tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post6684598890614283093..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-82625944479805103332015-05-11T10:57:18.915-07:002015-05-11T10:57:18.915-07:00Yeah, I didn't think you'd have much to sa...Yeah, I didn't think you'd have much to say after having your ass handed to you like that. But please, by all means, do let me know if you make an attempt at reason <i>at all</i>, such that it might be critiqued.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-10703760569532573582015-05-11T09:40:24.568-07:002015-05-11T09:40:24.568-07:00Tryng to reason with you is a complete waste of my...Tryng to reason with you is a complete waste of my time. Go away.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-57066048719594606992015-05-11T08:10:29.650-07:002015-05-11T08:10:29.650-07:00You have absolutely nothing to say that is worth l...<b>You have absolutely nothing to say that is worth listening to.</b><br /><br />Then how is it I ran a blog for years, with over a quarter million words and over 10,000 comments from a legitimate readership spanning the entire globe, while you sit here whining and crying to maybe three to five people about how unfairly you were persecuted over at DI? I'm a writer across print, screen and web. You're just an anklebiter with an irreligious chip on the shoulder and an internet connection. Harsh, but, fact.<br /><br /><b>All you do is make ad hominem attacks.</b><br /><br />Not true, because I'm not using anybody's alleged character defects to detract from their arguments. You should study the meaning of these fallacies you seem so prone to invoking.<br /><br /><b> if you actually have a point to make, let's hear it.</b><br /><br />I did! You've ignored it. My point is that you're showing favortism by chastising me for "uncivil" wording Paps introduced to the conversation. You've also implied I called Paps "stupid" when I did not, nor would I ever. Occasionally annoying? Sure. Often incoherent? Certainly? Sporadically spot-on? Yeah, I'll give him that, but, <i>stupid</i>? Nah. Paps - all else aside - is a very intelligent writer with interesting prose and flowery metaphors that I actually enjoy reading. You, on the other hand, are exactly what Dan Gilson described: a boring-to-read, self-styled "rationalist" or "skeptic" with a chip on the shoulder against all-things-not-atheist. Advance an original argument about something. Or, address an established argument with something besides what you think are witty-isms about how stupid religious people are. Do <i>something</i>.<br /><br /><b>If you think my arguments are hopeless, illogical, and irrational, why don't you show how that is the case by presenting a logical case of your own instead of your endless stream of ad hominem attacks?</b><br /><br />Man, you're not getting it. I've never seen a single argument from you. Honestly. All I've ever seen is that boring Gnu atheist commentary at DI, and now you're whining about said boring Gnu atheist commentary here. You need to actually advance an argument before your interlocutor can critique it, sir. Or ma'am.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-34301130094810169102015-05-11T08:07:16.094-07:002015-05-11T08:07:16.094-07:00Test comment, because Blogger is bad software...Test comment, because Blogger is bad software...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-75745355758593313052015-05-11T07:44:12.821-07:002015-05-11T07:44:12.821-07:00Summary of cl' comments:
"I'm laughi...Summary of cl' comments:<br /><br />"I'm laughing at you."<br />"Your argumentation is pathetically hopeless, illogical, irrational."<br />"You have made no point. You never make any point. And I'm, not vitriolic, but half of my comments at DI are."<br />"Papalinton is a stupid liar."<br />"You should bust Papalinton for his unprovoked attack on me." (see the previous comment)<br />"You have ignored my argument."<br />"If you demonstrate some intellectual honesty, I will deign to continue my commentary."<br /><br />OK cl. Here's some intellectual honesty. You are pathetic. You have absolutely nothing to say that is worth listening to. You haven't made any intelligible argument. All you do is make <i>ad hominem</i> attacks. I didn't beg you to come here, and I won't cry if you go away. But if you actually have a point to make, let's hear it. If you think my arguments are hopeless, illogical, and irrational, why don't you show how that is the case by presenting a logical case of your own instead of your endless stream of <i>ad hominem</i> attacks? I'll listen.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-9365160481858482662015-05-10T22:48:32.390-07:002015-05-10T22:48:32.390-07:00Nah, it doesn't work like that. First demonstr...Nah, it doesn't work like that. First demonstrate intellectual honesty by explaining why you didn't chastise Paps for a comment that you yourself defined as "outside the scope of civilized discussion."<br /><br />Then, and only then, will I consider indulging your request for further argumentation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-41944674578395869812015-05-10T21:33:18.530-07:002015-05-10T21:33:18.530-07:00I went through the comments in this thread, and I ...I went through the comments in this thread, and I don't see that you have made any argument. Perhaps I missed it. What exactly is your argument? I'll respond.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-78661707097069549812015-05-10T21:18:54.609-07:002015-05-10T21:18:54.609-07:00Okay, apparently not. The other comment must have ...Okay, apparently not. The other comment must have vaporized. Third and last try:<br /><br /><b>This is the kind of stuff that I regard as outside the scope of civilized discussion. </b><br /><br />So then we agree that Paps was outside the scope of civilized discussion when he launched that attack on me with no provocation by me, or even so much as a comment to him? That's what I thought, hypocrite. Bust Paps' balls!<br /><br />As for the "lying" thing, it was technically plagiarism, and Paps copped to it (good on him). But hey, if you don't want me to state facts on your blog, I understand.<br /><br /><b>So go ahead and give us your best. And we'll give you ours.</b><br /><br />I already tested the waters with you. Your "best" is to completely ignore the argument presented and instead unleash an <i>ad hominem</i> attack on the one making it. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is a put up an *actual* response, you know, one that shows you've read the evidence and are actually familiar with both the alleged facts and their ramifications.<br /><br />Until then, you're pure hot air - like Paps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-72990143653958684012015-05-10T21:15:27.657-07:002015-05-10T21:15:27.657-07:00This is just a test comment to see if you put me o...This is just a test comment to see if you put me on a leash...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-17799411133071543072015-05-10T19:43:22.318-07:002015-05-10T19:43:22.318-07:00"you lack the intellectual capacity ..."..."you lack the intellectual capacity ..."<br />"you've already been caught red-handed lying ..."<br /><br />This is the kind of stuff that I regard as outside the scope of civilized discussion. That's the only thing that I will not tolerate on my blog. I don't mind your disagreeing with what people say. I don't mind you making a spirited and forceful argument argument for your position. This is by no means an echo chamber. But there are certain bounds for fruitful discussion. So go ahead and give us your best. And we'll give you ours.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-44158578222043071112015-05-10T18:45:41.635-07:002015-05-10T18:45:41.635-07:00How am I "the flock" if I don't even...How am I "the flock" if I don't even comment there but 6-10 times a year now?<br /><br />Seems you lack the intellectual capacity to differentiate fact from fiction - but you've already been caught red-handed lying at Vic's blog so... not going to waste much more time there. If anybody wants the links I can dig them up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-41870752145128318872015-05-10T18:04:49.759-07:002015-05-10T18:04:49.759-07:00The irony here is that Dr Reppert did not ban Skep...The irony here is that Dr Reppert did not ban Skep or me. He wrote an open comment informing his intention: <br /><br /><i>"I am going to have to ask two people, whose names I don't think I need to mention, to stop posting here. ...."</i><br /><br />We technically don't know who they are, he doesn't name them. He did not ban me. I have had no direct request from Dr Reppert asking me to stop commenting. I do sense that he did truly feel as if making the decision was 'like pulling teeth'. I believe he was genuine in his concern. And it was with this in mind that I graciously withdrew, forthwith, from commenting on DI, without fuss. It was volitional on my part. <br />To his credit no comment of mine has ever been deleted, no comment moderated. I thank him for that. <br /><br />But I think his contemplating a ban was wrongheaded and for all the wrong reasons. Indeed the reasons were abominably feeble. More, likely, he was protecting his flock, the Ilions, crudes, cls of the world who on their own would never have the intellectual capacity to differentiate fact from fiction, an outcome of decades-long religious inculcation that blurs the boundary between religious phantasy and existential reality. DI needed to remain a cosseted venting site for theists.<br /><br />I don't blame him for that. I just think it is wrongheaded and grievously mistaken. Secular humanism is inexorably becoming the lingua franca of the global society. And while there might be a place for christianity, as with many other socio-cultural manifestations, in pockets of communities around the globe, it will be predominantly local in nature and parochial in scope, just as Wiccan, Mormonism and even as Celtic Druidism is today.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-68736678071242397012015-05-10T14:05:46.070-07:002015-05-10T14:05:46.070-07:00What point would that be? Presumably that I'm ...What point would that be? Presumably that I'm "just as bad" as you, just as "vitriolic" as you, right? Here's the thing genius: yes, I talk straight shit to you, unashamed, because you deserve to be mocked (at least according to your own principles). However, I'm not a "vitriolic commenter" at DI. Hell, I comment there on average 6 times yearly now. And 3 of my last six comments there were directly at calling you out.<br /><br />So, no, you really didn't make any point - just like how you never made any points at DI. You never brought anything constructive to the discussions.<br /><br />And that's why Vic - the nicest dude on planet Earth! - finally got sick of it and banned you. You should be proud, Ex!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-57474354231908005572015-05-10T10:00:38.346-07:002015-05-10T10:00:38.346-07:00And so my point is made.And so my point is made.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-51191591493749098322015-05-10T08:15:59.670-07:002015-05-10T08:15:59.670-07:00People love to hate us, and they say some pretty n...<b>People love to hate us, and they say some pretty nasty things. That's what creates the vitriolic atmosphere that we so often see in your blog.</b><br /><br />Right. Because it just *CAN'T* be the pathetically hopeless, illogical, irrational nature of your "argumentation." LOLOLOL!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-19518929294306894852015-05-10T08:15:07.611-07:002015-05-10T08:15:07.611-07:00HAHAHAHA! This is too dang good.HAHAHAHA! This is too dang good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com