responding to common objections to bible part 5

[total relism]

Then you have not only failed to properly represent the argument of the other side, you have also completely failed to grasp their argument.

As such there is absolutely no grounds for a discussion.

as sated, there argument does not deal with what i said, feel free to post here if you disagree, or your misrepresenting my side. In fact you ask the same question and agree with my on one of your own threads
Why is it wrong to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ers&highlight=

you throughout agree with me, no absolute morals or right and wrong, you even agree with a poster saying just what my thread was on last post.


Btw could you show me a thread you have represented the other side in your op?. reading through your recent thread started, i would say gives many examples of you not representing the other side.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/searc...earchid=106568


i read first 4 and zimmerman and woman seem the perfect example as well as Dyslexia of not doing what you claim i should do. In fact reading more it becomes very clear this is your practice,i dont mind at all, but you should apply your own ideas to yourself before criticizing others. Also my post assume the others arguments, god sent plagues that killed people/babies so he is evil, that is a argument, god unjustly punishes people for there fathers sin,that is a argument, i give the counter etc.



i think its clear your being a vague as possible and avoiding a discussion on any topic given.

[HoreTore]

What a delightful showing of not understanding. Representing two arguments are necessary when concluding, something I very rarely do. I'll go through the threads you found one by one:

First off, the thread taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others: I posted one argument, one I do not agree with myself, in order to get good counter-arguments.

Dyslexia: the OP is a scam, my point with that thread is dealt with way down in the thread. It's deliberately provocative, and my actual point is radically different from the OP. In retrospect, I failed massively with that thread, but that's besides the point.

Women: I assume you refer to the woman-bashing thread? That's a commentary on a news article I found interesting, which I copied and posted here to see what others made of it. It should be obvious that it's extremely far from my position.

Zimmerman: a simple news post to get a discussion on the topic going(not realizing it was already underway in another thread).

My motivation for posting is radically different from yours: you come here "knowing the truth" and you're trying to convince others. As such, it is vitally important that you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not. Who wants to discuss with someone who is fully convinced he is right, without knowing what the other side is talking about?

When I, and thankfully a lot of others, start threads here, I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.

[total relism]

Hmmm. That doesn't seem very civil. Why can't you just let sleeping dogs lie? I bet when the entire world finally accepts each other, there will be people like you who are stirring fights among the people. Not very Christian of you.

sorry,should have said argument/counter argument, not actual fighting.

But what will bring about this wold that accept each other? this deny's human sin sadly a very real thing, that is a fantasy. when will you accept me?, or people who like to argue?, cant you just accept me, i am part of this world, or do you mean people only accept what you want to accept, that is not very accepting.

What a delightful showing of not understanding. Representing two arguments are necessary when concluding, something I very rarely do. I'll go through the threads you found one by one:

First off, the thread taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others: I posted one argument, one I do not agree with myself, in order to get good counter-arguments.

Dyslexia: the OP is a scam, my point with that thread is dealt with way down in the thread. It's deliberately provocative, and my actual point is radically different from the OP. In retrospect, I failed massively with that thread, but that's besides the point.

Women: I assume you refer to the woman-bashing thread? That's a commentary on a news article I found interesting, which I copied and posted here to see what others made of it. It should be obvious that it's extremely far from my position.

Zimmerman: a simple news post to get a discussion on the topic going(not realizing it was already underway in another thread).

My motivation for posting is radically different from yours: you come here "knowing the truth" and you're trying to convince others. As such, it is vitally important that you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not. Who wants to discuss with someone who is fully convinced he is right, without knowing what the other side is talking about?

When I, and thankfully a lot of others, start threads here, I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.

Ok far off topic here, i am likely to not respond to you unless you have something relevant to the topic.


misfortunes
I scanned your every post, even at the very end post 49 you agree with post 48 that says

"Nothing is inherantly wrong unless we assume there's an all-pervasive moral structure to the universe"

but the fact is in your op, you gave no counter arguments as you told me i am suppose to do, no matter what side you may or not agree with.


Dyslexia
you said
" It's deliberately provocative"

why am i not allowed to do the same thing?is my op not so?. But does not matter,as you said i needed to post argument and best counter on op, you did not do so yourself.


Women:/Zimmerman
Well i was hoping so,yet i saw no counter. You seem to post on op to start conversation on the subjects over and over with no counters given in op. Why am i not allowed to?.



My motivation does not matter to, if or what i should post, i come on forums like this see objections to things i believe to be true arguments against. Than respond since noone gives a response to these, tell me what is wrong with that?. Its not like serious debates [phd scientist at universities etc] are with people discussing a topic, no they find people firmly behind were they stand to debate. its also not like opinions cannot be changed. Neither am i trying to convince anyone, i am simply giving a counter response to arguments, not sure why your having a big problem with this. Your also kind of committing a logical fallacy Appeal to motive.


you keep saying this
"you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not."

yet you know you either are not understanding, or know you cant debate subject or defend the other side. As i said before this topic has been done for all to see [you were their made no counters to op] here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

but phd debate after another will show this true. Are you humble enough to admit it may be you [either just trying to sound like you have a counter and keeping it all to yourself] that has misunderstood argument?, that makes you think there is a counter. As i asked before please respond to show i am misunderstanding and you are correct,until than its just wishful thinking.


Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133



you said you post because
I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.


so than you should have at least learned something from my op you did not know. So what is problem?.

[spankythehippo]

sorry,should have said argument/counter argument, not actual fighting.

But what will bring about this wold that accept each other? this deny's human sin sadly a very real thing, that is a fantasy. when will you accept me?, or people who like to argue?, cant you just accept me, i am part of this world, or do you mean people only accept what you want to accept, that is not very accepting.

I am merely questioning your aggressive way of putting forward an argument. Variety is good, but in the end, you need to understand that people are different. That is when people can truly accept each other. The fact that people are different is the truth. Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you). They want everyone to be the same as them. When you start preaching to people about how they need to change their life to a Christian one, people can get testy. I repeat, let sleeping dogs lie. If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you. Don't intrude on them.

[total relism]

I am merely questioning your aggressive way of putting forward an argument. Variety is good, but in the end, you need to understand that people are different. That is when people can truly accept each other. The fact that people are different is the truth. Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you). They want everyone to be the same as them. When you start preaching to people about how they need to change their life to a Christian one, people can get testy. I repeat, let sleeping dogs lie. If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you. Don't intrude on them.

thank you for your honest opinion.


Just wondering because i do not see it that way, what did you mean by saying my arguments were put fourth in a aggressive way?. How would you personally liked to have them put Fourth?.



the rest of what you said is a great big contradiction,
by you making your post [last 2] you do the opposite, you tell me,that variety is good, yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity],understand people are different,yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc] truly accept each other, yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts, Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you) [in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible. They want everyone to be the same as them,When you start preaching to people about how they need to change, just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about. ,If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you., yet you come and tell me what you precise is right.


now i have no problem at all with your posts, just pointing out how hypocritical and self contradictory your posts are. Its like the tolerance people, they are the most intolerant people ever, and being "tolerant" is really just being intolerant of any who disagrees with them.



but since nothing on thread is on topic really,for the sake of discussion. I disagree with your post wholly. Variety can be good and can be bad,variety of customs can be great, variety of adolf hitlers, stalins,polpots etc is a vary bad thing, variety of good=good, variety of bad=bad. Variety of ways to be tortured is bad imo. Some kinds of variety can be good,but variety can also be very bad,including human beliefs,customs etc. I understand that people are different,my post require this to be true. As i sated before i am not sure how you think i see people as different, it is because bible i see all mankind the same,were as this would not be the case in atheism/evolution. It is true i in some ways dont like that people are different, and i do at the same time. I dont like people like this

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003#


I do like people like this

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


I also like people who are saved and go to heaven, that is my wish for all mankind.



preaching to people
you said "When you start preaching to people about how they need to change their life to a Christian one, people can get testy"

were in my op did i even say this? but i do agree with you this will happen.


18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.#
john 15 18-19

The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.
John 7.7


But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him
1 Corinthians 2 .14


but maybe this is reason i do so?

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people?#If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Galatians 1.10




Don't intrude on them.
no one is making anyone read my thread.

[Sigurd]

Ya know TR...
If you are really into pointing out fallacies, that "I am allowed to do this because you do it all the time" is called argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. Even if others demonstrably does a thing, it doesn't make it right methodically wise or make it a valid argument. Everyone is a hypocrite.

[total relism]

Ya know TR...
If you are really into pointing out fallacies, that "I am allowed to do this because you do it all the time" is called argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. Even if others demonstrably does a thing, doesn't make it right methodically wise. Everyone is a hypocrite.

you are right to do so,however that only tells part of story,as i pointed out i said

" i have no problem at all with your posts, just pointing out how hypocritical and self contradictory your posts are"


now keep reading after "but since nothing on thread is on topic really,for the sake of discussion. I disagree with your post wholly" that is were i respond to the arguments made. Just wondering were you feel i was self contradictory, not saying i am not, my behavior sure is, but what in any of my posts made do you see this?.

[spankythehippo]

thank you for your honest opinion.


Just wondering because i do not see it that way, what did you mean by saying my arguments were put fourth in a aggressive way?. How would you personally liked to have them put Fourth?.



the rest of what you said is a great big contradiction,
by you making your post [last 2] you do the opposite, you tell me,that variety is good, yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity],understand people are different,yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc] truly accept each other, yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts, Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you) [in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible. They want everyone to be the same as them,When you start preaching to people about how they need to change, just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about. ,If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you., yet you come and tell me what you precise is right.

Your initial threads were quite aggressive. I guess you've quietened down, so I take that statement back. It's just that those threads were a lot more memorable. And you often resorted to the Unholy Trifecta of arguments when backed into a corner (i.e. wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for future thread").

yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity]
What you're doing isn't variety. When you go to an amusement park, there is variety. But the ride attendants don't run up to you, urging you to have a whirl on their ride. People go there to do what they want. When I was a kid, my parents wouldn't ride on the rollercoaster. How would they feel if the attendant forced them on the ride, when they clearly said they don't want to?

yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc]
I understand that you're different. I have quite a few friends who are avid Christians, maybe even more into it than you. I don't start arguments with them, I leave them alone when it comes to theism. Otherwise, a heated argument may ensue. The angry animal in man might surface in debates like these, so I heavily sedate my inner animal with cynicism, egalitarianism and huge amounts of weed.

yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts
I am accepting your views. Acceptance does not mean to agree with. I'm just questioning your beliefs on other people with different faiths.

[in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible
When did I say that I didn't like when you post or talk about the Bible? Be my guest, but what I dislike is massive unreadable walls of text. Or when you evade the question.

just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about
I can't really argue with that. I'm just letting you know that no one likes to be preached at.

yet you come and tell me what you precise is right
Because you started this thread. I don't go up to people and say "Hey, you know religion? It's all fake, you know. I have evidence!" and then proceed to smack them in the face with papers by Richard Dawkins. When people ask me on my views on religion, I say "I don't believe in it." Simple as that. When they question me more on my lack of belief, I state my points on why I don't believe, and that's it. I don't tell them to lose faith or to believe in what I say. To be fair, the people I normally talk to are all atheists anyway, so we're all talking about Pokemon or pooping techniques or something.

[total relism]

Your initial threads were quite aggressive. I guess you've quietened down, so I take that statement back. It's just that those threads were a lot more memorable. And you often resorted to the Unholy Trifecta of arguments when backed into a corner (i.e. wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for future thread").

yet dont like my variety [christian who makes post related to Christianity]
What you're doing isn't variety. When you go to an amusement park, there is variety. But the ride attendants don't run up to you, urging you to have a whirl on their ride. People go there to do what they want. When I was a kid, my parents wouldn't ride on the rollercoaster. How would they feel if the attendant forced them on the ride, when they clearly said they don't want to?

yet tell me not to be who i am but who you want me to be[not aggressive post,dont argue etc]
I understand that you're different. I have quite a few friends who are avid Christians, maybe even more into it than you. I don't start arguments with them, I leave them alone when it comes to theism. Otherwise, a heated argument may ensue. The angry animal in man might surface in debates like these, so I heavily sedate my inner animal with cynicism, egalitarianism and huge amounts of weed.

yet you are not accepting of me or my post sharing my thoughts
I am accepting your views. Acceptance does not mean to agree with. I'm just questioning your beliefs on other people with different faiths.

[in this case you] you dont like that i post and talk of bible
When did I say that I didn't like when you post or talk about the Bible? Be my guest, but what I dislike is massive unreadable walls of text. Or when you evade the question.

just what your doing when you tell me how and what to post about
I can't really argue with that. I'm just letting you know that no one likes to be preached at.

yet you come and tell me what you precise is right
Because you started this thread. I don't go up to people and say "Hey, you know religion? It's all fake, you know. I have evidence!" and then proceed to smack them in the face with papers by Richard Dawkins. When people ask me on my views on religion, I say "I don't believe in it." Simple as that. When they question me more on my lack of belief, I state my points on why I don't believe, and that's it. I don't tell them to lose faith or to believe in what I say. To be fair, the people I normally talk to are all atheists anyway, so we're all talking about Pokemon or pooping techniques or something.

comment taken back
ah ok, thanks for tacking it back. you said "And you often resorted to the Unholy Trifecta of arguments when backed into a corner (i.e. wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for future thread")". I would like a example, i fully admit to wait for future thread,if you noticed this is best way of doing it, and i do respond in future thread. As for read my op, i see no problem with someone not reading my op, than making a statement that is responded to in op, for me than to tell them to read op. I think its not to much to ask instead of responding to same thing over and over, that is what the op is for imo.


variety

I think you have changed the goal posts i believe, you said variety is good, so variety of opinions posts,subjects etc is good. So my variety of subjects [bible] should be welcome. You now say its because i am somehow forcing people on my thread [ride in your analogy] i think this is clear to all that this is indeed impossible for me to do.



tell others what to do

yet you seem ok to tell me to not post, so you are in fact doing what you tell others not to do, by forcing your opinions beliefs on others, that they should not post on debatable subjects that may get people mad.



what than do you mean by accepting? you accept that someone believes something to be true and you then let them be as they are?. May i suggest this is very unloving?.What if you friend thought throwing away your pot was good that was his belief, would you accept and not say anything? what if he thought that guns are not real and aimed to shoot and kill you, would you accept his beliefs and leave him alone [it might cause him to get upset, what if your friend was a lost sinner headed for eternity from god..........] Also it seems your accepting of my beliefs so long as they dont effect you or you dont have to hear them, i would say not very accepting.


"
When did I say that I didn't like when you post or talk about the Bible? "

I would say your very first post was a example
"Why are you not accepting of all people? Why are you prejudiced against different religious groups? Doesn't your Lord and saviour preach acceptance? Why aren't you following your Lord? Why are you an advocate of hate?"

but to claim as you did, that i avoid the question, given you avoided half the post you current are responding to seems hypocritical. I would love even one example of me avoiding a question that was on topic on any thread.


preached at.
i did not come on to be liked. But ever think i dont like to be preached the liberal tolerance gospel you preach?, i care not for political correctness. But i am glad you see the hypocritical nature of this at least.


tell me
proving just what i said, you are coming and telling me how/what to say and be, to keep to myself and respond to questions the way you think i should. Not very tolerant or variety in that.

[Sigurd]

I scanned your every post, even at the very end post 49 you agree with post 48 that says
"Nothing is inherantly wrong unless we assume there's an all-pervasive moral structure to the universe"
but the fact is in your op, you gave no counter arguments as you told me i am suppose to do, no matter what side you may or not agree with.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Dyslexia
you said "It's deliberately provocative"
why am i not allowed to do the same thing?is my op not so?. But does not matter,as you said i needed to post argument and best counter on op, you did not do so yourself.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Women:/Zimmerman
Well i was hoping so,yet i saw no counter. You seem to post on op to start conversation on the subjects over and over with no counters given in op. Why am i not allowed to?.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Right so my point is... you can't qualify your arguments by pointing out that others has done the same. It then becomes a fallacy. You should rather point out how your OP arguments follow a known and accepted methodology for arguments. They will then remain valid in the continued discussion, unless contested again. It is then your job to prove their validity by restate your counter if they don't bring anything new.

[total relism]

I'm really tired, so I'll answer your main queries.

Anyone can believe what they want, as long as it does not infringe upon the belief of anyone else. Do what you want, but don't effect other people who are unwilling. If a friend threw away my pot, I would ask him why. If he said it was bad for me, then I would slowly disconnect my "friendship" with him. True friends don't throw away pot. I'll make that a commandment of my new religion. I don't quite understand the gun analogy, so I'll just leave it.

"Also it seems your accepting of my beliefs so long as they dont effect you or you dont have to hear them, i would say not very accepting."

There are gay people in this world. What they do in their private life is not my business. I'm not gay, they don't bum-rape me or yell at me for gay rights. I'm not particularly affected by gay people, in general. Does that make me not accepting of gay people?

In regards to avoiding half your post, to be honest, I didn't even see it. Whoops. The perils of multi-tasking on the internet.

In short, my philosophy is "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness."

this is your law code of political correctness, i do not have to agree to, in fact your infringing on my. You say as long as it does not infringe upon the belief of anyone else, yet your post [everyone] does so to me, it infringes on my beliefs to share freely what i believe, i will not bow down to your hatred of my beliefs and tyranny. You said not to don't effect other people who are unwilling yet never asked if i was willing to be effected by your political correctness gospel and laws. You said If a friend threw away my pot, I would ask him why. If he said it was bad for me, then I would slowly disconnect my "friendship" with him. True friends don't throw away pot. I'll make that a commandment of my new religion, that sir seems very intolerant and not accepting of others beliefs [that throwing away pot is good] even pushing hate, to not be friends with them because of their beliefs. you said I don't quite understand the gun analogy, so I'll just leave it. allow me to try again. your friend thinks that guns are not real and aimed to shoot and kill you with a loaded real gun [but to him not real], would you accept his beliefs and leave him alone? be tolerant of his belif guns are not real? and dont cause any debate because he might get upset and all are allowed to believe as they want, what if your friend was a lost sinner headed for eternity from god..........]. Gay i would say very accepting of their actions. But it matters not, it matters how your acting here towards me,that is not very accepting at all. "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness.". But that is telling others what to do and bringing them into your madness [being do what you want and dont bring others into your madness] your telling others your madness of "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness."

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque


argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Right so my point is... you can't qualify your arguments by pointing out that others has done the same. It then becomes a fallacy. You should rather point out how your OP arguments follow a known and accepted methodology for arguments. They will then remain valid in the continued discussion, unless contested again. It is then your job to prove their validity by restate your counter if they don't bring anything new.

]

very nice, however...

first
i never used it as a argument to say no counter means your wrong, he said it was bad posting style. I was simply saying that what he was claiming i was wrong on, a thread showed he agreed with me, not that i am right because so.



second
again i think your applying it wrong, i never said because he did something i am right or off the hook. i said why does he not take his own advice. I clearly dont disagree with how my op was posted or i would not have made it, so it does not apply to me.


third
same thing


end you said
[B]Right so my point is... you can't qualify your arguments by pointing out that others has done the same. It then becomes a fallac

but if you go back, i never tried or said this,i said it was hypocritical for him to demand one thing of my post but not follow his rules for his own post. never does this apply in your examples. If you read post 26 and 31 you will see i disagree with him on how to post, i was just showing he did not follow on his own threads.

[spankythehippo]

this is your law code of political correctness, i do not have to agree to, in fact your infringing on my. You say as long as it does not infringe upon the belief of anyone else, yet your post [everyone] does so to me, it infringes on my beliefs to share freely what i believe, i will not bow down to your hatred of my beliefs and tyranny. You said not to don't effect other people who are unwilling yet never asked if i was willing to be effected by your political correctness gospel and laws. You said If a friend threw away my pot, I would ask him why. If he said it was bad for me, then I would slowly disconnect my "friendship" with him. True friends don't throw away pot. I'll make that a commandment of my new religion, that sir seems very intolerant and not accepting of others beliefs [that throwing away pot is good] even pushing hate, to not be friends with them because of their beliefs. you said I don't quite understand the gun analogy, so I'll just leave it. allow me to try again. your friend thinks that guns are not real and aimed to shoot and kill you with a loaded real gun [but to him not real], would you accept his beliefs and leave him alone? be tolerant of his belif guns are not real? and dont cause any debate because he might get upset and all are allowed to believe as they want, what if your friend was a lost sinner headed for eternity from god..........]. Gay i would say very accepting of their actions. But it matters not, it matters how your acting here towards me,that is not very accepting at all. "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness.". But that is telling others what to do and bringing them into your madness [being do what you want and dont bring others into your madness] your telling others your madness of "Do what you want, but don't bring other people into your madness."

I'm not forcing you to do anything. This is a forum where we spout our views. And these are my views on the issues you brought up.

In regards to the weed, I guess jokes don't come across well on the internet.

I still don't understand the gun analogy. Guns are not real? What does that mean? If you mean that my friend is a gun hater, then I'd support him. I'm a gun hater too.

Your morphing this into a paradox. Don't over think it. I'll be clear, it's MY philosophy. I apply MY philosophy. I don't demand that others follow MY way of life.

[Sigurd]

but if you go back, i never tried or said this,i said it was hypocritical for him to demand one thing of my post but not follow his rules for his own post. never does this apply in your examples. If you read post 26 and 31 you will see i disagree with him on how to post, i was just showing he did not follow on his own threads.

Sorry M8... pointing out hypocrisy is still ad hominem. "You do it too" is and will always be ad hominem tu quoque.

[total relism]

boy were getting off topic,i guess never was on. Maybe we should let this die off, i have only 2 more threads on major objections, i new this would not be big here as these objections [op] aren't really brought up here like previous objections op threads. i do know the next two will start some conversations on topic the last especially.