Comment by dinkumthinkum
Comment by 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.
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."