quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Another time I had some Baptists yelling damnation on a street corner and they insulted both my Mother and some friends, calling my Mother a whore and my friends Lesbian Harlots. (We were all dressed up and heading to a Halloween party) My response was to get out of the car and kick the crap of them and then tell them two phrases. "Judge not lest you be judged" and "Spare the rod spoil the child."

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

What a self-serving fantasy. So no disagreement is possible, whatever the original claim? No physical defense possible, whatever the original action?

No wonder you admire Narcissus.

I never said disagreement isn't possible, that is taking quite a leap from what I said. What I said was aggression. If you need to remove civility from your discussion, you're nothing but a bully, and eventually, every bully gets socked in the eye.

You might stop practicing it, if that's how you feel.

You're an author. You keep telling us how smart you are. Surely you understand the implications of your statement about intellectual aggression. It's a sweeping position. In fact, many great classical pieces are precisely well-thought attacks on positions that don't stand. Academic publishing is with the understanding that one will be shot at, hence either refining or reconsidering the original position. It's the heart of dialectic.

If you're feeling attacked right now, you didn't read what I just wrote. Insecurity indeed--you're talking to the mirror. Leave that crap behind, and clarify or better support your ideas--or recognize the flaws and refine them.

And in my doctrine's teachings there is a saying, Hate the sin not the sinner. Doctrine aside, what I'm saying is, your comments attack the person not the idea. If you challenge my thinking, you are not insulting me. If you berate my intelligence, you offend.

Even in Taoism there is this: The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.

And again, you go for the person, not the point, and again, you preach what you can't practice. Now you're a Taoist scholar--who is missing the point again. The entire point of dialectic is to benefit; to characterize it as injury is to insulate oneself from any but one's one thoughts.

At issue--remember the issue?--is your claim that intellectual aggression is always insecurity. It's not. If it is, then the world's scholars are insecure. That's a self-serving claim. Again, care to reconsider or refine?

If instead you're stuck in "attack the poster" mode, just let it go, and we'll end this silliness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Another time I had some Baptists yelling damnation on a street corner and they insulted both my Mother and some friends, calling my Mother a whore and my friends Lesbian Harlots. (We were all dressed up and heading to a Halloween party) My response was to get out of the car and kick the crap of them and then tell them two phrases. "Judge not lest you be judged" and "Spare the rod spoil the child."

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

Here's a case in point, from your own stories.

quote:

a non-avialan dinosaur closely related to the origin of birds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

a non-avialan dinosaur closely related to the origin of birds.

Exactly! Point made. Evolution in action. Do tend to your science education. Have a good day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

What a self-serving fantasy. So no disagreement is possible, whatever the original claim? No physical defense possible, whatever the original action?

No wonder you admire Narcissus.

I never said disagreement isn't possible, that is taking quite a leap from what I said. What I said was aggression. If you need to remove civility from your discussion, you're nothing but a bully, and eventually, every bully gets socked in the eye.

You might stop practicing it, if that's how you feel.

You're an author. You keep telling us how smart you are. Surely you understand the implications of your statement about intellectual aggression. It's a sweeping position. In fact, many great classical pieces are precisely well-thought attacks on positions that don't stand. Academic publishing is with the understanding that one will be shot at, hence either refining or reconsidering the original position. It's the heart of dialectic.

If you're feeling attacked right now, you didn't read what I just wrote. Insecurity indeed--you're talking to the mirror. Leave that crap behind, and clarify or better support your ideas--or recognize the flaws and refine them.

And in my doctrine's teachings there is a saying, Hate the sin not the sinner. Doctrine aside, what I'm saying is, your comments attack the person not the idea. If you challenge my thinking, you are not insulting me. If you berate my intelligence, you offend.

Even in Taoism there is this: The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.

And again, you go for the person, not the point, and again, you preach what you can't practice. Now you're a Taoist scholar--who is missing the point again. The entire point of dialectic is to benefit; to characterize it as injury is to insulate oneself from any but one's one thoughts.

At issue--remember the issue?--is your claim that intellectual aggression is always insecurity. It's not. If it is, then the world's scholars are insecure. That's a self-serving claim. Again, care to reconsider or refine?

If instead you're stuck in "attack the poster" mode, just let it go, and we'll end this silliness.

I make no claim to be a Taoist scholar, but I have read the Tao Te Ching more than a few times, and I have a tendency to remember things pretty well.

When you insulted my intelligence, you were not attacking the thinking, if you had been you would have cut to the meat of it. I can disagree with your thoughts and still respect you as a person, and in fact, strangely enough you and I share a vast number of interests. When you turned the tide from intellectual aggression to character assassination, I responded in kind. Obviously, you either can't or are unwilling to discern the difference.

And that's fine, we can agree to disagree on that point. I won't lose any sleep over it.

I'm reminded of my college biology professor who stood on her podium and insulted the ancients by saying they believed in 4 elements and how ridiculous that was, but of course we now know there are far more from the periodic table. I was unwilling to let it alone and stood up and told her she was comparing apples to oranges and that she didn't even get it correct when she did. The ancients believed in 5 elements, earth, air, fire, water and spirit which united the other 4. What they were not doing was describing what each element within the will react with, the number of valence electrons the element has or what "family" it is in, but rather describing things in terms of an entirely different set of criteria.

quote:

When you insulted my intelligence, you were not attacking the thinking, if you had been you would have cut to the meat of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Another time I had some Baptists yelling damnation on a street corner and they insulted both my Mother and some friends, calling my Mother a whore and my friends Lesbian Harlots. (We were all dressed up and heading to a Halloween party) My response was to get out of the car and kick the crap of them and then tell them two phrases. "Judge not lest you be judged" and "Spare the rod spoil the child."

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

Here's a case in point, from your own stories.

And did they intellectually challenge an idea, or outright insult and berate the person? Can you not see the difference? Context, remember?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Or unmasked truth, which tends to unmask aggression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

And I strongly suggest you go over to dictionary.com and look up the word theory ...

Your comments reveal an abysmal lack of scientific education. ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

As Musicmystery is concerned in post 270 in Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation Musicmystery wrote

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Or unmasked truth, which tends to unmask aggression.

In other words, Musicmystery abhors truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

What you said was: Context. Next time, pay attention in class.

That wasn't cutting to the heart of the matter, it was implying I wasn't paying attention and doing so in a condescending manner.

And yes, I did address the point in post #62.

I am not a pacifist, if that is what you are pointing out, the delineation is that I will not be provoked to aggression if my ideas are challenged. You can disagree with me as much as you like, point out the errors in my thinking, introduce me to a different line of thought that is worth consideration. But when you cross the line into insults, then game on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Another time I had some Baptists yelling damnation on a street corner and they insulted both my Mother and some friends, calling my Mother a whore and my friends Lesbian Harlots. (We were all dressed up and heading to a Halloween party) My response was to get out of the car and kick the crap of them and then tell them two phrases. "Judge not lest you be judged" and "Spare the rod spoil the child."

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

Here's a case in point, from your own stories.

And did they intellectually challenge an idea, or outright insult and berate the person? Can you not see the difference? Context, remember?

Again, your claim is that

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

Certainly, they acted inappropriately, from ego if nothing else, and one could argue insecurity, though that's an assumption, not anything yet supported.

But so did you. Not only did you act aggressively, but also you escalated the situation from words to physical aggression. Are you then exempt from your own rule? You were certainly acting from a stance of ego, and then arguably insecurity, per your assumption. Certainly, in your context of arguing Christian stances, it's hardly a demonstration of "turn the other check," or any other effective conflict management strategy, for that matter. It's "you insult me and mine, I kick your butt." Nice and Babylonian, but not a strong intellectual argument.

Let's play further. What if they honestly felt that your dress was an affront to their values and lifestyle? Would that then excuse their aggression, as you want to excuse yours?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's an observation.

quote:

Non-avialan (meaning it isn't an avian) dinosaur closely related to (but not the origin of) the origin of birds. Almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Surprisingly, no fossils of one of these creatures preserved with true avian unborn in its womb. Yet another intellectually dishonest jump, and yet another example of attacking my intelligence rather than my argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Non-avialan (meaning it isn't an avian) dinosaur closely related to (but not the origin of) the origin of birds. Almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Surprisingly, no fossils of one of these creatures preserved with true avian unborn in its womb. Yet another intellectually dishonest jump, and yet another example of attacking my intelligence rather than my argument.

I was afraid correctly that I did not make the point and/or you did not read far enough into the articles to understand the significance of "transitional" species. No big jump at all. The really big jump is that you find god in every gap of knowledge. Not at all surprising that your criteria of finding a true avian unborn in the womb of a reptilian fossil has not been met inasmuch as fossils are relatively scarce when compared to all the creatures that lived; transition occurs gradually; and neither reptiles nor birds have wombs.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for change in life forms from the studies of genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy.

How much evidence is there for special creation? None, other than some passages from the Book. Your knowledge is frozen in time. What new knowledge has theology contibuted to the modern world? Again none. All you are left with are denials. Eyes closed, ears shut, mind locked in the long ago and far away.

You have made so many mis-statements in your understanding of current scientific knowledge that I sincerely and without slander intended recommend you read up more thoroughly on the subject rather than limit your arguments to the observation of gaps.