True Religion

I think your problem is that you are unable to reconcile superficial differences with deeper unity.

Attempts at asserting truth? Do you mean my request that you actually educate yourself to the differences before you come to a conclusion? Or do you mean my pointing out the gaping flaws in your own analogy - that you provided as excuse not to educate yourself before arriving at a conclusion?

I think your problem is that you are unable to reconcile superficial differences with deeper unity.

Unfortunately this sort of slipshod belief foundation is all too common with you.

I just noted the fact that you believe that you are asserting a truth that cannot be escaped by me

How can you tell if something is superficial or deep? Is it just a subjective difference? What is the Truth in this matter?

It always comes down to insults and ridicule with you.

Quote:

I just noted the fact that you believe that you are asserting a truth that cannot be escaped by me

Which, like when you replied to Fresco, you are not prepared to name...so an easy, vague, cop-out or a response.

How can you tell if something is superficial or deep? Is it just a subjective difference? What is the Truth in this matter?

It always comes down to insults and ridicule with you.

Habib, for all that I disagree with him, is much better than you in this department. You will find I 'ridicule' him far less than yourself, despite our vast differences in opinion. That is because he has put much more thought and honesty into his beliefs than you. I'm not saying he is anywhere near perfect in this regard - just far better at logic and intellectual honesty than you.

A meaningless response.

You don't deserve to be an agent of ridicule. You don't deserve to have that much power, yet you take it anyway because you can.

All you are saying is that you compare people with each other in an attempt to stimulate competitive ego trips in service to you as judge. There are also better judges than you. It is not worth my effort to try to compete with Habib or anyone else in your eyes.

The only times I press are when:
- you avoid answering questions (because you claim truth and honesty)
- you display hypocrisy (because you claim truth and honesty)
- you fail at logic (because you claim claim logical)

In comparison, as you see in this thread when you admit to a mistake - I have no issues with such. Same for if I disagree but you show you have thought through your beliefs (take Habib for instance). So you can call it what you want, and demonise it how you want, to assuage your needs for whatever it is.

Ummm...this as a whole is a rather delusional view. No one deserves anything (we just like to think we do). The rest seems paranoid - we all do things because we can (ie we can't do what we can't do) - it's the other motivations that matter

That's like telling your rape victim the only times you rape are when they 1) resist 2) fail to show interest in your 3) say 'no.'

Quote:

That's like telling your rape victim the only times you rape are when they 1) resist 2) fail to show interest in your 3) say 'no.'

Rofl. Rape is a crime. Pointing out when you, or any poster, engages in hypocrisy etc is not.

Your comparison can directly be compared to saying 'logic debating classes where you point out logical flaws (or avoidance of answering a question, etc) are like the rapist pointing out the only times they rape are when the other 1)resists 2)fails to show interest in the rapist 3) says no." It is such an ridiculous comparison that I'm somewhat surprised you made it.

It's not a ridiculous comparison. It exaggerates the level of pushiness in order to clarify what you're doing on a more subtle level.

Quote:

It's not a ridiculous comparison. It exaggerates the level of pushiness in order to clarify what you're doing on a more subtle level.

There's no subtlety whatsoever to it - when you engage in avoidance, hypocrisy, poor logic etc, I have pointed it out. The unfortunate thing is the excessive amount of times you have engaged in such behaviour. That has lead to me starting to point out your pattern of behaviour - with examples / explanation at each step to illustrate the issue.

As it stands, your comparison is a ridiculous comparison - even you admit that it's exaggerated - but you weren't prepared to say just how exaggerated (extremely), nor do you acknowledge the attempt to demonise pointing out hypocrisy etc (through comparative association with one of the most vile crimes known to humans).

The thing about both honesty and logic is:
- it needs no exaggeration
- it doesn't need over the top comparisons (which are neither accurate nor truthful)
- it doesn't need to divert attention or avoid issues,
- it doesn't need to make vague allusions because it can explain what it wants to explain (or admits that it can't)
- it can explain things in a structured way that stands up to scrutiny (or admits that it can't),
- and it can stand on it's own merits -
- and also admits when it is faulty or wrong .

You don't make a case

Rather, you try to push with a preponderance of suggestion in order to overpower questioning.

What you should be doing is inviting critical questioning of your claims, which I have

but you should respect and attempt to understand their side of it, and always keep in mind that your perspective is also potentially influenced/biased by your subjectivity.

You are basically seeking to define another person against their will, and denying their own perspective.

The fact is that you are pushy/aggressive and the best comparison in terms of a physical/material analogy is a rapist who would use sexual violence to punish a victim for not responding to his advances while calling her 'b*tch," "wh*re," etc. Bracket your emotion response to this analogy as vile for a moment in order to objectively contemplate it as a tactic of interpersonal power relations between someone whose feelings are hurt by rejection and someone else who rejected the aggressor.

The thing about both honesty and logic is:
- it needs no exaggeration
- it doesn't need over the top comparisons (which are neither accurate nor truthful)
- it doesn't need to divert attention or avoid issues,
- it doesn't need to make vague allusions because it can explain what it wants to explain (or admits that it can't)
- it can explain things in a structured way that stands up to scrutiny (or admits that it can't),
- and it can stand on it's own merits -
- and also admits when it is faulty or wrong .

This is all character-attack logic.

What would be dishonest is if you did any of the things you mention with a manipulative intent instead of sincere intentions. Insincere intentions make for dishonesty, and perhaps unwillingness to consider other perspectives. It is not dishonest to give fair consideration and then reject it after honest assessment.

Quote:

but you should respect and attempt to understand their side of it, and always keep in mind that your perspective is also potentially influenced/biased by your subjectivity.

Respect isn't owed just for its own sake (ie. there's nothing to respect about dishonesty, avoidance, or hypocrisy). We start with a modicum, and from there respect grows or diminishes based on behaviour.

You are basically seeking to define another person against their will, and denying their own perspective.

The fact is that you are pushy/aggressive and the best comparison in terms of a physical/material analogy is a rapist who would use sexual violence to punish a victim for not responding to his advances while calling her 'b*tch," "wh*re," etc. Bracket your emotion response to this analogy as vile for a moment in order to objectively contemplate it as a tactic of interpersonal power relations between someone whose feelings are hurt by rejection and someone else who rejected the aggressor.

- You have not been raped. The 'trauma' you experience from having any dishonesty etc pointed out is likely not even 1/1000th of the trauma experienced by a rape victim, but you want to claim it is comparable. This is a ridiculous, insensitive, and almost unconscionable comparison.

- What we have is: I see that you frequently engage in behaviours of avoidance, dishonesty etc, and many times you do so (not even every time), I point it out, with quotes of yours and explanation. This in your eyes is pushy. This is purely your perspective. And a self serving one at that, as you so very obviously don't like your poor behaviours being pointed out.

The thing about both honesty and logic is:
- it needs no exaggeration
- it doesn't need over the top comparisons (which are neither accurate nor truthful)
- it doesn't need to divert attention or avoid issues,
- it doesn't need to make vague allusions because it can explain what it wants to explain (or admits that it can't)
- it can explain things in a structured way that stands up to scrutiny (or admits that it can't),
- and it can stand on it's own merits -
- and also admits when it is faulty or wrong .

This is all character-attack logic.

Calling it 'character attack logic' is purely diversionary, and another form of avoidance (in this case, avoidance in addressing the list if you in fact, disagreed with it)

'You believe it to be true' is not enough for honesty (as opposed to 'the truth' in your eyes) because in holding a belief, you could not want any further to see if it is truly true or not (which is not honest), and therefore be left with just "I believe it to be true".

Each time you reply, you provide more evidence of just how unfamiliar you are with self honesty. I've never come across anyone so unfamiliar with self honesty or the principles that lead to self honesty. And no matter how much the character traits of self honesty are explained to you - you avoid, divert, and make excuse after excuse for yourself. If you wonder why we can never have a sane conversation - this is the reason. All the other excuses you make in your mind about my motivations are just that - excuses for your own benefit.

I don't know if there is any point to conversations with you. I am quite an optimist, but it seems you truly wish to excuse yourself from embracing principles necessary to self honesty.

I've given the example many times of how your view of marriage for heterosexuals and not homosexuals as inconsistent and hypocritical as not being hypocritical from a certain perspective

But you deny philosophical disagreement about what makes 'contention behaviors' contentious or not in the first place.

Yet another character attack post.

Quote:

I've given the example many times of how your view of marriage for heterosexuals and not homosexuals as inconsistent and hypocritical as not being hypocritical from a certain perspective

This is a problem with conversing with you - the frequent removal of conversations from context. I've never commented on gay marriage. I've commented on God's hate of gay people, which he created with gay genes.

But you deny philosophical disagreement about what makes 'contention behaviors' contentious or not in the first place.

You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

Quote:

Yet another character attack post.

Actually, the first that could be legitimately viewed as such - the rest talk of behaviours. Also a necessary statement due to overwhelming evidence that you don't wish to embrace the principles & behaviours necessary to self honesty, and by now, the pointlessness of trying to explain them to you. It's obvious now, that you simply don't wish to engage in such where it is inconvenient to your beliefs.

You have recoded 'honesty' to mean something different than it means.

Quote:

You have recoded 'honesty' to mean something different than it means.

Not at all. Truth and honesty are two different things. You can deceive while telling the truth, but you cannot deceive while being honest.

'Honesty' is a true orientation.