I'd like to suggest that Bolder-Dash's "Life on Other Planets?" thread be renamed "Belief in God vs. Belief in Life on Other Planets - Which is More Reasonable?" or something similar. It's pretty clear that he intended to discuss that topic from the outset, and his thread title (and OP) currently make that technically "off-topic" as written.
I don't think he should be hamstrung in that manner now that it's emerged that it was his intended topic all along.
I don't have any further interest in discussing the Bolder-Dash "gotcha" situation in that thread or this, I think the point has been made. I completely take your points about instigators.
I'm genuine about my suggestion, though. Bolder-dash wants to contrast the reasonableness of two beliefs, and a lot of people, if not necessarily me, want to talk about it with him.
But that's off-topic in the thread as currently titled, and I think what you said in that thread - which, to repeat, I have every intention of following - indicates that moderators are likely to view any discussion that compares those two beliefs as "off-topic".
I'm just saying - that's what he opened the thread to talk about, that's what the people in the thread want to talk about, and if the obstacle to that is that the thread title makes moderators think that discussion is off-topic, we should have the thread title changed. This isn't an oblique response to your moderation of that thread, this is a genuine suggestion I'm making. Regardless of what I think about Bolder-Dash and his thread, he opened the thread to contrast the reasonableness of two beliefs, and it's not fair to hamstring him against discussing the topic he opened the thread in service of just because he may have been playing games with topic titles.
It's possible that in addition to the title change, the thread may have to be moved. "Which belief is more reasonable" may not be an appropriate topic for "Origin of Life", and again, my only concern here is that the misclassification of the thread not become an obstacle to talking about what Bolder-Dash clearly opened it to talk about.
Can we get some people who speak English to the Obama thread, please? We've gone on long enough, and I've supported my contention with abundant evidence to which Dronester has been able to marshal no reply, but now he's enlisted xongsmith and Onifire to pretend that plain statements in English have no discernible meaning.
Everybody knows what "it's not going anywhere" means.
I see that they have tried to correct what they feel is misunderstanding on your part.
When someone says "it's not going anywhere" in reference to a building, what "misunderstanding" do you feel is possible? Please be specific for my edification.
I've not misunderstood, I've merely seen through Dronester's attempts to misrepresent something he's said, and xong and Oni have not. Panda has agreed with my interpretation, asked a pointed question, and Dronester folded. Unless you're asserting that Panda and I both "misunderstood" in precisely the same way, doesn't that indicate that no misunderstanding has occurred?
Question - do you think it's possible for someone to say something, regret saying it, and then misrepresent their own words so as to convince others they didn't mean what they meant? I'm prepared to give examples of this.
I've noticed that sometimes you misconstrue an opponents position and are unwilling to adjust when corrected.
No, I've not ever done this, because it would be in violation of Rule 8 for which I would have received some suspension or other punishment. When people explain that they've made an error in language and said something they didn't intend, I don't hold them to the original position. But when people misrepresent their own positions after critical weaknesses have been exposed, I don't feel under any obligation to play along. The things we say on this forum are a matter of record and can easily be referenced. Why people insist on playing the "oh, I didn't say that!" game is beyond me. Words mean things.
You have four across a 90-post thread; I hardly think that's "overuse." And these are teasing terms, nothing at all compared to the invective employed by others (and often directed at me.) And these are in Coffee House threads, not the real forum.
Where appropriate I've provided examples that these terms are accurate. Jon is merely flogging a personal vendetta since he can't respond appropriately to argumentation.
But don't you think that's a pretty narrow way to construe it these days? There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.
I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.
is purpledawn expressing her agreement with the aforementioned way of construing the passage.
If this was a genuine misunderstanding she would have said so in Message 29. Instead, she again agrees with my position:
"Worshipping Mammon" as a term doesn't refer to anything but letting the pursuit of wealth get in the way of spiritual concerns.
There's no ambiguity here, or room for "misunderstanding." There is, suddenly, purpledawn's insistence that she is "misunderstood" immediately after I showed how assenting to the above premises contradicts her original position. Now, all of a sudden I have a " tendency to not accept correction when he has misunderstood an opponents point." How convenient!
I do have a tendency not to allow my interlocutors to change their minds while denying that they have ever done so. Purpledawn's assertions have never been substantiated. My intent is not to allow people I'm talking with to violate forum guidelines by engaging in "any form of misrepresentation." Of course, I can't enforce it, but I can certainly object when they do so.
Read in context (Message 27) - where the following line clearly indicates disagreement, it seems pretty clear to me that Purpledawn was not agreeing.
What following line indicates "disagreement"? Please be specific.
Why did PurpleDawn quote so much material if she intended to respond directly and only to the first line? Why would she respond to a rhetorical question?
Your interpretation makes no sense; it's clearly a logical backbend meant to side with PD.
Purpledawn is saying there that "worshipping Mammon" does NOT refer to actually worshipping a false God, it is a metaphor, not the reality.
Agreed, but she's already assented to the fact that it's "appropriate" to construe the prohibition on worshiping false gods metaphorically, her claims to having been "misunderstood" notwithstanding. So, there's no way that could be a disagreement with me.
Do you really see the following sentence as indicating agreement that money is a "False God" ?
I've never claimed that PD agrees that money is a false god; my claim is that logically she must agree on the basis of already having agreed that the modern interpretation of the prohibition of false gods is "an appropriate way to construe it", as she's on the record as having stated. But, of course, rather than submit to a logical argument she can't refute, PD has invented this "misinterpretation" story days after the fact. She had ample time to correct whatever misunderstanding supposedly happened, when it happened. Why wait until she was caught out in a contradiction?
That's the proof that there's no misunderstanding here. There's no reason in this case to privilege PD's statements about whether there's a misunderstanding here.
This isn't some deal where I misunderstand someone, get corrected, and refuse to correct myself. I'm not someone who does that. Indeed, where genuine miscommunication does occur I immediately apologize and attempt to arrive at a better understanding, as in this exchange:
Let me try to help you.
First, if you wish to misrepresent my position, it is probably smarter not to include quotes of what I actually said.
Second, we are talking about a specific point, whether or not kids have a right NOT to hear what others say. Sorry but there is a reason that children are placed in custody and that is because they do NOT have equal rights.
But keep trying and I'll be happy to try to help you along.
The first time you said this, I interpreted you as saying "children have to listen to what others, especially adults, say." But apparently you thought that was a misrepresentation of your position.
So, let me try again - children don't have a right not to hear what others say? So, your position is that it's illegal for a child to be deaf, for instance, because then they would not be able to not hear what others say, which you assert they have no right to do.
Is that more correct? Can you help me understand what you're saying? I'm having a really hard time making any sense of it. For instance, how, in your view, can someone actively not hear someone? I can think of several ways - they could be deaf, they could have headphones on, they could not be paying attention.
Being deaf, wearing headphones, and being inattentive are not against the law, not even for children. If that's not what you mean could you elaborate? The claim as you've stated it is fairly unintelligible.
Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult. My bad.
I don't follow down even attractive rabbit holes.You did do better this time and learned not to actually quote what ˆ said when trying to misrepresent my position.
A fat lot of good it did me, but when I do misunderstand people I attempt to rectify the misunderstanding. But when people make spurious claims that I "misunderstood on purpose" or don't submit to "correction", that's clearly not accurate, and in this case the timing (and the posts themselves!) amply demonstrate that PD is engaged in misrepresentation of her own previous remarks.
Just FYI, and for the record, you've come off exactly as someone who misunderstood somebody, got corrected on it, and refused to correct yourself.
When that genuinely happens, I do correct myself. I've provided an example of doing it. Obviously it can be embarrassing to admit error but I try to be someone who does it anyway. And I get a lot of practice!
Probably nobody at EvC has admitted to being wrong more than I have. Of course, nobody believes that, because it doesn't fit in with the established popular conception of Crashfrog as an arrogant jerkoff, but it's true. I've not admitted to being wrong when I'm not wrong, but in those situations there's no reason for me to do so. I'm not wrong just because another person disagrees with me, and many times people have attempted to exploit my "admit when you're wrong" philosophy just to get me to cede the debate.
The problem, here, is that you're taking Dronester and PurpleDawn at face-value when they say I've misinterpreted them, but its wrong to do so. There's no reason to privilege their own explanations about their own words over anybody else's. People say things that they later regret, and one way to try to avoid the embarrassment of having done so is to pretend that it's everybody else who made a mistake.
But why should we allow them to do that? Especially since the forum guidelines disallow "any form of misrepresentation"? Nobody has ever been able to answer that question.
I've never refused to correct myself when I was actually wrong. Not even once.
I'm discussing the problem, not the personalities, in compliance with Mod's request.
In these cases, we actually have the people who wrote the text telling you that what you thought they meant is not what they meant
And I've explained why I don't believe them.
we also have other people uninolved in the discussion going back and rereading it all and see where you've made your mistake and how you misinterpreted it
And we also have yet other people who agree with my interpretation and that Dronester was engaged in a misrepresentation.
If I had actually been wrong, I would have admitted it. But I wasn't wrong. Dronester actually said what he said; I quoted it a substantial number of times. PD's simply given up trying to argue that she was "misinterpreted."
Crashfrog has more or less decided to dedicate a whole post to his claims of my dishonesty.
You asked me to substantiate my claims of your dishonesty. I did so. Now you're complaining that I did?
Look, Mod, as I told you, I'm not the one who made the thread about who is honest and who is not. And I'm certainly not the one whose dishonest conduct is an obstacle to discussion.
It seems as though he intends to discuss nothing else for the remainder of the discussion until I promise to stop it.
So then the "discussion problem", here, is that you won't stop? And that's somehow my problem?
If, for example, crashfrog is allowed to put forward his best case for my dishonesty (or perhaps if he replies before moderator intervention occurs), which I am content with him so doing, I will present my rebuttal and we can call it a day.
How is that fair? If you use your "last word" to further prevaricate, misrepresent, and lie, how is it fair that I wouldn't be allowed to correct the record?
I am aware it's the coffee house and everything, but I'm thinking there are limits and someone might judge this to have gone beyond them.
Yes, there are limits, and opening misrepresenting the arguments of your opponent, denying that you are doing so, and then complaining in another thread that the evidence you asked for was presented certainly, in most people's judgement, would exceed those limits.