“I don’t believe so.”
Not extremely persuasive, particularly in light of the 17 or 18 years I’ve spent doing this.
“Words escape me as to how you can accuse people of “implying” you are “close minded”, bigoted etc (see start of this discussion), then come out with lines like that, and then have the temerity to not claim you are doing the same.”
That particular statement implies feelings of superiority, not closed-mindedness or bigotry.
Further, I’ve never said that I wasn’t implying it; I said I wasn’t assuming it.
“Which is why when you do make close-minded statements and unsubstantiated claims you get called on it.”
Haven’t made any. That’s why I say you are assuming (incorrectly) where I am not.
“No, the insult is in thinking you know exactly who and what I am and believe based on just a few messages on an internet board”
Exactly? I guess people could quibble over what is meant by exactly. Of course, your notes have not revealed your taste in wine or perfume, but they have revealed a good deal about what you think.
“most of which, frankly, I consider have been grossly and consistently misinterpreted.”
As some people who spell “realize” with an “s” often say, “Pull the other one, mate.”
“No you’re saying that (you’re a leftist)”
I haven’t come right out and said it. You do behave a lot like a leftist, and you hold some leftist positions, but with all your fancy footwork I can’t say where on the continuum you fall.
“and making it quite clear you regard such people as the lowest of the low.”
The only thing lower than Satan’s minions is Satan.
“I just think of myself as a very small part of God’s handiwork.”
Yeah, well, sorry, but what you think of yourself is only one part of the picture.
“very few people consciously think of themselves as being evil or even dishonest.”
Of course they don’t. Even the most evil, dishonest people don’t.
“By a process of self-deception and compartmentalisation they convince themselves they are actually the “good guys” with a mission and a purpose”
Yes, and that leads such leftists to believe that they are justified in committing any act of deception. In the worst cases, such as Che Guevara and Hillary Clinton, it even leads them to believe that they are justified in committing murder.
“Once someone gets into that mode of thinking, they are one step away from believing the ends justify the means.”
That’s a much-misinterpreted saw. Some ends do justify some means. The problem arises when one attempts to justify evil means by pointing to a putatively good end.
“Adolf Hitler caused the deaths of millions and attempted genocide, but he would have looked at you with steady eyes and tell you he did it for the glory of God.”
Now, see, statements like that betray a long association with the left, even if only as a student subject to the abuse of leftist teachers and professors.
Hitler would never have said anything like that. He hated Christianity only marginally less than he hated Jews. Many priests were swept up by the Holocaust. While he knew he couldn’t eradicate long-standing German religions, the only religion that Hitler endorsed was a faux revival of pre-Christian Germanic paganism, and even that was only a tool and not a matter of belief for him.
By the way, Hitler and his National Socialists were the darlings of the left, right up until the day he invaded the USSR. During the space of less than a day he went from “proof that socialism works” to an evil right-winger. If convincing people that he doesn’t exist was Satan’s greatest feat, convincing them that Hitler was a right-winger is a close second.
“I understand that, but what are those definitions?”
Are you asking me to set forth one of them, or asking for a philosophical definition of definitions?
“I presume that is because you accept the idea of the inherent frailties of being Human.”
Of course.
“Interpreting someone elses statements consistently in the most negative way possible”
Eck-tuwally, I don’t do that.
“and in opposition to the plain meaning of the words”
Any adult will tell you that statements quite often communicate a meaning diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the words.
“as by pushing them down you naturally assume a position of (false) moral superiority.”
No, one assumes a position of understanding what is being said. I know you very much wish to turn my statements back on me, but you’re going to have to provide some examples and evidence to do that.
“I have conceded some wrongdoing. So I would appreciate acceptance of an apology.”
All right, I accept it.
“And I don’t like swearing on internet boards anyway.”
You know what I hate worse than that? The Oscar Wildean mal mot, the subtle understatement, the “If I couch my insult in these terms he’ll never even see that he’s been insulted” barb that covers the offender with a semblance of civility while conveying insult that is every bit as crass as swearing, while lacking even swearing’s single virtue of straightforward honesty.
“so as far as I am concerned it is as bad as using the word itself.”
You have that in common with Elmer Gantry style fundamentalist protestants.
“Not extremely persuasive, particularly in light of the 17 or 18 years I’ve spent doing this.”
I dont find your assertions persuasive.
“That particular statement implies feelings of superiority, not closed-mindedness or bigotry. Further, I’ve never said that I wasn’t implying it; I said I wasn’t assuming it.”
Oh, well that’s alright then. (sarcasm).
“Haven’t made any. That’s why I say you are assuming (incorrectly) where I am not.”
And when I say I haven’t made any, I say that you are assuming.
“Exactly? I guess people could quibble over what is meant by exactly. Of course, your notes have not revealed your taste in wine or perfume, but they have revealed a good deal about what you think.”
But not everything that I think.
“As some people who spell “realize” with an “s” often say, “Pull the other one, mate.””
Well ding a ling a ling then.
“I haven’t come right out and said it.”
No you haven’t. Exactly. Which makes the accusation of “fancy footwork” you subsequently make ironic in extremis.
“You do behave a lot like a leftist, and you hold some leftist positions, but with all your fancy footwork I can’t say where on the continuum you fall.”
If by fancy footwork you mean an unwillingness to get put into the neat little box labelled “leftist” you have stashed in your mind, then guilty as charged.
“Yeah, well, sorry, but what you think of yourself is only one part of the picture.”
And ditto for yourself.
“That’s a much-misinterpreted saw. Some ends do justify some means.”
Example?
“The problem arises when one attempts to justify evil means by pointing to a putatively good end.”
Agree 100% with that.
“Now, see, statements like that betray a long association with the left, even if only as a student subject to the abuse of leftist teachers and professors.”
Assumption yet again.
“Hitler would never have said anything like that. He hated Christianity only marginally less than he hated Jews. Many priests were swept up by the Holocaust. While he knew he couldn’t eradicate long-standing German religions, the only religion that Hitler endorsed was a faux revival of pre-Christian Germanic paganism, and even that was only a tool and not a matter of belief for him.”
From Hitler’s autobiography “Mein Kampf” (my struggle).
“Thus did I now believe that I must act in the sense of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jews I am doing the Lord’s work”.
and later:
“I have and always will consider myself a Catholic.”
Of course, the Christianity Hitler believed in wasnt in any way what Christianity is really like (or at least should be really like) Hitler had become the kind of person to whom everyone and everything is an object and a tool to be used or discarded. A true definition of evil.
“Are you asking me to set forth one of them, or asking for a philosophical definition of definitions?”
I’m asking you to set forth one of them.
“Eck-tuwally, I don’t do that.”
Eck-tuwally, you do. You persist in doing it even when the alternate is presented and explained, and even when an apology for confusion is offered.
“Any adult will tell you that statements quite often communicate a meaning diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the words.”
And it is at least equally likely that statements are communicating exactly what the plain meaning of the words are. Occam’s razor. If there is a possibility of two meanings to someones statement, then surely the sensible thing is to ask for clarification.
“You know what I hate worse than that? The Oscar Wildean mal mot, the subtle understatement, the “If I couch my insult in these terms he’ll never even see that he’s been insulted” barb that covers the offender with a semblance of civility while conveying insult that is every bit as crass as swearing, while lacking even swearing’s single virtue of straightforward honesty.”
And you know what I hate even worse than that? The proud donning of a mantle of authority, based solely on an (unsubstantiated) access to an advanced knowledge and wisdom unavailable to ordinary peons, and then the use of that position to denigrate, insult and rubbish everyone who even tentatively dares to even whisper a suggestion of an opinion that could be construed as mildly differing.
“You have that in common with Elmer Gantry style fundamentalist protestants.”
And thus the proposition is tarnished by association, and with someone best known for another issue. I just dont like swearing. And I especially don’t like it being falsely ascribed to me.