Originally Posted By Ursula You know, I just typed up a lot of stuff and self-edited. The hatred of some "religions" are mind-boggling.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Almost as boggling is the idea that they're sitting on the edge of their chairs anxiously waiting for christ.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I think the next time I'm arguing with someone, I'll say "I hope Christ comes RIGHT NOW and proves to you how wrong you are and how right I am!!!" That'll make me look sane, alrighty.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"Man, I can't wait till Christ returns. I really can't. Let Him come NOW!"*** That'd be fantastic. I would sincerely love to see the pope and the Mormon prophet and all the rest of them squirm and try to justify their loathsome behavior to the son of god himself. ***He'll show gratitude for the good we've done to spread His word.*** And here we see the ultimate height of self-righteous hubris. Josh is so sure he's better than most, he truly expects gratitude from god himself. Nice.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Man, I can't wait till Christ returns. I really can't. Let Him come NOW! >>> I have an open-dated ticket on a one-way flight to Missouri. As soon as He's back, I'll hop on the next departure.
Originally Posted By Mr X <--throws away useless open-dated ticket on a one-way flight to Mississippi.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>He won't call us Mormons.<< For your sake, I hope he calls you "forgiven."
Originally Posted By ecdc It really is a wake up call, I hope, to those of us dedicated to improving the human condition. We're quite literally dealing with people whose life decisions are conditioned upon the belief that a supernatural being will come to earth to save them and punish their enemies. This is literally no wackier than believing in Jedi's, Xenu, or any other myth. Don't forget the power of that. What if we had people who created our laws with the belief that unicorns are the most important creatures on earth. We are dealing with a remarkable willingness to believe in myths invented out of whole cloth. It's dangerous and puts us all at risk.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm unfamiliar with the tradition of tearing people's marriages and families asunder in the name of god and christ.> There isn't one. And that's not what's happening now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's not for you to say.> It's certainly not for you to tell me what I can say.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <That's not for you to say.> It's certainly not for you to tell me what I can say. >>> Once again, we see lingustic manipulation used in service of The Technique. It's quite clear to me from the context that "That's not for you to say" was meant to convey the notion that Mr X thinks you're not in a position to judge whether other people's marriages and families are being torn apart by post-Prop-8 attempts to get prior marriages invalided. But your response is as if he meant it in a much more literal sense, as if he was trying to literally dictate what you could or could not say (as a censor might). The fact that you were able to deploy a linguistic technique to twist someone else's comment into something he didn't say and then respond as if he had said it doesn't advance your position. It might work in a narrowly-defined enviroment like a debate club, or even on the evening news if your quip was picked up as the sound bite of the day, but it simply won't work here anymore, as the technique is well understood, easily recognized, and will very often be pointed out by someone.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Mr X thinks you're not in a position to judge whether other people's marriages and families are being torn apart by post-Prop-8 attempts to get prior marriages invalided.> And I don't think he's in a position to judge whether I'm in a position. There's no "linguisitc technique" there.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< And I don't think he's in a position to judge whether I'm in a position. >>> He's certainly in a position to have an opinion on the matter, which is what he expressed. <<< There's no "linguisitc technique" there. >>> Just re-read what you wrote in #31. It's quite clear what you were trying to do.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I think you may be giving douglas too much credit. It doesn't look like clever subterfuge as much as simple denial - did not/did to - which is what we see from douglas all the time. As usual, his position is unsupportable. So rather than try, he just puts out an all purpose denial. No debating skills necessary for that one.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And I don't think he's in a position to judge whether I'm in a position.*** As SuperDry so aptly pointed out, of course I am.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Of course, Mr X's post wasn't simple denial because his position is unsupportable, just because he agrees with you. If I'm wrong, why doesn't one of you present actual evidence of a family being torn apart due to Prop 8, instead of engaging in the technique of debating the debate?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Of course, Mr X's post wasn't simple denial because his position is unsupportable*** No, it wasn't simple denial period. Like SuperDry said.
