WROTE: "humility is not believing oneself superior than others, simple as that." The
logical consequence of that is that everyone's beliefs are equally
valid, no matter how well or poorly they match the truth. That's
nonsense, not orthodoxy.
Um, Rotty, I think this gets to one of the points that I've made to you repeatedly, time and time again.
You assume that people's philosophical and religious beliefs define who they are and are the most important part of them.
The vast majority of people--at least on TV Tropes and IJBM--do not think that way, about their own lives OR about other people's.
Just because someone is not a Christian or not a classical conservative or doesn't like reading philosophy textbooks DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE BENEATH YOU.
You're right. I keep assuming people place a high value on reaching true beliefs through reasoned dialogue.
That false assumption must get annoying, but I tell you honestly it was an error of love rather than a love of error.
Second, reasoned dialogue is by no means necessary to craft a set of beliefs around which one builds one's life around.
Third, most people do not consciously build their life around a set of beliefs. If you thought they do, then you are greatly mistaken about human nature. What people build their lives around is the cultural norms that they encounter and accept (sometimes with tweaking) and/or form on their own.
Some people try to distill these cultural norms into sets of philosophical/religious/political beliefs. Some other people then assign themselves to various sets of such beliefs, for various reasons. However, identifying with such beliefs does not mean that their lives are build around them.
Yes, exactly.
Of course, some cultures claim to make the pursuit of truth through dialogue ("freedom of speech") a cultural norm. But enough. I can't possibly express liberal paradoxes as eloquently as Maistre did, so I'll drop it.
It would be really helpful if you could explain your point without using citations.
And I've never, ever, heard of interpreting freedom of speech as "the pursuit of truth through dialogue". The point of freedom of speech was to prevent the government from quashing dissent; it had nothing to do with philosophical "pursuit of truth".
Whoops, that cited a source!
Anyway, does 737 posts make this the longest thread on your forum? I think...
shades
It's gotten Boeing.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
1. You need not cite sources for every concept, and it perfectly acceptable to simply talk about the ones you agree without citations?
2. You seem somewhat stuck in an ivory tower?
...okay, fine.
Sir Rottweiler, I do say, you seem somewhat stuck in an ivory tower.
Also, lol @ suggestion that citations are a bad thing. Citations aren't the problem, Glenn.
Overreliance upon them, maybe.