toldailytopic: "Soup kitchens": Do they help or hurt the homeless?

[Granite]

What documentation? I'm curious now.

Since when was this thread about Lighthouse?

 

[Town Heretic]

And you think you're not an idiot?

I know I'm not an idiot. I thought I might actually be of some help in moving your margins, but it's like this: you already know your behavior is unacceptable and immature. It's why you aren't particularly popular. Now you can amend that behavior or tell yourself it's the price for speaking the truth. Either way you make the sort of life for yourself you deserve and there's nothing else for it.

In context the verses in Luke are the same. They are not about those who are asking because they are in need, but rather those who are stealing.

No, fellow, they aren't. It's an illustration of principle. Part of the reason you should understand that is found in the 30th verse of Luke, which says (as quoted earlier)

"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."

That's not about takers at the outset. Anyone who asks AND anyone who takes. Another reason you should know that the rest is a larger illustration is that those verses and Jewish practice previously noted won't work else, have to be twisted and supplied a context not present.

Of course the argument still stands that even if the command is to give to those who ask because they are in need, the right thing to do is more than simply that.

I think that's absolutely true, which is why I've never held another opinion or voiced anything that could be reasonably construed as opposition to it.

Feeding them is not a moral good if that is all we do. So it is not an absolute moral good. You fail.

Wrong, Brandon. Lazy thinking. That a greater good can be accomplished doesn't negate the good done. And you suppose that feeding alone is not a moral good. But that's all you do. It absolutely is. It is a moral good to feed the hungry, to visit those in prison, to pray for the sick. It is an absolute good to help someone in need. It is a greater good (just as there is greater love) to do more.

And here your argument is that ending soup kitchens, which do nothing more than hand out food, would be ending the means by which the handful of good men might be spared, which is a false premise.

Well, no. Rather, the point here is that God was willing to allow a city of evil to stand for the sake of the benefit done for a very, very few. So if, as was the case with Delmar, the concern is that some men might be harmed in helping others, we have an example of God's differing judgment on action. A bit like leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one lost. That is, God appears to consider us individually first and place as much value on that as anything else.

The argument that we should stop just handing out food is that we should do more. That we should help those in need completely, by helping them help themselves. And we should not give them the means to be lazy and sit on their laurels, etc.

Rather, we should do more out of the abundance of our desire to see the better for them, but you mate this with an ugly assumption that colors so much of your comment. And, again, I've never opposed the doing of more or suggested that we shouldn't, but taking on that OP and further illustration was precisely what I did. Not that your nature will allow for it, even set out as I only just did.

My posts have borne out my argument, and to make an example out of post 95 is taking it out of context, as you did with Scripture.

No, Brandon. You later set out the sentiment I have, again, in no part opposed and, in fact, support (if not the backing sentiment, as discussed supra). But you didn't do that for some time.

Again, a poor argument. You are assuming that we want to stop helping people altogether.

No. And, ironically, that's a poor analysis. The argument had nothing to do with your unknowable intent. You miss my point entirely and misname the result. The first sentence is the thesis. The remaining sentences draw out the danger in the line of thinking that hesitates when faced with an unknown that may carry some harm with it. I'd never suggest or believe that Delmar would support not helping those in need and was addressing his concern about misuse and unintended harm and where that could lead.

And that is not our suggestion at all. True charity is not the act of a bleeding heart; but that of a clean heart, and a steadfast spirit.

No. Charity is a simple thing, a giving. The laurels you appear to desire to hang on it beyond that might make the line you quoted form Matthew a bit more of a consideration for you though, given that angle to your thinking.

Charity should challenge people to get out of their dire circumstances, not to stay in them because they are being handed everything for nothing.

Did the Samaritan challenge the man he saved? No. Charity is an act of kindness and an advancement of the good. That there are other and greater acts of kindness and advancement does not diminish the least of these.

I took exception to your misuse of Scripture.

And you were wrong. I took exception to your exception.

The verses in question in Matthew may not preclude charity, but they do not command it either. You will find that elsewhere.

Did you even read my response re: Matthew? :squint: MY point was that you were misapplying the principle. That an extension of that misapplication would lead to a more obvious error.

Feeding the hungry is not at all the same as dying for sinners.:nono:

It's also not automotive repair, but the point was that you were discussing merit tied to charitable acts and I noted our example felt otherwise by way of living illustration.

And you are right. I should not have assumed that you were smart enough to understand the point being made. You need told rather than shown. I'll try to remember that.

See, that only makes you look dense. My intelligence isn't in question, though your maturity and discernment is an ongoing matter of reasoned speculation.


Continuing, the next post you speak of people working for it...it being the means to survive being discussed. That's tantamount to the Thessalonian quote and no reason to suspect a charitable impulse is contained within it.[/quote]

So Paul was speaking against charity? You fail. Paul was explaining how charity should work.

A brilliant strategy. First announce a point not made, then attack it by declaration. I never intimated that Paul was doing anything of the sort. You don't quote me on that because you can't. You don't actually demonstrate how I might have been doing that, again, because you can't. I wasn't unclear about my understanding of the error involved in a narrowed reading of Paul on that point.

Why do they discourage them from doing for themselves? Because they don't encourage them to!:dunce::duh:

Way to dodge your error and assert another one in its place. So, first, you were wrong in your epithet laden pronouncement on my address of the OP. Big of you to note it. And by note it I mean, of course, run desperately to the next errant point.

And at best you could claim that those people who would limit charity to hand outs (assuming anyone would actually make that argument) fail in doing a greater good for the people in need. To make the next jump you have to make a sweeping general judgment (in the negative) about the character of those aided. I can see that in keeping with your own, but don't share it or find it particularly Christian in tone. Suit yourself though, only don't attempt to foist it off on anyone else as a reasonable, foregone conclusion.

What thing?

Good grief, man, didn't you only just stop touting your powers of reason and comprehension. The thing we've been talking about for some time now, the soup kitchen. :squint:

Remind me never to ask you to draw up my will. A decent lawyer would tear it apart.

That's pathetic, Brandon. Moving on...

Bottom line: the argument from the OP was that Soup Kitchens create, or exacerbate, the problem; they do not solve it.

No, it wasn't. I literally set that out a post ago by quoting the author. Shall I post it again? Maybe those dazzling reading skills of yours will kick in (now THAT was an underhanded compliment).

At most I misused the term, "backtracked".

You did a bit more than that...but I've set it out.

There was no delay in the insult. I'm not a moron.

:rotfl: That you don't get why this is funny only makes it more so.

 

[rexlunae]

Since when was this thread about Lighthouse?

Sorry, he claimed to be able to prove that his analytical skills were way above average. I'm just really curious how he would go about proving that other than somehow by demonstrating his ability...which he clearly isn't going to do given his performance so far. I figured the thread has already degenerated to the point that it's mostly just LH trying to be unpleasant and TH making him look really silly, so the divergence wouldn't really hurt.

 

[Granite]

Sorry, he claimed to be able to prove that his analytical skills were way above average. I'm just really curious how he would go about proving that other than somehow by demonstrating his ability...which he clearly isn't going to do given his performance so far. I figured the thread has already degenerated to the point that it's mostly just LH trying to be unpleasant and TH making him look really silly, so the divergence wouldn't really hurt.

Eh, I suppose. I just find it hard to believe that Brandon's behavior has gotten so much worse than he used to be. The guy is seriously damaged.

 

[Lighthouse]

What documentation? I'm curious now.

I had an evaluation done recently for an undisclosed reason. I could scan it and post it here tomorrow.

As I understand the point of this thread we are talking about people who are already homeless. We are talking about people less fortunate than ourselves.
St. Martin split his cloak in half and gave one piece to a man in need.
The "Good Samaritan" stopped and assisted a man in need. He provided money to further care for the man til he should be healed.
Throughout our lives we all need assistance. Jesus made it simple. Just do unto others what you would have them do unto you. He didn't qualify or specify who the "others" were.
To feed a hungry person is to entertain Christ.

the Good Samaritan does not apply to this issue. The man had been beaten to the point of being unable to help himself at all. And even so the Samaritan did more for that man than soup kitchens do for the homeless.

Did Martin do more for the man in need?

If you were in need would you want someone else to hand you everything not expecting you to do anything for yourself?

I know I'm not an idiot. I thought I might actually be of some help in moving your margins, but it's like this: you already know your behavior is unacceptable and immature. It's why you aren't particularly popular. Now you can amend that behavior or tell yourself it's the price for speaking the truth. Either way you make the sort of life for yourself you deserve and there's nothing else for it.

:yawn:

No, fellow, they aren't. It's an illustration of principle. Part of the reason you should understand that is found in the 30th verse of Luke, which says (as quoted earlier)

"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."

That's not about takers at the outset. Anyone who asks AND anyone who takes. Another reason you should know that the rest is a larger illustration is that those verses and Jewish practice previously noted won't work else, have to be twisted and supplied a context not present.

Translation: I don't know how to red further before running my mouth.

I think that's absolutely true, which is why I've never held another opinion or voiced anything that could be reasonably construed as opposition to it.

How long did it take for you to voice that after you started arguing against those who were making that argument, as if you didn't know that's what they meant?

Wrong, Brandon. Lazy thinking. That a greater good can be accomplished doesn't negate the good done. And you suppose that feeding alone is not a moral good. But that's all you do. It absolutely is. It is a moral good to feed the hungry, to visit those in prison, to pray for the sick. It is an absolute good to help someone in need. It is a greater good (just as there is greater love) to do more.

No good is done if you just keep giving a man a fish whenever he is hungry. Good is only done if you teach him to fish.

It is not a moral good if you do nothing more than give them a fish. Absolutely not.

Well, no. Rather, the point here is that God was willing to allow a city of evil to stand for the sake of the benefit done for a very, very few. So if, as was the case with Delmar, the concern is that some men might be harmed in helping others, we have an example of God's differing judgment on action. A bit like leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one lost. That is, God appears to consider us individually first and place as much value on that as anything else.

Yeah, because feeding the hungry and raining fire and brimstone upon a city are equal.

Rather, we should do more out of the abundance of our desire to see the better for them, but you mate this with an ugly assumption that colors so much of your comment. And, again, I've never opposed the doing of more or suggested that we shouldn't, but taking on that OP and further illustration was precisely what I did. Not that your nature will allow for it, even set out as I only just did.

Rather? Now you accuse me of wanting to help them for a reason other than what my argument has been this entire time?

No, Brandon. You later set out the sentiment I have, again, in no part opposed and, in fact, support (if not the backing sentiment, as discussed supra). But you didn't do that for some time.

Again, my bad for not realizing you weren't smart enough to recognize the point of the OP.

No. And, ironically, that's a poor analysis. The argument had nothing to do with your unknowable intent. You miss my point entirely and misname the result. The first sentence is the thesis. The remaining sentences draw out the danger in the line of thinking that hesitates when faced with an unknown that may carry some harm with it. I'd never suggest or believe that Delmar would support not helping those in need and was addressing his concern about misuse and unintended harm and where that could lead.

The argument you made was made under that assumption. Plain and simple.

No. Charity is a simple thing, a giving. The laurels you appear to desire to hang on it beyond that might make the line you quoted form Matthew a bit more of a consideration for you though, given that angle to your thinking.

Your mind is a simple thing.

Did the Samaritan challenge the man he saved? No. Charity is an act of kindness and an advancement of the good. That there are other and greater acts of kindness and advancement does not diminish the least of these.

False comparison. We've been over this. The man was truly beyond any capacity of having the ability to help himself at the point in which the Samaritan found him.

And you were wrong. I took exception to your exception.

:loser:

There's no smiley for "liar" so that will have to do.

Did you even read my response re: Matthew? :squint: MY point was that you were misapplying the principle. That an extension of that misapplication would lead to a more obvious error.

You assume a principle that is not present.

It's also not automotive repair, but the point was that you were discussing merit tied to charitable acts and I noted our example felt otherwise by way of living illustration.

He did what He did because we could not do it for ourselves. Not at all the same as feeding a hungry man who could work to earn a meal but will not.

See, that only makes you look dense. My intelligence isn't in question, though your maturity and discernment is an ongoing matter of reasoned speculation.

There is certainly no question you aren't smart enough to reason beyond the face value of posts here, yet you attempt to go beyond what is written in the word of God.:think:

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
-1 Corinthians 4:6

A brilliant strategy. First announce a point not made, then attack it by declaration. I never intimated that Paul was doing anything of the sort. You don't quote me on that because you can't. You don't actually demonstrate how I might have been doing that, again, because you can't. I wasn't unclear about my understanding of the error involved in a narrowed reading of Paul on that point.

You were quite unclear, if that was indeed your point.

You did not claim that I was in error in my understanding of Paul. And I have demonstrated that I am not in error.

Way to dodge your error and assert another one in its place. So, first, you were wrong in your epithet laden pronouncement on my address of the OP. Big of you to note it. And by note it I mean, of course, run desperately to the next errant point.

And at best you could claim that those people who would limit charity to hand outs (assuming anyone would actually make that argument) fail in doing a greater good for the people in need. To make the next jump you have to make a sweeping general judgment (in the negative) about the character of those aided. I can see that in keeping with your own, but don't share it or find it particularly Christian in tone. Suit yourself though, only don't attempt to foist it off on anyone else as a reasonable, foregone conclusion.

As it is written:
“ There is none righteous, no, not one;

There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“ The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
​

-Romans 3:10-18

Good grief, man, didn't you only just stop touting your powers of reason and comprehension. The thing we've been talking about for some time now, the soup kitchen. :squint:

In this particular instance, of course we are speaking of the soup kitchen, but those who are late to the conversation [readers] may not know that. You need to be more specific. Also, you could have been making a generalization, seeing as how you used very general language.

That's pathetic, Brandon. Moving on...

You're the one who doesn't know how to be specific.

No, it wasn't. I literally set that out a post ago by quoting the author. Shall I post it again? Maybe those dazzling reading skills of yours will kick in (now THAT was an underhanded compliment).

1. Just because you don't know how to reason based on experience with the author of the OP doesn't mean his intentions were not clear to those of us who can reason.
2. That was sarcasm, not a underhanded, or backhanded, compliment.

You did a bit more than that...but I've set it out.

Are you accusing me of doing the same thing you did, re: the OP?

:rotfl: That you don't get why this is funny only makes it more so.

No delay=I knew what it was as soon as I saw it.

Sorry, he claimed to be able to prove that his analytical skills were way above average. I'm just really curious how he would go about proving that other than somehow by demonstrating his ability...which he clearly isn't going to do given his performance so far. I figured the thread has already degenerated to the point that it's mostly just LH trying to be unpleasant and TH making him look really silly, so the divergence wouldn't really hurt.

Do you know the level of your comprehension skills?

 

[rexlunae]

Do you know the level of your comprehension skills?

I have no specific way to quantify them. I'm kinda wondering what you've got for a measurement.

 

[Town Heretic]

:yawn:

The closest thing to a coherent position you've made yet in relation. :thumb:

Translation: I don't know how to red further before running my mouth.

Translation: you don't have an answer...or a spell check, which is funny given your preoccupation.

How long did it take for you to voice that after you started arguing against those who were making that argument,

Hold onto the demonstrably absurd posit if you have to, but I set out the error of your call on the OP, including the illustration by Knight that had, literally, nothing to do with doing more AND my answer, doofus.

No good is done if you just keep giving a man a fish whenever he is hungry. Good is only done if you teach him to fish.

That's just irrational. The first good is in feeding/meeting the immediate need. The larger need of circumstance is another and greater task.

Yeah, because feeding the hungry and raining fire and brimstone upon a city are equal.

Look, if you're going to claim a degree of intelligence you need to start evidencing it. The principle is the thing...and the thing you apparently have yet to grasp though I've explained it more than once.

Rather? Now you accuse me of wanting to help them for a reason other than what my argument has been this entire time?

I noted your opening posts and the subsequent expansion in your later posits. I also noted that, your attitude about the poor aside, I agreed with the notion of doing more to help people become self sufficient.

Again, my bad for not realizing you weren't smart enough to recognize the point of the OP.

I've countered you on that. Now you can claim to have a window into a larger position that at the time of my entry wasn't being voiced or argued, and one that I subsequently took no issue with, but that's not what we're talking about.

The argument you made was made under that assumption. Plain and simple.

Well, no. It was made relative to the disclosed. You decided to invest my words with meaning that actually countered the expressed intent.

Your mind is a simple thing.

So is John 3:16. Thanks. I try to simplify where possible, especially when you're in the mix.

False comparison. We've been over this.

No, WE haven't. I have. You declared. Simply saying a thing is something isn't an argument any more than claiming to be intelligent without actually demonstrating it is meaningful. So you have quite a mountain to climb.

There's no smiley for "liar" so that will have to do.

You are to wit what marshmallows are to dietary fiber.

You assume a principle that is not present.

No, I demonstrated/illustrated an errant application on your part. In typical LH fashion, you answer with empty declarative.

He did what He did because we could not do it for ourselves. Not at all the same as feeding a hungry man who could work to earn a meal but will not.

Assumption at the heart of that. You don't know what a man can or can't do, generalize without considering people who can't do and who would be harmed by the closing of these kitchens. And I've been into the error of yours and concern of others prior.

There is certainly no question you aren't smart enough to reason beyond the face value of posts here, yet you attempt to go beyond what is written in the word of God.:think:

The only certainty here is that I've wasted valuable time listening to the misguided preening of someone who is without the inclination to do more than stomp, declare, and mischaracterize. That's beginning to look like a childish thing to be put away.

You were quite unclear, if that was indeed your point.

You confuse my illustration with your ability. It happens.

You did not claim that I was in error in my understanding of Paul. And I have demonstrated that I am not in error.

I did and you were and remain.

In this particular instance, of course we are speaking of the soup kitchen, but those who are late to the conversation [readers] may not know that.

Given the repeated references I'll just file this under "Brandon tries to save face, again" and leave it at that.

You need to be more specific. Also, you could have been making a generalization, seeing as how you used very general language.

About what, kid? No. You may have been confused, for who knows what reason. I doubt anyone following the exchange had doubts about the inference.

You're the one who doesn't know how to be specific.

So you found a new, errant, drum to bang I see. It's almost like answering on topic, isn't it...lain:

Just because you don't know how to reason based on experience with the author of the OP doesn't mean his intentions were not clear to those of us who can reason.

Hey, doofus, knowing what someone's opinion is in a broader sense than the OP they make isn't reasoning. And once the point was raised I agreed with the idea of doing more. Again, not what was said either in the OP or the next part where the OP position was clarified.

That was sarcasm, not a underhanded, or backhanded, compliment.

It was precisely what I noted for the reason set out prior, you enormous goof.

Are you accusing me of doing the same thing you did, re: the OP?

Do you still beat your wife sort of nonsense.

No delay=I knew what it was as soon as I saw it.

Right...you're so smart you participated in taking a humorous shot at yourself so you could come back with this amazing zinger. lain:

Do you know the level of your comprehension skills?

By what standard? I know my ACT was sufficient for an Ivy League education, that my LSAT was within the top ten percent, and I'm aware of my IQ and its statistical rarity. Beyond those numbers I survived law school and received my doctorate, which was precisely about utilizing logic and language skills, then passed the bar and went on to make a respectable place for myself in an extremely competitive profession where that skill set is the foundation for success.

You? lain:

 

[Lighthouse]

I have no specific way to quantify them. I'm kinda wondering what you've got for a measurement.

I was recently evaluated on certain skill sets.

Translation: you don't have an answer...or a spell check, which is funny given your preoccupation.

I have an automatic spell check which isn't going to catch the word "red", as it is a real word. I do not have a grammar check. And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can clearly discern that I typed too fast, seeing as how the obvious word that should be there is "read," which is only one letter different.

Hold onto the demonstrably absurd posit if you have to, but I set out the error of your call on the OP, including the illustration by Knight that had, literally, nothing to do with doing more AND my answer, doofus.

What error? I never said Knight was explicit in the OP about what he meant. I only ever said anyone who knows him should have known what he meant. You have only managed to prove me wrong on that.

That's just irrational. The first good is in feeding/meeting the immediate need. The larger need of circumstance is another and greater task.

But no good is done if it is left there.

Look, if you're going to claim a degree of intelligence you need to start evidencing it. The principle is the thing...and the thing you apparently have yet to grasp though I've explained it more than once.

You make the same claim of yourself, yet you fail to see the principle is far from the same.

I noted your opening posts and the subsequent expansion in your later posits. I also noted that, your attitude about the poor aside, I agreed with the notion of doing more to help people become self sufficient.

Then why did you attack me as though I claimed we should not help the poor?

I've countered you on that. Now you can claim to have a window into a larger position that at the time of my entry wasn't being voiced or argued, and one that I subsequently took no issue with, but that's not what we're talking about.

:blabla:

Well, no. It was made relative to the disclosed. You decided to invest my words with meaning that actually countered the expressed intent.

And you have been made to ingest your words, but refuse to ingest your pride long enough to admit that.

So is John 3:16. Thanks. I try to simplify where possible, especially when you're in the mix.

And again we see your failure to understand the need to go further. John 3:16 is not a stand alone text. The words of Jesus went further. John 3:17-18, for instance. V16 means nothing without them.

No, WE haven't. I have. You declared. Simply saying a thing is something isn't an argument any more than claiming to be intelligent without actually demonstrating it is meaningful. So you have quite a mountain to climb.

I explained why the Good Samaritan story is not on par with feeding the hungry to you and bybee. Try reading it.

You are to wit what marshmallows are to dietary fiber.

End the hypocrisy. Either stop complaining when I call you an idiot or stop insulting my intelligence. I don't care which.

No, I demonstrated/illustrated an errant application on your part. In typical LH fashion, you answer with empty declarative.

The errant application was your contribution.

Assumption at the heart of that. You don't know what a man can or can't do, generalize without considering people who can't do and who would be harmed by the closing of these kitchens. And I've been into the error of yours and concern of others prior.

Who is harmed if a kitchen that does not actually help them is closed and one that does help remains open?

The assumption is all yours.

The only certainty here is that I've wasted valuable time listening to the misguided preening of someone who is without the inclination to do more than stomp, declare, and mischaracterize. That's beginning to look like a childish thing to be put away.

I'm surprised you didn't get bored with yourself before this point. I know I've been struggling to concentrate through the tedium of your ignorance.

You confuse my illustration with your ability. It happens.

Were you specific?

I did and you were and remain.

You may have intended it, but you did not say it.

Given the repeated references I'll just file this under "Brandon tries to save face, again" and leave it at that.

You were making general statements. I asked a question on order to get you to be more specific. As a lawyer should.

About what, kid? No. You may have been confused, for who knows what reason. I doubt anyone following the exchange had doubts about the inference.

Why would I be confused?

So you found a new, errant, drum to bang I see. It's almost like answering on topic, isn't it...lain:

How is that errant? Were you specific, or did you generalize with words such as, "thing."

Hey, doofus, knowing what someone's opinion is in a broader sense than the OP they make isn't reasoning. And once the point was raised I agreed with the idea of doing more. Again, not what was said either in the OP or the next part where the OP position was clarified.

I didn't say knowing his opinion was reasoning, but that if you knew his position you should have been able to reason his meaning.

It was precisely what I noted for the reason set out prior, you enormous goof.

lain:

Do you still beat your wife sort of nonsense.

I'm not married.

And, now, since you complain about my declarations wherein I do not demonstrate my point, etc. would you care to not be a hypocrite and show how my question is of the sort you have, here, claimed it to be?

Right...you're so smart you participated in taking a humorous shot at yourself so you could come back with this amazing zinger. lain:

How did I take a humorous shot at myself?

By what standard? I know my ACT was sufficient for an Ivy League education, that my LSAT was within the top ten percent, and I'm aware of my IQ and its statistical rarity. Beyond those numbers I survived law school and received my doctorate, which was precisely about utilizing logic and language skills, then passed the bar and went on to make a respectable place for myself in an extremely competitive profession where that skill set is the foundation for success.

You? lain:

The most recent was an evaluation given by a psychiatrist to measure my skills in many areas. Before that all my standardized tests showed me to be above average on all language skills [reading, comprehension, spelling, etc.]. And before that my step-mom [dad's second wife] tried to convince everyone there was something wrong with me, so I was tested for many things, including ADD. They concluded I was much smarter than she was, and did not suffer from any of the disorders for which I was tested.

 

[Town Heretic]

I was recently evaluated on certain skill sets.

In what format?

I have an automatic spell check which isn't going to catch the word "red", as it is a real word. I do not have a grammar check. And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can clearly discern that I typed too fast, seeing as how the obvious word that should be there is "read," which is only one letter different.

Goose meet gander. An irksome, trivial waste of time, isn't it...

What error? I never said Knight was explicit in the OP about what he meant.

Not true. You chided me repeatedly for not understanding an OP you apparently hadn't bothered to pay close attention to. Now you're dancing.

You should buy a bear costume. At least that would be amusing.

I only ever said anyone who knows him should have known what he meant. You have only managed to prove me wrong on that.

Oh, I've done a bit more than that.

But no good is done if it is left there.

No, Brandon. Feeding a man in need of a meal is good. In and of and by its lonesome. If you can't admit that then I can't help you and no one will find you credible.

You make the same claim of yourself, yet you fail to see the principle is far from the same.

I'm just tired of you setting out declarations and expecting me to do the lifting that you'll then ignore or, perhaps, answer with a :loser: So I'm going to work as hard as you have and do: no, Brandon. You're wrong.

Then why did you attack me as though I claimed we should not help the poor?

Actually, I was defending following your attack relating to my remarks to Delmar (see: post 129). I was arguing the good of helping and the fruitless nature of worrying about things that could lead one to do nothing. And in you come trying to undermine the support (though you never did take on the larger lines of scripture, I noticed)...when someone counters and attacks your point what else is inferred? Especially in the then absence of any hint of the later "do more" posit. In fact, your use of Matthew supports that reading, which is why I countered that, taken to the illogical conclusion your use begged, it argued against most charitable or other public good.

:blabla:

You should have used this one instead:

And you have been made to ingest your words, but refuse to ingest your pride long enough to admit that.

It's eat, not ingest. That wasn't novel, only goofy. And you haven't approached it outside of the confines of your own noggin. You lecturing anyone on pride is a bit like Benny Hill lecturing on high brow comedy.

And again we see your failure to understand the need to go further. John 3:16 is not a stand alone text. The words of Jesus went further. John 3:17-18, for instance. V16 means nothing without them.

Rather, again, you missed the point by a mile.

I explained why the Good Samaritan story is not on par with feeding the hungry to you and bybee. Try reading it.

I responded to your errors in that response. Try owning up to it.

End the hypocrisy. Either stop complaining when I call you an idiot or stop insulting my intelligence. I don't care which.

It isn't hypocrisy to answer a crude insult with wit. You don't get free passes with me. You want better, amend your practice. Else, quit your crying, Susan.

The errant application was your contribution.

Again, matching effort: nope.

Who is harmed if a kitchen that does not actually help them is closed and one that does help remains open?

As with so much of your remarks, assumes facts not in evidence to attempt a point otherwise unsustainable.

The assumption is all yours.

Nope. I set out the particulars.

I'm surprised you didn't get bored with yourself before this point. I know I've been struggling to concentrate through the tedium of your ignorance.

You say something? :think: No, no you really didn't, did you...

Why would I be confused?

Right now I'm leaning toward genetics.

How is that errant? Were you specific, or did you generalize with words such as, "thing."

Thing referenced a specific consideration. Something you really had no excuse for not understanding. Especially with those mad skills of yours.

I didn't say knowing his opinion was reasoning,

Read yourself again. Someone should.

but that if you knew his position you should have been able to reason his meaning.

Which means beans if you hadn't heard it and he didn't advance it. So here's what happened: what he actually did write was addressed. lain:

I'm not married.

lain: Yeah, you've got skills all right.

And, now, since you complain about my declarations wherein I do not demonstrate my point, etc. would you care to not be a hypocrite and show how my question is of the sort you have, here, claimed it to be?

Had you understood the joke you'd have understood the point. Pity.

How did I take a humorous shot at myself?

Seriously, pick a side.

The most recent was an evaluation given by a psychiatrist to measure my skills in many areas. Before that all my standardized tests showed me to be above average on all language skills [reading, comprehension, spelling, etc.].

Excellent. You just described the better part of people in the top half of most state colleges. It's not hay, but you might want to lay off making remarks about my intelligence, considering the disparity. lain:

 

[Granite]

This is all beyond pathetic.

 

[vegascowboy]

This is all beyond pathetic.

Isn't that a line from Toy Story?

"To pathetic, and beyond!!"

 

[Lighthouse]

In what format?


Goose meet gander. An irksome, trivial waste of time, isn't it...


Not true. You chided me repeatedly for not understanding an OP you apparently hadn't bothered to pay close attention to. Now you're dancing.

You should buy a bear costume. At least that would be amusing.


Oh, I've done a bit more than that.


No, Brandon. Feeding a man in need of a meal is good. In and of and by its lonesome. If you can't admit that then I can't help you and no one will find you credible.


I'm just tired of you setting out declarations and expecting me to do the lifting that you'll then ignore or, perhaps, answer with a :loser: So I'm going to work as hard as you have and do: no, Brandon. You're wrong.


Actually, I was defending following your attack relating to my remarks to Delmar (see: post 129). I was arguing the good of helping and the fruitless nature of worrying about things that could lead one to do nothing. And in you come trying to undermine the support (though you never did take on the larger lines of scripture, I noticed)...when someone counters and attacks your point what else is inferred? Especially in the then absence of any hint of the later "do more" posit. In fact, your use of Matthew supports that reading, which is why I countered that, taken to the illogical conclusion your use begged, it argued against most charitable or other public good.


You should have used this one instead:


It's eat, not ingest. That wasn't novel, only goofy. And you haven't approached it outside of the confines of your own noggin. You lecturing anyone on pride is a bit like Benny Hill lecturing on high brow comedy.


Rather, again, you missed the point by a mile.


I responded to your errors in that response. Try owning up to it.


It isn't hypocrisy to answer a crude insult with wit. You don't get free passes with me. You want better, amend your practice. Else, quit your crying, Susan.


Again, matching effort: nope.


As with so much of your remarks, assumes facts not in evidence to attempt a point otherwise unsustainable.


Nope. I set out the particulars.


You say something? :think: No, no you really didn't, did you...


Right now I'm leaning toward genetics.


Thing referenced a specific consideration. Something you really had no excuse for not understanding. Especially with those mad skills of yours.


Read yourself again. Someone should.


Which means beans if you hadn't heard it and he didn't advance it. So here's what happened: what he actually did write was addressed. lain:


lain: Yeah, you've got skills all right.


Had you understood the joke you'd have understood the point. Pity.


Seriously, pick a side.


Excellent. You just described the better part of people in the top half of most state colleges. It's not hay, but you might want to lay off making remarks about my intelligence, considering the disparity. lain:

I'm bored now. You are too much of a fool to continue debating.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm bored now. You are too much of a fool to continue debating.

Once more then, I thought I heard something, but no. It was you again.

Run along, child. Go call some other lucky brother a fool (illustrating your command of scripture), or a moron (setting out the full degree of your vocabulary or wit), or perhaps an idiot (settling the question of your skill at debate).

Marvelous. Normally I'd have to engage a sleeping infant to find this level of conversational wit and competence. :e4e:

 

[Granite]

I'm bored now. You are too much of a fool to continue debating.

You got handed your head and are too stupid or arrogant to know it. Seriously, get some therapy.

 

[rexlunae]

I was recently evaluated on certain skill sets.
...
The most recent was an evaluation given by a psychiatrist to measure my skills in many areas. Before that all my standardized tests showed me to be above average on all language skills [reading, comprehension, spelling, etc.]. And before that my step-mom [dad's second wife] tried to convince everyone there was something wrong with me, so I was tested for many things, including ADD. They concluded I was much smarter than she was, and did not suffer from any of the disorders for which I was tested.

I guess that's the danger of measuring someone's intelligence. If you tell a kid he's naturally bright, what's the point of working hard? The fact that you feel a need to rest on these crude laurels says a lot. I noticed that you didn't mention how you did in college, which I would guess implies that you did poorly or you never went, or haven't gone yet. When and if you get there, you will find that these tests mean very little, and that the higher you go in academics, the brighter your peers will be, and the more often they would be able to make the same or stronger claims--and the less often they would care to do so.

From his descriptions of his career, I would say that it's a fair bet that TH qualifies as "the bright among the bright" through several iterations, and calling him names and whatever other low tactics and then boasting about the results of some psych exam makes you look very silly.

When it comes down to it, a person's intelligence doesn't imply the correctness of their arguments, and really intelligent people don't rely on telling people how smart they are. A good argument stands for itself, whether presented by an idiot or the smartest person on Earth.

If you want your natural faculties to do anything but atrophy, seek an education, and intelligent conversation with the best people you can find, whether they agree with you or not. Leave the insults and the empty bluster off.

 

[chrysostom]

Once more then, I thought I heard something, but no. It was you again.

Run along, child. Go call some other lucky brother a fool (illustrating your command of scripture), or a moron (setting out the full degree of your vocabulary or wit), or perhaps an idiot (settling the question of your skill at debate).

Marvelous. Normally I'd have to engage a sleeping infant to find this level of conversational wit and competence. :e4e:

you shouldn't have any trouble with children
but
you may have trouble with jerks

 

[kmoney]

You'd think I would really enjoy seeing Lighthouse get torn up but even I got bored reading that. :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

Shooting fish in a barrel is only so entertaining.

 

[Lighthouse]

I guess that's the danger of measuring someone's intelligence. If you tell a kid he's naturally bright, what's the point of working hard?

1. I'm not a kid.
2. My IQ was measured as average. Which leads me to believe most people are really lazy, and unwilling to do the mental work. At least most people I've met.

The fact that you feel a need to rest on these crude laurels says a lot. I noticed that you didn't mention how you did in college, which I would guess implies that you did poorly or you never went, or haven't gone yet. When and if you get there, you will find that these tests mean very little, and that the higher you go in academics, the brighter your peers will be, and the more often they would be able to make the same or stronger claims--and the less often they would care to do so.

I never went. There is nothing I want to do for which I need to go.

And the only reason I bring up the evaluations are because of the accusations that my skills in those areas are poor. My spelling and reading skills are higher than any of my peers at home or at play.

That may not be the case on TOL, of course.

From his descriptions of his career, I would say that it's a fair bet that TH qualifies as "the bright among the bright" through several iterations, and calling him names and whatever other low tactics and then boasting about the results of some psych exam makes you look very silly.

The issue isn't that TH is incapable of thinking, it's that he refuses to do so.

When it comes down to it, a person's intelligence doesn't imply the correctness of their arguments, and really intelligent people don't rely on telling people how smart they are. A good argument stands for itself, whether presented by an idiot or the smartest person on Earth.

The issue was the false accusation implied in his rejection of the OP and those who agreed with it.

If you want your natural faculties to do anything but atrophy, seek an education, and intelligent conversation with the best people you can find, whether they agree with you or not. Leave the insults and the empty bluster off.

How many people do you know who actually want to have an intelligent conversation? I even live in a college town and they still aren't easy to find.

 

[MrRadish]

How many people do you know who actually want to have an intelligent conversation? I even live in a college town and they still aren't easy to find.

When trying to engage someone in an intelligent conversation in person, do you go about it in the same way you do on TOL?