|
Post by naill on Nov 23, 2012 5:57:54 GMT -5
It is more than just attitude. I worked very hard at having civil discussions. Some would rather just be snarky and have pissing contests than a civil discussion. I used the word argument and you said you considered that it was two friends sitting on the back porch discussing. Soon, when your scientific evidence was questioned, your tone changed to snarky and pissy. You total loss of control in the past 24 hours and constant name changing do not put you in a favorable light to be able to complain about others. I worked very hard at sticking to the topics. Then I would get frustrated when in people's responses they would distort and misrepresent my positions. Or they just want to taunt like in blowtorches most recent response. You think others don't have their thinking caps on? Do you think you are the only one with an evidenced based opinion? The fact is is that you are arrogant. Anyone who feels compelled ,as you and Todd, so that you need to even mention your academic work and GPA makes you look insecure. Commenting on spelling and gramme is total BS and nothing more than an attempt to distract. The pure and simple economics of obtaining education is having the resources of time and finance, not an IQ. And, education is a type of indoctrination. Some of the most successful entrepreneurs are drop outs. I have had my moments when I lost my temper, most here have. No one here is sinless. Are you just now finding that out? The rest of us who are the targets of your wrath are not complaining. We all have contributed to the hostile atmosphere and if you want to blame it all on me that's fine. That sounds like something a spoiled brat would say...play the victim when they started the whole mess. If you leave, it will leave a important part of the discussion/argument absent. For my part, I like you. I enjoy debating the issues. It is fine with me if you want to think religion is a myth and side with all the stated atheists here. However, you need to understand that what Robert said is true about everyone having a religion. We all have our theories. Confusing consensus with truth is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by bill on Nov 23, 2012 10:53:04 GMT -5
Why on earth would I want to discusse these issues with you? You discredit, dismiss and discount my education. If I support my views with data from my formal education or the major scientific consensus, I am accused of being indoctrinated. Then I get taunts from you to look to Robert because he is someone capable of critical thinking and you have told me time and again that I am not capable of critical thinking.
You call me arrogant, take jabs at me at any opportunity, you accuse me of just picking and choosing faith to just suit myself. When I committed myself to studying Buddhism you basically said that what I am practicing isn't Buddhism but I just want to call it Buddhism!
What sane person would want to remain in contact with such a person?!?!
If I had a friend who was having the exact same problem with a person they were trying to discuss things with I would tell them to get away from that person.
The same goes for Linda. Why would I want to try to converse with someone who looks down on me?
I think it wouldn't be healthy for me to stay in contact with people who displayed and demonstrated such contempt for me.
I have treated both you and Linda with equal contempt and I have been wrong in doing that. So given all that has gone on I think the healthiest thing for me to do is leave.
|
|
|
Post by naill on Nov 23, 2012 13:01:17 GMT -5
Why on earth would I want to discusse these issues with you? You discredit, dismiss and discount my education. If you think by posting you have two advanced degrees and your GPA that your views are to be acceptied without arguement, you have a few screws loose. You call me arrogant, take jabs at me at any opportunity, you accuse me of just picking and choosing faith to just suit myself. When I committed myself to studying Buddhism you basically said that what I am practicing isn't Buddhism but I just want to call it Buddhism! You are all over the place. What is it you want, someone to enable? What sane person would want to remain in contact with such a person?!?! Did you ever wonder why we remain in contact with you? If I had a friend who was having the exact same problem with a person they were trying to discuss things with I would tell them to get away from that person. Advise them to take an objective look at themselves to see if they have played any role in the problem. The same goes for Linda. Why would I want to try to converse with someone who looks down on me? She does not look down on you, Bill. If she is like me, she gets weary of your arrogant spirit acting like you have the full weight of fact that supports your preferences. I think it wouldn't be healthy for me to stay in contact with people who displayed and demonstrated such contempt for me. That may be a good decision, but if you find you still have the same problems perhaps you will finally look at yourself. I have treated both you and Linda with equal contempt and I have been wrong in doing that. So given all that has gone on I think the healthiest thing for me to do is leave. You contempt has no affect on me and I doubt it does for Linda. Your actions allow you not to be taken seriously. In 48 hours you have insulted several, thrown your own beliefs under the bus, changed you name four times, and whined as if you have been victimized. I have not seen such an example of immature behavior in a middle aged person is some time, friend. If you want to go or just have your private conversations with your emasulated friends, go ahead. If you want to grow up and understand you don't have all the answers, I would very much appreciate you staying. It is your choice.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 23, 2012 13:52:46 GMT -5
Why on earth would I want to discusse these issues with you? You discredit, dismiss and discount my education. If you think by posting you have two advanced degrees and your GPA that your views are to be acceptied without arguement, you have a few screws loose. If you think Bill, Tod or anyone of the other regular forum participants expects you to accept their positions without argument by virtue of their formal education, you are astonishingly imperceptive.
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Nov 23, 2012 14:18:48 GMT -5
If everyone here had the same perspective, how informative and fun would that be?
Not much.
Generally, I'm a minority here, since I'm pretty much a conservative libertarian politically and socially, and a NT believer in Jesus as the Messiah from a spiritual perspective, while I see the grains of truth in nearly all religious practice. I'm at least as smart as a cow: enough to eat the hay and spit out the sticks.
|
|
|
Post by naill on Nov 23, 2012 14:24:59 GMT -5
If you think Bill, Tod or anyone of the other regular forum participants expects you to accept their positions without argument by virtue of their formal education, you are astonishingly imperceptive. And you are astonishingly ignorant. Both Bill and Todd have used their academic work to validate their opinions. Bill said he had two masters and posted his GPA. Todd said he had a doctorate. There is not reason for me to need to know that unless they made it an issue.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 23, 2012 14:37:53 GMT -5
If you think Bill, Tod or anyone of the other regular forum participants expects you to accept their positions without argument by virtue of their formal education, you are astonishingly imperceptive. And you are astonishingly ignorant. Both Bill and Todd have used their academic work to validate their opinions. Bill said he had two masters and posted his GPA. Todd said he had a doctorate. There is not reason for me to need to know that unless they made it an issue. It should be obvious to you that if I specifically mentioned Tod, in a response about Bill. it was because I was aware that, like Bill, he has mentioned his education credentials as a way of establishing a measure of credibility. The issue isn't whether they have brought up their formal education, it is that you assume that because they have, they are expecting automatic acceptance of their positions. As it is plainly obvious to many of us, that was never their expectation.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 23, 2012 14:43:55 GMT -5
I think I speak for many of us when I say we expect opposing opinions and welcome a well-considered, straightforward and honest defense of them. The objection many of us have to the Wharf in Exile, as it stands now, is the increasingly mean-spirited atmosphere, the low standard of civility and the intellectually offensive tactics that abound.
|
|
|
Post by naill on Nov 23, 2012 16:30:07 GMT -5
And you are astonishingly ignorant. Both Bill and Todd have used their academic work to validate their opinions. Bill said he had two masters and posted his GPA. Todd said he had a doctorate. There is not reason for me to need to know that unless they made it an issue. It should be obvious to you that if I specifically mentioned Tod, in a response about Bill. it was because I was aware that, like Bill, he has mentioned his education credentials as a way of establishing a measure of credibility. The issue isn't whether they have brought up their formal education, it is that you assume that because they have, they are expecting automatic acceptance of their positions. As it is plainly obvious to many of us, that was never their expectation. That they expect credibility because of their stated academic work is exactly the point I was making.
|
|
|
Post by naill on Nov 23, 2012 16:36:40 GMT -5
I think I speak for many of us when I say we expect opposing opinions and welcome a well-considered, straightforward and honest defense of them. The objection many of us have to the Wharf in Exile, as it stands now, is the increasingly mean-spirited atmosphere, the low standard of civility and the intellectually offensive tactics that abound. I think I speak for others in saying that your threads are meant to promote your agenda against religion and to condescend toward groups with which you to not agree. You don't appear to be after discussion. I don't find you to be particularly kind spirited. Like Bill, others have commented negativily on your manners using the PM process. You suffer from the same inability to objectively evaluate your own personality and address the spirit with which you communicate your opinions. Lastly, you seem to be unable to admit your misperceptions or to consider that there are more than one way to consider a topic.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 23, 2012 17:47:14 GMT -5
It should be obvious to you that if I specifically mentioned Tod, in a response about Bill. it was because I was aware that, like Bill, he has mentioned his education credentials as a way of establishing a measure of credibility. The issue isn't whether they have brought up their formal education, it is that you assume that because they have, they are expecting automatic acceptance of their positions. As it is plainly obvious to many of us, that was never their expectation. That they expect credibility because of their stated academic work is exactly the point I was making. No. You unequivocally spoke of automatic acceptance not a degree of credibility. If information from a newspaper article is mentioned in a discussion, one wants to know which newspaper and specifying, say, the Washington Post does not garner automatic acceptance. If a member is using information gathered from one's field of study, he doesn't necessarily mention the formal education behind it expecting automatic acceptance, he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson.
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Nov 23, 2012 18:56:10 GMT -5
That they expect credibility because of their stated academic work is exactly the point I was making. No. You unequivocally spoke of automatic acceptance not a degree of credibility. If information from a newspaper article is mentioned in a discussion, one wants to know which newspaper and specifying, say, the Washington Post does not garner automatic acceptance. If a member is using information gathered from one's field of study, he doesn't necessarily mention the formal education behind it expecting automatic acceptance, he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson. Charlie's point is quite valid - whether we deal with automatic acceptance or a hint of credibility, it still stands that peoples' education background is being presented as a distraction to a discussion point. Though I don't believe it is presented as a call to 'automatic acceptance' it is a sophistry intended to suggest that there is some weight, some credibility to the point being made. I am sure you will agree also it is sophistry for if I were to ask you to believe in God now because several well-reputed theologians with many degrees {insert an alphabet soup of distinguished degrees here} believe in God so you should believe also... well, I am sure you will suddenly be making the same arguments Charlie and I are making, in the manner of "what does that have to do with this point being discussed?" Or would you? Does a college degree give credibility to a proposition? The real question alluded to by Charlie still remains: is the education background being presented to lend credibility, or to buttress a faltering argument? And the wider question was asked several times by me in other threads and, of course, never answered: what does a science degree have to do with Evolution Theory which is a speculative theory and not actual scientific 'investigation'?
|
|
|
Post by naill on Nov 23, 2012 19:55:56 GMT -5
No. You unequivocally spoke of automatic acceptance not a degree of credibility. The error is yours. You misinterpreted what I wrote. I told Bill that he recites and Robert thinks. His response was to post that he had two masters degrees and a B plus GPA. His reason was clear. Given his academic work, what he thinks should be validated and respected.
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 24, 2012 7:31:20 GMT -5
No. You unequivocally spoke of automatic acceptance not a degree of credibility. If information from a newspaper article is mentioned in a discussion, one wants to know which newspaper and specifying, say, the Washington Post does not garner automatic acceptance. If a member is using information gathered from one's field of study, he doesn't necessarily mention the formal education behind it expecting automatic acceptance, he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson. Charlie's point is quite valid - whether we deal with automatic acceptance or a hint of credibility, it still stands that peoples' education background is being presented as a distraction to a discussion point. Though I don't believe it is presented as a call to 'automatic acceptance' it is a sophistry intended to suggest that there is some weight, some credibility to the point being made. I am sure you will agree also it is sophistry for if I were to ask you to believe in God now because several well-reputed theologians with many degrees {insert an alphabet soup of distinguished degrees here} believe in God so you should believe also... well, I am sure you will suddenly be making the same arguments Charlie and I are making, in the manner of "what does that have to do with this point being discussed?" Or would you? Does a college degree give credibility to a proposition? The real question alluded to by Charlie still remains: is the education background being presented to lend credibility, or to buttress a faltering argument? And the wider question was asked several times by me in other threads and, of course, never answered: what does a science degree have to do with Evolution Theory which is a speculative theory and not actual scientific 'investigation'? The point I made was that neither Tod nor Bill expected automatic acceptance of their arguments when they brought up their formal education. You don't seem to dispute that and the rest of your post is not an argument against my point. Whether one's background is germane to a discussion depends on individual circumstances. In a discussion about the Vietnam war, depending on the specifics, it may or may not be appropriate if one were to mention that though there as a civilian, one was wounded in the fighting and still carries the disfiguring scars. In explaining the differences between USB and FireWire, is it not pertinent for one to mention one was once a systems engineer? Though I don't recall the circumstances, you have brought up your being an accountant in at least one discussion and your experience with statistics in another. Were those instances where you were guilty of sophistry or was it appropriate for you to invoke authority?
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 24, 2012 7:38:33 GMT -5
No. You unequivocally spoke of automatic acceptance not a degree of credibility. The error is yours. You misinterpreted what I wrote. Did I? You wrote: If you think by posting you have two advanced degrees and your GPA that your views are to be acceptied without arguement, you have a few screws loose. My response, in so many words, was that if you thought Bill or Tod expected " automatic acceptance" of their arguments when they mentioned their formal education, you were wrong.
|
|