Only those who want to use the roads, and care about others using the roads, care about the rules of the road. If you don’t want to use the roads, or don’t care about anyone else who wants to use the roads, then there’s no reason for you to care about the rules of the road.

I don’t believe you actually understand the whole notion of what I’m proposing, so I can understand why you would say that. People tend to reject things they don’t understand – some more acrimoniously than others.

Shoku,

So have you.

If you don't like my opinions then you don't have to read them.

Besides that, everything that comes out of your mouth is your opinion. Do you think everyone wants to hear YOUR opinion?

Noting:
This is the second time you have mentioned (to me in particular,) that I have been expressing my opinion "without having been asked for it." Do you have a problem with that? Do you think everyone should just keep their opinions to themselves until they are "asked" or just me? Or is it just women in general expressing their opinions that you have a problem with? I'm just wondering where this kind of remark is coming from.

And you’re getting your so-called “justice” by asking question? Well … ummmm … more power to ya!



Well I notice you’re still posting. And so far, you have the highest “reply count” (measured by number of quotes replied to). So in a contest of relentlessness, I would have to concede that I am no match for you.

…it's no wonder people want revenge.And again, you’re getting your revenge by asking questions???



That need for revenge is what causes the spiral. And personally, I think that indicates just how transparent your goals really are.

People who believe that platitude aren't thinking.

How so? We seem to agree that solipsism doesn't have any problem with there being other people in an illusion.

n_n

Why care about people? They're just things.

I don’t believe you actually understand the whole notion of what I’m proposing, so I can understand why you would say that. People tend to reject things they don’t understand – some more acrimoniously than others.A lot of people keep rejecting what I've been saying but I try not to treat them like they don't understand it out of respect.

Now, when instead of rejecting it they just discard it that's a different story but you know~

I dont think that is accurate at all. I do not post for revenge, how silly, what a petty reason, no if I wanted revenge it would be intimate.

I post becuase the topics are interesting and you guys have points of view starkly different so it makes it fun.

Also most forum goers are very easy going about this stuff, its pretty rare someone starts with the ad homs, and personal attacks.

The adversarial nature of my, creative and abra discourse has everything to do with a lack of effort by abra to really even engage at the level he claims to be an authority on in science.

Liking something and adopting it as your own are two very different things.

Well no, that's what being objective is about. Objectivity has the opinion stripped away if you're doing it right.



Here's where it's coming from:



If people don't ask for an opinion why are you belittling people ('they don't give a rat's *** about anyone else') for not being interested in hearing it? Sometimes people are busy and they've got a particular project or goal they're working on-
so it's where you share your opinion that matters. If someone made a thread about how to make a faster pinewood derby car and you came into it to share the opinion that "pinewood derby cars are stupid" that... well, that's basically the wrong place to be sharing that opinion. You could go find a thread about what people think about pinewood derby cars and share it there or even make your own topic for it but repurposing that first one is like stealing it.

So really what we've got hear is me asking you to respect other people's property. This thread isn't here to give you a platform to tell people what you think about spirits but you're treating it like that's what it is.

What thread has asked is if there is evidence for a designer. "We can't know" is a vote that there is not evidence.
"That there's no evidence is missing the point" is flat out wrong because the point is all in "is there evidence for it?" If you want to talk about how important having evidence is or isn't do it in a thread about that.

I have presented what I considered to be "evidence" and it was rejected. I even declared that this thread was at a dead end yet people are still posting.

Yes there is evidence. That is my answer. I gave my answer and my evidence. Now if people still want to chit chat and drag this thread out forever, I guess that is their choice.

So why don't you stick to the subject of the thread? If we all did that, this thread would have died after three pages.

You can let it die now. It's a dead thread. All who post now are just defending their egos.

I am going to leave that one alone.



Yes there has been evidence presented, has that evidence necessarily concluded in the universe being a design? Have we enough epistemilogical evidence to conclude an ontological or teleological claim?

Can that even be done?

…it's no wonder people want revenge.And again, you’re getting your revenge by asking questions???



That need for revenge is what causes the spiral. And personally, I think that indicates just how transparent your goals really are.


I was talking about relent in regards to particular points. How long did it take abra to stop saying there are only 100 atoms in our universe after I explicitly explained how there were not 100?

There was no argument that I was counting wrong.There was no argument that the numbers I had given resulted in the same end point.

Only very far down the road did he switch over to the calculus approach but that argument was just "anything less than infinity is nothing compared to infinity." He hasn't defended or conceded that point either, though at least he didn't repeat it for so long.

"Look at the giraffes five legs and you must see how my point stands.
"Those only have four legs."
To be unrelenting you can ignore that they have four legs and keep saying that they have five but to actually participate in a discussion the way Bushido, Creative, and myself expect people to you have to say something about the four legs.

Now, the way you do it is a little bit different. Instead of ignoring the number of legs on a giraffe you jump back to an earlier position and say the legs don't have anything to do with it. They are most certainly related to the last post and train of thought and so you burden me with the task of looking back for where you said something to prove that you said it and then the full sum of acknowledgment you give me is at best dropping any fight you can't win.

With JB it feels more like she just has a short attention span and always tries to jump back to what she wants to, well, not "talk about" so much as "say." It's kind of the most and least extreme in terms of ignoring what other people say.

But other things like how you act as if I said I want justice or revenge here (and chopped up the quotes enough that people can't see I didn't say that without scrolling back up to look) and in to the reason people hate talking to you. That's called quote mining (and you do some of it implicitly,) but that's a dishonest thing to do.

Well, I'll just give an example: Thank you. I'm glad you've finally accepted the reasonable position.

If you throw a smiley on the end of that it would become humorous (and nearly is without it because we all know you wouldn't say that in that context,) but if you treat it like that's actually a legitimate part of the discussion is there any wonder why people get a bad taste in their mouth thinking about initing another helping of that?

Why not? Because you don't like it?

Shoku described the general pattern/style of argument here very concisely with this analogy...



Di gave three great posts in a row concerning this very thing(the ethical procedure involved in an intellectual argument) in the burden of proof thread.

In order for one to reasonably continue proposing an argument, when the opposition presents counter-evidence, that evidence must be considered. Upon consideration, it must be shown as either irrelevant, insufficient, or incorrect in order to show that it does not deny nor refute the original claim against which it was posed.

The counter evidence which has been given in this thread, that directly addressed the irrelevant nature or insufficient amount of the evidence presented has been ignored for the most part. Instead, the claimant, upon having been given a logical or common sense refutation of his/her claim, has avoided that completely, and instead held to the original claim for the original reasons given, or in some cases completely changed the content and/or form of presentation in such a way that it no longer applied to what was being considered. As Jeremy says, and Shoku has applied since... moving the goalposts around in the middle of the game in order to avoid facing the fact that the opponents kicker is dead on.

Well yes, the nondisclosure of my motives is due to not knowing who I'm talking to until I know if it will be an issue or not. If it's not an issue people don't need to hear it anyway so it's fog all around.

Really though, it's unjust how they behave so balancing things out should in all fairness be on your mind. If you're acquainted with the dangers I mentioned you know better than to let it drive you but a more moderated form of it probably expresses itself through you.

No, I just like some form of resolution.

But I thought you had said repeatedly that you just had an opinion. Are you saying that your opinion counts as evidence and if so how do you handle anyone with the opinion that you're wrong?

...why is it so hard for mankind to believe that his existence relies on something more than the conditions allowing for his existence,plain and simple..i thinks it's his capacity to think and ponder on such,and gather his infomation from disinformation handed down..
..form his opinion and then announce it as if it were the truth,because that's what he believes..so therefore he must be right..because we are such an intelligent race... ..yea right...

ooopsy!

Wrong thread.

Ya but we all kind of know people who support spiritualism don't understand how that's not good argument procedure.

I've been trying to avoid the near legalese tone of the middle of that to be sure it wasn't the reason they don't get it, and I think we've got enough evidence of that by now~

But "we" don't.