God is like atheists in foxholes

Don't care if Henry gets his shoes fixed, he can have wet socks if he so desires. But there is no need for "In my opinion Henry has a hole in his shoe". The obvious seldom requires an "opinion".

Modern culture is a culture of blame and victimization ...

People go to therapy (in one form or another) and there they learn -

ItsAllYourFault.jpg
 
Would "If your actions here have been solipsistic then an "in my opinion" isn't necessary as the evidence would be right in front of us for the citing" suit your tastes better? The point is still the same and is still valid.

Not at all.

Many people are easily overwhelmed by the power of logical truisms - as if a logical truism would automatically apply in a particular situation and only one course of obligatory action follow from it.


Red herring fallacy.

You (and some others) should have thought of red herrings when you first launched into a power game instead of discussing the thread topic.
 
If Henry has a hole in his shoe, does this mean that Henry now surely must get his shoes fixed?

IOW, you jumped from a conditional ("if") to a conclusion of certainty.

Straw man. I never said you have to change your ways. I simply pointed out the hole in your shoe.

Also, since when does one have to be a god to recognize objective truths?
 
From the point that one realizes that one, as a human, is not omniscient.

Straw man. One doesn't have to be omniscient to know when something is true. I know the definition of solipsism, and I know that your actions fit that definition, so I know you are being solipsistic. Or, if you prefer, we return to the hole in the shoe: I can see the hole in your shoe, so there is no need for me to say "In my opinion, you have a hole in your shoe." It is an objective fact that you have a hole in your shoe.
 
Straw man. One doesn't have to be omniscient to know when something is true. I know the definition of solipsism, and I know that your actions fit that definition, so I know you are being solipsistic. Or, if you prefer, we return to the hole in the shoe: I can see the hole in your shoe, so there is no need for me to say "In my opinion, you have a hole in your shoe." It is an objective fact that you have a hole in your shoe.
yet you can't manage to navigate the confusion between solipsism and a solipsist

:shrug:
 
no more than you have distinguished between an atheist and atheism
:shrug:

Wow.

I pointed out that the belief that a godless life is better than a life with god is not a "promise" made my atheism, simply an opinion that could be held by someone who is also an atheist. Theoretically, this opinion could also be held by a theist, as a belief in god does not necessitate a love for that god or invalidate the desire for some alternative to it.

Meanwhile, Wynn's actions are solipsistic. Understand? I wasn't referring to her love of flowers as solipsism, I was referring to her extreme egocentric behavior as solipsism.

I really don't see what's so confusing about this. :shrug:

Short of drawing pictures for you, let's see if this doesn't help:

Wynn saw this...

atheist person said:
Your life will be better without God!

and called it atheism. But it is not atheism.

I saw this...

Wynn said:
You're morbidly obsessed, LAWLZ! You and your obsessions. You think you are God. EYEROLL! Wait, are you insulting me? That's it, I'm leaving.

and called it solipsism. And it is solipsism.
 
Straw man. One doesn't have to be omniscient to know when something is true.

To know the objective truth, one would need to be omniscient.


I know the definition of solipsism, and I know that your actions fit that definition, so I know you are being solipsistic. Or, if you prefer, we return to the hole in the shoe: I can see the hole in your shoe, so there is no need for me to say "In my opinion, you have a hole in your shoe." It is an objective fact that you have a hole in your shoe.

And I know that your approach to communication here fits narcissistic/borderline traits.

It's all about you, you, and you, and more you. And then you thinly veil this with some reference to a philosophical discourse.

It has got to be JDawg's way, or it's the highway.
 
They were about his opinion of me.

His opinion, which he expects to be held as the objective truth and to which I am supposed to obligate myself to.
 
To know the objective truth, one would need to be omniscient.

Nonsense. You have a hole in your shoe, I can see the hole in your shoe, therefore I know the objective truth of the hole in your shoe.

And I know that your approach to communication here fits narcissistic/borderline traits.

It's all about you, you, and you, and more you. And then you thinly veil this with some reference to a philosophical discourse.

It has got to be JDawg's way, or it's the highway.

The last page+ of this has been about you. :shrug:

They were about his opinion of me.

His opinion, which he expects to be held as the objective truth and to which I am supposed to obligate myself to.

I don't think you understand how narcissism works. :shrug:
 
I don't think you understand how narcissism works.

I do know that it is practically impossible to get through to a narcissist; it is also extremely difficult to get through to someone with narcissistic or borderline traits.

You have a knack for competitive interactions, and I am not particularly interested in those, other than as a rhetorical exercise.
 
I do know that it is practically impossible to get through to a narcissist; it is also extremely difficult to get through to someone with narcissistic or borderline traits.

You have a knack for competitive interactions, and I am not particularly interested in those, other than as a rhetorical exercise.

Competitiveness does not equal narcissism. I know what you're trying to do, but you're not fooling anyone.
 
@JDawg --

Don't even bother. When Wynn can't win an argument she resorts to character assassination in an attempt to belittle the person in her eyes so that she can reject whatever he's said regardless of how true it may be.
 
@JDawg --

Don't even bother. When Wynn can't win an argument she resorts to character assassination in an attempt to belittle the person in her eyes so that she can reject whatever he's said regardless of how true it may be.

True, but she hung in longer than usual this time, and I couldn't pass up the chance to see what makes her tick. But I agree, this thread has long since passed its usefulness.
 
@JDawg --

I think we passed the point of usefulness around page two, or maybe three, and since then has pretty much just been mental fapping(nothing wrong with that though). I get where you're coming from though, I've pushed Wynn's buttons in an attempt to either understand her psychology or to get her to admit it many times in the passed. Especially since I found out that she used to go by another name and that I remember having good conversations with, she's really lost her touch.
 
Back
Top