Replies

“Too bad. You should.”

Well, I understand more now about what you are getting at, and the theory of how and why you think like you do. Unfortunately, although the process hangs together nicely, the arguments it espouses require evidence to convince rather than a bald assertion of proof based on superior study or wit. I mean, what you are basically saying is “I am right because I have studied and reflected and taken good advice on (whichever subject it is), and on the actions and characters of those in opposition, and I therefore deduce such and such a position (contrary to theres) to be the true one”. Now that is perfectly logical, but its the same argument I would get off a card carrying Marxist (albeit with very different conclusions I grant you). However, I am not despondant. If you are right, then I will naturally be drawn to the correct answers as I seek, ponder and explore issues, providing of course, that I do so honestly and with discernment. And, as you say, there are lots of folk on this board who can help there.

“That would only make sense if I had accused you of that which you have implied of me.”

That is disingenous.

“1. It’s not an accusation; it’s an observation.”

A false observation is just as damaging and hurtful as a false accusation. In this context they are virtually indistinguishable, except the perpetrator thinks an “observation” enables him to wriggle out of any accusation of impropriety.

“2. “In extremis” does not mean “extremely.” It means “at the point of death” or “in grave or extreme circumstances,” as when two ships have arrived at the last moment in which a collision could be avoided.”

Poetic licence. After all, you understood what I meant by it, because you were able to give me a dictionary definition.

“No, I mean the statements you have made to avoid being labeled a leftist. It’s funny, you know…many leftists share your desire not to be labeled as leftists, but we conservatives don’t mind our label at all.”

I made A statement to say I dont like labels, but I don’t make statements to “avoid” being labeled. I make statements I think are true and for that reason only.

“The end of deterring murder justifies the death penalty, when applied justly through the rule of law.”

OK. Good example, and sound logic. But...
If it were possible to deter murder without the death penalty, would it still be justified then?

“You seem to have a real problem with the definitions of common words.”

Nope, just in the way you are using them.

“If I go outside and see the sun in the sky, and on that basis state, “The sun is up,” I am not making an assumption. I am reporting an observation.”

If you come back into the room and see me win a game of chess, and on that basis state “Vanders9 won by cheating”, is that an observation? No it’s an assumption. There are several possible explanations of why I won the game, the most likely being my skill at chess. The difference between the two examples is that in one the observation is irrefutable, but the other requires an interpretation of an observation. And that is what you are doing.

“And, of course, every word of Mein Kampf is to be regarded as Gospel truth from the pen of a man never known to lie, right? It would be foolish to regard his actions and later statements as better indicators of his actual beliefs, wouldn’t it?”

Thoroughly immaterial. The point at issue is not whether Hitler was a liar, as you well know. The issue was whether he sought to justify himself. I stated that he wouuld have looked you straight in the eye and told you that he was doing God’s work. You stated he would never have said that in connection with Christianity, and I responded with a direct quote that conclusively proved that he did.

“Hitler was used and discarded by Satan. He was little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy.”

I’m not so sure about “dummy”. If he was a mere mouthpiece that absolves him of moral responsibility.

“Good grief. I have to leave the house in 25 minutes to go to Confession and take one of my kids to work. Maybe when I get back.”

Ok. I understand the effort required in doing that, and I appreciate the time you would take.

“I persist when experience tells me I’m being snowed. As for the latter, I accepted your apology.”

I apologise if I “snow” you too. And true, you did accept that apology.

“Sorry, that statement is false. One cannot calculate the probability across multiple cases involving multiple speakers. One can only calculate the rough probabilities for a specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context.”

True enough I suppose.

Doesn’t apply in every case. See paragraph directly above.

I guess it depends on whether you assume folk tell the truth until proven otherwise, or tell lies until proven otherwise :)

“That, too, depends on the specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context. If one is speaking with a leftist, asking for clarification merely gives him another opportunity to lie.”

I personally always like to give someone a chance.

“Yes, that’s the typical reaction of a leftist to a confident conservative. Let’s look at a couple of problems with it.”

A typical reaction, eh? I was always rather afraid of becoming a case-study rather than a person.

“The false perception of “pride” stems from the leftist’s indignation that anyone dares disagree with the left.”

Or it could be upon observation of prideful traits.

“The “advanced knowledge and wisdom” (which previous generations called “common sense”) is available to all,”

Excuse me? You stated earlier that you had been working on removing yourself from leftism for 2+ decades, and that I had “better get busy” because there were “a hundred books” I needed to read.

“but the leftist refuses to think about it in any meaningful way, because he has been taught to reject it as “reactionary,” “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” etc.”

I’m thinking about it now aren’t I?

“And finally, the positions of the left differ not “mildly,” but radically. Those who hold the positions of the left well deserve to be denigrated, insulted, and rubbished, and worse. They are the enemies of humanity, of the good, and of God Himself.”

Oh, burning them at the stake might be a tad much, but I would definitely have them branded on the cheek and refused the right to vote.”

Personally I’d rather convert them. Remember each and every one is made in God’s image.

“Didn’t you know that two could play at that game?”

yep.

“Did you think conservatives were too stupid for that?

Nope, but I hoped we’d be better than that.

“Apparently, you like to lay your insults between the lines, with plenty of room for plausible deniability.”

Or alternately, I’m making a simple statement of fact, in which the sensitised can see all manner of insults.

“Nobody ascribed any swearing to you.”

Yes you did. Reread the statement.