DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump and Republicans Making America Great Again

First of all, if you think that last post was dogma, you have a strange definition of dogma. That was a critique of Ontological Naturalism and the fallacy of trying to prove it using a circular argument.

A. Any interpretation of data that is not naturalistic is excluded a priori

B. All the possible interpretations we have are naturalistic in nature

C. Therefore, nature is all that exists

That’s how the paradigm works. Convince me that that is not how it works

And us, I a Browns fan since 1980. The first game I watched was against the Vikings in 1980, and I loved the way Sipe and Newsome played. My favorite player currently is Chubb. My favorite all time players are Sipe, Kosar, and Clay Matthews. I hope we draft Benton in first, but would also be happy with Simmons.

I do not claim to be a legend. Another poster took it the same way I did, see the post I replied to, and I was talking to him, not either of you. And I did not say anything negative about Portland

The only one who is judge mental around here is you, MGH. You are judging me insinuating that I think I’m a legend, think I’m smarter than everyone else, etc. you don’t know me or my intentions

I judged a parties platform. You judged an individual. So the only judgmental person here is you


And a bigot is someone who is intolerant of those who disagree with them. Fits you like a glove

Dawgduty interpreted it the same way I did. And you used the words you used, but I am sorry for calling your post bigoted if it was tongue in cheek And my post were in responses to what you and dawgduty said

Umm.. I think you’re projecting here

Fair enough. You say you’re a Browns fan. I’ll not argue that. Just haven’t seen a single post of yours in an actual football topic.

Dawg Duty and I have some history. He’ll see anything I post as an attack on ‘Murica and therefore his own self... who he sees as the only true patriot.

You stated a vote for Democrats was a vote to support Evil.

However you want to frame it - that's what you said.

Since then you have tried to justify your positions in various posts that I find humorous. Including your long winded diatribe about Ontological Naturalism... you frame every discussion as if you have all the answers and all the facts are on your side because you believe in God. That's not at all a realistic or reasonable position for anyone to hold. Quite simply - that's why there is still debate about the many topics you have discussed. It's your opinion. Period. It's as valid as anyone else's - but trying to steam roll people with your opinions presented as fact is just going to make me poke fun at you more.

I have posted some and will post more during free agency, draft and, season.

I don’t do a lot of speculation, but more of reactions to things happening when they happen

I never said I had all the answers, and yes, they are my beliefs. WHO are you to accuse me of things for stating my beliefs. A sign of right thinking is when you attack a person’s position, not the person

When I said the Dem party is evil, I meant their platform. I do not do personal attacks.

Fair enough. I’ll just continue to skip past your posts until then.
I already have one bible thumping dad in my life. I’ll pass on another.

Pretty sure I explained it was the way in which you expressed your beliefs that I was poking fun at. Like Portland - I'll do my best to whizz by your rhetoric.

Feel free to skip whatever you want. And if people would stop bringing it up, I already said I’d drop it. But if people keep bringing it up, I’ll keep replying.

Please do if you don’t like people with strong convictions

If everyone who takes issue with my posts had done that instead of dragging it on, I would have stopped days ago.

.

Not sure you can ignore yourself.... oh, you mean to ignore us.

Tap the user’s name. Go to their profile. Select ignore.

I could be entirely barking up the wrong tree - but I am not going to spend time checking, especially since you spent several pages claiming something I didn't say yesterday - but the long diatribe about God/Religion/Morals etc was a different thread.... how or why did you introduce a similar and so tangential subject to a different thread? Strong convictions are fine - expect them to be strongly rebuffed when they are based on a fiction that you happen to believe in and you then use to underpin every discussion.

a. what is the motivation for bringing up something that I double checked and admitted I was mistaken about and apologized for five minutes after you said you didn't say it? (I mistook what Perfect Spiral said as being said by you and apologized within five minutes.)

b. The long diatribe was in response to someone saying that if you are neutral in a moral battle, it is evil or something to that effect. Insinuating that if I choose to be neutral in this election, I am morally guilty of something. They brought up morality and evil, so I asked what the basis of morality was. Perfectly legitimate question. So, next time try context. It is very helpful in reading with comprehension

c. If Christianity is a fiction, numerous men died for a fiction, were tortured and killed for a fiction. Not a mistake, but a lie. (they claimed to say they were EYEWITNESSES to the resurrection)You would have to ask why would they allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a deliberate lie

D. If you say that none of those men existed, I will have to derail another thread with historical verification that they did. You don't want me to do that, do you?

If we ignore it it promised to go away... just saying. Don’t take the bait folks.

Yep. Refs should just lock this thread. I didn't count but I'd bet there are maybe 10 posts on topic.

numerous people always die for something thats fiction...or more realistic, falsehoods.

look how many people died trying to support Hitlers master race nonsense, for example.

UMMMM, ERRRR, UMMM...I am REPLIED TO MGH

Who's ignoring it.

and look at Portland dehumanizing me, calling me an "it"Wow.

Exactly. Lol. He’ll still be thumping that bible somewhere.

Exactly what? I was replying to a post directed at me. I said I would go away if people dropped it. MGH didn't drop it. Too bad.

I guess you want to redefine the word "ignore". LOL

So either these men existed and every word in the bible is true - or I have to argue these men didn't exist? Those are the only two options? See - tired of your hogwash. buh-bye.

Sorry - will do better moving forward.

Make mental note that Portland and Perfect Spiral don't know what ignore means.

No they ignored you. They didn't address you in any way. You on the other hand gladly responded to them even though they didn't address you. I did reply to you and you replied back, just like you said.

They dehumanize me by calling me "it" and and saying I didn't keep my word, which is a lie.

You bring up something I admitted I was mistaken about and apologized for.

Why did you bring up something I admitted I was wrong about and apologized for? Because you're trying to throw as much mud as possible. You guys are funny.

Cheerio

UMMM...I addressed you in reply to YOUR post.

They jumped in like gangbangers and then I replied to their posts.

What color is your sky, MGH?

Like to use strawmen don't you. I was referring to the resurrection. Did you not read the post?

So why did you bring up a mistake that I apologized for the day I made it. To try to make me look dishonest?

It took multiple posts telling you not to attribute words I didn't say to make you stop. Figure I might mention it as many times in return? Anyway enough. Your last poor attempt to stack the argument your way was your worst. No need to continue. Have a great weekend.

THey didn't address me. LOL. They brought me up and blatantly insinuated that I didn't do what I said I would do, and one called me an "it" .

Your (the three of you) responses employ dishonest tactics.

I admitted my mistake and apologized the same day for mistaking you for someone else. I have to question your motive for bringing it up, when I honestly admitted I made a mistake.

and what about you accusing me of introducing something into a thread that was actually introduced by someone else. YOu accused me of going on a long diatribe on something that was irrelevant, (basis of morality)but it WAS relevant to the posts I was replying to (which were about morality and evil. You were wrong. I made a mistake and admitted it. You said something false, and can't admit it.

There now, that's better. Carry on.

You think I stopped because of the number of your posts? No I stopped because I checked and realized that I was mistaken. In other words, I am not deliberately dishonest, unlike people who accuse me of replying to people who are ignoring me. That is highly dishonest, because it didn't happen.

SO carry on with your dishonesty

Just goes to show what tactics some people use. The fact that people resort to the type of tactics as are being employed here is revealing

I love you guys. Hope you have a nice weekend.

I hope you have a nice weekend too! Maybe you can hangout here and NOT talk about religion but talk about politics instead.

FOR THE RECORD, you INTRODUCED the topic of morality into the thread in question And those posts, they weren't religious in nature. They were PHILOSOPHICAL. Basis of morality is a PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION, or at least I addressed it philosophically, not dogmatically

Just thought I'd set the record straight.

Sorry. Admittedly not my best best moment.
Although I can’t stand your dogma hammering I should have been better. Again, my bad.

For the record, I was not the one who brought up religion or God MGH is.(post 1736059) I was talking about ONTOLOGY, not religion.

He is also the one who brought up morality in the other thread.

I was talking about Politics in "Trump's approval rating". thread MGH brought up morality

I was talking about Ontology, (which is a branch of philosophy) MGH brought up religion

Do you see a trend?

I keep trying to talk about Politics, and MGH keeps bringing up other things. BEFORE, I was talking about religion, but lately I only address it when SOMEONE ELSE brings it up.