TD,
You can take your stupid rules and stick them up your holy spirit's ass while jacking off on a picture of your effiminate Jesus.
You are a fucking retard.
Which is in direct violation of rule #8. Froggie then responded with the following:
TD,
This is your house and I respect that.
I don't want to ruin the open dicussions so I give you my word that I will not comment here.
If I decide to make any comments on your posts, I will do so at SMRT.
At least turn off the moderation and give it a try. I will not comment.
I am also posting this comment at SMRT.
Now, in this thread He has gone against his word by saying.
Hi TD!
Which not only shows that Froggies concept of respect and his word is about as low as his intelligence is. Doubtless some people will maintain it is trivial, as he just said hi, and while the comment itself might be trivial, him going back on his word is not. So, until I find a more effective way to prevent ignorant people like froggie from posting when they clearly violated the rules, comment moderation will be turned on. It is really amusing how the tactics of an frustrated, ignorant, intellectually inferior atheists mirror that of a frustrated, ignorant, inferior fighter. When they can't beat you legitimately, they resort to dishonest, shady, back handed tactics.
26 comments:
Of course it's your show and you can do whatever you want. If I may, however I'd like to make a suggestion. Atheists are notorious for censorship. They, by far and away moderate comments more than Christian sites. My suggestion? Leave moderation off. Froggie and those like him are pitiful and weak and disgusting. Let others see that by allowing them see what he says.
I'll be removing it as soon as I find an efficient way(other than manually deleting every comment) of preventing people from commenting on the blog.
Which not only shows that Froggies concept of respect and his word is about as low as his intelligence is.
Please substantiate the implication relayed here that this users intelligence is equivilent to his concept of respect. This may first require you to provide an objective measure by which intelligence and respect can be compared.
So, until I find a more effective way to prevent ignorant people like froggie from posting when they clearly violated the rules, comment moderation will be turned on.
Please provide a qualifier for the term "ignorant," as it is redundant as a standalone adjective.
It is really amusing how the tactics of an frustrated, ignorant, intellectually inferior atheists mirror that of a frustrated, ignorant, inferior fighter.
Please provide support for your implication that people responding to you are "frustrated, ignorant or intellectually inferior," and provide the means and standards by which you establish your own intellectual superiority.
When they can't beat you legitimately, they resort to dishonest, shady, back handed tactics.
Please demonstrate that that "dishonest, shady, back handed tactics" have been employed against you.
Atheists are notorious for censorship.
Please support the implication that atheists are more likely to censor opposing views than individuals with alternative worldviews.
Froggie and those like him are pitiful and weak and disgusting.
Please support your assertion that the individual going by the handle of "Froggie" is of less than average muscular strength and is physically repungant.
Please substantiate the implication relayed here that this users intelligence is equivilent to his concept of respect. This may first require you to provide an objective measure by which intelligence and respect can be compared.
No need, it was not a factual assertion, it is the type of sarcastic mockery to be expected when someone violates rule #3.
Please provide a qualifier for the term "ignorant," as it is redundant as a standalone adjective.
Ignorant simply means lack of knowledge, there are multiple instances in this blog where Froggie shows this.
Please provide support for your implication that people responding to you are "frustrated, ignorant or intellectually inferior," and provide the means and standards by which you establish your own intellectual superiority.
I never said people that reply to me are frustrated, ignorant, or intellectually inferior, I was talking about certain people, namely froggie and flute. The standards I established my own intellectual superiority would be their inability to effectively refute a single significant point I've made, their inability to make any significant points, and their vast amounts of logical and factual errors found in this blog and other blogs as well.
I've actually only been to one christian (not including this one) site that wasn't censored and moderated... maybe I just haven't been to enough of them. I do find a lot of other sites that don't moderate at all and only a few that do so in my experience it's the opposite of what Makarios has said.
Out of curiousity TD, have you ever had someone refute a point you've made?
Yes, people have refuted both significant and insignificant points I have made before. I am not perfect, far from it, in fact flute proved I made 3 mistakes, although they were insignificant to the original points I was making at the time they were mistakes on my part non the less. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, provided it is actually shown I am wrong.
No need, it was not a factual assertion, it is the type of sarcastic mockery to be expected when someone violates rule #3.
Understood. It is, however, worth noting that direct statements regarding intelligence levels do not fall under the category of sarcasm, given that there is no contradiction between what is stated and the opinion of the individual making the statement. You are correct, however, in that it can be interpreted as mockery.
Ignorant simply means lack of knowledge, there are multiple instances in this blog where Froggie shows this.
Given that all individuals on the face of the earth lack some knowledge, the term as a standalone adjective is, as previously stated, redundant and requires an implicit or explicit qualifier.
I never said people that reply to me are frustrated, ignorant, or intellectually inferior, I was talking about certain people, namely froggie and flute.
Both of these individuals reply to you, and seem to make up a large part of your recent audience. I apologise for the ambiguity.
The standards I established my own intellectual superiority would be their inability to effectively refute a single significant point I've made, their inability to make any significant points, and their vast amounts of logical and factual errors found in this blog and other blogs as well.
Please note that the first two of these are subjective standards, and there is a high probability that the items to which you refer are differently interpreted by the individuals in question. This makes these standards invalid from an objective viewpoint, and they therefore cannot be used to support your assertion.
The third, however, are two valid measures of intellectual prowess. Ignoring for the sake of coherency the other measures of intellectual prowess that exist, could you please support the two assertions you have made in this statement, namely that the individuals in question have made "vast amounts" of logical errors, and that the individuals in question have made "vast amounts" of factual errors, in various forums of communication including this weblog.
Quasar asked you to "Please demonstrate that that "dishonest, shady, back handed tactics" have been employed against you."
You did not answer.
Under rules 1 and 2
1. When asked to support your assertion with evidence you will do so or you will admit you either have no evidence or you do not know. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
2. When asked to answer a question you will do so or you will admit you do not know or you cannot answer the question. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
You are going to have to delete all your subsequent posts until you comply.
10. These rules apply to everyone, even me.
Sorry.
Also, if you overreact all the time, it just makes you look a little crazy.
I'll be removing it as soon as I find an efficient way(other than manually deleting every comment) of preventing people from commenting on the blog.
If your goal is to "prevent people from commenting" then just turn the comments off.
I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, provided it is actually shown I am wrong.
Please substantiate this statement be providing examples of where you are wrong.
Given that all individuals on the face of the earth lack some knowledge, the term as a standalone adjective is, as previously stated, redundant and requires an implicit or explicit qualifier.
No it doesn't, ignorant simply means lack of knowledge, just because all individuals lack some knowledge does not mean I cannot call froggie ignorant, and in this particular case froggie is lacks knowledge of logic and integrity it seems.
Please note that the first two of these are subjective standards, and there is a high probability that the items to which you refer are differently interpreted by the individuals in question. This makes these standards invalid from an objective viewpoint, and they therefore cannot be used to support your assertion.
Nothing subjective about it, they have not done it and until it is proven or shown to me I have no reason to think otherwise. Even if it was subjective(I am not conceding it is) so what? please show me where the standards of which I attribute my own intellectual superiority need to be objective? and by objective what do you mean? how is them not making significant points or failing to refute significant points not objective?
The third, however, are two valid measures of intellectual prowess. Ignoring for the sake of coherency the other measures of intellectual prowess that exist, could you please support the two assertions you have made in this statement, namely that the individuals in question have made "vast amounts" of logical errors, and that the individuals in question have made "vast amounts" of factual errors, in various forums of communication including this weblog.
Flute: http://taooftruthinfighting.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheists-failure-to-criticize-pt-2.html
Froggies: can be found in the comments here:
http://taooftruthinfighting.blogspot.com/2009/06/theres-no-scientific-evidence-for-god.html
Quasar asked you to "Please demonstrate that that "dishonest, shady, back handed tactics" have been employed against you."
The post itself demonstrates that.
Sorry.
Also, if you overreact all the time, it just makes you look a little crazy
No one is overracting.
If your goal is to "prevent people from commenting" then just turn the comments off.
By people like Froggie and future people that will undoubtedly be banned, flute is free to post once he concedes the point.
Please substantiate this statement be providing examples of where you are wrong.
http://taooftruthinfighting.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheists-failure-to-criticize-pt-2.html
By people like Froggie and future people that will undoubtedly be banned, flute is free to post once he concedes the point.
That sentence should definitely be corrected to the following:
By people I meant people like Froggie and future people that will undoubtedly be banned, flute is free to post once he concedes the point.
The post itself demonstrates that. .
Where is the dishonesty, shady, back-handed tactics? What are these tactics? Why are they dishonest? What is shady and back-handed about them?
No one is overracting.
Some typed five little letters and it caused you to react with moderation and a post...
By people like Froggie and future people that will undoubtedly be banned, flute is free to post once he concedes the point.
Then delete Froggie's posts. What point does Flute have to concede?
Please substantiate this statement be providing examples of where you are wrong
http://taooftruthinfighting.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheists-failure-to-criticize-pt-2.html
.
Are you wrong about the entire thread? Or part of it? If so, which part?
Flute has to concede a point that you later say is "no doubt" a valid interpretation?
Does that mean you have to concede on incest and the flood?
Where is the dishonesty, shady, back-handed tactics? What are these tactics? Why are they dishonest? What is shady and back-handed about them?
The dishonesty is him giving me his word he would not post here. He did. That is dishonest. The shady, back handed tactics of course, are him giving his word he will not do something and going ahead and doing it anyway, that is shady and back handed.
Some typed five little letters and it caused you to react with moderation and a post...
No, as I told Makarios, the moderation is simply until I've found something else. The post, was simply to show people why I won't be trusting anyones 'word' anymore.
Then delete Froggie's posts. What point does Flute have to concede?
I don't want to manually delete every single post of his, I am sure there is something out there that is better! its the internet!! Fltue has to concede a point in the God the Father thread, scroll down to the bottom, you'll see where I asked him to concede the point.
No it doesn't, ignorant simply means lack of knowledge, just because all individuals lack some knowledge does not mean I cannot call froggie ignorant,
Indeed not, but because the definition of ignorant in the standalone context of universal knowledge applies to all humans, calling any specific human being ignorant in standalone context is redundant usage. To render it meaningful, the term requires an implicit or explicit qualifier.
...and in this particular case froggie is lacks knowledge of logic and integrity it seems.
Thank you for providing a qualifier for the term. Although it appears to be a broad qualifier, I believe I can agree that it is most likely that the individual in question, like the majority of human beings, does indeed lack some knowledge regarding the topic of logic.
Integrity, however, is a subjective qualifier, meaning something different depending on the person applying it and the context in which they apply it. Thus, your assertion that the individual in question lacks knowledge in the field of integrity cannot by verified, and remains the unsupported opinon of yourself.
Nothing subjective about it, they have not done it and until it is proven or shown to me I have no reason to think otherwise.
This is your opinion, thus it is entirely subjective. It may be the opinion of others that they have in the past effectively refuted significant points you've made, or made significant points of their own. Thus, your assertions regarding their actions can only be shown to be subjectively true. They cannot by definition be objectively true.
. Even if it was subjective(I am not conceding it is) so what? please show me where the standards of which I attribute my own intellectual superiority need to be objective?
They do not. However, if you wish your assertions regarding "intellectually inferior atheists" to be taken as more than than the unsupported opinions of a pseudomynous weblogger, you must provide more than subjective assertions.
and by objective what do you mean? how is them not making significant points or failing to refute significant points not objective?
As previously stated, others may hold the opinion that the individuals have already made significant points, and refuted points of yours. Further, they may hold the opinion that you have made no significant points, and have failed to refute significant points of theirs.
An assertion is objectively true when it corresponds to reality, and is held independant to personal opinion. The dictionary definition is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
I will study the links you have provided in support of the assertion that the individuals in question have made "vast amounts" of logical errors, and that the individuals in question have made "vast amounts" of factual errors. I shall return with a response when I have done so.
Are you wrong about the entire thread? Or part of it? If so, which part?
I know, its a long thread, its at the bottom, you'll notice I kept a count of his failure to prove a point, here is a mistake I made::
Yes, this is a mistake as I meant adopted daughter, but it must be noted that this has nothing to do with my overall points, it was a simple mistake.
The other ones should be close by.
Integrity, however, is a subjective qualifier, meaning something different depending on the person applying it and the context in which they apply it. Thus, your assertion that the individual in question lacks knowledge in the field of integrity cannot by verified, and remains the unsupported opinon of yourself.
I disagree, integrity is described as honesty. It is not honest to give your word than go back on it, that is dishonest.
This is your opinion, thus it is entirely subjective. It may be the opinion of others that they have in the past effectively refuted significant points you've made, or made significant points of their own. Thus, your assertions regarding their actions can only be shown to be subjectively true. They cannot by definition be objectively true.
No, it is not my opinion, if they have effectively refuted the significant points I made then there would be evidence of that, I see no evidence of that whatsoever, so it can be objectively true, take any significant point I've made, the God the father thread, that can easily be refuted by a piece of valid evidence that states the muslims do not worship the God of Abraham. However, I do concede the 'making' of points, that is subjective, you're correct on that one.
They do not. However, if you wish your assertions regarding "intellectually inferior atheists" to be taken as more than than the unsupported opinions of a pseudomynous weblogger, you must provide more than subjective assertions.
Making significant points, yes, you're correct, but refuting them, I disagree.
This is your opinion, thus it is entirely subjective. It may be the opinion of others that they have in the past effectively refuted significant points you've made, or made significant points of their own. Thus, your assertions regarding their actions can only be shown to be subjectively true. They cannot by definition be objectively true.
Opinions don't = refutation. People might have the opinion that they did refute a significant point, that is fine, but having an opinion and providing evidence for said opinion are 2 different things, I see no evidence at all that either of them refuted a significant point.
An assertion is objectively true when it corresponds to reality, and is held independant to personal opinion. The dictionary definition is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
Agreed, which is why I stand by my assertion that they have not refuted any significant point, there is no shred of evidence that they did.
I disagree, integrity is described as honesty. It is not honest to give your word than go back on it, that is dishonest.
This is true. However, this has little to do with the term "ignorant," which was the term you originally used to describe the users integrity.
No, it is not my opinion, if they have effectively refuted the significant points I made then there would be evidence of that,
This is not necessarily true. As an example: in the dispute with Flute regarding the assertion that Abraham was likely Sarahs half-sister, you demonstrated that a possible translation indicated she was instead an adopted daughter. Flute demonstrated that other translations, including the one used by the translators themselves, were more likely given alternatives such as Strong's Number 02994. Neither of you felt any point of your own was refuted.
Such is the nature of debate, that both participants will often go out thinking they made points that were not refuted, and refuted points that were made. I believe you are using this well known psychological phenomena to support your assertions, which is of course exceedingly bad practice.
Froggie wrote: Hi TD!
TD responded Which not only shows that Froggies concept of respect and his word is about as low as his intelligence is. {...} When they can't beat you legitimately, they resort to dishonest, shady, back handed tactics.
Saying "hi" can in no way be shown to be dishonest, shady or back handed. Your conclusion otherwise reveals your intellectual integrity to be as low as your estimation of Froggie's intelligence.
--
Now then, where's the theological discourse? I visit this place, and find a blog entry about boxing?
No, as I told Makarios, the moderation is simply until I've found something else. The post, was simply to show people why I won't be trusting anyones 'word' anymore.
I object to this statement. the amphibian should not be cause enough for you to distrust everyone based on his actions alone. I believe that to distrust everyone on the basis of one individual and not each individual is somewhat irrational.
And that's as close as I get to trying to form an argument, I was going to use the word nonsensical instead of irrational but I am far to timid to try and use words when I'm uncertain of their meaning and proper use. My grasp of grammar is almost laughable. Would it have worked in that context?
This is true. However, this has little to do with the term "ignorant," which was the term you originally used to describe the users integrity.
Oh, well he most certainly shows he lacks knowledge in that area, could he not lack knowledge in that area? sure that is a possibility but I have not seen the evidence that shows that.
This is not necessarily true. As an example: in the dispute with Flute regarding the assertion that Abraham was likely Sarahs half-sister, you demonstrated that a possible translation indicated she was instead an adopted daughter. Flute demonstrated that other translations, including the one used by the translators themselves, were more likely given alternatives such as Strong's Number 02994. Neither of you felt any point of your own was refuted.
Such is the nature of debate, that both participants will often go out thinking they made points that were not refuted, and refuted points that were made. I believe you are using this well known psychological phenomena to support your assertions, which is of course exceedingly bad practice.
you have to remember the point of that debate though, Flute was supposed to be proving my errors, appealing to a different although valid translation is not proof of error, so he did not, in a sense refute the point. Perhaps if I said that 'adopted sister' was the only valid interpretation then he would've refuted it, but his burden of proof was to prove my error, so in that sense, which was the original sense of the argument, he did fail to refute my point. I am not using the psychological phenomena in regards to their inability to refute a point, I was using it in regards to the inability to make a significant point, as I was most certainly incorrect.
Saying "hi" can in no way be shown to be dishonest, shady or back handed. Your conclusion otherwise reveals your intellectual integrity to be as low as your estimation of Froggie's intelligence.
Whatever, I suggest reading the post again, as I said
"Doubtless some people will maintain it is trivial, as he just said hi, and while the comment itself might be trivial, him going back on his word is not."
Saying hi was not dishonest, him going back on his word was dishonest.
Now then, where's the theological discourse? I visit this place, and find a blog entry about boxing?
Perhaps you should take a look at the rest of the blog, not to mention not ever single post will be a bout theology.
I object to this statement. the amphibian should not be cause enough for you to distrust everyone based on his actions alone. I believe that to distrust everyone on the basis of one individual and not each individual is somewhat irrational.
Oh no, I am not distrusting everyone, moderation is on until I find something that will make everyoe happy. Don't worry about your grammar btw, have you seen mine?!
Post a Comment