Religion In what do you believe OFFTOPIC about SVF and sabro

[Maciamo]

Hmm. I think that such a signature is not very appropriate indeed (please cite a famous person, but not another forum member without their permission).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoicesforward, what is the purpose of your sig? Why is that taken out of context?

To highlight the Xtian mindset which Xtians proudly profess. I don`t see it as taken out of context any more than any other quote that is ever proffered. Out of context is a subjective judgement.

Recorded words just have a way of haunting us. It is a fact of the world and many of people like Pat Roberstons, Oral Roberts or others who say things -- such as leaders should be assassinated, God will seek revenge, God told me, ... are rightfully so embarrassed by their words when quoted.

People should reflect on their words when putting them forth in formats that are recorded. The forum is a microcosm of the world and all people are available for quoting -- be it real world people or cyber people.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Out of context is a subjective judgement.

I can't totally agree with that. Surely it would depend upon just how much a quote was edited ...
For example:

Recorded words just have a way of haunting us. ...God will seek revenge, God told me, ...

I'm sure that would be construed as "out of context" - but they are indeed your own words!
As you say yourself:

People should reflect on their words when putting them forth in formats that are recorded. The forum is a microcosm of the world and all people are available for quoting -- be it real world people or cyber people.

?W????

 

[Revenant]

Strongvoicesforward, a part of that was actually him quoting you!

Lastly, he did not proudly profess it, and he was actually objecting to it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Point taken. It is down. However, personally, I don`t think it was out of context. To me it read as it did and meant as it did. It was a small post of his and therefore a context other than that I think is a subjective one.


But, it is off my signature just because Maciamo made a point that he thought quotes should be reserved to famous people.


Anyways, I like my new one better. Be sure to seek it out.

 

[Duo]

I don't beleive in religion.. or the common view of god. I do however beleive in something treater than us be the universe or whatever entity that encompasses the matter and energy makin up our realm.

In terms of gov i tend to align myself as a social democrat. Meaning yes private ownership and and enterprises but also gov. control of basic life services such as railways, tv, power, water and so forth. Also I am more for liberal changes ie gay marriage rather than trying to stop them and conserve our way of life when we can not and need to change.

Im a strong optimist of the EU.. beleiving that if done right it could come upt o be something sincerely great with no precedent and do beleive that the EU is the political entity in our world better suited to guide humanity in the 21st century.

I also am an optimist when it comes to human kind. I tend to look at the great things we accomplished and beleive that humans can progress more and more based on knowlegde and rationality. I think our ways of conduct can improve more and more if the society around it is prosperous and pushes for such changes. I beleive one man can make all the difference... I have a certain affinity also with the "uber mench" concept and do beleive some people are just simply more gifted than others. I tend to beleive in genes as well.

I like to rely on the sciences, biology, geneology, chemistry, biochemistry and other such things to better understand humans and our earth. I think there are many great deal of things we don't know on earth but that we may be able to find out later.

 

[No-name]

Sure, I know which buttons to push to make Xtians swarm, but I do not do so intentionally. Those buttons are just simply pushed due to the nature of the issues and how it is best to corral them into corners. I am not playing Sabros chess game for him, I am playing my own game -- and that is how I view debate -- a game of mental chess. I`ve already stated that.
Haven`t you read my post where I specifically pointed out that Sabro is nothing more than an unwitting sounding board in a chess game-- where he is but a pond that sits in front of me who I have very little care about? I have been quite honest and open in that. I care more for the audience than my opponent.

If you intend to irk or annoy, you might make them successful, but one person reacting to you can't really be considered a "swarm." You also can't fathom how amusing you are at times. If this is a chess game, you need to take the checkers and dominos off the board. I don't mind being "unwitting" or a "sounding board" but if you want to maintain the chess analogy I can't be a "pond." I can be a pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, or king...but I refuse to be characterized as a small still body of water. For caring so little about me, you seem to pour out an inordinate amount of energy whining and accusing. I believe you threatened to ignore me, but that proved an idle threat.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

If you intend to irk or annoy, you might make them successful, but one person reacting to you can't really be considered a "swarm."

lol. Yes, you are right. You sure aren`t a swarm.

You also can't fathom how amusing you are at times.

Funny, I feel the same thing everytime I remember that "gem" of a quote of yours.

If this is a chess game, you need to take the checkers and dominos off the board.

Sabro, are you attempting to make analogies now? You`ve already admitted you weren`t good at them.

I don't mind being "unwitting" or a "sounding board" but if you want to maintain the chess analogy I can't be a "pond." I can be a pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, or king...but I refuse to be characterized as a small still body of water.

Calm down. Don`t get so flustered. It may make your arguments more shakey. Yes, you still are a pond. I had just wanted to see if members were quotable since I didn`t really see any rules prohibiting it. You are lucky -- your words are off limits for signature quotes.

For caring so little about me, you seem to pour out an inordinate amount of energy whining and accusing.

I do have a lot of energy. But, don`t give yourself too much credit. I give you very little thought and thus not much energy. I am a fast typer.

I believe you threatened to ignore me, but that proved an idle threat.

Well, you didn`t take me up on it when I offered it to you, did you? Why not? I guess you wanted my attention. Now that you have it at times, you can`t handle it and are all flustered.

Calm down.

 

[No-name]

I'm not flustered. Ponds don't get flustered, we get ripples.

What was the quote? I didn't get to see it.

 

[Sensuikan San]

But, it is off my signature just because Maciamo made a point that he thought quotes should be reserved to famous people.

Slow down SVF - you're starting to spoil yourself! If you read the post again, Maciamo stated that it would be OK to quote a forum member ... provided that permission was granted. I would say that that was not unreasonable, would you?

Anyways, I like my new one better. Be sure to seek it out.

Nothing wrong with you having your opinion expressed so. The concept is exemplary. But, I must say that I argue with the content.

Surely homo sapiens, like so many other animals, is an omnivore.

Rather than target us .... why do you not campaign for the eradication of true carnivores, like, say, crocodilians, the great cats, canines, snakes or sharks?

I would say that, individually, they consume far greater quantities of animal flesh than anyone I know!

I would grant that none of them has actually made an industry out of the practice ... none of them actually kill to provide clothing or more sophisticated (?) products to make their lives more comfortable.

....but if you ever go down to an Australian river bank for a paddle in the cool waters ...... I don't think you'll find that any of them give a damn about their conscious either!

Face it. You're a human being. Not the most admirable animal on the planet by any means. Far from it; I've personally and frequently referred to homo sapiens as being "the ultimate vermin" - which I think we are. But - that's life, that's the way it is. It constantly changes, sometimes for the better, somtimes for the worse. I can see that you desperately wish to change one particular aspect of it, quite obviously. Nothing wrong with that, I agree with many of your opinions (although anyone who wants to make me become vegetarian is facing an extremely difficult task!). But do try to keep your level of debate within the bounds of reason.

I see distinct signs of stridency starting to creep into your arguments which will ultimately destroy any argument you have .... and you do have some good arguments.

Don't destroy them. Stay cool. One of the purposes of debate, surely, is to make "the other party" lean towards agreement. It is not to "defeat" them.

?W????

 

[Revenant]

What was the quote? I didn't get to see it.

I am intolerant due to the nature of my religion. So ALL Christians are intolerant.

Something like that. Anyways, it didn't seem at all to be what you were trying to say in that post, nor would I ever imagine you even attempting to say that.

I think eating less meat is a great idea, and I am more for fish, seeing as it's healthier. About 85g of meat is all anyone would really need to fulfil the requirements for vitamin B12, and while eggs and milk do have some vitamin B12, it isn't the optimal amount were one attempting to drink or eat these in moderation.

 

[No-name]

Domo Arigato...I had some suspicion that there was something utterly speciously deceptive and deficient in character about the entire thing.

Sabro is intolerant merely due to the nature of his religion..

That "quote" was in response to this one. This is the context- He also left off the last part which indicated that this is an example of bigotry. Selective misquoting...cute. (Are ALL athiests intolerant bigots?)**gasp** So much for logic, reason and discussion.
I believe this use of quotation is inappropriate and shows a lack of honesty and a deficite in character. I do however give him permission to use it as a signature provided the entire context is used.
Also I am a hypocrite in Strongvoicesforward's eyes because:
1. I didn't take Reiku to task for calling him a Hitler wannabe.kashii:
2. I don't like his arbitrary making up of acronyms and I believe them to be an attempt (he says witticism) at ridicule.kashii:
3. I find many of his attacks of a personal nature and they merely ridicule Christianity, Christian docrines, diety, beliefs, scripture and people. (Jarvis was banned for less-- and yet SVF persists.)
Monku monku monku.
I do not find these (1.,2.,or 3.) actions (or rather a non action and two preferences) either objectionable, nor do they conflict with my beliefs. I could be wrong- Is there something different that I should consider doing? After all every person, a lousy person or even a person of character can still improve.

 

[No-name]

I used smiley's. It was adaptive behavior because sometimes sarcasm is hard to see on posts...especially if you risk being quoted out of context. I am water- I can take any form.

 

[Sensuikan San]

I used smiley's. It was adaptive behavior because sometimes sarcasm is hard to see on posts...especially if you risk being quoted out of context. I am water- I can take any form.

So do I - for the same reasons !

Some people scorn them ... but they do help you stress a mood.

?W????

 

[No-name]

To highlight the Xtian mindset which Xtians proudly profess. I don`t see it as taken out of context any more than any other quote that is ever proffered. Out of context is a subjective judgement.

Does this disturb any one else but me? It strikes me as both an admission of deep seated prejudice and purposeful dishonesty. Have I or anyone else ever spoken of the "Jewish mindset" or the "Muslim mindset" or the "Athiest mindset?" And I get criticized and tagged for calling this poster a bigot? Since when is taking a person's statements and twisting them to mean something entirely opposite a "subjective judgement." It is flat out lying. I believe that this severely undercuts the validity of anything SVF has ever said.

How is this different than the bigotry that got Jarvis banned?

 

[Revenant]

However, personally, I don`t think it was out of context. To me it read as it did and meant as it did. It was a small post of his and therefore a context other than that I think is a subjective one.

I'm frankly just a little worried about you. Can you possibly see another point-of-view, or has other points-of-view been so obscured by the anti-Christian lenses that you're looking through?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

To highlight the Xtian mindset which Xtians proudly profess. I don`t see it as taken out of context any more than any other quote that is ever proffered. Out of context is a subjective judgement.

Sorry for the repetition, but I'll compare to one that bugs me (again). I have seen fundamentalist Christians use a quote of Einstein's to 'prove' that Einstein was religious, i.e. "Science without religion is lame". If you look at the full quote (11th one down), Einstein meant something entirely different by 'religion' - i.e. faith in the scientific method. He did not take the concept of a personal god seriously. Is it a 'subjective judgment' of those fundamentalists to misquote him so?

Does this disturb any one else but me? It strikes me as both an admission of deep seated prejudice and purposeful dishonesty. Have I or anyone else ever spoken of the "Jewish mindset" or the "Muslim mindset" or the "Athiest mindset?"

I think a few people are disturbed by this, and you characterise it well, IMO.

I'm frankly just a little worried about you. Can you possibly see another point-of-view, or has other points-of-view been so obscured by the anti-Christian lenses that you're looking through?

It seems this way to me too: confirmation bias, if you want to give it a fancy name.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I am certainly not infallable and do not claim innerrancy as a debator. I also will not defend something I`ve said which is wrong after I have thought on it and agree that detractors of what I said were right. That said, my comment on the ?gsubjective?h point of Sabro`s post which I quoted was wrong.

I could give reasons for the comment such as it being late, in aggressive debate mode, not wanting to cede anything at that particular moment etc... however, that would all be wrong and not honest. In the end -- the comment and observation was just simply wrong.

There is no shame in admitting a mistake. That is what is good about not having any belief system demanding I adhere to it without conceding anything. Flexibility allows me to back up on an issue and that is the reason for this post. Just to say I was wrong on it.

 

[No-name]

Tsuyoiko-
Confirmational bias is a powerful filter- An example that comes to mind is here in California, many people hold the bias that Asians are bad drivers. I happen to fit that stereotype, but what happens is whenever they see a bad driver who happens to be Asian, it confirms their prejudice. Non-Asian bad drivers are seen as anomolies and filtered out.

In many Christains (I among them), every awesome sunset confirms the existence of God. Every unexplained healing, joyous moment, act of good fortune, each bit of good co-incidence or beneficial consequence is seen as the benificence of God. Every moment of every day adds to the certainty of faith as whatever happens good and sometimes even bad confirms the existence of a loving and powerful God. Comfirmational bias is a more rational explanation, but far less poetic. I'm certain the opposite corallary must exist with some athiests: that everything that happens disproves the existence of God.

strongvoicesforward, you seem to be admitting to some error in the above post, but I am uncertain as to what it is. Is it intentionally taking my statements out of contexts to achieve a deceptive and dishonest purpose, your misunderstanding or false admission of misunderstanding of verbal irony, or your use of blanket statements to describe all Christians in their belief and behavior? As an admission of mistake it seems to lack the specifics necessary for any long term growth or learning. Although I agree that there is no shame in admitting a mistake, identifying the mistake you are admitting to is probably a requirement to qualify it as an "admission."

 

[strongvoicesforward]

strongvoicesforward, you seem to be admitting to some error in the above post, but I am uncertain as to what it is. Is it intentionally taking my statements out of contexts to achieve a deceptive and dishonest purpose, your misunderstanding or false admission of misunderstanding of verbal irony, or your use of blanket statements to describe all Christians in their belief and behavior? As an admission of mistake it seems to lack the specifics necessary for any long term growth or learning. Although I agree that there is no shame in admitting a mistake, identifying the mistake you are admitting to is probably a requirement to qualify it as an "admission."

My admission is one of not understanding you were being sarcastic or just illustrating something. I would probably have caught it if you had put a "smiley" or something there or even a few more comments tagged on. However, I don`t want to defend excuses. The error was just one of misunderstanding and not one of deception or trying to be dishonest to serve my arguement. I feel I have enough to cite from the BWOG against the BWOG without relying on deception.

Anyway, perhaps that post was due to me being tired at the moment or just into a mode of "chasing the quary" and not noticing that I had gone off on a shadow.

Humbly sorry about going in that direction with the discussion on this point.

Fair enough?