I think that if we all went around treating others with the type of respect that we want to see given to ourselves, there wouldn't be a need to go around ignoring each other. And I think that was the OP's intent in making this thread.

FYI, I didn't vote either.

You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you. I said at the time that what I said was meant to be a starting point, and that I knew full well that nothing is absolute and something always has to yield, yet to this day you ignore everything else I said on the subject.

You also refused to discuss the idea that you wanted just the opposite: to remove freedom in the name of protecting it, which is what absolutists always do in the name of protecting us from ourselves.

It's easy to "win" an argument when you ignore what the other guy said and only argue against what you want him to have said.

This is the second time in two days that you've picked a fight and then claimed you didn't want to fight. That makes you dishonest. Deny that if you will, but it seems that you only feel you can "win" if you cheat. So first you lie, then you cheat. What's next? For me debating isn't about "winning", it's about discussing all the options. For you it seems to be about proving that you're right, and not much else.

I'll leave you with two quotes, both from Joseph Joubert, and both lessons you desperately need to learn.

Hmmm..... reminds me of tory politicians, but that's another thread :03:

Here are some good links:

First Link: Toxic Atheism Drives People Apart/



http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/0...undagnostical/

Gotta say as a religious person, I not only have atheist friends I am sometimes more comfortable with them than with many religious people - an advantage of living in Europe-so paradoxically I can understand this fellow. Maybe the problem is not belief vs. unbelief but something else?

See what I mean? :03: Back then you argued time and again to me that if I will to limit individual freedom slightly in an attempt to see for best total amount of freedom possible for all, I necessarily by that "remove freedom in the name of protecting it" (and you meant that as destroying freedom completely, not just limiting it slightly), as you just have put it ONCE AGAIN in your own words. That illustrates a.) your concept of freedom as being an "all or nothing at all" kind of thing (which opposes your claim that you "knew full well that nothing is absolute and something always has to yield"), and b.) that until today you have not managed to get that self-contradiction in your thinking, this incongurence between your intention and the result your proposal would (and does) acchieve. I know you mean it well and want to defend freedom. But you just don't get the self-contradiction in your reasoning and resulting argument/acting, you just don't get it. You're deadlocked there, sticking to an absolute and total understanding of freedom where you claim by your words - please note, finally: I am perfectly aware of that and was aware back then and always were! - you have no absolute definition of freedom at all and knew it were a relative quality in a social community. This incongruence in your self-description and your reasoning is what I always have called "your self-contradiction". I tried to illustrate that by Popper'S tolerance paradoxon. You do not even react to the fact that the paradoxon indeed is a paradoxon, while telling me you knew it is paradoxon, but then fall for it, and in full!

That is so - well, that is so "you"! :) I could pull my hairs out over this. In a way it is funny. But then, considering what it is about and what is at stakes, it is not.

And also note this: that I believe you and always have believed you when you implied or said you mean it well and want freedom defended. I just refuse to take that as the final word, the ultimate solution of the paradoxon, while you seem to live by the rule that it is right that. Still, the self-contradiction in your ways remains, as I see it, with you not being aware of that.

Can we accept, pleaaaazzze, this difference that exists between us without needing to fight over it AGAIN, endlessly, repeatedly? We will not solve it, it seems.

It seems I would have little problems with that guy, and him little problems with me, joea. In fact, I assume I have dealt with more believing Christians in my life than I am aware of, and just don't know because neither them nor me ever made such questions an issue or topic, nor did we fell under their spell.

It seems it is not needed to do so, to constantly tell others what one is and what one believes and that the other should try it, which is my point when saying: keep thy religion to thyself, keep it in your cabin, in your heart, don't bother others or the world with it, your belief is intimate a relation you chose to maintain between yourself and the object you have chosen to believe in. Okay, do so. No problem if you do not bother others with it. I sometimes sing under the shower. Because I know at the time I do that I am almost alone in all the house. and when I am naked in my flat, I do so when I am sure that indeed I am all alone. I do not bother guests with that sight.

Indeed, the problem may not be belief versus unbelief, but something else. I would identify it like this: the claim to be given more status and control and prestige and power and control on basis of one's beliefs, than these beliefs objectively can justify, since they are only beliefs. The claim that the other must become similiar to oneself, and must believe the same things like oneself. The claim that one may chnage the rules of secular and free society on behalf of religious ideology.

And you're doing it again! Back then I said that nothing is absolute, and I was willing to discuss it. You only attacked one thing I said and ignored the rest. What you're attacking now is only a small part of what I said. You only address a small part. This makes you a cheat.

You keep attacking, and fighting, while I would like to have a real discussion. You don't seem capable of that. Your whole tirade here is just that. I say what I mean, and you say I don't really mean that, but you need to address what I really mean even if I can't see it. You ignore what I say, or dismiss it, and insist that you know what I mean better than I do. That's just dishonest on your part, and it seems to be all you know how to do.

So you bring up an old argument for no apparent reason, make all your points all over again, and then ask for a halt?

That's like hitting someone over the head with a bat, and when they don't die, or fall down, but instead turn to face you, you drop the bat, hold up your hands and say "Wait! I don't want to fight!"

That smacks of cowardice.

Good to know, and agree btw I misquoted that last line:

That was from me-I'll fix the quote in the article in case someone actually clicks on the link. You and Steve may continue your argument. :03:

And I skipped the last words in my last sentence. Corrected. Adds a new meaning to "Steve left me speechless." :D

When habitual lies and self contradictions are failing badly there is always CAPSLOCK to be brought out as a last scream:rotfl2:

I don't want to argue with anyone and not going to involve myself with this, except to day I think Skybird is totally correct.

However, I still promote Steve for Subsim president.:salute:

So you think Takeda is lying?