Why Call Me Stupid?

[Radrook]

And hey I have to go, real bad too, from stitting here so long.

Scribble attributes the stench of his/her own urine to others.

 

[scribble]

Scribble attributes the stench of his/her own urine to others.

That you would say this after the kindness I have shown you is low, Radrook. I'm disappointed in you.

Plan to ever get back to me on those question you promised answers to?

 

[Mercutio]

But why feign to be an expert on anything? What purpose does it serve? It almost seems to suggest they've been specifically ordained to do what they do or, at least make it appear this way. But why do this?
...
Is this to imply that they have a sense of purpose about something? What do you mean? I don't get it?
...
And such wonderous examples of a concrete world (hmm ... the consolidation of fact?) which has no meaning.
...
But why are they so busy trying to justify anything? What are they trying to prove? If life has no meaning, what's the big deal?
...
Just about anyone -- who, through the notion of materialism -- insists that a spiritual reality doesn't exist. So how many shotguns will I need to cover that one? Well forget it, I'm not Rambo.
...
Yes, it goes to show you how important is to you in your lack of meaning.
...
Like I say, why bother?
...
What do you mean?
...
However, the best way to be evasive that I've found, is to simply imply meaning doesn't exist. Talk about copouts of copouts!
...
Which, is why we seem to be so predisposed towards arguing here. And for what? ... JUSTIFICATION.
...
What, are you saying I should refer to something which actually means something? Understand this, I'm not the one who's being evasive here. Or, if I am, it's only to the extent that I'm not going to serve you that which doesn't belong to you. Hence the old addage from the Bible ... "Don't cast your pearls berfore swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn around rend you."

LOL...Correct me if I am wrong on this, but the only way I can see to tie your post together is to assume that you still think I do not believe that words have any meaning. (you also merge two meanings of "meaning"--shared usage within a community determines "meaning" in the sense of definition, but this is completely separate from "meaning" in the sense of purpose. They are completely different uses of the word. To say that a word means something, but is meaningless, may simply be to say that it is defined but has no purpose. I suppose I should also point out that purpose may also be split into function and teleological purpose, which split you also ignore.) In other words, you completely misunderstand me. This is not terribly surprising, as it seems at times that you misunderstand yourself.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio, are you familiar with Date's incoherence principle?

I bet a google search will help make you familiar, if not.

I was not familiar with it. Point taken.

I am in a much better mood today, anyway; I should just put up my sword and go rest for a while.

 

[Radrook]

Anyone claiming to be an expert is feigning.
He claimed to be an expert.
He is feigning.

People who say such things usually counter by protesting vehemently that they never did even when shown that they did.

 

[Mercutio]

Anyone claiming to be an expert is feigning.
He claimed to be an expert.
He is feigning.

Which "he"? Do you suggest that there are no experts at all? In anything? Perhaps we have different definitions of the word--what is yours?

(looking back over the posts, I don't see anyone claiming to be an expert. I did refer to experts, whom Iacchus dismissed. )

People who say such things usually counter by protesting vehemently that they never did even when shown that they did.

 

[Radrook]

Which "he"? Do you suggest that there are no experts at all? In anything? Perhaps we have different definitions of the word--what is yours?

(looking back over the posts, I don't see anyone claiming to be an expert. I did refer to experts, whom Iacchus dismissed. )
[/B]

I wasn't referring to any statement of yours.
You really can't see that can you?

 

[Iacchus]

LOL...Correct me if I am wrong on this, but the only way I can see to tie your post together is to assume that you still think I do not believe that words have any meaning. (you also merge two meanings of "meaning"--shared usage within a community determines "meaning" in the sense of definition, but this is completely separate from "meaning" in the sense of purpose. They are completely different uses of the word. To say that a word means something, but is meaningless, may simply be to say that it is defined but has no purpose. I suppose I should also point out that purpose may also be split into function and teleological purpose, which split you also ignore.) In other words, you completely misunderstand me. This is not terribly surprising, as it seems at times that you misunderstand yourself.

So why are we here? Is meaning just relative? Or, is there an ulitmate purpose to everything?

 

[Mercutio]

So, you have decided to focus on "meaning" in the sense of "ultimate purpose" in a teleological sense. OK...have fun. Just remember that this "meaning" is completely different from the "words have a particular meaning" use that was bandied about earlier in the thread (e.g., in your "labels, labels, labels" post).

So why are we here?

Chance.

Is meaning just relative?

No, it is something we create for ourselves. It is relative, but not just relative. People kill and die for meanings that they have been convinced of.

Or, is there an ulitmate purpose to everything?

. No.*


*I am perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think to do so you will have to do more than ask superficial questions that pretend to be deep.

 

[Mercutio]

I wasn't referring to any statement of yours.
You really can't see that can you?

um...that would explain why I asked you to clarify. Ok...so it was not my statement. That narrows "he" down by one. Could you maybe narrow it down some more? (Hey, when I don't understand something, I ask for clarification--nothing wrong with that.)

 

[Radrook]

um...that would explain why I asked you to clarify. Ok...so it was not my statement. That narrows "he" down by one. Could you maybe narrow it down some more? (Hey, when I don't understand something, I ask for clarification--nothing wrong with that.)

Very true Mercutio.
Sorry if I came across as snapping.
I was referring to the person you wee conversing with.
About the statement, I really cannot see the logic in it--can you?

 

[Iacchus]

So, you have decided to focus on "meaning" in the sense of "ultimate purpose" in a teleological sense. OK...have fun. Just remember that this "meaning" is completely different from the "words have a particular meaning" use that was bandied about earlier in the thread (e.g., in your "labels, labels, labels" post).

No.

Chance.

Is it chance that holds the Universe together? No.

No, it is something we create for ourselves.

In relationship to our surrounding environment? Yes.

It is relative, but not just relative. People kill and die for meanings that they have been convinced of.

How so?

. No.*

*I am perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think to do so you will have to do more than ask superficial questions that pretend to be deep.

It's not for me to answer anyway.

 

[Radrook]

Invite people to support your site so you can turn on them later like the ingrate you are. When I supported your site I had absolutely no need to.

I could have easily gone elsewhere.

Why not delete all my 40 something posts?
I don't want any of my posts on your site.

INGRATE!

 

[scribble]

Invite people to support your site so you can turn on them later like the ingrate you are. When I supported your site I had absolutely no need to.

I could have easily gone elsewhere.

Why not delete all my 40 something posts?
I don't want any of my posts on your site.

INGRATE!

Aw, looks like Iacchus and Radrook had a falling out.

You want to talk about INGRATES? Look in the mirror.

 

[Iacchus]

Invite people to support your site so you can turn on them later like the ingrate you are. When I supported your site I had absolutely no need to.

I could have easily gone elsewhere.

Why not delete all my 40 something posts?
I don't want any of my posts on your site.

INGRATE!

Hey, you're the one who implied my book belonged in a bucket of manure, not me.

 

[Radrook]

Hey, you're the one who implied my book belonged in a bucket of manure, not me.

If you know I hold the Bible sacred why would you say you agree with those trashing the Bible and that no one can fault you for dropping it in a bucket of manure ?


Is that a statement designed to cement a friendship?

Or is it more likely to create an enemy?

You are a smart person.
Until just recently I considered you my friend.
As a matter of fact, I even went out of my way to answer attacks directed at you in order to further cemenmt what thought was a friendship.

So that sudden statement you made came as a shock.


If I had done something previous to deserve it--OK.
But I had not directed any type of negativity at you.
I tried to make that clear by offering my support in answering those who are attacking you on this forum.

Something you never attempted in my behalf.


In any case, God bless.
No hard feelings.

 

[Iacchus]

If you know I hold the Bible sacred why would you say you agree with those trashing the Bible and that no one can fault you for dropping it in a bucket of manure ?


Is that a statement designed to cement a friendship?

Or is it more likely to create an enemy?

And if you knew I was not a Jesus Freak, you would understand why I said what I said. So, no offence was implied. However, it would seem that I offended the right person, because that person has something they need to look at.

 

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Radrook
If you know I hold the Bible sacred why would you say you agree with those trashing the Bible and that no one can fault you for dropping it in a bucket of manure ?


Is that a statement designed to cement a friendship?

Or is it more likely to create an enemy?

Unbelievable Radrook. Read Iacchus post again:

Yes, this is pretty much how I look at the Bible myself. And, just in the way people are supposed to handle the American Flag in certain way, with a certain amount of respect, I would handle the Bible in a similar way. However, if I were to accidently drop it in a bucket of manure or something, I doubt very much that I would be condemned for it.

He is not saying he would throw it in manure, or that it deserves to be. You have completely imagined that. He is objecting to people treating the bible as some sort of idol that must never touch the ground.

If I remember correctly in china a few decades ago it was mandatory to carry a copy of Chairman Mao's little red book. If you were found without it, or you damaged your copy, bad news for you. This sort of attitude is what Iacchus is referring to.

You seem to be seeing enemies at every turn Radrook, but they are just in your imagination.

Edit: Was typing at the same time as Iacchus. Sorry dude.

 

[Iacchus]

Unbelievable Radrook. Read Iacchus post again:

He is not saying he would throw it in manure, or that it deserves to be. You have completely imagined that. He is objecting to people treating the bible as some sort of idol that must never touch the ground.

If I remember correctly in china a few decades ago it was mandatory to carry a copy of Chairman Mao's little red book. If you were found without it, or you damaged your copy, bad news for you. This sort of attitude is what Iacchus is referring to.

You seem to be seeing enemies at every turn Radrook, but they are just in your imagination.

Edit: Was typing at the same time as Iacchus. Sorry dude.

Yes. And thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Dancing David]

Isn't holding the bible to be sacred a form of idolatry?

(You know Radrook, if you really want to feel oppressed try being a feminist or an Isalm)