RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 5:07:27 AM)

His point is that the sentence doesn't mean what it means alone. That's nonsense.

Now, a sentence only has meaning in an argument in the context of the paragraph. But to claim that the points made can't be challenged because only the paragraph itself holds meaning is bullshit.

After all, that's what the vast majority of posts do here.




Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 5:08:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

What Kirata and the others, who obviously are practicing Christians, are upset about is...

You really are a piece of work. I'm not a "practicing Christian," and I'm not defending Christianity. I'm shooting down your shit-for-brains claims because in my opinion that's what they are, and this notion that only a "practicing Christian" would attack your views is just another confirmation of the bias that gives rise to them.

K.





I call Bullshit, no one who isn't a practicing Christian would get upset at what I have written. . .


This is among the most ridiculous, pretentious, over the top self-serving nonsense I have ever read here.

And here, that's a high bar.

Don't give up your day job to become a detective.

You're also assigning "upset" emotions to people challenging your objective statements. You just aren't that important.





PeonForHer -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 6:48:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

His point is that the sentence doesn't mean what it means alone. That's nonsense.

Now, a sentence only has meaning in an argument in the context of the paragraph. But to claim that the points made can't be challenged because only the paragraph itself holds meaning is bullshit.

After all, that's what the vast majority of posts do here.


Rubbish. My claim was that the true meaning of the initial sentence becomes clear from the rest of the paragraph. Unless, that is, the reader doesn't *want* it to become clear.




crazyml -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 6:50:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

His point is that the sentence doesn't mean what it means alone. That's nonsense.

Now, a sentence only has meaning in an argument in the context of the paragraph. But to claim that the points made can't be challenged because only the paragraph itself holds meaning is bullshit.


That seems somewhat circular to me. I think the claim is that the "point" that is being challenged isn't actually being made by the author when you look at the sentence in the context of the para to which it belongs.

I'm not sure that can be argued to be "bullshit".

quote:



After all, that's what the vast majority of posts do here.


Are you really happy, in spite of your undoubted wisdom and erudition, to use the excuse that "the vast majority" do it?





Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 9:10:35 AM)

Excuse? And why the wisdom snark?

It's readily apparent that by far the dominant posting style is to quote a portion of someone's post to examine it.

If that's not readily apparent to you, then I'm honestly mystified as why not.




Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 9:13:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

His point is that the sentence doesn't mean what it means alone. That's nonsense.

Now, a sentence only has meaning in an argument in the context of the paragraph. But to claim that the points made can't be challenged because only the paragraph itself holds meaning is bullshit.


That seems somewhat circular to me. I think the claim is that the "point" that is being challenged isn't actually being made by the author when you look at the sentence in the context of the para to which it belongs.

I'm not sure that can be argued to be "bullshit".


So if you want to make a point about "War and Peace," you can only do so if you quote the entire novel?

Come on -- that's ridiculous.

Arguments proceed step by step. Each step is open to examination. And certainly a given step along the way can be in error.

Including a single sentence. Or a single phrase.




thishereboi -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 11:54:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

What Kirata and the others, who obviously are practicing Christians, are upset about is...

You really are a piece of work. I'm not a "practicing Christian," and I'm not defending Christianity. I'm shooting down your shit-for-brains claims because in my opinion that's what they are, and this notion that only a "practicing Christian" would attack your views is just another confirmation of the bias that gives rise to them.

K.





I call Bullshit, no one who isn't a practicing Christian would get upset at what I have written,




they don't exist and yet here you are, arguing with one. It just really sucks when people don't act like you think they are supposed to, doesn't it [8|]




crazyml -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 12:21:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

His point is that the sentence doesn't mean what it means alone. That's nonsense.

Now, a sentence only has meaning in an argument in the context of the paragraph. But to claim that the points made can't be challenged because only the paragraph itself holds meaning is bullshit.


That seems somewhat circular to me. I think the claim is that the "point" that is being challenged isn't actually being made by the author when you look at the sentence in the context of the para to which it belongs.

I'm not sure that can be argued to be "bullshit".


So if you want to make a point about "War and Peace," you can only do so if you quote the entire novel?

Come on -- that's ridiculous.

Arguments proceed step by step. Each step is open to examination. And certainly a given step along the way can be in error.

Including a single sentence. Or a single phrase.


You expect me to engage with this specious argument?

Really?

If you have been unable to understand the point I made then there is little I can do to help you further. If you did understand the point that I was making then I'm rather disappointed that you would try this pitiful gambit.




crazyml -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 12:23:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Excuse? And why the wisdom snark?



Actually it wasn't snark MM.

Which makes it all the more disappointing.




Kirata -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 12:49:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

He likes to trot out that bullshit when he gets called on getting all huffy when his defense of his faith gets too obvious. It's not the first time.

You're lying. Also not for the first time. And just to be unmistakably clear, I really do mean lying. Not just making shit up, but knowingly lying. You've had your ass handed to you each and every time you've floated this particular evidence-free claim, but apparently you think that's all so far in the past now that nobody will remember.

Well alrighty then, fine. Bend over, bozo. Not only am I not a defender of Christianity, I am one of its critics. And not just in a peripheral sense of some Christians somewhere once doing bad things, but of its most central doctrine. So please accept my cordial invitation to drag your lying ass back under that rock you call home.

K.




Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 1:24:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Excuse? And why the wisdom snark?



Actually it wasn't snark MM.


Then all I can say is that you're truly clueless about how language works.

And you simply ignored my response to you other than to get in another dig.

You been drinking Ken-Aid?

You want to discuss how sentences actually mean what they say, or not, with reasons, great.

You want to tell me I don't get how this works, there's a LOT of people with cash who think you're wrong.

Sure, maybe the publishers and the academics and the business clients are all delusional, and only you know the truth. Theoretically possible.

More likely you're being a dick today, for whatever reason.

Do it with someone else.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 1:51:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

It's a complete sentence ending in a Period, so it stands as a statement on it's own.

It is further qualified by the immediately following example: "Just because John Q homophobe doesn't go to church, claims not to be religious and so forth doesn't mean that Christianity is not at the root of his homophobia." which is empgasising the underlined bit.
That makes it pretty clear to me (and Kirata) that is precisely what they meant.

So, even in context, nj is actually saying exactly that and backing up the assertion by example.
By denying it in the respose to my post makes them look foolish.

No, because you and Kirata are making the foolish assumption that if someone claims they are atheist that ipso facto their homophobia has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian belief..what you are leaving out is that the homophobia common in western society was created by the Christian churches. ...<snip>

Sorry nj, my original comment stands.
And my premise at what you originally said was accurate and you have just clarified that even further [underlined].
So no, I didn't quote your post out of context at all - it is exactly what you said and meant.

Homophobia was evident many centuries, possibly even millenia, before any form of christianity.
And yes, it has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity.
I don't deny that the christian churches exascerbated and embraced homophobia and use passages from the bible to illustrate why they consider it should be cherished and adhered to.
But.... homophobia was not created by the churches or the faiths - it existed long before the christian religions were invented and became even more popular amongst the followers.
The term "homophobia" is very new (The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay) but the practice of it is quite old and pre-dates the christain faith.


References
"Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece (8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD)) have been termed homophobia by scholars..."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
"It is commonplace to say that anti-gay prejudice is "a medieval Christian attitude." Although it is true that such prejudice was certainly expanded and cruelly enforced during the medieval Christian ethos, homophobia nevertheless began long before Christ or the Church Fathers, and is quite specifically Jewish or Hebrew."
Source: http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho1.htm




Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 1:55:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

His point is that the sentence doesn't mean what it means alone. That's nonsense.

Now, a sentence only has meaning in an argument in the context of the paragraph. But to claim that the points made can't be challenged because only the paragraph itself holds meaning is bullshit.


That seems somewhat circular to me. I think the claim is that the "point" that is being challenged isn't actually being made by the author when you look at the sentence in the context of the para to which it belongs.

I'm not sure that can be argued to be "bullshit".


So if you want to make a point about "War and Peace," you can only do so if you quote the entire novel?

Come on -- that's ridiculous.

Arguments proceed step by step. Each step is open to examination. And certainly a given step along the way can be in error.

Including a single sentence. Or a single phrase.


You expect me to engage with this specious argument?

Really?

If you have been unable to understand the point I made then there is little I can do to help you further. If you did understand the point that I was making then I'm rather disappointed that you would try this pitiful gambit.

Yeah. That's it. I'm unable to understand you.

Cling to that.




Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 1:57:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

His point is that the sentence doesn't mean what it means alone. That's nonsense.

Now, a sentence only has meaning in an argument in the context of the paragraph. But to claim that the points made can't be challenged because only the paragraph itself holds meaning is bullshit.

After all, that's what the vast majority of posts do here.


Rubbish. My claim was that the true meaning of the initial sentence becomes clear from the rest of the paragraph. Unless, that is, the reader doesn't *want* it to become clear.


It's not rubbish. You are defending nj's sentence as saying something different than it actually says, and using as evidence an incorrect definition of contextomy as paragraphs changing (vs. enriching) the meaning of a sentence.




DomKen -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 4:00:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

He likes to trot out that bullshit when he gets called on getting all huffy when his defense of his faith gets too obvious. It's not the first time.

You're lying. Also not for the first time. And just to be unmistakably clear, I really do mean lying. Not just making shit up, but knowingly lying. You've had your ass handed to you each and every time you've floated this particular evidence-free claim, but apparently you think that's all so far in the past now that nobody will remember.

Well alrighty then, fine. Bend over, bozo. Not only am I not a defender of Christianity, I am one of its critics. And not just in a peripheral sense of some Christians somewhere once doing bad things, but of its most central doctrine. So please accept my cordial invitation to drag your lying ass back under that rock you call home.

You sure get mad when your faith is challenged. If it was stronger maybe you would be more secure.




Musicmystery -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 4:05:12 PM)

Your comment has NOTHING to do with the content of his post.




Kirata -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 4:21:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

He likes to trot out that bullshit when he gets called on getting all huffy when his defense of his faith gets too obvious. It's not the first time.

You're lying. Also not for the first time. And just to be unmistakably clear, I really do mean lying. Not just making shit up, but knowingly lying. You've had your ass handed to you each and every time you've floated this particular evidence-free claim, but apparently you think that's all so far in the past now that nobody will remember.

Well alrighty then, fine. Bend over, bozo. Not only am I not a defender of Christianity, I am one of its critics. And not just in a peripheral sense of some Christians somewhere once doing bad things, but of its most central doctrine. So please accept my cordial invitation to drag your lying ass back under that rock you call home.

You sure get mad when your faith is challenged. If it was stronger maybe you would be more secure.

The only possible challenge here would be to decide between whether you suffer from a mental defect, or are just a lying troll. But personally, I don't think it's an either/or question.

K.




Kirata -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 4:26:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your comment has NOTHING to do with the content of his post.

Consider the source [:D]

K.




thishereboi -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 4:56:12 PM)

When I get a minute I will get the local prayer circle working on that for ya [8D]




thishereboi -> RE: -=Federal Judge Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban=- (6/30/2014 4:59:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

He likes to trot out that bullshit when he gets called on getting all huffy when his defense of his faith gets too obvious. It's not the first time.

You're lying. Also not for the first time. And just to be unmistakably clear, I really do mean lying. Not just making shit up, but knowingly lying. You've had your ass handed to you each and every time you've floated this particular evidence-free claim, but apparently you think that's all so far in the past now that nobody will remember.

Well alrighty then, fine. Bend over, bozo. Not only am I not a defender of Christianity, I am one of its critics. And not just in a peripheral sense of some Christians somewhere once doing bad things, but of its most central doctrine. So please accept my cordial invitation to drag your lying ass back under that rock you call home.

You sure get mad when your faith is challenged. If it was stronger maybe you would be more secure.


You wouldn't admit you were sweating if your ass was on fire. If this is how you interact with people in real life it no wonder you are constantly having problems.




Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625