Opinions

[BigBallinStalin]

Did puppydog begin being active about the time Phatbucks blew out?

/ponder.

I have come to that same conclusion...

Puppydog has been around here for weeks. Cuz it's not like you guys are even close, but that is what I have come to expect anyways

It probably is just coincidental that his methods are identical to yours, minus the videos and pictures. Which is too bad, as the videos/pictures where you don't say anything else are probably your best posts.

I wouldn't go so far as you in this regard. Puppydog displays a better capacity and more sincere approach to debate compared to PS. Besides, his pd's attitude is very different. And, he displays no symptoms of Phatism--as of now.

So, either puppydog is not PS, or PS is one of the best trolls in Internet history.

[puppydog85]

Crispy, ignore what BBS says about me. I don't care if you want to use empirical means, I will use them too, my problem is with the philosophy known as Empiricism (essentially denying the existential). What I want to know from you is whether or not something other than the sensory can exist. And it seems to me that you are saying that it can. And as proof of it you say that large amounts of people say they have it even though it cannot be seen/described. What I don't see here is how you could deny that a God exists seeing how that is the experience of large amounts of people across history. Or is there some other standard that you would hold love/the non-empirical to. (I take it then that you would not say that love is just some chemical experience in the mind).

Going back to your oranges question. You say that you have 4 oranges and that can be empirically validated therefore it is true. Yet, you rely on a non-empirical construct to state your case. The condition of identity, "orangeness" if you will, is non-empirical.

[crispybits]

Answering your points in reverse order. I only follow the basic rules of logic when I assume that "an orange is an orange". Without fundamental identity assumptions no logical debate can take place. Despite the fact that they are assumed they can be questioned as part of the basic premises of the argument and they can be brought up as flaws in the argument. This is a key part of being a good logical debater, you have to see the "unwritten" assumptions as well as the stated ones. I apologise for what it's worth for using the word empirical in my first post, because it's obviously a badly chosen word, and hopefully this is clarified now.

Your first point has a massive, illogical leap of faith in it. I am indeed saying that non-empirical phenomena can be "real", even though they are immeasurable by any scientific instruments. But to go from that to "there is a God" is a whole different thing. For example, I would not give love any qualities outside of being a subjective human experience, because this is what I experience it as (as does I assume everyone else). But God, he needs to be more than a subjective human experience, or at least he does if any appeal to his authority to make a logical case is going to be used. Yes, large amounts of people experience the emotional (and/or intellectual) state of faith and have done across the ages, but it does not necessarily follow that that faith is a proof of the existence of God, any more than the fact that people feel love is a proof for the existence of the cherubic Cupid, winging his way around the world shooting love arrows at people, or of the Roman goddess Venus, or the Greek goddess Aphrodite.

Try replacing the word "God" with "my conscience" and you are effectively making the same logical statement. Your subjective, internal world view is telling you that X is Y. Would you try and win a logical argument with "because my conscience tells me so"? No. You might use it as part of an emotive argument, but it has no place in a logical one, any more than "I like strawberry ice cream" has any place in a logical argument about which ice cream flavour is best.

Show a consistent a logical chain of arguments that because people experience faith that the object of that faith must be an objective reality and I'll nominate your for a Nobel prize. Replace faith for belief and I give you the people, way back when, who truly believed that the Earth was flat, or that certain women had magical powers and should be burned as witches, or if you want to be really crazy I'll go dig out the basic precepts of scientology. None of those beliefs makes the thing that is being believed in an objective reality. This is before we even start on the fact that your subjective belief probably paints God slightly differently to your neighbours, and more different from the Jewish guy a few streets away, and more different still from the Hindu guy who lives in the next town. Why are you right and able to claim the authority of God, when they are wrong, even though they would claim the same authority for their own beliefs?

[puppydog85]

So, crispy, I am trying to nail down what you are here. As I am reading it you are a dualist as opposed to a materialist, which would indeed be fascinating. And I admit I am very, very rusty on my arguments against dualism. Most people you run into are not conscious dualists.

I was not using that as an argument for God. I was just advancing the idea to find out if you are ok with the idea of something existential, and based on your criteria you would not. Obviously, I would want more proof for God, but given your statement the idea of one is not preposterous.

On your last point I would deny that there god/supernatural being exists because they do not have a coherent system of thought. But I am not here to argue about Hinduism, I am attempting to argue for my particular idea of God, just as you are arguing for you particular whatever it is you believe.

I realize that I have been asking most of the questions here so allow me to start on a separate track here for my view of God.
I would hold that the proof for the existence of God (my God, I am not arguing for the "idea" of a god) is that unless one assumes God's existence one cannot account for logic, morals, and science. Perhaps you might have heard of it, but the usual term is the transcendental proof of God's existence.

[crispybits]

I think the closest terms, and both are probably equally valid, to define my position are either natural dualist or pantheist. I think the supernatural and the extranatural are no less natural than the natural, they simply exist outside of our understanding, and quite possibly outside of our ability to ever understand them. I also think that the closest thing to "God" which actually exists is the universe itself, or more accurately the multiverse (or however you want to term it) that our universe occupies only a part of, and that every rock, every tree, every mountain, moon, planet, star and galaxy (and all of the extranatural and supernatural elements too) IS what religious people are referencing whenever they reference God. It's more detailed than I'll go into here (but I'm more than happy to explain it at length via PM) and it is an entirely personal construct, and I don't claim it as the ultimate truth or anything even remotely similar, that's just the way my brain processes reality. It's my subjective reality if you like.

That's going to confuse things though, so from here on if I reference "God" I am talking about the same thing you are, your christian version of the concept.

My question to the transcendental would be why does the creator of all of those things have to be God? If I cede that something made everything (and I don't, but then we're going off onto a massive metaphysical tangent) then I can easily do that without any acknowledgement that God was the something. That something could be anything, and given that there is so much that we don't understand I find it both foolish and arrogant to assume that we can claim to know anything about that something.

It's like the old design argument. The primitive tribesman finds a complicated watch in the desert, and he can see it must be designed. But he doesn't stop there, he also claims to know that the maker was called James Cooper, that he lives in a flat in Boston, and that he enjoys horror films, italian food and drum and bass music.

So, for the purposes of this debate, I will give you that there must be a creator. Now show how you or anyone else can possibly know the first thing about him/her/it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis- I have my view of why logic/math "work". You have your view.

I am unsure what you mean by this.
I think math and logic are man made systems we employ to help us in various task. They work for the same reason a wrench works, because we designed them to be usefull tools.

What is your view?

Why should science work? Hume posited that there is no reason for projecting past results into a future age. Given your (I assume) view that all life is just matter in motion, how can we account for the laws of science?

Science, similarly, works because we designed it to work. Science is just our attempt to make sense of the universe, and yes, it relies on the fundamental assumption that induction is possible.
While theoretically there is no reason to assume that just because induction has been possible for as long as we can tell in the past it will continue to be possible tommorrow as well, in practice this turns out to be a reasonable assumption, and one that you implicitely make everytime you take pretty much any action in today's work.
If you truly believed it possible that science will just stop working suddenly I assume you'd be holed up in a cottage in the middle of the woods somewhere waiting for the incoming apocalypse.

Further than that though, we do not have ample evidence that science "works" for explaining all of life. It just works for explaining everyday causation, it cannot explain itself even.

Well, we certainly have more evidence that science, relying on it's pillars of empiricism and induction works, than we have evidence for anything else.

When an approach has been steadily shrinking the mystic and the doman if the god of the gaps for thousands of years it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume it might eventually shrink both of those into nothing.

What are the alternatives you are proposing anyway?

Btw, sorry if I'm repeating previous discussions but I find myself unable to read the whole exchange between you and crispy right now. Also, I think Player and AA may have a contender for most verbose poster :p

[Haggis_McMutton]

Oh, and Woodruff et. al.
I know you're taking the piss, but c'mon, this guy has very little in common with Scotty.

I mean read the post I just responded to, it sounds nothing like a Scotty post.

Besides, Scotty only cares about politics/economy anyway, don't think he ever got into a religion/philosophy debate for however many years he's been here for.

[puppydog85]

Haggis, thanks for responding.

No, you are not repeating anything really. Crispy is saying that he is some form of dualist/pantheist (which is a novelty to say the least). You, I think, are a material atheist.

I phrased it poorly regarding logic. We know they work. But if I say that they work because they are constructs of my mind then I think you will disagree with me. I say they work as an expression of the character of God. You say they work because ...? (they are an inherent part of the big bang? they just are? they are a reflection of an ideal (a la plato)?). Do you get what I am asking here? You said they work because they are designed that way, I don't think you mean that literally, are you saying that there is some form of Creator? Or are you saying that we are the creator?

I am not going to proceed past this for now because I am a little unclear as to what you are saying. Maybe if you stuck a tag on yourself I could at least jump partway into knowing what you are saying. (like with crispy, it took me almost 3 whole pages to find out what he is, I prefer to keep it shorter)

What are the alternatives you are proposing anyway?

I am proposing that logic and science are ironclad laws existing apart from human constructs. I can say that because in my view I have a supreme being holding them up. I have other proof that I would argue about God but I am at slight disadvantage not knowing what you think about logic (and other things). Hold off on lambasting me at length with regard to that point and I will explain it in fuller detail after I get your response.

[puppydog85]

Stalin is on a kick about me because I backed out of a discussion with him about gay marriage. I think he fails to see that I do this just for kicks (it's a game forum, for goodness sakes) and it is no longer fun for me when the name calling/cursing starts. So now he is doing the second grade act of following the guy who backed down from a fight around and squawking "chicken, chicken". I enjoy these discussions but not so much as to stick around when it is no longer fun. I am perfectly willing to leave it lay (or is it lie?).

[BigBallinStalin]

Crispy, ignore what BBS says about me. I don't care if you want to use empirical means, I will use them too, my problem is with the philosophy known as Empiricism (essentially denying the existential). What I want to know from you is whether or not something other than the sensory can exist. And it seems to me that you are saying that it can. And as proof of it you say that large amounts of people say they have it even though it cannot be seen/described. What I don't see here is how you could deny that a God exists seeing how that is the experience of large amounts of people across history. Or is there some other standard that you would hold love/the non-empirical to. (I take it then that you would not say that love is just some chemical experience in the mind).

Going back to your oranges question. You say that you have 4 oranges and that can be empirically validated therefore it is true. Yet, you rely on a non-empirical construct to state your case. The condition of identity, "orangeness" if you will, is non-empirical.

How is language, thus identity, non-empirical? It's magically known a priori?

Your first paragraph is similar to crispybit's example on love, but if you swap "love" with "my Christian God," you don't have a confirmation of your Christian God. All that would be confirmed is that a "deistic 'gerble' is talked about as much as love. Many people attribute this feeling or sensation to various and competing concepts of god, gods, or spirits, so which one is the true one(s) remains unknown--since nearly all of these religions make unfalsifiable claims. So, we ran the empirical tests on prayer and found no change--except some people feel worse when they're prayed for. We analyzed those modern day claims of divine intervention, which were not denied real scientific testing, and they all proved false, or extremely unlikely."


I don't think any reasonable person would deny the possibility of the existence of a deistic gerble--whatever that is; however, it seems reasonable to deny the existence, or at least to find very unlikely the validity, of particular concepts of god/gods/spirits, e.g. Christian God, Zeus, tree spirit #43, and regrettably the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin is on a kick about me because I backed out of a discussion with him about gay marriage. I think he fails to see that I do this just for kicks (it's a game forum, for goodness sakes) and it is no longer fun for me when the name calling/cursing starts. So now he is doing the second grade act of following the guy who backed down from a fight around and squawking "chicken, chicken". I enjoy these discussions but not so much as to stick around when it is no longer fun. I am perfectly willing to leave it lay (or is it lie?).

Haha, more ad hominems and straw man for the party? At least, your behavior is consistent. I've been engaging with you in this thread before your meltdown in the Gay Marriage thread, so it's false to claim that I'm suddenly doing a "second grade act."

I'm simply asking from some clarity because I'm starting to realize that you don't make a lot of sense.

First, you claimed that advocating for a Christian theocracy (or advocating for the application of religious beliefs on an entire State or nation of people) and claiming "gay marriage is immoral" were both statements that were not forcing your beliefs on others.

Then, you denied that you were advocating for the imposition of religious beliefs (implementing christian theorcracy), but clearly that was a lie. This was all built on your "force != coercion through legislation" contradiction.

Second, you have a history of scoffing at empiricism, or any authority derived from empiricism, yet you use the same empirical means for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, your own conception of God is relies on your own empirical means, and to some degree, the empirical means of others, whose work you've read. How much of empiricism are you willing to concede in explaining phenomena? It still seems like you're contradicting yourself. You remain silent on this probably because it would expose a huge gaping hole in your core arguments which construct your perceived reality. I understand it may be difficult to deal with this, but seriously, get logical.

Third, you say things that really don't make sense, e.g. "condition of identity, "orangeness" if you will, is non-empirical." You may as well say language is not empirical.

Fourth, "the logic/math was made by a christian god" argument is... yikes.

You may as well argue that language works because God Z said so.

The development and function of language is similar to the development and function of science and logic. It was created by humans, and over centuries of trial-and-error, the analytical tools and concepts become discovered and fine-tuned. For you to claim, "God Z makes it work," is ridiculous until you at least show some evidence that God Z did it, and not God Y, and how or how not is the deistic gerble responsible.

[puppydog85]

Stalin, do you even know what an ad hominen or straw man is? I never said that you were wrong because I was leaving or that cursing made you wrong.You told me to shut up and I did, I never made any claims that I right because I: 1. Dislike you 2. don't like your attitude 3. did I mention your attitude? I just said that I was done talking to you. Plain and simple. Please get over it and stop trolling my thread, if you want to continue the discussion go start another thread, just stay off this one with your off topic things.

[spurgistan]

are like assholes.

[puppydog85]

It's like the old design argument. The primitive tribesman finds a complicated watch in the desert, and he can see it must be designed. But he doesn't stop there, he also claims to know that the maker was called James Cooper, that he lives in a flat in Boston, and that he enjoys horror films, italian food and drum and bass music.

Not quite like that argument. More along the lines of you find a watch and also find out that someone is claiming to have made that watch. As proof for that claim he states that no other watchmaker has the tools to make a watch like that.

That would be my argument in a nutshell.

Against an atheist/agnostic I would say that the tools missing are the ones that make logic/ethics/identity.

Against a dualism I would argue that while you can make two clocks (well, I will assume that you have a semi-coherent form of dualism) but the one is entirely empirical the other entirely material and despite your best efforts you cannot ever join the two (which is what the original clock is comprised of).

[crispybits]

Firstly, my dualism / pantheism is not relevant to this debate as I have not and would not claim that that belief provides me with any authority in an argument about another subject. The only authoritative claim I will ever make from it is that "I believe in my own beliefs". I''m more than happy to have a philosophical discussion with you about the weaknesses of dualistic world views and how my own brand gets around them (in my opinion), but it's not relevant for this thread.

You're missing the main point of my post. I can cede that there could be a creator, but I see no reliable evidence that indicates that the creator has the same qualities as God. How do you get from "something created everything" to "God created everything"

Remember that you want the argument to be logically viable, so avoid an appeal to biblical authority as that will lead to BBS's famous picture and the circular reasoning logical fallacy. As above you may say that God is claiming to have made the universe, and using the "proof" that no other being could have done so. The problem with that is two-fold: 1) That it doesn't say anything about God still. It doesnt give him any Christian qualities whatsoever. And 2) That you are appealing to an authority you have not yet established. It's like saying "my unconceived future daughter has told me that she has brown hair and eyes". While, in time, that claim may be found to have been true, for the purposes of a logical argument I cannot invoke her words, even her words describing herself, until I have established at the very least that she does, in fact, exist (or at least will exist in the future). I may never have a daughter, which would mean that claiming that she has brown hair and brown eyes would be meaningless.

[Lootifer]

Oh, and Woodruff et. al.
I know you're taking the piss, but c'mon, this guy has very little in common with Scotty.

I mean read the post I just responded to, it sounds nothing like a Scotty post.

Besides, Scotty only cares about politics/economy anyway, don't think he ever got into a religion/philosophy debate for however many years he's been here for.

When he called me a troll, he was 100% accurate on that occasion

[puppydog85]

Well, if you don't want to discuss your views that is fine by me.

All ultimate authority claims are circular in nature. You want to use human reason to prove that human reason is correct. I want to use God to prove that God exists. I cannot argue about God from some neutral standpoint just looking at "facts". But I posit that you are in the same predicament with me. You want to judge me according to your standards, of course. You want to set up reason as the thing we all just "know", and how do you do that? By appealing to reason. That is the reason (no funny intended) that I inquire by what standard you judge the world.
This is more or less something along the lines of Kantian first principles (if that helps clear up anything)

To be honest I did not read BBS's posts so you might want to enlighten me in that regard if you still think I violated whatever principle he set out.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin, do you even know what an ad hominen or straw man is? I never said that you were wrong because I was leaving or that cursing made you wrong.You told me to shut up and I did, I never made any claims that I right because I: 1. Dislike you 2. don't like your attitude 3. did I mention your attitude? I just said that I was done talking to you. Plain and simple. Please get over it and stop trolling my thread, if you want to continue the discussion go start another thread, just stay off this one with your off topic things.

Ah, thank you for admitting that you're not right, or that you have nothing sound to offer in your defense, but you should have said this in the Gay Marriage thread because if it's in this thread, it's off-topic. Anyway, I'll answer your question:

Yes, I do know what they are, but it is unfortunate that you have to find such weak excuses (while ignoring the conditional) in order to hide the fact that you're bigoted against gays--in a bad way.

But again this is off-topic, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped bringing it up.

Please get over it and stop trolling my thread, if you want to continue the discussion go start another thread, just stay off this one with your off topic things.

First, my above post is completely relevant to this thread.

(1) The OP is completely wrong as has already been shown yet ignored. You are forcing your beliefs on others as I have clearly shown from your own posts.
(2) Your scoffing at empiricism while acting in a seemingly contradictory manner is apparently relevant to this thread. Empiricism has been the topic for the past two pages, and it would help for you to clarify your use of sensual experience in order to confirm your belief in Christian God X.
(3) That's relevant because I quoted you saying something in this very thread.
(4) Same reasoning for #3.

Therefore, my above post cannot be off-topic, and it would be great for you to drop that false claim.


Second, my posts have nothing to do with your behavior in the Gay Marriage thread--unless of course, you mention that off-topic event. If you wish to cease discussing these off-topic matters, then obviously you should stop bringing it up, and I'll have no need to mention them in my responses. In this case, supply creates its own demand, does it not?


Finally, you exhibit this pattern of ignoring gaping holes in your arguments, which suggests that you're determined to adhere to your wrong ideas without much introspection or updating. Some may call this observation of mine to be "trolling," but based on the evidence, it's currently true until you stop ignoring it, and my intentions are good; therefore, I can't be trolling.

Furthermore, you've been throwing around that "ur trolling!" allegation a lot, and it increasingly seems to be sticking less. Do you know what trolling is? We have several threads available for your reading pleasure.

[crispybits]

Firstly, don't twist my words. I've been very respectful despite the fact you know full well I disagree with you totally. I very clearly said that "I'm more than happy to have a philosophical discussion with you", and earlier than that "I'm more than happy to explain it at length". I have no fear of that discussion, I just find that discussion would be an irrelevant tangent to this debate.

Go back to page 1.

Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

I may be crazy and terrifying but does that mean that you can skip the laws of logic when arguing against me? (not saying that you do)

I find Gillipig to be terrifying yet I still think I need to argue in a coherent fashion against him.

Those two terms say the following:

1) I want "because God says so" to be a valid justification in debates
2) I want to have logical debates

All I have been attempting to do is show that you cannot combine the two unless you first provide a logical justfication for God's existence and nature being exactly what you believe it to be.

You are the one who wanted to have both sides. I do not deny you your right to have whatever religious beliefs you want. You can believe that God is a 7 armed, 5 legged giant purple hobbit with a foot odour problem and an insatiable appetite for jelly babies for all I care. The exact nature of the God you believe in is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant, if you wish to have a logical debate, is that you can provide logical justification for his authority on the subject of that debate, without being circular or committing any of the other logical fallacies to do so. You have just admitted that you can't, which is also fine. I was asking for the impossible and I knew it.

I am not using reason to justify reason, nor am I making an appeal to the authority of reason to prove reason. I am simply conducting this argument in the style you asked for, as in a logical (or in other words reasoned) debate. If you want an emotional argument, based only on unfounded beliefs and vague feelings then go for your life, but I won't be joining in because they generally don't interest me. But do NOT claim to be being logical, or apply any of the rules of logic to other's opinions in that debate in order to support or deny them, lest those standards be applied also to your particular internal, subjective reality, and you come up short again just like you did here.

[crispybits]

It's a bit like saying "I want to have a football match to work out if the Miami Dolphins are better sportsmen than the Chicago Bulls" and then complaining afterwards that the Chicago Bulls are basketball players not footballers and therefore the test wasn't fair. But from the start you were the one that decided it should be a football match.

[puppydog85]

Crispy, whoa, sorry. I did not mean that to be disrespectful and I apologize if it came across as such. I should have said "not discuss your views in this thread". My bad.

[puppydog85]

I never said that you were wrong because I was leaving or that cursing made you wrong.You told me to shut up and I did, I never made any claims that I right because I: 1. Dislike you 2. don't like your attitude 3. did I mention your attitude?

Ah, thank you for admitting that you're not right, or that you have nothing sound to offer in your defense, but you should have said this in the Gay Marriage thread

Are you serious!? You don't really mean that. Come on and tell me that you are pulling my leg.

[puppydog85]

Crispy,

I am not using reason to justify reason, nor am I making an appeal to the authority of reason to prove reason.

If you cannot see that, then we really don't have much reason to continue this. We are starting to revisit stuff we already talked about and are going in circles.
I think you have been very respectful throughout but I don't see a major reason to continue this. I stated that any claim to an ultimate authority is going to be circular. You disagree on what I think is an obvious point. And if you don't agree, then nothing else I say will have any weight with you. We are talking past each other.

Finally, you close on some rather indignant notes about "NOT" claiming to be logical. Let's all agree to disagree here and finish it peacefully. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong, but I am not laying down dictates about you "NOT" doing or saying something even though I think you are the one coming up short with your reasoning.

Thanks for the debate.

puppydog85

[crispybits]

You were the one who asked for a logical debate. If you wanted to have a debate based on some other structure then as I said that's fine, just say so. I might not join you but I'm sure others would. I would only ask why you want to have a logical debate if you believe that reason is no more valid than scripture? Why take your basketball team onto the football pitch?

As for the single capitalised word for emphasis, I stand by that little section. If you want to have a logical debate, then stand up to the constraints and requirements of that. If you want to have a debate not based on logic then fine, but be very careful you don't use any logical forms in that debate because that will render your point completely moot by your own terms here.

[BigBallinStalin]

I never said that you were wrong because I was leaving or that cursing made you wrong.You told me to shut up and I did, I never made any claims that I right because I: 1. Dislike you 2. don't like your attitude 3. did I mention your attitude?

Ah, thank you for admitting that you're not right, or that you have nothing sound to offer in your defense, but you should have said this in the Gay Marriage thread

Are you serious!? You don't really mean that. Come on and tell me that you are pulling my leg.

You might not read the following, but it's probably the most sincere and self-exposing I'll be on the fora. I recommend that anyone glancing by should read this (or at least the 3rd paragraph).

Well, since I can't read your mind, I inserted that understood "either-or" phrase in there, and the marginal costs of posting more possibilities were not offset by the marginal benefits as perceived by me at that time; therefore, it is understandable that my out-of-context incomplete sentence may seem shocking to you. Ultimately, I must take your final response of a very weak argument (in that thread) to represent your failure of providing a worthy counter-argument in that thread.

More importantly, although you state excuses such as "I don't like you nor your attitude; therefore, the debate is over!" (paraphrased), you still face the possibility of debating those previously mentioned obstacles with someone else. The failure to take this possibility suggests that you do wish to defend your position against gay marriage with anyone of an opposing view, and this could further suggest that you realize that your position is wrong, or you are afraid to admit to us and/or to yourself that you might be wrong.

I understand if you are afraid to uncover a seemingly horrid truth, but the quest for knowledge and truth must continue in order to improve the lives of ourselves and possibly for all human beings. There once was a time when I believed that applied socialism and Marxism were really good ideas that could work. I read the Communist Manifesto, and the doubt took hold, but I mostly agreed with it. Then I read more about Leninism, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and other forms of applied socialism. The omelet was not appearing from the broken eggs. And after reading more into history, philosophy, politics, and economics, I began to realize that the horse and any rider would never work with socialism--at such a grand scale. Currently, I'm pushing against the bounds of anarcho-capitalism, free enterprise, public choice, political capitalism, environmentalism, and national security. This is the result of my adherence to the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and at times it's mentally debilitating, but ultimately it is worth it--as long as you maintain an open mind with an appropriate standard for determining validity/soundness.


But wait a minute:

"But again this is off-topic, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped bringing it up." (in this thread, to make the assumed very clear, of course)

and

"Second, my posts have nothing to do with your behavior in the Gay Marriage thread--unless of course, you mention that off-topic event. If you wish to cease discussing these off-topic matters, then obviously you should stop bringing it up, and I'll have no need to mention them in my responses. In this case, supply creates its own demand, does it not?"
-BBS

Perhaps, you should listen to yourself:

Please get over it and stop trolling my thread, if you want to continue the discussion go start another thread, just stay off this one with your off topic things.

You request for me to stop talking about this off-topic event; however, you continue discussing this off-topic event in this thread. I assume that you do this in order for me to continue this off-topic discussion.

But the question remains: if your stated desires are representative of your true desires, then aren't you contradicting yourself?

Of course, it could be the case that you truly wish to resume the debate, which I'll gladly do so, and I promise to be more objective and neutral in tone.