Seattle said:
I don't really understand this "staff member" thing. When you post "Stop it, stop it, stop it Yazata" is this an admonishment as a staff member? In other words, if Yazata doesn't Stop he will be banned or is this just your opinion and post as a regular member of this forum?
Observation would reveal that as a moderator I type in a green, sans serif font, in order to distinguish between the roles.
The thing with telling Yazata is to make a point about the nature of his argument. Technically, these are really easy, simple points of discussion, what baseball describes as cans of corn. Yet time and again people botch them up, and quite literally because they refuse to put any damn thought into what they are saying.
So―
It's a bit confusing to me (as a smart member).
―I would like your explanation of something, as a smart member. However, as you presented your smartness in regards to a certain point, let me again reiterate that straightforward observation would show the bit about green and black type; it's pretty obvious.
However, here's the thing:
• If I intend to assess
your behavior, should I assess
your behavior according to what it means to
you, or should
I write that meaning
for you?
→ Practical example: Does the first paragraph of your post inquire about an issue you would like clarified, or are you pretending to not know in order to further distract from a very basic point because it makes anti-religious argumentation that much easier for being free from paying attention to reality? I mean, let's face it, if I really want to be political about the question, yeah, the green sans serif type really is something of a tell.
Are you able to tell me why the answer should be that what you think about what you do and believe is irrelevant to assessing what you do and believe?
So, if I make the point that I inquired about the particular aspect, the other skipped out on it, and explicitly acknowledges that the critique of a person's beliefs and behavior has nothing to do with that person ... can you, as a smart person, please tell me why the response to this point, which is supported with evidence, is, "Stop it Tiassa"?
What am I supposed to stop? Am I supposed to stop challenging Dave's "academic" exclusion? Am I supposed to stop giving examples of the problem?
What do I want Yazata to stop? I want him to stop moralizing for the sake of a straw man. Watching these so-called smart people pile up the fallacies? That's the other thing: Seriously, let's leave my mod hat out of it.
I just can't believe how desperate people are to protect this basic fallacy from scrutiny.
I haven't even read all of the long winded posts between Sarkus and Jan (this time). I know that trying to have a logical conversation with Jan in general and in the past has been difficult and Jan has seemed in my opinion to be rather disingenuous with his responses.
It has been like pulling teeth in the past to get him to clarify what is on his mind and what his points are on whatever the subject matter was.
Yeah ... and?
It's pretty well established, over the course of years―you know, one of those basic observation things―that our neighbor pretty much doesn't ever make sense.
But ... okay, look, so we both know the "smart" people we're talking about are allegedly atheistic. Now, here's the thing about "atheism" in the societal discourse: There is a difference between this abstract nothingness that many atheists, including our neighbor DaveC, claim and the atheism that presents itself in the discourse. And here's the thing about that discourse version: These atheists let the lowest intellectual elements of religious expression in society define religion; then they set out to pick fights with these low intellectual elements; and then they somehow manage to lose those fights. Honestly, it's fucking
embarrassing. The vicarious agony of watching these pretentious advocates basically wallow in the validation of religious people's least educated superstitions about atheists and infidels is the sort of thing that really ought to leave an indelible impression about the folly of relying on a pretense of rational argument while skipping out thereupon. The result is something between the tortoise and hare, to the one, and the occasional reminder, to the other, why it is unwise to administer one's own body piercings.
Nobody says we have to engage Jan Ardena, or any other religious person around here. I suppose I can say the same about, say, Dave or Yazata. But I would also hope that's something they would never share in common with certain others.
In the big picture it comes down to one asserting, "I am rational; therefore I am free to be irrational."
More proximally and particularly, it comes down to not really having an excuse to say uninformed things for the sake of belittling others. Solipsistic pedantry is more revealing than indicting; nihilism is hardly a proper foundation for rational exploration of anything.
What is actually really annoying and offensive is how stupid it seems some smart people apparently need to pretend to be in order to justify themselves.
Let's try it this way:
"Is it any less meaningful to say I am 'without unicorns'?" The proper answer is to wonder how it is that one isn't smart enough to figure that answer for himself.
A more sarcastic answer would be to say, "I don't know, to what degree are a car and a toothpick, functionally speaking, the same?"
"Is it any less meaningful to say I am 'without unicorns'?" is, in its context, a question derived from an extraordinary proposition; it actually requires support.
A basic perusal of the existing record would establish differences 'twixt unicorn and monotheistic godhead sufficient to preclude any functional comparison. I find it rather an extraordinary proposition that our neighbor is not smart enough to figure that out.
In the end, everything works out a lot better if smart people actually act like they're smart, instead of saying, "Well, I'm smart so I deserve to act like the stupid people." Such jealousy is itself dysfunctional.
And this bit where others pretend to be shocked or confused or concerned because some become annoyed at deliberately annoying behavior is older than Sciforums itself, so, yeah, look:
It's a basic enough point to observe, so, yes, when people are willing to put this much effort into protecting willful invalidation from any manner of decent scrutiny, and especially while trying to call it "academic" behavior, the resulting spectacle does kind of stand out.
And
why? Because as
smart people, what they
really want is
petty satisfaction?
They're not doing anyone any good.