American Atheists Target Christmas in Billboard

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by jmdrake
Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap. The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See? Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."

Yep. See here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=271569

Well good; you are not talking about me – since I’m not in that thread.

 

[idirtify]

St. Thomas Aquinas would greatly disagree

please elaborate.

 

[idirtify]

Please stop with the passive aggressive baloney. You've cried wolf one time to many for any intelligent person to take you seriously. And this insult is not veiled. Save your nonsense for Sarah "Obama called me a pig"* Palin.

*Reference to Sarah Palin getting her undies in a bunch over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment.

Hmm. So you call your opponent a “swine”, and I call you out on name-calling, and then you claim I am being passive aggressive. Please give us your definition of “passive aggressive”. It doesn't seem to fit.

And how about we leave Sarah Palin out of it? I cannot fathom what she has to do with it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Idirtify, from the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at picking fights with people and derailing most every thread you enter.

Are you interested in the liberty movement, or in just playing games?

 

[idirtify]

Thank you for proving me right yet again. Some atheists attack Christians for merely saying what atheists actually believe. Yet another example of the whole passive aggressive nature of this debate. And note I never said you were the only one to use that tactic. But you certainly have used it.

What are you saying; that my agreement with the sign is me being passive aggressive? Or are you approving of my agreement with the sign? Your post could be taken different ways. Could you reword it?

 

[idirtify]

LOL. That's really a waste of time. It's like trying to get a pathalogical liar to admit he's lying. But I'll humor you. In one thread you kept trying to say I didn't know the difference between "attacking the person and attacking the message". That's your opinion, not fact. (And your opinion is wrong). I pointed out that you don't understand person liberty. That's my opinion. You called that an "almost ad hominem" (I don't remember your exact words but it doesn't matter). So when other people do exactly what you do, you disparage their behavior while trying to pretend your own behavior is civil.

So just like I expect a pathological liar to lie and say he's telling the truth even when you catch him in a lie, I expect a passive aggressive person such as yourself to continue to claim others are "miss-defining the term" or "miss-describing" his activity. It's just part of the pathology.

Anyway, I wasn't directed my post to BlackTerrel at you per se, but at the behavior. I really don't care what you think at this point. But I want others to be able to recognize the behavior and avoid the trap. Another example of this behavior is coming from Flash. Even after I acknowledged his Bible quote, but provided quotes of my own in rebuttal, all he could do was to keep repeating "You don't know your Bible". Now that's rather illogical and a (to use your term and standard) "veiled insult". Of course in your own mind you can pretend I'm "defining the word wrong" or whatever, but like I said, at this point I don't care what you think. If Flash wanted to carry on a civil conversation he could have by offering some explanation to rebut the Bible verses I provided or some other verses of his own, or even by saying that he didn't really believe the Bible anyway but wished to provide some other standard. He didn't.

So in short, you can keep playing your little games. I can't stop you. I'm not a moderator so I can't ban you. And passive aggression isn't against forum rules. It's just bad form in my world. But I'm sure it's ok in yours. And I'm also sure you will think of some cleverly dishonest way to define yourself out of it.

Far from “a waste of time”, providing good support for an accusation is usually regarded as a “responsibility”. Instead of providing only loose recollections and paraphrases, why don’t you just go get a quote?

AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE INSULTED ME. Please get this through your skull: Calling me “a passive aggressive person” is ad hominem. Have you EVER looked at the definition of either “ad hominem” or “insult”? CAN YOU NOT CONTROL YOUR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR?? Have you ever looked at the definition of “passive-aggressive”, which you seem to have recently adopted as one of your favorite terms?

The rest of your post is just more mass-mischaracterizations, not worthy of direct replies.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Someone please remind me how one blocks a member's posts? I am feeling the need to do so.

 

[idirtify]

Idirtify, from the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at picking fights with people and derailing most every thread you enter.

Let’s me translate you:

“From the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at posting too strong of disagreements and inciting opponents to falsely claim that you are ‘derailing most every thread you enter’.”

Are you interested in the liberty movement, or in just playing games?

That is a most curious question, considering the fact that a large portion of my disagreements focuses on defending the foundations of “individual liberty”. Since the concept of liberty is based on human behavior (an agreement to cease aggression), it’s only appropriate that aggressive behavior is addressed whenever and wherever it is encountered. Apparently, you do not appreciate that. I find it amazing that so many participants in a forum on individual liberty, including yourself, demonstrate such little knowledge about the behavioral foundation of the concept.

 

[idirtify]

Someone please remind me how one blocks a member's posts? I am feeling the need to do so.

Even though I’ve never done it, I’d like to help you. I think it’s called “ignore”.

 

[jmdrake]

What are you saying; that my agreement with the sign is me being passive aggressive? Or are you approving of my agreement with the sign? Your post could be taken different ways. Could you reword it?

To paraphrase Carly Simon.... You're so vain. You probably thought that post was about you.

The point you proved is that people such as LFOD will complain about "Christian attacks" even when Christians are giving an honest assessment of atheism that other atheists agree with. I'm not approving or disapproving of your agreement with the sign. I'm making a point about how your side "cries wolf".

 

[jmdrake]

Far from “a waste of time”, providing good support for an accusation is usually regarded as a “responsibility”. Instead of providing only loose recollections and paraphrases, why don’t you just go get a quote?

AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE INSULTED ME. Please get this through your skull: Calling me “a passive aggressive person” is ad hominem. Have you EVER looked at the definition of either “ad hominem” or “insult”? CAN YOU NOT CONTROL YOUR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR?? Have you ever looked at the definition of “passive-aggressive”, which you seem to have recently adopted as one of your favorite terms?

The rest of your post is just more mass-mischaracterizations, not worthy of direct replies.

LOL. I'm going to treat you just like you treated LibertyEagle. (And I'm sure you will dishonestly claim that somehow you were being different).

Translation of your above post: "I'm so insecure in myself that I will go around and insult other people, try to cleverly disguise my insults as legitimate conversation, and then complain about other people insulting me at the slightest provocation".

 

[jmdrake]

Idirtify, from the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at picking fights with people and derailing most every thread you enter.

Are you interested in the liberty movement, or in just playing games?

Considering how we have bumped heads in the past I probably look like a jackass for saying this, but I really miss you being a moderator.

 

[jmdrake]

Hmm. So you call your opponent a “swine”, and I call you out on name-calling, and then you claim I am being passive aggressive. Please give us your definition of “passive aggressive”. It doesn't seem to fit.

And how about we leave Sarah Palin out of it? I cannot fathom what she has to do with it.

I didn't call anybody "swine". I posted a proverb that fit the situation. As for Sarah Palin, you just don't get the analogy. She claimed Obama was calling her a "pig" when he was merely quoting a proverb. So you're acting just like Palin in this respect. (And next I bet you're going to say I'm calling you a woman).

 

[jmdrake]

Originally Posted by jmdrake
Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap. The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See? Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."




Well good; you are not talking about me – since I’m not in that thread.

Ding ding ding! Finally he gets it! I was talking about the behavior as opposed to you in particular. Yes I've seen you exhibit that behavior as have other people. But whenever anyone talks about negative behavior with respect to you you call it an insult. You talk about negative behavior with respect to others and it's supposed to be all hunky dory.

 

[idirtify]

LOL. I'm going to treat you just like you treated LibertyEagle. (And I'm sure you will dishonestly claim that somehow you were being different).

Translation of your above post: "I'm so insecure in myself that I will go around and insult other people, try to cleverly disguise my insults as legitimate conversation, and then complain about other people insulting me at the slightest provocation".

If you think I insulted LibertyEagle, you don’t know what it means. An insult is an attack on the person, not the person’s message – which is only a disagreement. For example: You make yet another insult when you attack my person as “insecure”. Do you see how calling me insecure is an insult against my person, and not a disagreement with my message? Seeing such a simple thing doesn’t seem too difficult to me. Another thing that leads me to believe that you don’t know what “insult” means is that you keep claiming that I insult people. If you would only provide a quote/example of mine, I’m sure I could explain how it did not attack the person.

If you continue to refuse to accept the clear distinction between person and message, you will not only continue to violate the terms of this forum, but you will be rejecting a main tenet of individual liberty. Do you not care about reciprocating individual liberty, but only having it for yourself? Do you not care about your credibility?

 

[idirtify]

I didn't call anybody "swine". I posted a proverb that fit the situation.

Sure you did. You quoted the proverb to do it for you.

As for Sarah Palin, you just don't get the analogy. She claimed Obama was calling her a "pig" when he was merely quoting a proverb. So you're acting just like Palin in this respect. (And next I bet you're going to say I'm calling you a woman).

I largely forget the details of the palin/obama situation, but I believe he DID call her a pig. Besides, I’m not sure that what you imply (if palin claimed it, it must be false) is true.

 

[specialK]

It's a little on the rude and insensitive side, but I wish I had as many nice things to say about the god of Moses.

 

[idirtify]

Ding ding ding! Finally he gets it! I was talking about the behavior as opposed to you in particular. Yes I've seen you exhibit that behavior as have other people. But whenever anyone talks about negative behavior with respect to you you call it an insult. You talk about negative behavior with respect to others and it's supposed to be all hunky dory.

OK, so you WERE talking about me. That’s not good. You are incorrect. I do not “push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond”, let alone say “look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are." The latter is an overt insult against a large group of people, and the former is a mass mischaracterization of the simple process of making disagreements. Obviously, I’ve done neither, since you can’t cite one quote where I have. Apparently you are only mischaracterizing because: a) I have disagreed with YOUR beliefs, b) you can’t actually refute my disagreements with your beliefs, c) you are making excuses for insulting me because of it.

 

[austin944]

Also, you fail to understand the metaphysical nature of concepts, such as reason. Reason has no physical element to it. It does not take up space, nor can it be observed empirically (by a microscope or something else). For a physical object like a box, we can examine its tangible qualities, such as its weight, length, texture, etc. With other things like reason, we cannot do any such thing. Reason is an immaterial entity. It makes no sense to say "Reason weighs 13 lbs.," or "I took Reason out of my pantry today."

Individual electrons cannot be observed directly. We have some idea of their properties through indirect measurements, but we have yet to directly observe an electron with our current scientific equipment. According to your reasoning, because our senses cannot directly observe individual electrons, those electrons are immaterial. Yet we know that "something" is there.

It is a mistake to argue that our senses define what is and what is not immaterial. It could be that our senses themselves are flawed and we are not (yet) capable of observing that which we suppose as immaterial.

So it is with our brain processes -- there is much that we do not yet understand. It may turn out that human reason and consciousness correspond to brain processes which we previously supposed as being immaterial.

 

[reillym]

Individual electrons cannot be observed directly. We have some idea of their properties through indirect measurements, but we have yet to directly observe an electron with our current scientific equipment. According to your reasoning, because our senses cannot directly observe individual electrons, those electrons are immaterial. Yet we know that "something" is there.

It is a mistake to argue that our senses define what is and what is not immaterial. It could be that our senses themselves are flawed and we are not (yet) capable of observing that which we suppose as immaterial.

So it is with our brain processes -- there is much that we do not yet understand. It may turn out that human reason and consciousness correspond to brain processes which we previously supposed as being immaterial.

Exactly. Only remedial minds would think that unobservable things can only be attributed to god. It's the 21st century, people.