Take Down the Bird Feeder!

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
And where are we told abortion is murder?

Deut. 19:9 if you shall keep all this commandment to do it, which I command you this day, to love Yahweh your God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shall you add three cities more for you, besides these three:
Deut. 19:10 that innocent blood not be shed in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood be on you.

Basically don't murder the innocent

It is certainly okay to kill human beings in certain circumstances.

Killing & murder are two separate offenses, one can be justified, and the other is never justified.


The situation in which a woman does not wish to be pregnant, and wants to terminate said pregnancy never comes up in scripture.

Specifically no but, the verse that says you shall not kill, and the others which tell you not to shed innocent blood covers that action, unless of course you are into self justification or moral relativism.


This is probably mostly due to societal changes since children were assets in an agrarian society but expensive in an industrialized society.

No, mankind has always been wicked, and for that there is only one cure.


But you miss the point again, WHY is abortion your one issue? Even if we accept thou shalt not kill applies,

It is not the only issue but, murdering the innocent, or government subsidization of murdering innocent life is certainly something that disturbs me greatly, in fact the subsidization makes me an accessory after the fact so, I will speak out against it , and make no apologies for those I offend in the process.

why aren't you making a big deal about not bearing false witness? Republicans seem to have no problem with that one.

I have but, you accept lies as fact regularly...Is Obama a liar? Is Hillary a liar? two perfect examples...ready, set, spin.

And if you want government to FORCE women to have children, why don't you want to have government pay for those children? And even more to the point, why don't you want to pay for birth control? (or do you?)

Already said they could shut down the planned parenthood abortion mills and give the money to groups dedicated to life and assisting those that choose that route. Moreover, if a woman wants an abortion they should have to pony up the money out of their own pocket not make the citizenry pay or subsidize it...Let the shame of murdering their own children be on them alone.

You weren't told by the government that you had to have children were you?

No I was told by God...

Gen. 1:28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
murdered baby:
March%2022%20Forced%20Abortion%20Original.jpg
Gotta question a government that not only makes this legal, but also protects and supports them that do it.
Twisted.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Killing & murder are two separate offenses, one can be justified, and the other is never justified.
Never?



8 O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!



I have but, you accept lies as fact regularly...Is Obama a liar? Is Hillary a liar? two perfect examples...ready, set, spin.
All politicians spin and distort, some more than others. Obama was actually not too bad in that regard. But Trump is the king of deceit.

Already said they could shut down the planned parenthood abortion mills and give the money to groups dedicated to life and assisting those that choose that route. Moreover, if a woman wants an abortion they should have to pony up the money out of their own pocket not make the citizenry pay or subsidize it...Let the shame of murdering their own children be on them alone.
That's already the case. The incessant arguments over planned parenthood demonize and organization that does far more than abortions. The Hatch act is still in place, and if you're worried about being an accessory to the deaths of innocents, you should be concerned about the US' involvement in foreign wars, bombings etc.

No I was told by God...

Gen. 1:28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
The earth is filled and subdued. Your point is? We make laws for everyone in society, not just Christians. Do you want to force everyone to have children?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Maxine is rehashing that ol email bit? I read that one about...nine or ten years back. It pops up from time to time, bizarre as ever.

I bought a bird feeder. I hung It on my back porch and filled It with seed.
First error, in premise. Public assistance isn't some disengaged altruist handing things to lesser beings. A great many people who at some point in their lives require and use it have been and go on to be productive, wage earning and tax paying citizens. Those who aren't are largely comprised of those with significant disabilities, the elderly and children. That's the actual rule.

So from this shallow, misshapen acorn a twisted tree with a bitter bark tries to take root, watered by the tears of frustrated outrage on the part of people who are either insufficiently informed, willfully ignorant, or bias blinded. But let's continue...

What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it, lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
Or, people in need utilizing the mechanism put in place for that need. Exactly as intended. The free is mistaken (see: the working poor pay taxes too) and the loving? We're about to see the falsity of that sentiment by the maker, someone who no one reading this would ever believe put up a feeder to begin with. No, they paid funds into their neighborhood co-op and the board thought it would be a good idea. They've been grousing ever since, doing their best to cut back on the feed allocated. Suggesting the feed could be scattered on the ground as easily and at lower cost.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table…. Everywhere!
Responsible management leads to manageable use, by and large. The grotesque exception is paraded here as the rule, along with the subtext of reducing people in need to greedy animals with the real human being the well-intentioned provider. Let the subtextual racism continue:

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. After a while, I couldn’t even sit on my own back porch anymore.
Third flaw. The porch would be owned by everyone, all of us are birds. There's no "taking back" a thing overrun.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be ….. Quiet, serene…. And no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
The arrogant, assumptive conflation of the worst expectation with the rule...there's so much wrong with this analogy.

Now let’s see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
No, the government, subject to screening and real need provides, where necessary, subsistence living assistance. Free education is provided to everyone, rich and poor, and only an idiot would suggest that nominal investment in creating good citizens and a superior workforce is a form of welfare, altruism, or largess. Citizenship has always been about birth here. What's bizarre is that right after criticizing that by lump sum inference the next complaint is about immigrants. :plain:

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child’s second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn’t speak English.
Immigrants have been coming in droves for generations, in every decade where the nation was a symbol of prosperity and freedom. The classroom bit is hysterical nonsense or an anecdote that doesn't begin to approach the mean.

The percentage of public school students in the United States who were English language learners was higher in school year 2013–14 (9.3 percent, or an estimated 4.5 million students) than in 2003–04 (8.8 percent, or an estimated 4.2 million students) and 2012–13 (9.2 percent, or an estimated 4.4 million students).In 2013–14, five of the six states with the highest percentages of ELL students in their public schools were in the West. In the District of Columbia and six states—Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas—10.0 percent or more of public school students were English language learners, with California having the highest percentage, at 22.7 percent. Seventeen states had percentages of ELL public school enrollment between 6.0 and 9.9 percent. These states were Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington. In 13 states, the percentage of ELL students in public schools was between 3.0 and 5.9 percent; this percentage was less than 3.0 percent in 14 states, with West Virginia having the lowest percentage, at 0.7 percent. National Center for Education Statistics


Corn flakes now come in a bilingual box
The horror. Unless one of those isn't English the complaint isn't much of one.

; I have to ‘press one ‘ to hear my bank talk to me in English
Supra.

, and people waving flags other than ‘Old Glory’ are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
What additional rights? Which people? What liberties and how are any liberties less than free?

Just my opinion, but maybe it’s time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
Just her heartless, headless, opinion, pulled fresh from half-baked, vaguely racist noodling that can only be called reason as an act of charity.


Coming soon to a restroom near you. :plain:
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
That's not what Jesus and Paul said.


And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,[c] but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius[d] and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.




For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

If this is how you do bible study, it's no wonder you're a liberal.

They didn't come to Jesus to learn what His politics were and what He thought about taxes. The text clearly states that they came to trap Him and get Him into trouble with the Roman authorities. This at least implies that they expected Him to hold a position that the Romans wouldn't like (i.e. against their tax policies) but Jesus, knowing what they had in mind, gave them an answer that neither endorsed Roman tax policies nor gave them what they needed to spring their trap.

And with Paul it's essential the same except that there was no trap being set for him. He wasn't endorsing Roman tax policy. He was telling us to obey the government when you can do so without sinning.

What you've done here is called isogesis. It's a fancy word for taking things out of context. Any more of it will go ignored.

Here's an example of Paul specifically regulating welfare, who should recieve it and under what circumstances....

I Timothy 5:3 Honor widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. 5 Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives. 7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

9 Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, 10 well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.

11 But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 having condemnation because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And besides they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not. 14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some have already turned aside after Satan. 16 If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows.​

No, THIS is the stupidest, stingiest, anti-biblical post I've seen in a while. Private organizations can't cover everyone, we found this out during the Great Depression. People were starving and dying, government had to step in. You're willing to let people die on your ridiculous principles.
The great depression was a problem brought on by the same government you want to fix it. No private organization can overcome the corruption of government. The key is to not give them the power necessary to screw the whole country over the way they did during the first two decades of the 20th century.

This topic is too complex for you. You haven't the faintest idea of what caused the Great Depression and wouldn't believe me if I told you. If you want to learn something about how economies actually work and why things happen the way they do, you can do no better than to read everything published at https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/

That's as close as I am going to get to debating it with you.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, so your picture is simply wrong. It's more like this.
Pro-abortion people love to get into arguments about how people look, as if that justified murder.

That's not to say I'm pro abortion.
We know you won't say it. But don't worry; we'll tell the truth for you.

In a free society, there should be some accommodations for women that are in difficult circumstances.
There is never a circumstance in which the baby has to be murdered to protect the life of the mother. And you don't care about the "difficult" circumstances; you're perfectly content to have abortion available on demand through nine months, as long as you don't have to deal with it.

I don't like the idea of government forcing women to carry a child they don't want.
I don't like the idea of the government allowing murder.

I would like to see birth control more available and for free to hopefully reduce the situations before they happen.
You want murder hidden.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
The point is that human beings are about as valuable as songbirds, and they act like animals so you may as well just let them starve.

Matthew 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

God isnt in control of your world? You need an earthly father (government) to take care of you?


And, how DARE I be confronted with any other language but English.
How dare someone who comes here deliberately to live, fail to learn the language of the country they crash? Thats the responsibility of the parents, to ensure their child can communicate before they enter school. Not for my child to be held back so they can catch up.

You liberals have all the answers though, right, so fund a school for those to learn english at at your expense. Thats not a legitimate function of government, and neither is a ton of things you libbies want. Swamp the boat and everyone drowns.

How DARE anyone ask for more rights?
Why do you believe those here illegally are entitled to benefits from taxes as a right?

I don't know how someone who is a Christian can espouse this point of view.
What view? The view that there are laws and systems and those who crash it dont have a right to do so?


It's hateful, bigoted and merciless. You're entitled to an opinion, but don't pretend it's a righteous one.

You havent read your bible, clearly.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That would be ideal, yes!

The government taking money from you and giving it to someone else is stealing. Not only that but government welfare creates a conflict of interest on both sides of the ballot box. It is fundamentally and irreparably corrupt and should be abolished.

It's not 'fundamentally corrupt' and nor is it stealing. It's the only tenable system that makes provision for people unemployed and that very same system would provide for you if you were to find yourself in a position whereby you were temporarily or permanently unable to work. It might not be perfect but no system is and where it comes to government misuse of money then there's plenty of things I don't agree with paying taxes for but a safety net for people and especially the most vulnerable in society isn't one of them, especially if I could find myself in such a position. In the UK, if you're able to work you have to prove you're making the effort to find employment in order to continue receiving benefits so it's not as though it's a peachy life because the money is just about enough to cover the bare necessities and hardly informs any sort of comfortable lifestyle. Nor should it to be fair as those in work should be significantly better off. Those on sickness benefits get rather more which again, is as it should be.

People in need can get VOLUNTARY help from their family, friends and neighbors and other private organizations that both get money from voluntary donations and have control over who gets the help and what form that help comes in and for how long.

Not everybody has the options of family, friends and neighbours to turn to for a start. Even those that do could hardly expect them to continually buy them food/pay the rent etc. Charitable organizations would balk at what you suggest as they often deal with those unfortunate enough to fall through the safety net never mind the influx of poverty and homelessness that your 'ideal' would bring about. Charity only extends so far as it is and removing the benefits system would not only result in the above it would lead to children suffering in the process to boot.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
"Why do you profane Me, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live."

On tye topic of abortion, why do women think it's ok to kill their innocent baby? Inconvenience? So if I was inconvenienced by you, should I be allowed to kill you?
Convenience

The father is a criminal? (e.g. rapist) why are you punishing the child for the sins of the father?
The child is the seed of an evil act/someone evil. It may very well feel offensive to allow it to develop. Imagine if "dad" were some kind of serial rapist/killer, wouldn't you be worried the child could turn out like dad?

The mother's life is in danger? Why not do everything you can to save both? If you were in a car wreck, and we were pulling you out, should we stop and finish you off with a stab through the base of the skull, and then pull you out? Or should we dismember you while you're still in the car and pull you out in pieces?

There is no reason whatsoever, when trying to save the life of the mother, to stop and kill the baby. If the baby is going to die, and you can't save him or her, you let the baby die. Intentionally taking an innocent person's life is murder. For example, and ectopic pregnancy is where the baby attaches to the wall of the fallopian tubes. If the baby is not removed from the mother, both the mother and the baby will die. If the baby IS removed, only the baby will die, and the mother will survive. Last I checked, there is nothing else that can be done. But EVEN IN THAT SITUATION, you don't stop and kill the baby. You let the baby die.
That's what abortion is for the most part, simply removal. Now if you're talking late term, then things get closer to what you are describing.

The problem with these statements is that it assumes that it's ok to have sex outside of marriage (one man and one woman). So instead of addressing the symptom, I'll address the problem. The problem is that we've made sexual immorality commonplace.
We live in a pluralistic society. You can't expect everyone in it to uphold Christian morals. Nor should we mandate it.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The government that you want present to "fix" or "remedy" such a problem is the very same government that caused the problem to begin with.

Benefits aren't a "remedy" or a "fix" and nor have I suggested that they are. The simple fact of the matter is that there's no such thing as 'full employment' and there's always going to be people out of work, that's before even taking into account those that are unable to. Take that safety net away, the one in principle that's there for everyone who finds themselves lacking employment and you increase the poverty ratio tenfold.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Matthew 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

God isnt in control of your world? You need an earthly father (government) to take care of you?
Why did God mandate people left gleanings in the field for the poor and the alien then? Could God not feed people directly? Or maybe that's part of our JOB as human beings, to care for one another.

How dare someone who comes here deliberately to live, fail to learn the language of the country they crash? Thats the responsibility of the parents, to ensure their child can communicate before they enter school. Not for my child to be held back so they can catch up.
We're not even talking about what happens in school. The OP was complaining he had to push one for English . . . :rolleyes: In Bible times there were dozens of languages spoken in the region and nobody complained about it in scripture. Please get over yourself.

Why do you believe those here illegally are entitled to benefits from taxes as a right?
Did I say that? No. Should everyone have equal protection under the law and not be tortured or killed for no reason? Yes.

What view? The view that there are laws and systems and those who crash it dont have a right to do so?
Show me where that idea is found in scripture, that illegal immigrants should have no rights at all.

You havent read your bible, clearly.
No, I'm afraid you haven't.


He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. 19 So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

 

Alate_One

Well-known member
If this is how you do bible study, it's no wonder you're a liberal.

They didn't come to Jesus to learn what His politics were and what He thought about taxes. The text clearly states that they came to trap Him and get Him into trouble with the Roman authorities. This at least implies that they expected Him to hold a position that the Romans wouldn't like (i.e. against their tax policies) but Jesus, knowing what they had in mind, gave them an answer that neither endorsed Roman tax policies nor gave them what they needed to spring their trap.

And with Paul it's essential the same except that there was no trap being set for him. He wasn't endorsing Roman tax policy. He was telling us to obey the government when you can do so without sinning.

What you've done here is called isogesis. It's a fancy word for taking things out of context. Any more of it will go ignored.
I'm quite aware of what eisegesis is, which you apparently don't know how to spell. The purpose of Jesus statements were not about tax policy to be sure, but he certainly didn't endorse the idea that taxes are theft, which is what you said. Paul basically said the same thing, that taxes should be paid, he didn't say they were theft either.

So you're still in error, regardless. Hardly surprising since people on the extreme right, like yourself, put Ayn Rand's philosophy above the Bible.

I hope you understand that philosophy is anti-God and a form of satanism.


LaVey stated that his Satanism was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added"



source

The great depression was a problem brought on by the same government you want to fix it. No private organization can overcome the corruption of government. The key is to not give them the power necessary to screw the whole country over the way they did during the first two decades of the 20th century.
Um no. It was brought on by lack of regulation which allowed speculation, a bubble and a crash, much like 2007.

History of the Great Depression

This topic is too complex for you. You haven't the faintest idea of what caused the Great Depression and wouldn't believe me if I told you.
Yes, call me stupid because you can't actually argue this topic. I won't believe you because you'd be wrong. You've been wrong about everything you've posted pretty much.

If you want to learn something about how economies actually work and why things happen the way they do, you can do no better than to read everything published at https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/
Yeah I think I'll pass on reading the economic ideas of someone convicted of fraud and sent to jail for it.


In September 1999, Armstrong faced prosecution by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for fraud. During the trial, Armstrong was imprisoned for over seven years for civil contempt of court, one of the longest-running cases of civil contempt in American legal history. In August 2006, Armstrong pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud, and began a five-year sentence



Source
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I'm quite aware of what eisegesis is, which you apparently don't know how to spell.
I had no time to edit my post yesterday.

People who make such comments are not worth my time. Don't do it again or it'll be the last post of yours I ever read.

The purpose of Jesus statements were not about tax policy to be sure, but he certainly didn't endorse the idea that taxes are theft, which is what you said. Paul basically said the same thing, that taxes should be paid, he didn't say they were theft either.

I didn't say taxes were theft, I said that government welfare is theft. Robin Hood was a theif and any government (or any party at all for that matter) acting as Robin Hood is a theif.

So you're still in error, regardless. Hardly surprising since people on the extreme right, like yourself, put Ayn Rand's philosophy above the Bible.
This comment was lie. Most likely, an intentional one. You're trying hard to make my ignore list.

Rand's philosophy is nowhere near the bible in my view. Because I am not afraid to acknowledge when an unbeliever get's something right, doesn't mean I place their philosophy above the bible. That's the sort of stupidity that people really have come to expect from the left. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Rand got more wrong than she got right.

I hope you understand that philosophy is anti-God and a form of satanism.
That's a very philosophical thing to say!

You're an idiot.

What in the world are you doing on a debate forum if you think philosophy is Satanism? Christian theology is Christian philosophy, moron.


LaVey stated that his Satanism was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added"



source
As with anything, you can get out of something whatever you're looking to get. The bible is truth, that which is consistent with the bible may also be truth but that which is not is false - period.


Um no. It was brought on by lack of regulation which allowed speculation, a bubble and a crash, much like 2007.
It's the opposite. I will not debate this with you.

History of the Great Depression

Yes, call me stupid because you can't actually argue this topic. I won't believe you because you'd be wrong. You've been wrong about everything you've posted pretty much.
This was that last straw.

Live in ignorance.

Good bye.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
A few weeks ago I was inches away from just stopping my participation here at Theology Online. It has become an exercise in utter futility and a nearly complete waste of my time. Then a thread defending the belief that the Earth is flat and that we never went to the moon, of all things, turned into a conversation that was actually entertaining, even if it was a touch too far into the Twilight Zone, and I started to remember what I love so much about doing this.

But this thread has reminded me of all the things I've come to despise. All the sorts of despicable people that genuinely disgust me and make me constantly wonder why I waste my time doing this. The fact is that I no longer care to even attempt to convince anyone. I don't care to even try because none of you have any idea what you're talking about and aren't interested in learning or even engaging in enough intellectual honesty to see if what you think you know is accurate. All of you can go to Hell and the world would be better off for it.

Go ahead and argue amongst yourselves. Waste your own time. I'm done.

(Those of you that these comments don't apply to, know who you are.)
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
I had no time to edit my post yesterday.

People who make such comments are not worth my time. Don't do it again or it'll be the last post of yours I ever read.
Which apparently may be the last post of anything he'll ever read, including this post, alas.

What in the world are you doing on a debate forum if you think philosophy is Satanism? Christian theology is Christian philosophy, moron.
It would help if you read the context of what I wrote, I said Ayn Rand's philosophy is satanism, not Christianity or philosophy in general.

This was that last straw.

Live in ignorance.

Good bye.

I believe the actual last straw was probably when I pointed out your economic hero was imprisoned for fraud since you conveniently cut that out of your reply.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
A few weeks ago I was inches away from just stopping my participation here at Theology Online. It has become an exercise in utter futility and a nearly complete waste of my time. Then a thread defending the belief that the Earth is flat and that we never went to the moon, of all things, turned into a conversation that was actually entertaining, even if it was a touch too far into the Twilight Zone, and I started to remember what I love so much about doing this.
That was a fun thread, for the most part. A lot of people managed it without rolling around in the dirt and becoming overly emotional. You were good in that one. But you were also largely unopposed by the sensible and rational.

But this thread has reminded me of all the things I've come to despise. All the sorts of despicable people that genuinely disgust me and make me constantly wonder why I waste my time doing this.
To me that sums your problem when it comes to debate where you are opposed by reasoned difference from people you can't really push around or dismiss. You do that. It's why I almost entirely wrote off worrying about debating you a long time ago, when you turned what should have been a civil, reasoned discourse on the Holy into something rooted in feces, literally. It's a shame, because you have a keen mind and a capable one, rhetorically, when you can keep it out of an odd tendency to dive into the emotional when someone returns a shove.

The fact is that I no longer care to even attempt to convince anyone. I don't care to even try because none of you have any idea what you're talking about and aren't interested in learning or even engaging in enough intellectual honesty to see if what you think you know is accurate. All of you can go to Hell and the world would be better off for it.
And there it is, why you're the worst enemy of your own point. You simply have to understand that on almost any issue there are reasoned, rational, capable people who have a different, often contrary notion, irksome as that is. And you're unlikely to convince them that you're in the right. At best you'll move the margins, get the opportunity to present and hone your part and, more importantly, inform people actively looking for an answer of at least one strong possibility...well, unless they see this part, in which case they're as likely to conflate the outburst with argument and you do neither a particular good turn.

Go ahead and argue amongst yourselves. Waste your own time. I'm done.

(Those of you that these comments don't apply to, know who you are.)
Taking the marbles is almost never a good idea, unless it's to remove yourself from people who are confusing the personal and unsupported rhetorical attacks with the topic at hand. A lesson all the way around, I think.
 
Top