No, i'm not. You're trying to mount a defense of an indefensible act of arrogant hubris on your part, and i'm not inclined to drop the matter.
Not arrogant as you are with your idea that you are right about what I am trying to do. Just like you not liking me telling you that you are reading into things.
See how it feels? You don't like it. And yet you do it. My pride in myself is fine. You have a problem with thinking you know instead of asking to find out. You did not like me assuming you were reading into what I was typing but why did you assume that I was trying to do something I was not?
Now it is time for you to mount.
In fact, i'm telling you you were wrong in what you were trying to do. This is a discussion forum. You were trying to come here to drop off the propaganda you personally prefer, in the middle of a discussion, and then state that you did not want to discuss the topic which you had commented upon. Add to this that your comment was a narrow-minded appeal to scripture, in a discussion being carried on by people who are far more knowledgeable than you, and a great many of whom reject the entire principle of "revealed scriptural truth,"--and what you did was to indulge in unmitigated arrogant hubris.
I've read nothing into what you wrote--i've discussed directly what you have in fact written. My liking what you write is a matter of indifference, i don't care what you write. And when what you write is more muddled foolishness, you just provide me more opportunity to pick it apart. I don't care what you assumed, i am simply denying that you're right--and you are not.
I have not the least interest in your likes and dislikes. To arrogate is to take a privilege to which one is not entitled. As a member of a discussion forum, i am perfectly in my rights to comment on the nature of your participation. So no, disagreeing with you is not arrogant. Assuming that i believe myself to be "smarter" than you is just that, an assumption. I could, of course, question what you mean by "smarter"--more polished, better dressed? But i know what you mean. I don't value my opinion above yours--i do value the right that everyone here has to discuss a topic, and to do so without you deciding you can set the terms of discussion.
This may not be what you had in mind, but since your silly four paragraphs to instruct us in what you claim revealed truth to be, you've spent quite a lot of time discussion religion--and it has been your special brand thereof.
I disagree with what this Pastor is doing. I noticed the news report dose not say what kind of Baptist this Pastor is.
kjvtrue wrote:I disagree with what this Pastor is doing. I noticed the news report dose not say what kind of Baptist this Pastor is.
A homo-hating Baptist would be my guess.
If Dog had wanted humans to be homosexual, he would have . . . ooops ! ! ! . . . never mind . . .
Blue Monkey,
I don't write this to be condescending. but to be helpful. Some people here on a2k are quite advanced in their ability to argue logically. They are not always right, but they are quite able to back up their opinions in a logical fashion. Many of these people have read and absorbed great amounts of material, and have sifted through many types of arguments on various points in their fields of interest. They know how to pinpoint observations to make a coherent argument on this forum.
This is all learnable. There are even ways to learn to argue well - see for example Google.com on fallacies. Websites listing types of fallacies will give you about twenty different ways to screw up an argument with fallacious reasoning.
What you have going for you is a great deal of enthusiasm, natural vigor for argument. People will help you more if you leave a little room to learn from those who engage with you here. They might even like you a little, past all the bluster.
I am not a great arguer myself, am learning too.
Hey, you just argued a really good point there. I like your view of a2k, and I hope to contribute helpfuly to the discussions in this community.
C'mon guys, you and you - over here and shake hands. Yep. No winners, but a 'vigorous' debate. Let's save it up for the next one.
Now, I haven't been followin' this thread, but it recently came to my attention. Participating in flaming, whether starting it or responding to it, is uncool. Knock off the Ad Hominem crap. I know some folks don't like veiled threats, so I'll make quite clear that if MODERATOR is not given the opportunity to forget about this thread, EVERYBODY will be given opportunity to forget about it, and that would be a shame; there are some very good comments here, and some thoughtful interplay. A minority, however, appear to need a reminder of what A2K is about. Think about it.
Setanta I would like to apologize for any inappropriate comment not pertaining to the forum.
(edited for spelling)
I'm content to let it go . . .
Maybe I should have posted this in the religion forum. I didn't mean for it to become a discussion on the right and wrongs of Homosexuality. But I can understand why it was such a big news story here in Boise. What I can't understand though is what do you care if someone else is Gay. How does that affect you? People need to stop worrying about other people life styles and start paying more attention to things that really matter like the economy and the war in Iraq. Gay bashing is petty and small.
I'm sure this isn't the last we will hear of this Phelps guy.
People have different priorities. No one can force all to think on one link. It would be a boring world if that were to be the case.
