by StarTrekAngel 372 Replies latest watchtower bible
IMHO ...the best way to frame the OP's argument is to avoid, if humanly possible, debating like Donald Trump and instead debate like Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was fear mongering liar wholly unqualified for his job or any other that required critical thinking and objective evaluation of reality. In other words, a religious person.
Explain how have I lied?
You said I insisted on something. That is a BS lie. Unless you can quote where I insisted on something, I expect an apology for your absolute BS lie or you can expect every post I see of yours to call that out.
Quote up or shut up.
After I said on a previous post that I wasn't willing to go and dig up old threads to prove my point, you resorted to sarcasm to criticize me for that, and covertly affirmed that if I truly believed in "urbanity", I should back up my point with evidence. Since you haven't desisted by leaving it at that, I considered that you have, on the contrary, insisted on it. Hence, I don't see how have I substantively lied about it to warrant such a ferocious retort.
But since you so lightly accuse me of being a liar, and then attempt to damage my reputation by suggesting that everything I say may be suspect, I won't even give you the dignity to continue this exchange. If you want a stage to perform your propaganda techniques, that won't happen at my expense. You won't be able to stir anything else on me but an urge to puke.
What you just did to me is the ultimate example of name-calling and derogatory remarks that I was talking about before that are unhealthy for this forum and are detrimental for people who come here in search of help. I think you should ask yourself if your drive for confrontation is welcome here. And Simon should ask himself if this continued type of behavior should be allowed to continue in this forum. Because if it is, then I will ask myself if I should continue to come here, for this is no better than the relentless bully witch-hunting that the JW Elders served me with until my JC.
Eden
Pontification mode: ON
I would agree that it's generally good to respect another's right to believe anything they want, but not necessarily the belief(s) themselves. But even that's not an absolute.
Should anyone be required to respect someone's "right" to believe that people of a different religion, ethnic group, race, nationality, or whatever, are beneath them and should be exterminated? What sane person would believe the Nazis had the "right" to believe that the Jews were the root of all evil and therefore should be rounded up and killed? What balanced person would believe ISIS has the "right" to believe the wholesale slaughter of "infidels," the destruction of cultural monuments that predate their theology by thousands of years, and the disgusting practices of "thighing" babies and violating prepubescent sex slaves are all justified because they have the "one true religion"?
Even if one conceded that people have some "right" to believe absolutely anything they want, that would not translate as any "right" to impose those beliefs on anyone else and certainly not to act on those beliefs if it harmed or even infringed on the rights of anyone else.
I reject what I see as the myth that all beliefs are equally worthy of respect. I do not accept that all religions are equally worthy of respect. Or that all cultures are equally worthy of respect. Some of all the above, or at least certain aspects thereof, are so far beneath human dignity that they deserve only derision and total rejection by society as a whole.
Pontification mode: OFF
Resuming normal operations.
Please submit 2¢ for insightful diatribe.
EdenOne: Because if it is, then I will ask myself if I should continue to come here, for this is no better than the relentless bully witch-hunting that the JW Elders served me with until my JC.
You could always try not responding.
But since you so lightly accuse me of being a liar, and then attempt to damage my reputation by suggesting that everything I say may be suspect,
Don't BS this. I didn't lightly accuse you of anything. I demand that you prove proof of your BS or exect to be called on it. You made the accusations, you can 100℅ expect to reap the rewards of your posts and accusations.
That's how it works. You say shit about me, it ain't on me to deny it. It's on you to prove it or get dogged by it on every single post you make until you do or retract it because you accused the wrong person that won't stand even for half a second for foolish and idiotic lies.
So, post your proof, retract your comment and apologize or expect hell.
You could always not responding.
True. And that exchange won't have my contribution anymore. But I ask you now: Do you personally condone that type of behavior? Just curious.
Eden
EdenOne: Do you personally condone that type of behavior?
What exactly is "that" type of behavior?
Viv: retract your comment and apologize or expect hell.
That kind of comment seems beneath you. Why bother?
I think you're proving the point of the OP.
What exactly is "that" type of behavior?
Resorting to name-calling and condescending, derogatory remarks aimed directly at the person that is defending an idea or opinion or belief that you don't agree with. That is the behavior at question.
Eden
