Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is man inherently good or inherently evil?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 226 of 271 (154792)
11-01-2004 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Rrhain
11-01-2004 1:47 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:Wow, what a waste of time, whew.
(*chuckle*)
Two second to cut-and-paste. I didn't realize that you held your own viewpoints in such contempt. Your own views are a waste of time.
Hey, you said it. Not me.
Ok, so lets examine this response of yours. This is classic rhain stuff. In the first sentence of your reply, you acknowledge that my response is in reference to your lengthy post, by explaining how you got it to be that long. So you clearly understand why my response said what it said.
Then you proceed to twist what I say to make it sound like I am insulting myself, which you already know its not true. That makes you a liar.
rhain, I have no time to waste on people like you, who continually lie about themselves, and others. How would expect to find the truth amoung all those lies?
God is the truth, the devil is the king of all lies. You will choose your own destiny, and only you can condemn yourself. God will be the one to judge. I have nothing to do with that whole process, but to point out to you that there is a better way than they way you are living, a lie. That is clear now.
You justify your lies with your binary way of thinking, but 2+2 will never=5 No matter how bad you try to prove otherwise. Some may be fooled by your way of thinking, but the truth will shine through like a light.
This is why I cannot talk to you anymore, you are irrational, a liar, and a hypocrite. I have proven them all, so its not meant as an insult, but a truth. So go ahead and shrug your shoulders at me, and come up with a crazy long response that was designed to do nothing more stir up anger in someone (which you have failed to do with me).
Peace rhain. I still give you my blessings, and I still pray for you, even though you don't like it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Rrhain, posted 11-01-2004 1:47 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by AdminHambre, posted 11-01-2004 9:28 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 234 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2004 2:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Micky
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 271 (154803)
11-01-2004 9:20 AM


My theory
Hello everyone! I don't know but if humans were inheritantly evil we all would be. Then again, if we were, life would be too perfect thus meaning that there would be no difference in life. I don't know. It's just a theory of mine.

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by 1.61803, posted 11-01-2004 11:56 AM Micky has not replied

  
AdminHambre
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 271 (154808)
11-01-2004 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by riVeRraT
11-01-2004 8:10 AM


Swords into Plowshares, Folks
riVeRraT writes:
This is why I cannot talk to you anymore, you are irrational, a liar, and a hypocrite. I have proven them all, so its not meant as an insult, but a truth. So go ahead and shrug your shoulders at me, and come up with a crazy long response that was designed to do nothing more stir up anger in someone (which you have failed to do with me).
Certainly seems like he stirred up at least a little anger. Try to remain objective.
Adminssimo Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by riVeRraT, posted 11-01-2004 8:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by AdminNosy, posted 11-01-2004 10:55 AM AdminHambre has not replied
 Message 231 by riVeRraT, posted 11-01-2004 5:44 PM AdminHambre has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 229 of 271 (154846)
11-01-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by AdminHambre
11-01-2004 9:28 AM


Re: Swords into Plowshares, Folks
Let me pile on a bit too.
RR I have to agree that there can be some arrogant sounding tone in Rrhain's posts. He can seem patronizing rather frequently. I find it possible to be a bit annoyed even when I agree with his view.
But that has nothing to do with the arguments being presented. Ranting about your reaction to what he has said accomplishs nothing.
You simple have to, patiently as possible, point out where he is wrong and show why you reached that conclusion. If he avoids your rebuttals, lies about anything or isn't overtly polite he will be brought to task by admins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by AdminHambre, posted 11-01-2004 9:28 AM AdminHambre has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 230 of 271 (154864)
11-01-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Micky
11-01-2004 9:20 AM


Re: My theory
Hi Micky,
Micky writes:
I don't know but if humans were inheritantly evil we all would be. Then again, if we were, life would be too perfect thus meaning that there would be no difference in life. I don't know. It's just a theory of mine.
Micky there are two kinds of people in the world. 1. Those that believe EVIL is a supernatural force that manifest itself into reality.
2. Those who believe that EVIL is a word developed by man in the attempt to describe phenomenon that society or culture has agreed upon to call evil.
I am in camp 2 because I do not feel that "the devil made me do it" defense is an excuse for evil behavior. Humans are the only creatures on Earth that make the distinction between Good and Evil. Is it because there is a supernatural force at work or have humans developed a system of morality .

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Micky, posted 11-01-2004 9:20 AM Micky has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 231 of 271 (155030)
11-01-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by AdminHambre
11-01-2004 9:28 AM


Re: Swords into Plowshares, Folks
This is for both admins.
Calling someone irrational, a liar, and a hypocrite if they were all proven has nothing to do with my emotion, I have cleary stated that.
I also cleary stated that it is not an insult, but for rhains own good, its the truth.
His responses as a matter of fact are designed to stir up anger:
adminnosy writes
RR I have to agree that there can be some arrogant sounding tone in Rrhain's posts. He can seem patronizing rather frequently. I find it possible to be a bit annoyed even when I agree with his view.
So you obviously agree with me about the way he expresses himself.
AdminHambre writes:
Try to remain objective.
I do not find posts that are designed to stir up anger objective.
Telling the truth is very objective and condusive to the conversation. Telling me to be objective while rhain can do or say whatever he wants, even when the admins themselves aren't very found of it is just flat out wrong.
I don't think I am the one that needs talking to. I don't like to butt heads with the admins, but this is how I feel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by AdminHambre, posted 11-01-2004 9:28 AM AdminHambre has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 232 of 271 (155353)
11-03-2004 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by riVeRraT
11-01-2004 7:54 AM


Re: Back up
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
Of course the Jews are going to reject it. Just Silly rhain.
Hmmm...A Baptist minister claims to be a Jew and that's "silly"?
That's not silly. That's ridiculous. And the fact that you seem to think that it's legitimate only makes it worse.
And congratulations, riVeRraT. You just declared all Jews to be idiots who don't know their own religion and need Christians to tell them.
Seriously, riVeRraT: Who gets to be the final arbiter on who is or is not a Jew: Jews or Baptists?
quote:
In your own link you posted it cleary sates that many of them were in fact once Jewish.
Incorrect.
My own link clearly states that they NEVER WERE JEWISH. This is not a question of "converting to Christianity." This is a question of someone who is not Jewish and never was Jewish claiming to be Jewish.
If your father and only your father is Jewish, then you're not a Jew. It's that simple. What makes you a Jew is whether or not your mother is a Jew.
quote:
Your links quote:
According to its Executive Director, Jews for Jesus has many non-Jews in administrative and staff positions but deploys "only front-line missionaries who are Jewish or married to Jews."
That doesn't sound like "not any Jews".
(*sigh*)
What part of "They are lying" don't you understand? As the article points out, this claim of Jewishness is only from being married to a Jew or having a paternal lineage to a Jew.
Neither of those qualities makes one Jewish and anybody who claims they are a Jew because of them is lying to you.
quote:
Plus I know one first hand.
And I'm supposed to believe you because of what, precisely?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by riVeRraT, posted 11-01-2004 7:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 11-03-2004 7:54 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 233 of 271 (155354)
11-03-2004 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by riVeRraT
11-01-2004 7:57 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
For example, there is no concept of death and resurrection in the Jewish tradition concerning the Messiah. Where on earth did that come from as it is not a Jewish thing.
Just because no-one Prophecies about him coming back from the grave, does not mean he didn't fill the phrophcies of the bible.
When the claim is that he is the Messiah because he died and was resurrected as "prophesied," then yes, it does mean he didn't fulfill the prophecies because that was never prophesied.
Christians claim Jesus is the Messiah but Jesus did things that the Jewish Messiah would never do such as claim to be god. Therefore, Jesus couldn't possibly have fulfilled the prophecies because he failed to actually be the Messiah.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by riVeRraT, posted 11-01-2004 7:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by riVeRraT, posted 11-03-2004 7:58 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 234 of 271 (155356)
11-03-2004 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by riVeRraT
11-01-2004 8:10 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
Then you proceed to twist what I say to make it sound like I am insulting myself, which you already know its not true.
It's called "rhetoric," riVeRraT. It's to show just how poorly argued your point is. If you cannot handle it, then you should seriously consider bowing out.
quote:
rhain, I have no time to waste on people like you
And yet, you keep on coming back for more. Are you a masochist?
quote:
You will choose your own destiny, and only you can condemn yourself. God will be the one to judge.
BZZZZT!
Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, riVeRraT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!
Well, Bob, riVeRraT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, riVeRraT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.
But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.
You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?
quote:
So go ahead and shrug your shoulders at me, and come up with a crazy long response that was designed to do nothing more stir up anger in someone (which you have failed to do with me).
(*chuckle*)
You respond with a post that boils down to, "Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, pants-on-fire" and you claim you aren't stirred up with anger?
Grow up, child. It's called a "spine." I highly recommend you getting one.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by riVeRraT, posted 11-01-2004 8:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by riVeRraT, posted 11-03-2004 8:05 AM Rrhain has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 235 of 271 (155380)
11-03-2004 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Rrhain
11-03-2004 2:43 AM


Re: Back up
Seriously, riVeRraT: Who gets to be the final arbiter on who is or is not a Jew: Jews or Baptists?
Seriously rhain, who should we believe? The Jews percecuted Jesus 2000 years ago, and still do it today. I preach to many Jews and I see the percecution first hand. But its not all Jews.
My guess is that they still percecute him for the same reason they did 2000 years ago.
Who's the final arbiter? God.
But if Jew decides to believe in Jesus, and accept him as there Messiah, what difference does it make who is running their temple? What difference does it make who accepts it?
My own link clearly states that they NEVER WERE JEWISH
Funny you and I read 2 different things then.
According to its Executive Director, Jews for Jesus has many non-Jews in administrative and staff positions but deploys "only front-line missionaries who are Jewish or married to Jews."
Thats from your link. It says that there are Jews and non-Jews, but you decide to point out the non-Jews only, where is the logic in that? You must answer that question in order for us to recieve your thoughts as valid.
What part of "They are lying" don't you understand? As the article points out, this claim of Jewishness is only from being married to a Jew or having a paternal lineage to a Jew.
Quote the article then, because I read:
"only front-line missionaries who are Jewish or married to Jews."
Jewsish, OR married to Jews. That would mean both, not one or the other. That would be the reason why the Jews do not accept it. but that does not make the fact that Jewish people are indeed involved and have found their Messiah, invalid.
So your point is mute.
Did you figure this one out on your calculator?
Check the batteries.
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 11-03-2004 07:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2004 2:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 11-05-2004 2:51 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 236 of 271 (155383)
11-03-2004 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rrhain
11-03-2004 2:46 AM


but Jesus did things that the Jewish Messiah would never do such as claim to be god.
Of course, then Jesus would have to be the Messiah.
Can you prove that he did things that the real Messiah would never do?
Your claiming it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2004 2:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Rrhain, posted 11-05-2004 3:00 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 251 by ramoss, posted 11-05-2004 11:50 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 237 of 271 (155387)
11-03-2004 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Rrhain
11-03-2004 2:54 AM


It's called "rhetoric," riVeRraT. It's to show just how poorly argued your point is. If you cannot handle it, then you should seriously consider bowing out.
Rhetoric is not part of a constructive conversation, or an intelligent one. Funny, in the definition of rhetoric, I find the word insincere, which by definition can be hypocrytical. So congrats, you just admitted to all three of my claims against you.
Main Entry: rhetoric
Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Middle French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORD
1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE
Main Entry: insincere
Pronunciation: "in-sin-'sir, -s&n-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin insincerus, from in- + sincerus sincere
: not sincere : HYPOCRITICAL
- insincerely adverb
- insincerity /-'ser-&-tE also -'sir-/ noun
You respond with a post that boils down to, "Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, pants-on-fire" and you claim you aren't stirred up with anger?
Grow up, child. It's called a "spine." I highly recommend you getting one.
Proved my point again, beatiful, I'm done.
Admins, is rhetoric part of this forum rule?
Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
A coolly academic approach?
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 11-03-2004 08:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2004 2:54 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Rrhain, posted 11-05-2004 3:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 238 of 271 (156102)
11-05-2004 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by riVeRraT
11-03-2004 7:54 AM


Re: Back up
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Seriously, riVeRraT: Who gets to be the final arbiter on who is or is not a Jew: Jews or Baptists?
Seriously rhain, who should we believe?
The Jews.
You see, you ask a simple, direct question and I give you a simple, direct answer. Why are you incapable of that.
quote:
The Jews percecuted Jesus 2000 years ago,
That's because he wasn't the Messiah. He claimed to be god and the Messiah according to Judaism is NOT god. This is one of the fundamental tenets of Judaism: There is only one god. One. No more. None of this "three-in-one" bullshit, either. The Messiah cannot be god.
Therefore, for Jesus to claim to be god proves that he could not possibly be the Messiah. Anyone who claims otherwise is violating the primary concept of Judaism: One god.
quote:
and still do it today.
You cannot persecute someone who isn't here.
You seem to be confusing the word "deny" with "persecute." The fact that Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah is not persecution.
Jews are not refusing to accept the divinity of Jesus out of spite.
quote:
Who's the final arbiter? God.
God isn't here to tell us. The last time he spoke, though, somebody wrote it down:
I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
In other words, Jesus isn't god. Jesus can't be god. If Jesus were god, that would violate the very first commandment. You really have no idea what Judaism is, do you? But then again, how can you when you readily admit that you haven't even bothered to read the Old Testament?
quote:
But if Jew decides to believe in Jesus, and accept him as there Messiah, what difference does it make who is running their temple?
What on earth does this mean?
quote:
What difference does it make who accepts it?
Apparently, it makes a great deal of difference to you. You're the one who keeps calling Jews fools for not accepting Jesus.
quote:
quote:
My own link clearly states that they NEVER WERE JEWISH
Funny you and I read 2 different things then.
According to its Executive Director, Jews for Jesus has many non-Jews in administrative and staff positions but deploys "only front-line missionaries who are Jewish or married to Jews."

Question: Does being married to a Jew make you a Jew?
That's a very simple, direct question. It would be nice if you provided a simple, direct answer.
Second, do the words, "They are lying," mean anything to you? I already asked you that question once.
quote:
Jewsish, OR married to Jews. That would mean both, not one or the other.
What does it matter if you're married to a Jew? Do you seriously believe that being married to a Jew makes you Jewish? There are two and only two ways to be Jewish. One requires an accident of birth and one requires going to a rabbi, being tried before a court, an operation if you are male, a mikveh, an offering, a renaming, and a public ceremony. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
And once again, what part of "They are lying" don't you seem to understand. Yes, they claim that their front-line missionaries are Jewish, but investigation finds out that they aren't really Jews. They were only born to Jewish fathers, not Jewish mothers, for example. Some are simple outright liars who have absolutely no connection Judaism and yet still claim to be Jewish in order to perpetuate the lie that Jews for Jesus actually has some connection to Jews.
They are lying, riVeRraT. I don't know how else to say it.
quote:
Jewsish, OR married to Jews. That would mean both, not one or the other.
Incorrect. In English, "or" means the exclusive or: One or the other but not both.
quote:
That would be the reason why the Jews do not accept it.
No, the reason why Jews don't accept is because they simply aren't Jews. It would be akin to a white person putting on blackface and then claiming to be black.
What makes a person Jewish is being born to a Jewish woman or active conversion. No other method exists. You are not Jewish simply because you claim to be Jewish just as you are not Catholic simply because you claim to be Catholic. You have to be baptized (and a few other ceremonies) if you're going to legitimately claim to be Catholic.
My sister recently went to a Catholic wedding. Thus, Mass was said. And during it, my sister went up and took communion. My sister is not Catholic. (*blink!*) I asked her, point blank, "You do realize that you have committed sacrilege, right? Non-Catholics are not allowed to take communion." This is all the more confusing for me because my sister and I went to Catholic school for a couple years and sat through more than one Mass and we were specifically kept from taking communion because we weren't Catholic. Surely she remembered this. Apparently not.
Did you see My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding? In it, Ian converts to Orthodox so that he and Toula can be married in the Greek Church. And yes, that requires the stripping down to his skivvies, baptism, and anointment with oil that you see him going through. As I have said more than once comparing Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism: All the ritual, twice the guilt!
quote:
but that does not make the fact that Jewish people are indeed involved and have found their Messiah, invalid.
Yes, it does.
If they aren't Jewish to begin with, they cannot be "Jewish people who have found their Messiah." If they aren't Jewish to begin with, they cannot be "Jewish people who are involved."
quote:
So your point is mute.
"Moot." The word is "moot." It is pronounced like what you would normally associate with a cow but with a /t/ on the end. Not "myoot." "Mute" means "silent." "Moot" means "worthy of discussion but not capable of actual effect." That's why lawyers go to "moot court." The cases being argued are highly valuable and you need to go through them in order to understand the issues involved. However, the results will not change anything. It is argument for enlightenment's sake.
But in the end, it most certainly isn't moot. Pointing out the outright lies of J4J is hardly something that has no effect.
Edited to fix formatting mistake.
This message has been edited by Rrhain, 11-05-2004 02:53 AM

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 11-03-2004 7:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 8:04 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 239 of 271 (156104)
11-05-2004 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by riVeRraT
11-03-2004 7:58 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
but Jesus did things that the Jewish Messiah would never do such as claim to be god.
Of course, then Jesus would have to be the Messiah.
Can you prove that he did things that the real Messiah would never do?
Did you not read what you just quoted?
He claimed to be god.
The true Messiah would never, ever make such a claim because such a claim would violate the very foundation of Judaism: Only one god. That's the very first commandment. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because Jesus claims to be god.
Jesus does miracles, also a direct violation of Judaism. Compare Jesus to Moses. While miracles are performed with regard to Moses, he never claims to be the one doing them and the text makes it perfectly clear that god is the one performing the miracle. God tells Moses, "You do this and I will cause this to happen." So Moses does what god told him to do and god causes what he said he would. It's all about god. Moses is constantly telling god, "I can't do that," and god is constantly responding, "Don't you worry about it. I'll take care of it. You just be where I need to you to be. You can do that."
Jesus, on the other hand, is described as the one actually performing the miracles. That's a direct violation of the fundamental aspect of Judaism: Only one god.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by riVeRraT, posted 11-03-2004 7:58 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 240 of 271 (156108)
11-05-2004 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by riVeRraT
11-03-2004 8:05 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
It's called "rhetoric," riVeRraT. It's to show just how poorly argued your point is. If you cannot handle it, then you should seriously consider bowing out.
Rhetoric is not part of a constructive conversation, or an intelligent one.
Incorrect. Rhetoric is how constructive, intelligent conversations are carried out. You have to be able to think in order to carry out such conversations. That's why the ancient philosophers taught Rhetoric. The very first English class all Mudders are required to take as freshment is "Rhetoric." You learn to read, analyze, and then synthesize. The word "rhetoric" means the art of writing or speaking effectively.
Rhetoric is extremely important to the rational mind and anybody who tries to tell you different would prefer you wallow in ignorance.
quote:
Funny, in the definition of rhetoric, I find the word insincere
Yes, only by skipping over the primary definitions.
You're absolutely right that "rhetoric" has acquired a perjorative meaning. That's because people who are unskilled in rhetoric have come to hate those who are and thus, like "liberal," have turned it into an insult.
quote:
quote:
You respond with a post that boils down to, "Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, pants-on-fire" and you claim you aren't stirred up with anger?
Grow up, child. It's called a "spine." I highly recommend you getting one.
Proved my point again, beatiful,
(*chuckle*)
You insult me, I respond in kind to show you a lesson, and you still don't get it.
quote:
I'm done.
I'll believe it when I see it. More than once you have claimed to be done with me and yet you still keep on responding.
It's time to put your money where your mouth is. If you're done, then be done.
quote:
A coolly academic approach?
I'm not the one condemning people to hell and calling Jews idiots.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by riVeRraT, posted 11-03-2004 8:05 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 8:07 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024