Re: Religious e-mails (and the evolution of the perfect snappy comeback) - split

<< < (5/10) > >>

Midd93 (December 01, 2009, 12:29:48 PM):
cyghost - I didn't respond as I would have liked because I am at work now, we can continue later.
"Mild mannerd Bruce Banner can release the inner Hulk or sumthin." I believe you.
Acting in an abrasive and rude manner and then invoking "don't be a baby" does not make your behavior acceptable or excusable. This is merely using social pressure to legitimize.

Also: it was not so much ad hominem as I was questioning your conduct directly, not as an attempt to devalue your argument.


Also about possession, yes not about narcotics.

This is a troll:



This is me:



Please use your skeptical powers of perception to discern a difference.

Have a good day
Irreverend (December 01, 2009, 13:04:24 PM):
Irreverend, you are quite right - the point of posting that pic in response to the one on Christianity, was to illustrate that anything can seem absurd when written in such a way and taken out of context.
With the caveat of course that one must distinguish between exaggeration for the sake of highlighting ridiculous notions on the one hand, and outright fabrications on the other.

In any case, "possession" as a cause of epilepsy has absolutely zero functional value. Quite the opposite, actually, because it leads to such depraved lunacies as exorcism. In contrast an organic or psychological appraisal can provably help the afflicted. Denying this is yet another of religion's stunningly inane accomplishments.
cyghost (December 01, 2009, 13:19:10 PM):
cyghost - I didn't respond as I would have liked because I am at work now, we can continue later.
okay
Quote
Acting in an abrasive and rude manner and then invoking "don't be a baby" does not make your behavior acceptable or excusable. This is merely using social pressure to legitimize.
Jesus Christ. So your fist post here was a token of civility and an honest attempt to instigate conversation? Insulting others and when I respond in kind I am 'abrasive' and 'rude'? So be it. And freck you mate. :D
Quote
Also: it was not so much ad hominem as I was questioning your conduct directly, not as an attempt to devalue your argument.
You understand the difference between an ad hom attack and an ad hom fallacy right? When you made your first post and in subsequent responses to me, you use add hom attacks, some in response to my own. (which was of course instigated by your first offensive post)

I don't mind it and I think you shouldn't either what with not wanting to appear to be a hypocrite and all. Hence the stop being a baby about it see?

When you said you didn't want to argue with me because of my avatar / nick name, you were in fact committing the ad hom fallacy.

I hope you now understand the distinction. And how it applies to you here.
BoogieMonster (December 01, 2009, 13:53:14 PM):
Quote
Quite the opposite, actually, because it leads to such depraved lunacies as exorcism. In contrast an organic or psychological appraisal can provably help the afflicted. Denying this is yet another of religion's stunningly inane accomplishments.

I'm familiar with an off the wall, batshit crazy schizophrenic. The person wasn't always in the "batshit crazy" section of the spectrum. However the family of the person insisted that the cause was demonic possession (telling a schizo that the voices are real?!), an exorcism an lots of praying ensued, at the end of which the person had gone so far over the edge that they can no longer function in society. Only after did the family succumb and admit them into professional care. It was way too late.

I also know a person who is a "functioning, working, borderline normal" schizophrenic, who has been on medication all the time, admitted to hospital when things got bad, and is coping quite well...

I thus agree, it doesn't help, and indeed causes more harm.
Peter Grant (December 01, 2009, 13:59:37 PM):
( I hope he's talking about demons and not whacky weed!?) >:D ;D

I'd prefer weed.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page