“Its called a synonym.”
No, it isn’t. Talent is a synonym of neither intelligence nor wisdom. They are vastly different. I can’t believe you are still trying to justify your use of the word “talent.”
“Now that is what I call playing the man rather than the ball.”
No, that is a throwaway line inserted *in addition to* arguments addressing the point.
“Why do you feel the need to add these little sneers?”
Because I have a sense of humor? Because I become impatient the third or fourth time I have to rebut the same argument without it being acknowledged? Because I have a touch of malice in my heart? Because I lack charity?
“Oh come on. You are far too intelligent to believe that.”
Intelligence aside, I know what my intent is. In an astounding triumph of optimism over experience, whenever I tell someone “You’re doing thus and so,” I always hope the other fellow will say, “Hey, you’re right. I am doing that.”
“But you havent experienced me and the way I argue, what I believe, or how I express myself.”
It is an article of faith in the West today that we are all “unique” and you can’t read people. It ain’t so.
“Think of all the trouble we have had over the word “talent”.
I haven’t had any. I have spoken of intelligence and wisdom, and you have used the word “talent” as though it meant the same thing. And, of course, you’ve wasted a good deal of time trying to pretend that you didn’t miss the point.
“What you are doing here is attributing behaviour, beliefs and/or attitudes to someone on the basis of what someone else has said or done in the past”
Not at all. I’ve been dealing with what you’ve said.
“real people are more complex than all these labels we too commonly apply.”
Not in any way that matters. Real people are distressingly similar and consistent. Tell me somebody’s position on one issue, and I’ll give you the rest of his positions with about 80% accuracy. Tell me his position on two issues, and I’ll get all of them, in most cases.
“I despise pigeonholing people into nice, neat little categories.”
That’s another argument that Satan introduced into the human cognosphere for the sake of messing us up.
“I thought I pointed out two, in fact.”
No. You attributed to me some things I didn’t say, but you didn’t “point out” any such thing. You can try again, if you like.
“The response to some of my statements has been circular arguments”
That is just simply false. I have made none. You have tried to put words in my mouth that might amount to that, but all that is solely your own creation.
“and sneering condemnations of my questions.”
Considering the blizzard of insult and false accusations you’ve thrown up, I think I’ve been a paragon of patience. That said, some questions deserve sneering condemnation. Some of your questions were not questions at all, but rather malicious slurs thinly disguised as questions.
“I have seen these ploys countless times before, and my remarks were completely justified. :)”
No, you haven’t, because I advanced no ploys, and there was therefore nothing to justify your comments. You see, it’s critical that it was true when I said it and not when you said it. That’s really the central point. Of course, you can say anything you like if you don’t care if it’s true or not, but that’s just playing into Satan’s hands.
“And your response is to impute leftism, invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...”
Please, use your reason. One doesn’t *impute* invalid arguments and despicable tactics as one imputes stupidity or close-mindedness. The latter are characteristics or character traits, while the former are behaviors. There is a difference in quality between “you are X” and “you are doing Y.” The one is a judgment of the intellectual and moral qualities and standing of the person concerned, while the other is a description of observed behaviors. Your attempt to equate my comments regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” with your habitual assumption of moral turpitude on the part of your opponents is just a false moral equivalence.
In other words, your habitual practice of imputing stupidity, close-mindedness, and other negative qualities to people solely because their opinions differ from yours is morally wrong, while my observations regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” are at worst morally neutral. If I actually succeeded in getting through to you so that you understood the arguments I am making, they would graduate to laudable.
“If freedom of religious belief is to mean anything, then surely it must be universal.”
On the contrary, it would be lunatic nonsense to accord—well, lunatic nonsense—the dignity of a valid religion. Only God gets to establish religions.
“I mean, if you believe Islam, Atheism, and Wicca are death cults and not true religion, then you probably also believe they should be proscribed. How then does that make you different morally from an Islamic state that regards Christianity, Atheism and Wicca as death cults that should be proscribed?”
There is a criminal who kills policemen because he hates them. A policeman believes he should be executed for his many cold-blooded murders of policemen. Both the criminal and the policeman believe that the other should be killed. How are they morally different?
Truth is not the main thing; it is the only thing. Islam is a death cult and not true religion, while atheism and wicca are risible error. Christianity is true. There is, therefore, no need to waste even a nanosecond caring about what a mooselimb might say about Christianity.
By the way, you really need to pay more attention to what people say…I said that mooselimbs should be expelled from the US, and atheism and wicca mocked. I didn’t say that atheism and wicca should be proscribed.
It’s things like that which lead me to speculate that you haven’t been hanging around with conservatives very long. Every time you come up with one of these “you probably believe” things, it’s some vicious stereotype that leftists have of conservatives. Here, you engage in the old, “Being a closed-minded bigot of a conservative, you probably believe…” trope, even after I have set out a contrary position. Conservatives don’t act like that, or find that sort of behavior congenial. Leftist sites do, I know, but conservatives regard it as infra dig.
“I can’t believe you are still trying to justify your use of the word “talent.””
Actually I am.
“No, that is a throwaway line inserted *in addition to* arguments addressing the point.”
OK, it is playing the man AND the ball.
“Because I become impatient the third or fourth time I have to rebut the same argument without it being acknowledged?”
No you dont get away with that one. You were firing them off in your second reply.
“In an astounding triumph of optimism over experience, whenever I tell someone “You’re doing thus and so,” I always hope the other fellow will say, “Hey, you’re right. I am doing that.”
I agree it isn’t easy to humbly admit you are wrong.
““What you are doing here is attributing behaviour, beliefs and/or attitudes to someone on the basis of what someone else has said or done in the past”
Not at all. I’ve been dealing with what you’ve said.”
OK.
“Not in any way that matters. Real people are distressingly similar and consistent.”
I agree people are more similar than they are different, but at the same time real people surprise me all the time.
“Tell me somebody’s position on one issue, and I’ll give you the rest of his positions with about 80% accuracy. Tell me his position on two issues, and I’ll get all of them, in most cases.”
Wow...thats impressive! Lets try it out...name two issues for me.
“That’s another argument that Satan introduced into the human cognosphere for the sake of messing us up.”
Please explain.
“No. You attributed to me some things I didn’t say, but you didn’t “point out” any such thing. You can try again, if you like.”
Yes, they were direct quotes.
“That is just simply false. I have made none. You have tried to put words in my mouth that might amount to that, but all that is solely your own creation.”
I’m sorry but Im afraid that it is absolutely true.
“Considering the blizzard of insult and false accusations you’ve thrown up, I think I’ve been a paragon of patience. That said, some questions deserve sneering condemnation. Some of your questions were not questions at all, but rather malicious slurs thinly disguised as questions.”
I feel I could say absolutely the same myself.
“No, you haven’t, because I advanced no ploys, and there was therefore nothing to justify your comments. You see, it’s critical that it was true when I said it and not when you said it.”
I see. Well, I was unaware that I was advancing a ploy either. As you do, I try and call people when they resort to insult or allegation instead of actually giving a reply. I’m sorry if I did.
“Of course, you can say anything you like if you don’t care if it’s true or not, but that’s just playing into Satan’s hands.”
Now you see this is where I hit problems. Obviously everyone cares whether they are telling the truth - even people who aren’t dont like to admit, even to themselves, that they aren’t. Similarly, no one wants to think they are “playing into Satan’s hands.” Why therefore do you feel the need to add this sentence to your argument? I can only think it is because it serves to add authority to your statement, because the obvious implication is that someone who doesn’t agree with your argument is therefore “playing into Satan’s hands”.
“Please, use your reason. One doesn’t *impute* invalid arguments and despicable tactics as one imputes stupidity or close-mindedness. The latter are characteristics or character traits, while the former are behaviors. There is a difference in quality between “you are X” and “you are doing Y.””
Of course you are right, but the actual effect of either accusation is the same.
“The one is a judgment of the intellectual and moral qualities and standing of the person concerned, while the other is a description of observed behaviors.”
True, although I would argue (as indeed you have) that the one is often a reflection of the other.
“Your attempt to equate my comments regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” with your habitual assumption of moral turpitude on the part of your opponents is just a false moral equivalence.”
I’m not trying to make a moral equivalence on that level and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was. I’m more concerned with the actual effect of either type of comment, which is to generate more heat than light.
“In other words, your habitual practice of imputing stupidity, close-mindedness, and other negative qualities to people solely because their opinions differ from yours is morally wrong, while my observations regarding “invalid arguments, despicable tactics etc etc...” are at worst morally neutral. If I actually succeeded in getting through to you so that you understood the arguments I am making, they would graduate to laudable.”
I understand your arguments. I am devestated that you think I “habitually impute negative qualities”. I dont think I imputed stupidity though.
“On the contrary, it would be lunatic nonsense to accord—well, lunatic nonsense—the dignity of a valid religion. Only God gets to establish religions.”
That would mean you would need a definitive definition of what constitutes “religion”.
“Truth is not the main thing; it is the only thing. Islam is a death cult and not true religion, while atheism and wicca are risible error. Christianity is true. There is, therefore, no need to waste even a nanosecond caring about what a mooselimb might say about Christianity.”
I concur, but thats not an argument thats going to work for someone who is not a Christian.
“By the way, you really need to pay more attention to what people say…I said that mooselimbs should be expelled from the US, and atheism and wicca mocked. I didn’t say that atheism and wicca should be proscribed.”
Oh, I wasn’t saying you were. I was speaking generally. The “you” in my statements was not “you” personally. Sorry for any confusion.
“Here, you engage in the old, “Being a closed-minded bigot of a conservative, you probably believe…” “
I don’t think I was, which leads me back to speculating that you have heard this kind of thing so many times, that you automatically assume any “nay-saying” as meaning I am doing the same. Actually I wasnt. Its a logical inference “IF you believe Islam, Atheism, and Wicca are death cults and not true religion, THEN you probably also believe they should be proscribed.” That seems like a logical conclusion to me. I mean, there are variations, one person might think Wiccans should only be laughed at, while another thinks Atheists should be flayed alive, but the logical inference is that someone who believes Islam, wicca et al are tools of evil is likely also to believe there should be restraints placed upon them by the body politic.