Comment by dinkumthinkum

Comment by dinkumthinkum 3 days ago

Oh, save your weeping for my "social comprehension skills" are fine. I saw it less as hyperbole and more of pedestrian inability to make a real case and instead malign a pretty reasonable religion. This is a website often known for being pedantic about correctness and you're incredulity at see someone not accepting passive aggressive nonsense as a valid argument seems to say more about your social comprehension skills, to be perfectly honest.

The fact that you repeatedly write "Sky Daddy" as some child on 4chan seems to also imply that you may not be aware of what kind of a site this is. I don't know. Even the meat of your argument is plainly pathetic and I meant that with no disrespect. The idea that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs, which is not to say such an argument would be correct, is sophomoric to the point that I think it may be a topic better left to adults.

edwardbernays 2 days ago

It's cool that you saw it less as hyperbole and "more of a pedestrian inability to make a real case." I suppose it does take one to recognize one, your game is pretty similar to this description.

It is not passive aggression. It is active aggression. We are seeing the plague of intellectual dishonesty spread in our civilization. It is making things materially worse for people who are currently alive. We should be actively hostile against it. Anybody who's reading this, I encourage you to take up polemics against the Christian faith. Read Peter Boghossian's "A Manual For Creating Atheists."

I have arguments against the complete legalization of drugs. I think there are many valid, good, principled arguments against it. Absolutely nowhere did I raise the idea "that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs." Nowhere did I even advocate for the "complete legalization of drugs."

I did not advocate for these things because I do not believe in them as policy positions. I have not, in fact, positively claimed what policies I would like to see enacted. I have criticized the current state of affairs and stated the principles by which I'd like to see them reformed.

You are jumping to conclusions that are not substantively supported by the text you read, probably as a form of prejudice or emotional response to seeing a "reasonable religion" maligned.

I outright reject every moralistic argument from the basis of Yahweh, a deity whose holy book contains self-contradicting inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies, and moral tragedies. Cry about it. Absolutely no deity which has commanded the sexual assault of innocent women, nor condoned chattel slavery, should ever be considered a source of moral truth. The Yahweh of the old testament is a vindictive, cruel, evil old spirit. The Yahweh of the new testament is, at best, a literary invention of Greek novelists and the charlatan Jesus of Nazareth. Did Jesus say some cool things and have some wisdom? I'd say so. Was he a scholar of the Bible? Probably. Was he the Messiah? Factually, by the messianic prophecies laid out in the old testament, the answer is a resounding "no." Any religion which both claims a text of messianic prophecy and a Messiah which fulfilled zero of those prophecies can not be considered a coherent religion, let alone a reasonable one.

Furthermore, Yahweh is 100% a Sky Daddy. His believers literally call him the holy father. The only way it even makes sense to object to the term "Sky Daddy" is because of the obvious infantilization. However, the infantilization is not my invention; merely my emphasis.

Doesn't this site say you should assume good faith? Maybe you don't know what kind of site it is, "adult."

EDIT: actually, the fact you thought calling Protestants "Bronze Age" was passive instead of active aggression does make me legitimately concerned for your social comprehension skills.

Another thing that makes me worried about your social comprehension skills is that you saw me say "your ability to believe in Sky Daddy ends where it impinges on my freedoms" and immediately jumped to "so you think all drugs should be legal??" I'm pretty sure, at this point, I'm speaking to a dyed-in-the-wool, drank-the-kool-aid, brain-is-fully-rotted theist.

So let me say this really plainly, in easy words, to make sure you can grasp it without ambiguity: you can make arguments against drugs without invoking spirits. You can make moral arguments without invoking spirits.

I do it quite often.

EDIT2: I am fine with people who call themselves Christians. I am not ok with Christian nationalism. I do not want the Christian faith eradicated, but I do want them to stop meddling in politics.

Reply View 2 replies

dinkumthinkum 2 days ago

I mean this sincerely, please seek some help for this. I think you are off your meds. This is kind of a lot of nonsense. And, though you seem to not realize, the repeated use of "Sky Daddy" is not furthering your cause. As far as this business about having an assumption of "good faith," this sounds like a lot of nonsense. We can proceed from some basic assumptions but such a principle is not a requirement to be ignorant of reality. As far as being a "brain is fully rotted theist," I assure you that in this scenario I am not the one suffering from brain-rot.

Reply View | 1 reply
- edwardbernays 2 days ago
  
  Which part, in particular, is nonsense? You consistently refuse to engage substantively, instead running away and offering insults.
  You said Christianity is a "very reasonable religion." I have made my argument for why this is not the case. I can back it up with scriptural evidence, if you'd like.
  You stated I made the case that no argument could be made against the legalization of all drugs. This could not be further from the truth. You are wrong here, plainly.
  Please actually engage, substantively, with the text. If it is nonsense, quote it, dissect it, and show it to be the case.
  I know you won't, and I suspect it's because you can't. Have fun baselessly insulting me yet again.
  EDIT: let me break down the structure of my prior comment for you. There were 8 paragraphs in the initial section, 3 in the first edit, 1 in the second edit.
  The first paragraph was me telling you that you have not demonstrated a capacity to substantively engage with people, while saying they make baseless arguments. This is what you are doing.
  The next 4 paragraphs are me telling you that you have plainly misstated my argument, and made an accusation that was textually unfounded.
  The next 3 paragraphs are my discussion of why Christianity is not a "very reasonable religion" and why I reject moral arguments from Yahweh.
  I used the term "Sky D*ddy" (censored to spare your feelings) exactly once in this second comment, to explain that: yes, that is an accurate description of Yahweh.
  The next 3 paragraphs in the edit were pretty much just insulting your social comprehension skills, and the last paragraph in the last edit was me stating that I'm fine with people who call themselves Christian but not fine with Christian nationalism.
  All of my sentences were grammatically well-constructed. There is a logical through-line that connects one sentence to the next, and each paragraph to the next. I stated things without substantiating them, but there is nothing I said which I can not substantiate with evidence and sound reasoning.
  It is not an example of disorganized thinking. It is not an example of poor thinking, nor of poor writing. Your condescension in telling me to get treatment is not well-taken. What you are seeing is a passionate person telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are a bellend, along with specifically "how" and "why."
  
  Reply View | 0 replies