Explain Why This is Offensive....

[jpholding]

I'm now about halfway through my review of articles to see what can go on the new site and it's becoming more and more clear that all the guff passed around about how I don't do anything but insult opponents is vastly overstated, which might be expected since it is the likes of Trubee and Till who have been behind it in the first place.

It is clear first of all that the many of my articles do not address ANYONE AT ALL but a position.

Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?

I'd also like to note two articles and ask if anyone finds anything "offensive" in them:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html -- in particular, responses to Lowder and Carrier

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemmadef01.html

More and more I'm starting to wonder if this nonsense has had its genesis more in the frustrations of defeated opponents like Till and Trubee, and perhaps the overtstatements of a few malcontents who think even saying someone is "miseducated" is offensive, rather than in any sober analysis or review of the bulk of what I have produced these past 8 years.

[Piebald]

In some places the rhetoric is strong. But really, so what? The secwebbers enjoy a website called LandoverBaptist.org which uses much, much stronger satirical rhetoric, much of which couldn't be viewed at work lest you be fired on the spot when it was discovered what you were reading.

It's also usually pretty clear in which articles you are getting serious and down to the tacks and in which ones you are just having a good time. I recall making a lot of animated pikachus at one point... :teeth:

[Darth Executor]

I'm now about halfway through my review of articles to see what can go on the new site and it's becoming more and more clear that all the guff passed around about how I don't do anything but insult opponents is vastly overstated, which might be expected since it is the likes of Trubee and Till who have been behind it in the first place.

It is clear first of all that the many of my articles do not address ANYONE AT ALL but a position.

Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?

I'd also like to note two articles and ask if anyone finds anything "offensive" in them:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html -- in particular, responses to Lowder and Carrier

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemmadef01.html

More and more I'm starting to wonder if this nonsense has had its genesis more in the frustrations of defeated opponents like Till and Trubee, and perhaps the overtstatements of a few malcontents who think even saying someone is "miseducated" is offensive, rather than in any sober analysis or review of the bulk of what I have produced these past 8 years.


The question is, does it matter what dime a dozen skeptics think? I mean, honestly, the people who find your stuff "offensive" are the same people who make and post in topics like this:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142757

I think that the more offended they are, the better. :thumb:

[jpholding]

It's also usually pretty clear in which articles you are getting serious and down to the tacks and in which ones you are just having a good time. I recall making a lot of animated pikachus at one point... :teeth:

Yeah, and that will go on the new site. :teeth: But it's still the sort of thing a grumpy Gus like Till or Trubee on the losing end of the stick will call "offensive" or "ad hominem". That's part of the point here...I think the bulk of the campaign is manufactured and I want to show that that's the case. Let's hear some of the critics defend their claims and explain why this or that is "offensive" in context. Posturing isn't enough to make a case; nor is ripping comments from their contexts.

I guess I'd better go eat lunch before I forget again. :tongue:

[Dee Dee Warren]

I get the same thing from the hyperprets and a few others on the hyperpret issue - I have asked a few to give me a link to where I am just outrageously offensive. And one hyperpret site owner asked me to remove something, which was reall tame and not insulting, but because it wasn't necessary to the piece, I deleted it. However some persons think it is offense to say

you're wrong
you are holding a heretical view
you deny historical Christianity
etc ad nauseam

while having no issue with calling me a whore (yep, brad_religion on Paltalk did so without any public rebuke forthcoming) - claiming that I steal other people's work (JP - ironically it was you they said I was stealing from) - claims that depression and OCD are dissociative identity disorders which is pretty pathetic since the very site linked to to "prove" this states the opposite

(those last two are legally actionable slander)

oh well - I am sometimes amused by this larger than life legend that is being created about me before my very eyes

[jpholding]

The question is, does it matter what dime a dozen skeptics think?

I don't myself, but a few Christians have fallen in on this too and I'm trying to grasp the mentality behind it and see if there's any real and objective point behind the madness. The bulk of emails I get related to this praise the "wit" shown on the site. The next majority ask me to explain why sarcasm is used and go away content with the explanation. The next majority is of the sort that thinks the Holy Spirit tells them what socks to wear in the morning and I sure don't care what they say. That leaves the last group, and they're the ones I'm trying to figure out as well.

Here's a possible logo for the new site.

[Xavier]

[...] "vastly underinformed"
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"? [...]

It's possible that all of these are offensive to someone... :hehe: Much like any phrase in existance. However, the only that I would consider to be rude in certain cases in 'miseducated'. That tends to be a touch more personal than the other two in my mind.

If they went to a public school and graduated, calling them 'miseducated' is probably not the best bet (regardless of how true the statement may be).

[Durthorin]

More and more I'm starting to wonder if this nonsense has had its genesis more in the frustrations of defeated opponents like Till and Trubee, and perhaps the overtstatements of a few malcontents who think even saying someone is "miseducated" is offensive, rather than in any sober analysis or review of the bulk of what I have produced these past 8 years.

Having seen you deal with someone you find annoying here, with all due respect you can be caustic. At the same time, you can be cordial even when defending your points or attacking your opponents.. personally I think its a matter of if the individual strikes you as trying to annoy you.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[jpholding]

If they went to a public school and graduated, calling them 'miseducated' is probably not the best bet (regardless of how true the statement may be).

Hmm, well, I usually qualify that word with the topic; ie, "miseducated about honor-shame interactions". Does that help, or is it just beyond the hope of those with low self-esteem problems? :twitch:


I am sometimes amused by this larger than life legend that is being created about me before my very eyes

Join the club. :tongue: :lol: It's exemplary of what will happen....


"I thought you were ten feet tall, had dripping fangs, and wore a necklace made of the skulls of atheists."

"I'm on vacation." :eww:

In the end, "you can't please everyone" applies but further thoughts to arrive at a synthesis are good.

[technomage]

I don't know that I'd call such name-calling "offensive," per se. But I do know that doubts of the propriety have been expressed by Christians who thought the information you presented was good, but were doubtful about how you presented it. And ... well, I have to wonder if such name-calling falls under the paradigm of "avoiding even the appearance of evil."

I do know that if you and I were in debate, and you started this kind of behavior, I'd be vastly disappointed, because it does at least present the appearance of (informally defined) ad hominem attacks--along the lines of "I'm obviously ight because my opponent is a poopyhead."

So here's a possibility: some skeptics have used this type of comment in your articles to dismiss the whole article (validly or not). Why not rewrite the articles without the name-calling--and thereby remove even the feeble excuse to dismiss the article as a whole?

Just a thought, my friend....

[jpholding]

So here's a possibility: some skeptics have used this type of comment in your articles to dismiss the whole article (validly or not). Why not rewrite the articles without the name-calling--and thereby remove even the feeble excuse to dismiss the article as a whole?

Because not everyone (in fact, not the majority) sees a problem, and in fact, find it either encouraging and/or entertaining.

Your answer only tells me that I'm being pinioned by subjective whims, not objective reasoning.


And ... well, I have to wonder if such name-calling falls under the paradigm of "avoiding even the appearance of evil."

The question brings to mind skepticbud telling us how he'd use Romans 14 to take away all Christian liberty.

In any event, with the new site I expect I'd put on the old one a summation of major points and a link to the "old version" on the new site...which would hopefully make parties of both inclincation happy. If anything can. :eww:


******


OK, here's a run through for examples from the essay on Ch 2 of Martin's Case Against Christianity. Take these lines:


This chapter emerges as further proof that when it comes to the historical questions related to Christianity, those with irrelevant credentials like Martin need to take their business elsewhere. Martin's chapter on the historicity of Jesus has all of the credibility of Chariots of the Gods, and is quite nearly as scholarly.

Thus, this is the usual for the Christ-myth crowd: Shabby scholarship masquerading as that which is worthwhile; writers of irrelevant credentials making authoritative pronouncements on subjects of which they know only what they have read in those of like mind and qualification.


As elsewhere, I do not expect Martin, any more than any other critic manifestly in over his head, to re-invent the wheel; nevertheless, let us recognize this for what it is: It is a version of the old "most scholars" routine that should have died a painful death long ago.
******

Now someone look me in the eye (metpahorically) and tell me that stuff like this really is OFFENSIVE. I can't see how, except under the rubric set out by Dee Dee where you can't even say someone is "wrong" without causing offense.

If it "is", then clearly PC has made further inroads than I thought.

[BronzeArcher]

I once asked a guy if he read any scholarly books, and he said no. I said it figures because he's pretty misinformed and his responses show it. He said I was insulting his education, but when I pointed out that he had no education to insult, he dropped it.

My speculation is that everyone thinks they deserve a spot. Deserve a minute to speak and have people take their ideas and assertions seriously. But this is a different field, and ignorance of ancient milieu is ignorance of key parts. They rarely understand that, and those who do, well, you don't hear from them much since they're listening rather than thinking themselves on par. Accordingly if you don't affirm that percieved right, you appear to threaten their rights. Hence, emotional reaction.

The problem I've come up against is that you can't really have an effective argument unless SOME 'field competence' is there. We've all (almost all, anyway) seen a wealth of really, really bad replies to the TIF and time after time it's just like, 'wow these guys are so ignorant of basics that they'd think talking about how a samurai would kill himself to avoid capture is an exhaustive discussion of honor.'

I've been thinking about how to communicate two things to the layperson--one, how x argument is wrong, and two, how y reply defeats it. People could read a debate between an educated and uneducated person and it might sound like both sides have good arguments. Ground issues, like what we think about the reliability of oral tradition, likely need to be discussed before the gap between Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels becomes relatively insignificant--and other factors are important too, like the question of theological creativity (did the early Christians invent doctrines and attribute them to Jesus? etc), why authors were writing and whom for... unfortunately a picture of education-before-debate grows quickly.

Maybe with the resources already on Tekton you could do a good deal of interlinking. I did a wiki project and when referring to honor-shame cultures I would link that to some discussion on honor-shame cultures. Ideally it would be a summary that further links to a more detailed discussion, and then finally secondary source recommendations.

A less polemic version of the Calculated Contempt would be helpful to this effect--instead focused on showing how vast the field can be (maybe with some expositions focusing on utilizing things like socio-rhetorical criticism), and then advising caution. It would more easily be taken by Christians too, since Christians do not group themselves under the category of "critic".

---

Back to offense. There is a softer way which I've seen you go about exposing ignorance, which was just asking them to demonstrate it. Identifying honor-aspects in some random challenge-riposte situation comes to mind, but I can't remember what you asked, or if you gave a specific example like that.

More often than not, people will have no idea how to do that and will try to escape. Those are dead giveaways but how many people will see what's going on in the exchange?

[technomage]

Your answer only tells me that I'm being pinioned by subjective whims, not objective reasoning.

:lol: Aren't we all?

And ... well, the problem is that I see both sides of the issue. When your opponent is being a moron, it is so tempting to tell them "Hey, dude, you're being a moron." The emotional satisfaction at speaking the truth should be obvious to anyone. But for me, personally, I'm not looking at "winning the argument," and I'm not nearly as interested in zero-sum debate as I am in dialog where both parties can learn.

Additionally ... well, JP, you know people have a bad habit of using any possible excuse to ignore things they don't want to hear. Your Bible says that Paul became "all things to all men, so that by all means I would win some." It seems to me that it is better to take that as a clue, and to--in your debates--take the attitude of "turning the other cheek" as a guiding principal.

You're directed by your scriptures to be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves. And to tell the truth, my friend ... I can't see your old debate style as fitting that description all the time.

[Xavier]

Hmm, well, I usually qualify that word with the topic; ie, "miseducated about honor-shame interactions". Does that help, or is it just beyond the hope of those with low self-esteem problems? :twitch:

From a Rhetorical view, yes, I think that is better. I do not believe that it is unduely offensive if the person is willing to accept their own shortcomings. In my own experience, seekers are willing to do so (often times, they do so TOO MUCH). Whereas, pushers will never back down. To be honest, that's exactly why I don't care if you are "rude" or not.

The question in my mind is how "rude" does one have to be in order to perform the function required rhetorically. I think that we as Christian are called to be only as rude as we have to be. For anything more would betray a differing motive.

Yours,
Xavier

[OfficialPro]

my guess is that people are so uber-sensitive these days that they're offended at the drop of a hat, whether it is justified or not.

But I can see where n00bs who drank the purple koolaid at school and thus think themselves "highly educated" would get pee-oh'ed at anyone calling them ignorant. :lol:

[jpholding]

The emotional satisfaction at speaking the truth should be obvious to anyone.

Well...not to an INTJ... :ahem: Emotional satisfaction doesn't play any role in what I do on any front...



You're directed by your scriptures to be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves. And to tell the truth, my friend ... I can't see your old debate style as fitting that description all the time.

Actually, doves are renowned as vicious fighters when the need arises...Jesus' words there are closer to my methods than you may realize.

But anyway, how does everyone like the idea of Acharya S as a duck throwing a temper tantrum?

[Cynic Sage]

But anyway, how does everyone like the idea of Acharya S as a duck throwing a temper tantrum?

Sure you won't get into trouble with Disney? I heard that they've taken legal action against 12 year old kids who out pictures of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck on their blogs w/out permission.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

But anyway, how does everyone like the idea of Acharya S as a duck throwing a temper tantrum?

We know her thesis is quackers :lol:

[jpholding]

Sure you won't get into trouble with Disney? I heard that they've taken legal action against 12 year old kids who out pictures of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck on their blogs w/out permission.

It's not a problem if they do. I know where they live. :glare:

[Darth Executor]

In case you don't know what she looks like:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ3.htm

[jpholding]

In case you don't know what she looks like:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ3.htm

Yeah that pic is on her book too. I added a moustache to make her look better. :tongue:

It's also inaccurate because her mouth is not wide open and shreiking.

[technomage]

Actually, doves are renowned as vicious fighters when the need arises...

:lol: That's crap, and you know it. Oh, it may very well be true in science, but you know as well as I do that's not what was meant by the passage. Try some lame excuse like that again and I'll hit you squarely upside the head with a parable. :whack:

[Darth Executor]

Yeah that pic is on her book too. I added a moustache to make her look better. :tongue:

It's also inaccurate because her mouth is not wide open and shreiking.

You know, I was looking at that page and realised she has a picture of Hercules carrying two pillars and she thinks they're a cross. :lol:

[jpholding]

:lol: That's crap, and you know it. Oh, it may very well be true in science, but you know as well as I do that's not what was meant by the passage.

:ahem: No.... I don't. :teeth:

[technomage]

:ahem: No.... I don't. :teeth:
C'mon, JP. If some skeptic said "Ha! Jesus said be gentle as doves, but doves are vicious fighters, so Jesus was wrong" you'd be all over him like flies on manure. Doves are symbolic of peace and understood as gentle creatures in the literature.

Don't go pulling a Farrel Till on me. :hehe:

[Dave G]

Kewlie called me uneducated because I asked him to define his terms.

[Cynic Sage]

C'mon, JP. If some skeptic said "Ha! Jesus said be gentle as doves, but doves are vicious fighters, so Jesus was wrong" you'd be all over him like flies on manure. Doves are symbolic of peace and understood as gentle creatures in the literature.

Don't go pulling a Farrel Till on me. :hehe:
True, but Jesus also called for the "Shrewdness of Serpents" in his followers.

[technomage]

True, but Jesus also called for the "Shrewdness of Serpents" in his followers.
Precisely--so the two are not opposites, however much the world may see them as such.

[Darth Executor]

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com

Some quotes:


Let us pause for a moment and review the evidence that we have seen in the prior 25 chapters. If God exists, how do we explain all of the different things that we have seen?

Here is a quick summary of what his previous chapters are about. I'll only list the ones which we don't need to read to know about:



How do we explain the way that God ignores amputees? (chapter 5)

How do we explain the fact that Christians need health insurance? (chapter 6)

How do we explain the fact that you cannot move a mountain? (chapter 7)

How do we explain the fact that Christians who pray have exactly the same odds of winning in Las Vegas as people who don't pray? (chapter 9)

How do we explain the fact that God is a huge proponent of slavery? (chapter 13) NOTE: this chapter includes a story with a black slave describing how his master would beat his aunt in gory detail

How do we explain God's statement in Exodus 21:20 where he says, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod... he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." How can God encourage humans to beat other humans? (chapter 13)

How do we explain God's hatred of women? (chapter 15)

How do we explain the fact that we have to eat Jesus' body and drink his blood? (chapter 21)

How do we explain the fact that Jesus -- the all-powerful, prayer-answering creator of the universe -- needs your money? (chapter 24)



More to come as I read through some of this crap. I could use a good laugh.

[Darth Executor]

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god-challenge.htm

His challenge:


An open challenge to America's Christian leaders
by Marshall Brain


The Bible is the sacred text of the Christian faith. It is also one of the best known books on the planet today. According to the followers of Christianity, the Bible is the word of God.

Therefore, I extend this open challenge to James Dobson, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, Antonin Scalia and other prominent leaders in the Christian community:

Appear with me on national TV to read the Bible.

It is that simple. This will be a tremendous opportunity for you to spread the power of God's word directly to the nation. The Bible is the book that contains the Ten Commandments, the revelation that Jesus is our resurrected savior and the story of our creation. This is God's holy word to his children. You will simply read aloud from this sacred text.

I ask only one thing: Allow me choose the verses that you will read.

I will not interrupt you or provide any commentary during your reading, nor will you. We will simply allow God to speak for himself through his holy scriptures.

Details

You will have the opportunity to read for 30 minutes from the New International Version or the New American Standard Version (your choice) of the Holy Bible.

I will choose approximately 30 verses for you to read. There will be a selection of verses from both the Old and the New Testaments. You will simply read the verses in an unabridged format, one after the other, allowing for commercial breaks as deemed necessary by the network.

That's it. This television appearance is that simple.

Understanding

God is perfect. Therefore the Bible is perfect. Thus, every verse is perfect.

Yet no Christian leader will accept this challenge. Whether you are a devout Christian or a casual Christian, I would ask that you to consider the reason for that. Why would your religion's leaders be unwilling to read God's holy word on national television? We would be able to generate a massive audience for this event. Why would your leaders want to miss such an important opportunity to spread the power of the holy scripture to all of America?

:lmbo:

"Appear with me on national television so that you can read decontextualised verses".

:lmbo:

[jpholding]

C'mon, JP. If some skeptic said "Ha! Jesus said be gentle as doves, but doves are vicious fighters, so Jesus was wrong" you'd be all over him like flies on manure.

I sure would, for not checking on the word behind "harmless". The word carries the meaning of purity and being "unmixed" and has nothing to do with any modern concern of peace or gentleness...it means essentially free from guile, not gentle.

And bear in mind how the Pax Romana was maintained....by strength and force.




Hmm, Acharya S as a duck...Quackarya S! :teeth:

[Darth Executor]

Crap, I posted my nominations in the wrong topic. Can a mod move them to the screwball thread?

[jpholding]

I just finished reviewing files. The final tally of material that I have that uses "ad hominem" to any serious extent about to 45 MB....while the rest of the site is 632 MB.

6 MB of that 45 MB is replies to Farrell Till while 4 MB is my parody of Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth and 14.3 MB are from the toons section. Another 10 MB are from parodies.

Even if I am missing twice the amount I should, it's pretty clear that the whole "Holding is a meanie" canard is vastly overplayed...

Anyway....now to design the new site a bit...

[Cynic Sage]

Crap, I posted my nominations in the wrong topic. Can a mod move them to the screwball thread?
Besides, I already nominated that guy.

[Darth Executor]

Besides, I already nominated that guy.

Yea but did you nominate the exact same stuff?

[roddmann]

There is a balance in all things. As bright and incisive as was Walter Martin, it was hard at times to find the fruit of the spirit in his broadsides (i.e. 'love'). It seems the higher the intellect and subject matter expertise, the lower the ability to 'suffer fools gladly.'

I get a monthly newsletter from Dave Hunt. He is basically in attack mode, seemingly on all fronts, with his latest vitriol aimed at Pastor Rick Warren (Saddleback, Lake Forest). But you know? When you carefully read his research and position and the support for his position, you conclude he is right!

But at the end of the day all of the jousting doesn't seem to change anyone's views. Vanquished opponents likely don't view themselves as such. They simply live to fight again another day.

With all of the work we can do to further the kingdom of God by remaining yielded and flexible to the leading of the Holy Spirit, I just can't imagine diving into the muck and mixing it up with a lot of folks who primarily have become so blind that they will not see. But if the Lord has called some of you to do just that, and apparently He has, God bless and may you be continuously strengthened to keep doing battle day after day.

Goodbye and goodnight. My last post.

[Soundsurfr]

I'm now about halfway through my review of articles to see what can go on the new site and it's becoming more and more clear that all the guff passed around about how I don't do anything but insult opponents is vastly overstated, which might be expected since it is the likes of Trubee and Till who have been behind it in the first place.

It is clear first of all that the many of my articles do not address ANYONE AT ALL but a position.

Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?

I'd also like to note two articles and ask if anyone finds anything "offensive" in them:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html -- in particular, responses to Lowder and Carrier

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemmadef01.html

More and more I'm starting to wonder if this nonsense has had its genesis more in the frustrations of defeated opponents like Till and Trubee, and perhaps the overtstatements of a few malcontents who think even saying someone is "miseducated" is offensive, rather than in any sober analysis or review of the bulk of what I have produced these past 8 years.

I wonder - is it your intention in this thread to explore why many people think you are, in general, rude and disrespectful, and perhaps move away from that image so you might be taken more seriously in the community at large, or are you just trying to satisfy yourself that it's "guff" by seeing if you can get a few TWebbers to agree that it's guff?

Because when you characterize the issue from the get-go by saying:

"all the guff passed around about how I don't do anything but insult opponents is vastly overstated"

then it seems to me that you have already made up your mind about it and are just looking for validation.

If, on the other hand, you're seriously looking to get at the root of the perceptions and reactions you experience, I think you're limiting yourself by asking about the two or three specifics you cite.

Further, if the question is "how am I perceived"?, then your later assessment of the amount of disc space you attribute to ad hom and personal attacks as compared to the overall body of your work is completely without merit. Character assessments are not done on the basis of percentages. The larger your audience gets, the more you will be known by your sound bites and if your most famous sound bite consists of you calling an evolutionist a monkey, then you can expect that sound bite to be playing, for better or worse, in the heads of anyone who engages you in discourse, scholarly or otherwise.

Bottom line - the way people respond to us both publicly and privately is largely predicated on our public persona and reputation as opposed to any given circumstance of venue. If people are over-reacting to what you would consider to be some mild or innocuous statements you made - you might not be looking at the big picture.

So your presentation as I know it includes researched apologetics in the form of articles on your website, some condescending satirycal fare in the form of "You know you're a fundy atheist if...", etc. and your comics, as well as your discussions in the TWEB forum which are sometimes civil, and sometimes not at all civil. You presently link all of this together at your website, so it has to be considered as a whole.

Next you have to consider your audience. If you're Fifty Cent, and your audience consists of the type of people who are impressed by ghetto chic, then being an ex-gangsta and drug dealer with 9 bullet holes in your body gives you credibility. The ability to talk gangsta trash is an assett. If you behave like Lawrence Welk, nobody is going to buy what you sell.

If you're Joel Osteen, on the other hand, then you had better maintain a whole different set of appearances at all times. If Joel were to spend his off hours coming into TWEB and trashing a few folks now and then with insults and condescending remarks, he'd be in a different business.

What you're aspiring to be is of course totally up to you and I'm not suggesting that you should be either of those things.

But you gots ta ax yo self - who are you really playing to? The fact that you're in here asking questions about how your material is perceived leads me to believe that you are in some way concerned about the reaction you get from some people. If you're playing to an audience of Christian or historical scholars, I would venture to guess that most of them are not going to be impressed by an H.L. Mencken routine. If, on the other hand, the peer group you seek to impress consists largely of folks like Darth Executor, then I think the image consultants would give your approach pretty high marks.

Free advice - perhaps worth no more than what you paid for it. Good luck.

[Cynic Sage]

If Joel were to spend his off hours coming into TWEB and trashing a few folks now and then with insults and condescending remarks, he'd be in a different business.


I think there are people here who would pay to see something like that. :lol:

[jimbo]

Hello,

Are these "JP Holding" comments offensive?

"Just paste that face on a few posters in the neighborhood, along with some writing samples. Maybe that will help pass you as one of Jerry's Kids."

"By me, every day, every way, and his rear end has been scattered over more states than the Columbia wreckage."

"You repost them to make sure that the emotional impact on the irrational and gullible doesn't fade while I'm carving your guts out on the rational end. I got plenty of time, keep it up."

"Well, that's Crybaby's fault. He's an expert manipulator, and all I did was make him eat his own upchuck."

"How's your own upchuck taste?"

"Upchuck taste good, Gargy?"

"You have yet to do more than posture, kick, scream, whine, and pass gas, as if you were some worthwhile expert in minerals who could respond to an expert like Shanks who has been examining artifacts since before you pooped in your first diaper. Meanwhile talk to the gem experts, the carver, and the geologist. A road gang that beats the crap out of you."

"These guys, if they were plopped down in the ANE, would get a spear run through their guts because they offended everyone just asking where the bathroom was."

"You're nothing but a grease-stained, filthy, runny-nosed burger flipper at a fast food joint who rapes popular news articles for rumors and slander that give you cheap jollies."

"I like the analogy of myself to a hurricane..."

---------------------------------------------

QURESTION: "Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?"

HOLDING: "Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy."

---------------------------------------------

"It's also a debate where you're being slammed, hammered, beaten to a pulp, whipped, canned, processed, poured out, and horribly mutilated."

"Just admit you have no answer and save yourself decades of painful embarassment and the huge zit of being reamed by me further from the face of your existence."

"I don't even care if you use my real name anymore -- had you kept up with my updates, you would know that that is no longer an issue for me."

NOTE: References provided upon request

Jimbo

[Darth Executor]

In sleep he points at me, in dreams he mocks,

The voice which laughs at me

And ridicules my face.

And do I dream again? For now I find

James Patrick Holding's there

inside my mind.

[Cynic Sage]

Hello,

Are these "JP Holding" comments offensive?

"Just paste that face on a few posters in the neighborhood, along with some writing samples. Maybe that will help pass you as one of Jerry's Kids."

"By me, every day, every way, and his rear end has been scattered over more states than the Columbia wreckage."

"You repost them to make sure that the emotional impact on the irrational and gullible doesn't fade while I'm carving your guts out on the rational end. I got plenty of time, keep it up."

"Well, that's Crybaby's fault. He's an expert manipulator, and all I did was make him eat his own upchuck."

"How's your own upchuck taste?"

"Upchuck taste good, Gargy?"

"You have yet to do more than posture, kick, scream, whine, and pass gas, as if you were some worthwhile expert in minerals who could respond to an expert like Shanks who has been examining artifacts since before you pooped in your first diaper. Meanwhile talk to the gem experts, the carver, and the geologist. A road gang that beats the crap out of you."

"These guys, if they were plopped down in the ANE, would get a spear run through their guts because they offended everyone just asking where the bathroom was."

"You're nothing but a grease-stained, filthy, runny-nosed burger flipper at a fast food joint who rapes popular news articles for rumors and slander that give you cheap jollies."

"I like the analogy of myself to a hurricane..."

---------------------------------------------

QURESTION: "Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?"

HOLDING: "Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy."

---------------------------------------------

"It's also a debate where you're being slammed, hammered, beaten to a pulp, whipped, canned, processed, poured out, and horribly mutilated."

"Just admit you have no answer and save yourself decades of painful embarassment and the huge zit of being reamed by me further from the face of your existence."

"I don't even care if you use my real name anymore -- had you kept up with my updates, you would know that that is no longer an issue for me."

NOTE: References provided upon request

Jimbo

Wow. Just by reading this I can tell JP's material is the kind of stuff that offends people who attend Benny Hinn rallies to boost their self-esteem. Thanks for the heads up on this shadowy character. :hehe:

[jimbo]

Johnny,

Do you find any of "Holding's" comments offensive?

Jimbo

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny,

Do you find any of "Holding's" comments offensive?

Jimbo
I've seen far worse coming from your buddies.

P.S: As far as DC comics villians go, Brainiac doesn't really suit you that well. How about Two-Face?

[jimbo]

Johnny,

Do any of "Holding's" comments offend you? How about the one in which he makes light of the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy?

Jimbo

[Glenn P]

I have never read anything written by jpholding, and my comments here relate only to what he said int he post. I also did not follow the links.
Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?Yes it is very likely that those terms will generate offence and be taken as insults, and there is fair reason for that.

Even if something is true it may still be insulting. If I thought a person was stupid, it would still be an insult to call them stupid. "Vastly underinformed" and "miseducated" are descriptions of people, not ideas, and so when you introduce this kind of device into your argument you are attacking the person and not the idea. That is why those terms are insulting or offensive.

"Uncritical" is less likely to be so offensive, depending on how it is used. For example, "this claim shows an uncritical acceptance of the following assumption" should not be seen as offensive.

There is a way of saying something. If you want to make a person realise that they were informed incorrectly, the thing to do is show them how they should have been informed with evidence. Calling a person "vastly underinformed" lowers their standing, as does the claim that they are miseducated, especially given the way the word "education" calls to mind their general level of academic achievement.

My two cents. (And I'm pretty sure it's correct.)

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

hey Jumbo,

I see you didn't quote what JP said. Let me help you:

"By me, every day, every way, and his rear end has been scattered over more states than the Columbia wreckage."

Where is this now on JP's site? Eh? It isn't? Aww. May I say your site is about as useful as a kid trying to ride a tricycle with a flat tyre. Haven't updated it in six months? Aww. What'cha gonna do, start a site on ME? :lmbo:
[edit: removed a word, smile]

Punkish

[Glenn P]

Hello,

Are these "JP Holding" comments offensive?

"Just paste that face on a few posters in the neighborhood, along with some writing samples. Maybe that will help pass you as one of Jerry's Kids."

"By me, every day, every way, and his rear end has been scattered over more states than the Columbia wreckage."

"You repost them to make sure that the emotional impact on the irrational and gullible doesn't fade while I'm carving your guts out on the rational end. I got plenty of time, keep it up."

"Well, that's Crybaby's fault. He's an expert manipulator, and all I did was make him eat his own upchuck."

"How's your own upchuck taste?"

"Upchuck taste good, Gargy?"

"You have yet to do more than posture, kick, scream, whine, and pass gas, as if you were some worthwhile expert in minerals who could respond to an expert like Shanks who has been examining artifacts since before you pooped in your first diaper. Meanwhile talk to the gem experts, the carver, and the geologist. A road gang that beats the crap out of you."

"These guys, if they were plopped down in the ANE, would get a spear run through their guts because they offended everyone just asking where the bathroom was."

"You're nothing but a grease-stained, filthy, runny-nosed burger flipper at a fast food joint who rapes popular news articles for rumors and slander that give you cheap jollies."

"I like the analogy of myself to a hurricane..."

---------------------------------------------

QURESTION: "Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?"

HOLDING: "Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy."

---------------------------------------------

"It's also a debate where you're being slammed, hammered, beaten to a pulp, whipped, canned, processed, poured out, and horribly mutilated."

"Just admit you have no answer and save yourself decades of painful embarassment and the huge zit of being reamed by me further from the face of your existence."

"I don't even care if you use my real name anymore -- had you kept up with my updates, you would know that that is no longer an issue for me."

NOTE: References provided upon request

JimboAssuming those quotes are accurate (and I think they are), I am appalled. Jpholding, the criticism of you that you are complaining about is warranted, and your complaining now seems ridiculous.

[Xavier]

Assuming those quotes are accurate (and I think they are), I am appalled. Jpholding, the criticism of you that you are complaining about is warranted, and your complaining now seems ridiculous.
I'd suggest getting to know the people you condemn, lest you accidently side with the idiot.

[Soundsurfr]

Assuming those quotes are accurate (and I think they are), I am appalled. Jpholding, the criticism of you that you are complaining about is warranted, and your complaining now seems ridiculous.

Personally, I think all Christian apologists should adopt the JPH approach.

:smile:

[Darth Executor]

Assuming those quotes are accurate (and I think they are), I am appalled. Jpholding, the criticism of you that you are complaining about is warranted, and your complaining now seems ridiculous.

Really? I find the quotes hilarious.

[Darth Executor]

Personally, I think all Christian apologists should adopt the JPH approach.

:smile:

Finally something me and soundbyte can agree on! :cheers:

[Soundsurfr]

Finally something me and soundbyte can agree on! :cheers:

I doubt we'd agree on the reason, tho.

[jpholding]

I wonder - is it your intention in this thread to explore why many people think you are, in general, rude and disrespectful, and perhaps move away from that image so you might be taken more seriously in the community at large, or are you just trying to satisfy yourself that it's "guff" by seeing if you can get a few TWebbers to agree that it's guff?

Neither. I'm trying to get the guffers to justify their views objectively. Which still hasn't happened.

All we have is Dimbo quoting .00000001% of all I have ever written, without any respect to context. :lol:



then it seems to me that you have already made up your mind about it and are just looking for validation.

No, that was AFTER I reviewed all my articles again, and also saw that no one here could defend the premise at all.



Further, if the question is "how am I perceived"?

It isn't. I don't care about that because nothing can be done about people who make up their own minds without objective arguments and evidence. Right? :wink:


You presently link all of this together at your website, so it has to be considered as a whole.

Well then starting tektoonics.com ought to shut some people the heck up, eh?


Next you have to consider your audience.

Everyone. From the rapper to the pastor. Another good reason to divvy the lot, I suppose, since self-centered people won't care about the other people I might be trying to reach. But I have readers from every walk of life and every intelligence level. The complainers are a very small lot and I want to see if any of them can defend their views. But they never will. Dimbo sure never does.


If you're Joel Osteen,

Now THAT is an insult. :thumbd:

[jpholding]

Yes it is very likely that those terms will generate offence and be taken as insults, and there is fair reason for that.

Your "reasons" amounted to saying that they are offensive because someone thinks they are.

That's not any sort of argument at all. It's just waving a white flag.



There is a way of saying something. If you want to make a person realise that they were informed incorrectly, the thing to do is show them how they should have been informed with evidence.

I do that in tandem.


Calling a person "vastly underinformed" lowers their standing, as does the claim that they are miseducated, especially given the way the word "education" calls to mind their general level of academic achievement.

I'm wondering why it doesn't occur to you that the person's "standing" is what in fact needs lowering precisely because they have set it too high of their own misplaced belief.


My two cents. (And I'm pretty sure it's correct.)

It doesn't say much at all. What you're saying here is that we should be careful not to damage the self-esteem of people who deceive and do wrong. You're typical of the worst complainers, with no concern for context. You're like someone who steps in to stop a fight with smug self-righteousness, little caring eg, that you're stopping someone from defending themselves from being killed.

That's so disgraceful it's beyond comprehension. And this is precisely what I mean when I say no one is providing objective reasons for offense.

[Glenn P]

I'd suggest getting to know the people you condemn, lest you accidently side with the idiot.I have no interest in "siding." No offence to jimbo, but I have no particular respect for him (or disrespect, really). jp started this thread to ask if he really is as offensive as people say.

I don't "side" against the positions jp defends. But I really think he should reappear in this thread and explain whether or not he thinks the comments jimbo posted warrant the claim that actually he is about as offensive as people say. From what I can tell he's a guy who tends to hold the right view but seriously needs to work on his attitude. That tends to be the case with people - males actually, for some reason - whose apologetical activities, scholarly life and basically their entire reputation dwell entirely in cyberspace. The internet just does bring out the worst in people.

[Soundsurfr]

Neither. I'm trying to get the guffers to justify their views objectively.

How does one "objectively" justify ones views on what one finds offensive? My mother finds Mick Jagger offensive. Does she have to justify her views to anyone on that issue? Is her offense something to be debated?


Which still hasn't happened.

You don't say. But then again, I obviously misread your OP. I thought you were asking for the opinion of others with regard to whether or not certain of your posts might be considered offensive. I did not realize it was a call for those who find your comments offensive to justify themselves. I guess I should have known better.


All we have is Dimbo quoting .00000001% of all I have ever written, without any respect to context. :lol:

No, that's not all you have - that's all you've noticed or acknowledged. Just as an illustration, you ignored my comments about the non-validity of ratios with regard to how people form their opinions. As they say in the business -One AW CRAP is worth a thousand ATTABOYS. :teeth:


No, that was AFTER I reviewed all my articles again, and also saw that no one here could defend the premise at all.

Thanks for confirming that you posted your question in the OP to everyone after you'd already made your mind up. Very productive, was it?


It isn't. I don't care about that because nothing can be done about people who make up their own minds without objective arguments and evidence. Right? :wink:

Right. :wink:

Of course, lots of things can be done to change your image with people who view you as offensive, if you're willing to learn a few things about public relations and apply it. Clearly, that's not your bag.


Well then starting tektoonics.com ought to shut some people the heck up, eh?

You can only hope. I suspect the cat is long out of the bag.


Everyone. From the rapper to the pastor. Another good reason to divvy the lot, I suppose, since self-centered people won't care about the other people I might be trying to reach. But I have readers from every walk of life and every intelligence level.

So does the Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net) blog. You're in excellent company, whether or not you're achieving your goals.


The complainers are a very small lot and I want to see if any of them can defend their views.

To whose satisfaction - yours? Now THAT's funny.


But they never will.

Fancy that.

[jpholding]

I don't "side" against the positions jp defends. But I really think he should reappear in this thread and explain whether or not he thinks the comments jimbo posted warrant the claim that actually he is about as offensive as people say.

They aren't, because of who they are directed to and the contexts within which they were used. You have no idea who they were said to, when, or why -- which makes you precisely the sort of gullible stooge Dimbo is trying to fool. I owe you no explanation because you have already made your decision before the evidence is presented.


That tends to be the case with people - males actually, for some reason - whose apologetical activities, scholarly life and basically their entire reputation dwell entirely in cyberspace.

Well, that sure isn't me, sorry. :thumbd: I work in other mediums and other venues with as much readiness and ease. Care to make another bigoted judgment based on your ignorance?

[jpholding]

How does one "objectively" justify ones views on what one finds offensive?

It's not hard. Your friend needs to say what it is about Jagger that she finds offensive (his language? his lips?); then say why.


Is her offense something to be debated?

It certainly is. Otherwise it is merely irrational and no basis for any sort of decision or action worthy of respect.



I did not realize it was a call for those who find your comments offensive to justify themselves. I guess I should have known better.

I don't think you ever will.


Just as an illustration, you ignored my comments about the non-validity of ratios with regard to how people form their opinions.

Those comments were to a straw man position in any event. All it does in any event is prove that the whiners are forsaking objectivity fdor the sake of immediate and irrational judgment. Which is my point, in any event.



Thanks for confirming that you posted your question in the OP to everyone after you'd already made your mind up. Very productive, was it?

Inasmuch as it proved that the whiners have no rational defense of their position, yes,




Of course, lots of things can be done to change your image with people who view you as offensive, if you're willing to learn a few things about public relations and apply it. Clearly, that's not your bag.

Looking fake for the sake of people who don't think for themselves and devolve to surface impressions? You're right. Engaging hypocrites isn't my bag.



To whose satisfaction - yours?

If intelligent opponents like Kyle Gerkin can give me satisfactory answers to my questions, surely someone else can too -- if they have any. Obviously you don't.

[Soundsurfr]

They aren't, because of who they are directed to and the contexts within which they were used. You have no idea who they were said to, when, or why -- which makes you precisely the sort of gullible stooge Dimbo is trying to fool.

Good one! And so not-offensive. :thumb:

This is why atheists love JPH. He's an equal-opportunity alienator.:lol:

[Soundsurfr]

It's not hard. Your friend needs to say what it is about Jagger that she finds offensive (his language? his lips?); then say why.

And then I get to tell her why she's right or wrong? You're more clueless than I thought, if that's possible.


All it does in any event is prove that the whiners are forsaking objectivity fdor the sake of immediate and irrational judgment.

And all you're doing is saying that you don't care whether or not you offend anyone. Which comes as no suprise. Should have been a much shorter thread.


Inasmuch as it proved that the whiners have no rational defense of their position, yes,

They have no rational defense for their position that they are offended by you? Well, you really have the upper hand now! Those whiners can all take their offended selves and go home, and you can stay there and play in your sandbox with your gazillion other friends! :lol:

[Glenn P]

Your "reasons" amounted to saying that they are offensive because someone thinks they are.No, that is not the reason I gave. I explained the important difference between targetting a person with your comments, and targetting issues. I am sorry you did not see that this was my reason, but I certainly never what you're attributing to me.

That's not any sort of argument at all. It's just waving a white flag.You're confirming the worst, JP. You have every reason to take my post as constructive advice that would help you in the future.

It doesn't say much at all. What you're saying here is that we should be careful not to damage the self-esteem of people who deceive and do wrong. You're typical of the worst complainers, with no concern for context. You're like someone who steps in to stop a fight with smug self-righteousness, little caring eg, that you're stopping someone from defending themselves from being killed.[quote]If your intention is just to set out to ridicule a personor attack them with insults, then sure, you're approach is effective, and yes, my complaints are mistaken since I have made the assumption that you have not set out to attack people but to tear down arguments and defend the truth.

Now that I have - as one who agrees with your position in the arguments you engage in - offered advice that you ought to see as helpful, you turn on me. I think I see the problem.[quote]That's so disgraceful it's beyond comprehension. And this is precisely what I mean when I say no one is providing objective reasons for offense.I gave you reasons that a fair minded person can consider. I am sure you have it in you. Take care that this thread does not backfire badly on you JP.

[Cynic Sage]

Theonomy, I agree with Xavier. I strongly reccomend that you learn a bit about Jimbo (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1998/march98/barry.html) before you trust him dealing with JP.

He has built a few "shrines" of JP. I'd link you to them here, but because Jimbo uses JP's real name I'd get modded (You can PM me if you want the links to them). However, I can give you this link to a parody-refutation of one of Jimbo's "shrines" that contains an email correspondence between Jimbo and JP.

http://www.tektonics.org/parody/brooksbonked.html

As well as this one dealing with Jimbo's favorite quotes.

http://www.tektonics.org/parody/quotes.htm

Wow, I just "Jimbo'd" Jimbo.

[jpholding]

Good one! And so not-offensive. :thumb:

This is why atheists love JPH. He's an equal-opportunity alienator.:lol:

Not true. I alientate stupid people only. Or those who don't know how to answer. They're much the same though.


And then I get to tell her why she's right or wrong? You're more clueless than I thought, if that's possible.

That's quite a contrived way of excusing the fact that you can't tell her when you obviously should. Yes, precisely. You tell why she is right or wrong; or else why she should not extend her subjective sense to others. Is this so hard to comprehend? Or do you just bow to Donald Wildmon every time his mouth opens?


And all you're doing is saying that you don't care whether or not you offend anyone.

No, I'm telling you that you need to come up with an actual reason WHY I ought to care. All you have so far is self-aggrandizing pomposity and posturing to offer. If that's all that's needed, then I plan to be offended by your username and avatar at once.



They have no rational defense for their position that they are offended by you? Well, you really have the upper hand now!

Too true. And it's quite enjoyable watching you squirm at that.

[jpholding]

No, that is not the reason I gave.

Yes, it is, boiled down to the bare essentials. It seems clear that the problem is that you have no reason to articulate in the first place.


You're confirming the worst, JP. You have every reason to take my post as constructive advice that would help you in the future.

No, I don't. You show no awareness of who I was addressing in those comments. You make no effort to contextualize what I say and show why it was wrong. You offer nothing but surface judgments and that can just as readily be turned on you with just as much validity.


If your intention is just to set out to ridicule a personor attack them with insults, then sure, you're approach is effective, and yes, my complaints are mistaken since I have made the assumption that you have not set out to attack people but to tear down arguments and defend the truth.

The goals are hardly mutually exclusive. If not, explain why not. Then explain why up to 3 of those comments are offensive in their contexts. Surely that's not too hard.



Now that I have - as one who agrees with your position in the arguments you engage in - offered advice that you ought to see as helpful, you turn on me.
I think I see the problem.I gave you reasons that a fair minded person can consider. I am sure you have it in you. Take care that this thread does not backfire badly on you JP.

As one who hopped into bed with Dimbo immediately, the advice is well taken by the source.

It seems there will never be objective reasoning from anyone here.

[Glenn P]

Yes, it is, boiled down to the bare essentials. It seems clear that the problem is that you have no reason to articulate in the first place.I clearly articulated my reason in my very first post on this thread, involving a distinction between attacking a position and attacking a person. In the post to which you have just replied, I told you again what I had said. That you still claim I said otherwise is something I cannot help.

As one who hopped into bed with Dimbo immediately, the advice is well taken by the source.Hopped into bed with him? I have no particular respect for him at all as I said.

Please remember how you started this thread JP. You said: "It is clear first of all that the many of my articles do not address ANYONE AT ALL but a position. Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:" You yourself, in your own wrods, started out by asking whether or not it is insulting to call a person xyz." I offered a reason. You disagree. Fine. Continue as you were, and the result will be the same, you will be more offensive than you need to be, and many people will perceive you as rude and ungracious because of it.

I have no doubt that the claims are exaggerated by those on the receiving end, and by those who just disagree with you. I also have no doubt that there are times when people have been offended by you when they really shouldn't have.

It seems there will never be objective reasoning from anyone here.In absolute honesty, JP, is it really very likely that you are in a position to be disapssionately objective about this yourself? I mean, these are your words under the spotlight, so a defensive stance is that natural one to take.

In my first post I believe that what I offered can genuinely be of service to you. I know that I am not the first of your brothers and sisters to say this to you. There is no need to try and make me into an enemy for it. I'll leave it there.

[Darth Executor]

Continue as you were, and the result will be the same, you will be more offensive than you need to be, and many people will perceive you as rude and ungracious because of it.


You see, this is where the problem lies. You don't know the context of JP's statements. How do you know whether he will be more offensive than he needs to be if you don't even want to know how offensive one needs to be? You just saw a bunch of insults that Dumbo collects for whatever perverted purpose and had an emotional reaction to it. Can you tell us WHY those statements were more offensive than they need to be?

[Glenn P]

You see, this is where the problem lies. You don't know the context of JP's statements. How do you know whether he will be more offensive than he needs to be if you don't even want to know how offensive one needs to be? You just saw a bunch of insults that Dumbo collects for whatever perverted purpose and had an emotional reaction to it. Can you tell us WHY those statements were more offensive than they need to be?Darth, please have a look at my first post in this thread - as well as my two replies to jp. I explained why I answered his opening question in the affirmative. If you believe that reason is mistaken then I am willing to listen to any reason why it is mistaken. But I have explained why I approached this thread the way I have. I even re-stated it twice to jp since he didn't understand what my reason was either (I say he didn't "understand" rather than that he didn't "agree" because when he stated my reason back to me, he stated a different claim altogether).

When a man publicly asks "do you consider this insulting," he must be prepared for an affirmative answer, even if he disagrees with the stated reasons (and my reason, in spite of claims to the contrary, was stated).

[Soundsurfr]

You see, this is where the problem lies. You don't know the context of JP's statements. How do you know whether he will be more offensive than he needs to be if you don't even want to know how offensive one needs to be? You just saw a bunch of insults that Dumbo collects for whatever perverted purpose and had an emotional reaction to it. Can you tell us WHY those statements were more offensive than they need to be?

Because there's never a "need" for statements to be that offensive, Sancho Panza.


:duh:

[Darth Executor]

Looks like my headache won't be getting any better tonight.


Darth, please have a look at my first post in this thread - as well as my two replies to jp.

Neither of which have anything to do with what I asked. Let me repeat myself. I addressed a specific point you made.


Continue as you were, and the result will be the same, you will be more offensive than you need to be, and many people will perceive you as rude and ungracious because of it.

I asked you how you can know when he's being more offensive than he needs to be. A simple question, unrelated to the OP or your response to the OP (which is also flawed I'll get to it in a minute). Can you answer it now?


I explained why I answered his opening question in the affirmative.

Which wasn't what I asked but since you bring it up let's go through your answer.

JP said this in the OP:



It is clear first of all that the many of my articles do not address ANYONE AT ALL but a position.

Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?

I'd also like to note two articles and ask if anyone finds anything "offensive" in them:

He did not ask if people find everything he ever said insulting. He asked specific questions about specific examples. Jimbo's list was not specific examples nor is most of Jimbo's list from JP's site but rather from JP's encounters on Tweb. You did not address the OP at all. You said JP's complaint about the examples in the OP is ridiculous because of Jimbo's list which had nothing to do with the OP. Not doing very well so far.


If you believe that reason is mistaken then I am willing to listen to any reason why it is mistaken. But I have explained why I approached this thread the way I have. I even re-stated it twice to jp since he didn't understand what my reason was either (I say he didn't "understand" rather than that he didn't "agree" because when he stated my reason back to me, he stated a different claim altogether).

The reason why people are having difficulty understanding your reasons is because you don't know what the reasons are. You answer JP's very specific OP questions with something unrelated (Dumbo's list). Again, you saw a list of decontextualized one liners and figured that JP's complaint is ridiculous based on nothing else other than pure emotion.


When a man publicly asks "do you consider this insulting," he must be prepared for an affirmative answer, even if he disagrees with the stated reasons (and my reason, in spite of claims to the contrary, was stated).

When a man publicly asks "do you consider X insulting", you don't answer "I consider Y insulting" and claimed you answered the original question.

[Darth Executor]

Because there's never a "need" for statements to be that offensive, Sancho Panza.


:duh:

I disagree. Offensive statements can do a lot of good when used properly. You should know, you make use of them yourself. In fact, you make use of them in the post I'm replying to. You make use of them in almost every discussion we engae in and when I take out my napalm thrower because you tried to burn me with a Zippo you start crying and wonder why I'm being such a meanie. Now go away.

[Soundsurfr]

I gave you reasons that a fair minded person can consider. I am sure you have it in you.

Clearly a newbie. :teeth:

[Soundsurfr]

Not true. I alientate stupid people only. Or those who don't know how to answer. They're much the same though.

This just gets more entertaining as it goes on.


That's quite a contrived way of excusing the fact that you can't tell her when you obviously should. Yes, precisely. You tell why she is right or wrong; or else why she should not extend her subjective sense to others. Is this so hard to comprehend?

Is it hard for you to comprehend that you can't tell people what should offend them and what shouldn't? A Saudi Arabian person would be offended if you crossed your leg and rested your foot on your knee while in his presence. Maybe you could just point out how stupid he was being and all would be right with the world.


No, I'm telling you that you need to come up with an actual reason WHY I ought to care.

No I don't need to do Jack. I didn't start this thread, remember? There's no reason you should care. None whatsoever.
:ahem:


All you have so far is self-aggrandizing pomposity and posturing to offer.

:lol: Listen to yourself, you windbag. "I only alienate stupid people." :lol: One would be hard pressed to come up with a more pompous and arrogant statement than that.


If that's all that's needed, then I plan to be offended by your username and avatar at once.

That would be my pleasure.


Too true. And it's quite enjoyable watching you squirm at that.

Your delusions run deep. It's fascinating to watch.

[Glenn P]

I asked you how you can know when he's being more offensive than he needs to be. A simple question, unrelated to the OP or your response to the OP (which is also flawed I'll get to it in a minute). Can you answer it now?I have already answered it. See below.

He did not ask if people find everything he ever said insulting. He asked specific questions about specific examples. Jimbo's list was not specific examples nor is most of Jimbo's list from JP's site but rather from JP's encounters on Tweb. You did not address the OP at all. You said JP's complaint about the examples in the OP is ridiculous because of Jimbo's list which had nothing to do with the OP. Not doing very well so far.Ah, I see the problem, you must have seen my post about Jimbo's list and assumed that it was my attempt at an answer to the OP. Look back a bit further at post #45 in this thread. That should resolve the issue between us.

The reason why people are having difficulty understanding your reasons is because you don't know what the reasons are. You answer JP's very specific OP questions with something unrelated (Dumbo's list).Yes, my suspicion was confirmed. Have a look further back at my earlier comments in post #45, which was my answer to the OP. Problem solved.

[Glenn P]

Clearly a newbie. :teeth:I am willing to give my brothers and sisters in Christ the benefit of the doubt. I always presume that he/she is able to listen and respond graciously. I know I have often been ungracious and out of line, yet I would hate to think that anyone would assume because of this that I cannot listen to my brethren. This is the grace I extend to others like JP since it is what I would like others to extend to me.

[Darth Executor]

I have already answered it. See below.

You didn't answer it. Post 45 does indeed deal with the OP, but my question has nothing to do with the OP or post 45. For the third time, how can you know if JP is being too offensive if you will not check the context of the one liners?



Ah, I see the problem, you must have seen my post about Jimbo's list and assumed that it was my attempt at an answer to the OP. Look back a bit further at post #45 in this thread. That should resolve the issue between us.
Yes, my suspicion was confirmed. Have a look further back at my earlier comments in post #45, which was my answer to the OP. Problem solved.

I have. It looks way too politically correct for my taste. If somebody is uneducated, it could be taken as an insult. You telling JP he is being "defensive" could be offensive. Calling somebody an idiot is offensive. Saying he is uneducated is not unless the "victim" cannot take criticism at all at which point he/she should not make themselves a public figure. Your PC standards make any sort of criticism "offensive".

[Glenn P]

You didn't answer it. Post 45 does indeed deal with the OP, but my question has nothing to do with the OP or post 45. For the third time, how can you know if JP is being too offensive if you will not check the context of the one liners?For the third time, my comments relate to the reasons I gave, whether you accept those reasons or not. If JP ignores the reasons I gave, which you now acknowledge were given in post 45, then his public comments will come across as more offensive than they need to.

I have. It looks way too politically correct for my taste. If somebody is uneducated, it could be taken as an insult. You telling JP he is being "defensive" could be offensive. Calling somebody an idiot is offensive. Saying he is uneducated is not unless the "victim" cannot take criticism at all at which point he/she should not make themselves a public figure. Your PC standards make any sort of criticism "offensive".That's just incorrect. Saying that somebody is wrong and that they have offered a bad argument might offend someone, certainly, but I didn't say one should never be offensive. As noted, as you've quoted me as saying several times now, I'm not talking about just being offensive in the sense of causing offense. I'm talking about being more offensive than one needs to be.

In particular, I noted the way in which criticisms that are specifically attacks and insults against a person as opposed to criticism of an argument are typically unhelpful in this regard. As a hypothetical example, saying something like "I have shown that each of the arguments you have offered is not logically sound and therefore nor logically compelling" (i.e. comments about the argments) is a whole world away from saying "you are uneducated about logic, and have no grasp at all on putting an argument together" (i.e. comments about the person).

So your claim that my comments rule out all criticism altogether is just incorrect.

[Darth Executor]

For the third time, my comments relate to the reasons I gave, whether you accept those reasons or not. If JP ignores the reasons I gave, which you now acknowledge were given in post 45,

I acknowledge no such thing. My question had nothing to do with your post 45 or the OP. My question is simple: how do you know how offensive something needs to be? Can you answer it or not?


then his public comments will come across as more offensive than they need to.

4th time, how do you know how offensive they need to be if you won't look at the context.


That's just incorrect. Saying that somebody is wrong and that they have offered a bad argument might offend someone, certainly, but I didn't say one should never be offensive. As noted, as you've quoted me as saying several times now, I'm not talking about just being offensive in the sense of causing offense. I'm talking about being more offensive than one needs to be.

You haven't provided us with a reason as to why JP is more offensive than he needs to be. Regardless, that wasn't my point. My point is that you broaden "offensive" to such an extent that mere disagreement becomes "offensive" and the word offensive loses any meaning.


In particular, I noted the way in which criticisms that are specifically attacks and insults against a person as opposed to criticism of an argument are typically unhelpful in this regard.

Incorrect. If somebody finds out they are uneducated and know nothing about a subject, then one should stop talking about it with authority.


As a hypothetical example, saying something like "I have shown that each of the arguments you have offered is not logically sound and therefore nor logically compelling" (i.e. comments about the argments) is a whole world away from saying "you are uneducated about logic, and have no grasp at all on putting an argument together" (i.e. comments about the person).

JP usually says a combination of both, which is quite effective IMO.


So your claim that my comments rule out all criticism altogether is just incorrect.

My claim was that your comments make all criticism offensive. Regardless, if you tell somebody their argument is wrong, they could still make the connection between their argument and their competence and be offended.


EDIT I forgot one thing. This post:


Assuming those quotes are accurate (and I think they are), I am appalled. Jpholding, the criticism of you that you are complaining about is warranted, and your complaining now seems ridiculous.

There is a reason why I associated it with the OP. It's because it is. JP's OP complaint is directly addressed here because you saw a decontextualised list of JP quotes and you didn't like them and assumed that because of it, JP's OP is invalid.

[Soundsurfr]

I disagree. Offensive statements can do a lot of good when used properly.

The only "good" they can do is to create or sustain an atmosphere of conflict and acrimony. If that's the goal, then I would agree.


You should know, you make use of them yourself.

You're right. So was I using them properly? Did they do a lot of good? Were they needed?

See, I'm not the one laboring under the delusion that they are necessary, appropriate or even justified. I'm also not on a fishing expedition as outlined in the OP.

JPH's whole premise in this thread boils down to: "If you're offended by something I say, then you're a jerk. Prove me wrong."

Brilliant. What a guy.

[Soundsurfr]

I am willing to give my brothers and sisters in Christ the benefit of the doubt.

I know, I was being facetious. You should continue to do that.


I always presume that he/she is able to listen and respond graciously.

Now, in the case of Holding, you know better.

[Glenn P]

I acknowledge no such thing.Yes, you did acknowledge that my reasons for my comments on the OP were given in post 45, you simply disagreed with those reasons. I make an effort to follow your posts, please do likewise.

My question had nothing to do with your post 45 or the OP. My question is simple: how do you know how offensive something needs to be? Can you answer it or not?I have done so multiple times, and will not do so any longer. You have seen my answer spelt out very simply.

4th time, how do you know how offensive they need to be if you won't look at the context.You should stop that. I find it disingenuous, since you can very clearly see the way in which I have answered this question. I have explained that if people don;t follow the advice I gave, which appeared in post 45 and has now been repeated ad nauseum, they may come across as more offensive than they need to. I consider this line of questioning addressed and closed.

You haven't provided us with a reason as to why JP is more offensive than he needs to be.Yes I have.

Regardless, that wasn't my point. My point is that you broaden "offensive" to such an extent that mere disagreement becomes "offensive" and the word offensive loses any meaning.In post #76 I answer this completely.

Incorrect. If somebody finds out they are uneducated and know nothing about a subject, then one should stop talking about it with authority.And the less offensive and therefore more effective (in terms of their williingness to hear me) way to cause someone to find this out is to show them that their arguments are bad. Telling them "you are just uneducated" will make them less likely, not more likely, to take my argument seriously.

My claim was that your comments make all criticism offensive.Firstly, post 76 responds fully to this claim on your part, and secondly I have never said that one should never be offensive, I'm talking about being more offensive than one needs to be. All these arguments you're making have been addressed.

It should not be a controversial thing in the least to say that it is less offensive to attack arguments rather than directly attack people. I thought the OP was posted for the sake of receiving feedback and advice. In light of that, I really don't think JP needs your defence, Darth, well intended though it may be.

[jpholding]

I clearly articulated my reason in my very first post on this thread, involving a distinction between attacking a position and attacking a person.

You failed nevertheless to explain why attacking a person was wrong at all. I doubt if you ever will.



Hopped into bed with him? I have no particular respect for him at all as I said.

It is an odd lack of respect that immediately takes as valid what is presented.


I offered a reason.

You offered no reason at all, other than, "I say so". That's worth nothing.


In absolute honesty, JP, is it really very likely that you are in a position to be disapssionately objective about this yourself?

It is so, and you are in no position to say otherwise. For if you say no, then you claim to be dispassionately objective yourself in the matter, thereby claiming impliclity to be what you claim I cannot be. One or the other -- it's clear you've never made any effort to achieve consistency in your thinking, and have never done any critical examination of yourself or what you believe. And you are thus exactly the sort of person who is the problem here.


I know that I am not the first of your brothers and sisters to say this to you.

No, just one out of 99 others who don't, as it happens. And the 1 in 100 shows the same inability to think critically, which confirms what I have already found...

I'll take the refusal to select 3 examples as conclusive proof that you have nothing to offer in terms of objectivity.

You can go play with Dimbo now.

[jpholding]

This just gets more entertaining as it goes on.

More of the usual non-answers.



Is it hard for you to comprehend that you can't tell people what should offend them and what shouldn't?

And yet, you feel free to do so all the time. :lol: You have done so here by claiming that riposte is never productive. Hypocrisy is thy middle name. It is you who are offended by the Saudi Arabian in this context, not me.


No I don't need to do Jack. I didn't start this thread, remember?

No, you just stuck your nose in it. So you DO need to do Jack, and more, unless your idea if worthwhile dissent is to cry like a baby over and over. :lol:



:lol: Listen to yourself, you windbag. "I only alienate stupid people." :lol: One would be hard pressed to come up with a more pompous and arrogant statement than that.

You'd be harder pressed to prove it wrong, and obviously you can't. :lmbo:



That would be my pleasure.

Very well then. Your username is of the greatest offense. It appeals to the barbaric elements of society, those who "surf" -- persons who swill beer and lay redolently on a beach all day. I want you to change your username at once because it is patently offensive.

[Darth Executor]

I have done so multiple times, and will not do so any longer. You have seen my answer spelt out very simply.

You've done nothing of the sort and I tire of your pathetic games. If you can't even be honest about what you post there's little point in carrying on this charade.

PS: You missed my edit.

[Darth Executor]

*fart*

:thumb:

[Soundsurfr]

More of the usual non-answers.

Ask a non-question, get a non-answer.:teeth:


And yet, you feel free to do so all the time.

Keep turning the OP topic from you to me. It's great fun to watch.


You have done so here by claiming that riposte is never productive.

Not at all. There is a difference between offensive and non-productive. I personally do not find any of your pathetic commentary offensive.


Hypocrisy is thy middle name. It is you who are offended by the Saudi Arabian in this context, not me.

More nonsense.


No, you just stuck your nose in it.

My prerogative.


So you DO need to do Jack, and more, unless your idea if worthwhile dissent is to cry like a baby over and over. :lol:

Who's crying? I'm just having fun watching you bluster about in your "what's so offensive about little ol' me?" thread. You know the - "Why doen't people care about my great works of scholarly literature?" thread. Hilarious. My new favorite word for you.


You'd be harder pressed to prove it wrong, and obviously you can't. :lmbo:

That you only offend stupid people? Oh, it's not wrong. It's absolutely correct from the standpoint that one would have to be stupid to take anything you say seriously enough to be offended by it.


Very well then. Your username is of the greatest offense. It appeals to the barbaric elements of society, those who "surf" -- persons who swill beer and lay redolently on a beach all day. I want you to change your username at once because it is patently offensive.

I'll get right on it. Just as soon as I start caring about whether or not I offend JP Holding.

(You may have to wait a while).

[jpholding]

Ask a non-question, get a non-answer.:teeth:

I ask non-questions often of non compis mentis, that is indeed what I get. :lmbo:



Keep turning the OP topic from you to me.

The topic WAS you and people like you from the first. :twitch:



Not at all. There is a difference between offensive and non-productive.

Changing your mind again, then?


I personally do not find any of your pathetic commentary offensive.

Which is why you can't seem to stop commenting on it, no doubt. :lmbo:



My prerogative.

To be irresponsible with information? But of course. :duh:


Who's crying? I'm just having fun watching you bluster about in your "what's so offensive about little ol' me?" thread.

It's a loooong way up to the top, isn't it? :rasberry: :rofl:



It's absolutely correct from the standpoint that one would have to be stupid to take anything you say seriously enough to be offended by it.

Then we'll let your repeated postings to that effect speak for themselves.



I'll get right on it. Just as soon as I start caring about whether or not I offend JP Holding.

Show you care some more. Post more replies here. :lol:

Good Zeus, you people are like flies I can catch and eat. Please keep going. Every post you make just proves my point more.

[Glenn P]

You failed nevertheless to explain why attacking a person was wrong at all. I doubt if you ever will.OK, so you grant that I explained why something can come across as insulting, but I never explained why it was wrong. That's probably, JP, because the thread was asking whether something is insulting, not whether it is wrong. Since I wasn't answering questions about wrongness but about whether something is insulting, I didn't even try to talk about right or wrong.

It is an odd lack of respect that immediately takes as valid what is presented.Firstly the main comments I have made on this thread have nothing to do with jimbo's list being valid. Secondly, thinking that someone has identified behaviour that I don't approve of is not to say that I hold that person in any particular esteeem

You offered no reason at all, other than, "I say so". That's worth nothing.In your earlier comment in the same post, your use of the word "nevertheless" seemed to grant that I did offer a reason for saying that something was more insulting/offensive than it needed to be. Now you say that I never offered that reason at all. This is incorrect JP. I offered a reason based ont he distinction between attacking the person and addressing the position. Even if you think I am wrong to draw that distinction, it would be more honest to admit that this is different from just saying "I say so."


It is so, and you are in no position to say otherwise. For if you say no, then you claim to be dispassionately objective yourself in the matter, thereby claiming impliclity to be what you claim I cannot be.Firstly, you assume too muc. I didn't say you could never be such. And secondly, in fact I do think I am much more likely to be objective about this, since there is nothing at stake for me. It's much more likely that you will be less objective when it comes to evaluating your own conduct in the way you talk to people, since there is something at stake for you.

One or the other -- it's clear you've never made any effort to achieve consistency in your thinking, and have never done any critical examination of yourself or what you believe. And you are thus exactly the sort of person who is the problem here.That was groundless and uncalled for. Any person at TWeb who knows me will know that this is not true.

No, just one out of 99 others who don't, as it happens. And the 1 in 100 shows the same inability to think critically, which confirms what I have already found...Why can't you help yourself? Why must you lapse into this poor behaviour so easily? You disagree with the reasoning I spelt out in post 45, and you can't coerce me to just crumble into submission when you assert that I must be wrong, so you say that I lack the ability to think critically. This is the very kind of thing that people complain about JP. I'm not about to flsh my qualifications or experience and try to make you look bad for saying this, but you really need to excercise a little more wise judgement before you lash out like this.

I'll take the refusal to select 3 examples as conclusive proof that you have nothing to offer in terms of objectivity.

You can go play with Dimbo now.Post 45 takes the examples that you, jpholding provided, and offers a reply. If you won't accept that, nobody can make you, and I had no intention of trying to force anyone to listen. Against my intentions, I see that I have done little but to provide you with the opportunity to injure your own reputation. Good day.

[jpholding]

That's probably, JP, because the thread was asking whether something is insulting, not whether it is wrong

Don't try those games with me. You're now creating an artificial division in scope to cover your error. Otherwise you admit that there are times when it can be RIGHT to be insulting, and thus you concede my ultimate point in this thread.


Firstly the main comments I have made on this thread have nothing to do with jimbo's list being valid.

I don't care if it's main, massachusetts, or connecticut. You bowed down to Dimbo without question or critical concern. Making excuses for your error isn't going to cut it here.


Secondly, thinking that someone has identified behaviour that I don't approve of is not to say that I hold that person in any particular esteeem

It IS to say that you held his "arguments" in esteem, which is why I have been spanking you for it. Stop trying to weasel out of your mistakes and evasion of responsibility.



Firstly, you assume too muc. I didn't say you could never be such.

PLEASE! Your question was intended to set forth that very premise. Don't play those debate games with me.


And secondly, in fact I do think I am much more likely to be objective about this, since there is nothing at stake for me.

Nor for me. I have more career options than most people do. Moreover, there is a fallacy inherent in your comment for there is no connection between having a stake and ability to be objective. If anything, why not say that I have MORE reason to be objective, because my concern means I will do things right?

May I also inform you that this is the same foolish argument atheists use to claim that the disciples could not have reported on the words or deeds of Jesus without bias! Yes, you go right ahead and undercut your own professed faith. I imagine it won't bother you a bit to be intellectually inconsistent; it hasn't so far.




That was groundless and uncalled for.

It has every ground, fully called for, and you keep providing more evidence of it with every message.


Why can't you help yourself? Why must you lapse into this poor behaviour so easily? blah blah blah

More evasive non-answer. I defeat your premises and you just lapse back into emotional lollygagging and refer back to your same non-answers. You've already submitted, chum. The proof of your inconsistency lies in the pudding.



Post 45 takes the examples that you, jpholding provided, and offers a reply.

Post 45 doesn't deal with the Dimbo quotes you accepted as valid without any critical concern. More evasion of responsibility on your part.

One more chance. Pick 3 from Dimbo's list.

[Soundsurfr]

The topic WAS you and people like you from the first. :twitch:

Maybe so, but you had some questions too, didn't you? Let's go to the videotape:


Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?

I'd also like to note two articles and ask if anyone finds anything "offensive" in them:

Now, why would someone who KNOWS that he only offends stupid people, be asking a question in a public forum about whether or not something you've written is offensive?

Could it be you're sincerely looking for an honest assessment? Nah. You've been quick to admit all along that you're really not concerned about that. You only offend stupid people.

So what was to the point of your question again? To draw in people you can bluster at? You snagged a new one with Theonomy, didn't you! Congratulations.

And look how well you did:

:bravo: <----- JPH's self-assessment of his performance in every thread.


Which is why you can't seem to stop commenting on it, no doubt. :lmbo:


Show you care some more. Post more replies here. :lol:

I'll reiterate, to compensate for your limited comprehension skills - I'm not offended by you because I don't take anything you say seriously enough to be offended by it. But that doesn't mean I don't care. I DO care. More and more I find your self-aggrandizing bombast delightfully entertaining (and so to do some of my friends, who are lurking and having a grand old time) and I'm happy to see that you oblige us with more of it every time I respond. :teeth:

Show us YOU care some more, too, JP. Give us another round. Hey- It's been a while since I've seen you post one of your "check out my expertise" boasts. Those are great. I love those. Tell us what your weekend reading list was. Explain how good you are at "looking things up" and stuff. Tell us how inferior we should feel upon hearing these things!

Encore!


Good Zeus, you people are like flies I can catch and eat.

That you would catch and eat flies is something I've long suspected, but that one was a little lame. Please be more creative or we'll have to look for a new circus clown.


Please keep going. Every post you make just proves my point more.

Right back atcha! (Wait - you had a point?)

:leek:

[jpholding]

Ouch. Someone's board must have hit them in the noodle and gone all the way through without damaging anything. :lolo:



Now, why would someone who KNOWS that he only offends stupid people, be asking a question in a public forum about whether or not something you've written is offensive?

To invite those offended to defend their POV. :duh: Good night you are stupid. Or is that weekdays only? Are there certain hours when you actually think, and can you come back then? Or is it only your mouth that's open 24 hours? :bonk:


Could it be you're sincerely looking for an honest assessment?

You were planning to lie all along? :twitch:


So what was to the point of your question again? To draw in people you can bluster at?

Well, you're still here and showing all the symptoms of JPHOCD. :ale: Glad to oblige.



And look how well you did:

I know. I have you all insane, running through a field of petunias without a stitch of clothes on.


I'll reiterate, to compensate for your limited comprehension skills - I'm not offended by you because I don't take anything you say seriously enough to be offended by it.

Good heavens, he sounds like Mojo Jojo. :twitch: OK, for your "friends" Lambchop the sock puppet and Harvey the invisible rabbit, I'll entertain your JPHOCD some more.


a while since I've seen you post one of your "check out my expertise" boasts. Those are great. I love those

It's much simpler than actually checking, isn't it? :rasberry: Especially when it involves books with big words like "agonistic" and "hypostasis". I have to keep in mind you have a 4 letter limit on all words you can use.


. Tell us what your weekend reading list was.

To see it, I'd have to give you the password to OCLC, and you're not to be trusted with that after that little issue you had with 1-900 numbers.


Explain how good you are at "looking things up" and stuff.

Very good, in fact. Awesomely good. Brilliant. I can find out more in 2 minutes than you can in 6 weeks. Even if you use orbitz.com. You too spend lots of time "looking up" things I am sure, but that will usually be, in no particular order, the air, an oil pan, and your nose.


Tell us how inferior we should feel upon hearing these things!

Oh, pick one, you know best after all:

1) As inferior as GM's latest quarterly stats.
2) As inferior as a mime at a hog calling contest.
3) As inferior as Superman perusing Lex Luthor's Kryptonite Collection.
4) As inferior as the Whos on Horton's trunk.
5) As inferior as a French chef compelled to be employed at Taco Bell.


That you would catch and eat flies is something I've long suspected, but that one was a little lame.

That made about as much sense as putting stereo speakers on a rock. If you don't show some improvement we'll have to pick you up and put down something else to do the job, this time with the word WELCOME stitched across it.

[Darth Executor]

:lmbo:
I wonder if Soundbyte enjoys getting destroyed in front of his friends.

[Soundsurfr]

:lmbo:
I wonder if Soundbyte enjoys getting destroyed in front of his friends.

It's always fun when the groupie weighs in. Are you really Pamela Des Barre?

[jpholding]

Hey, just got in this pic of what's happening in the recording studio at Soundsurfr music...

[Soundsurfr]

To invite those offended to defend their POV.

Cool. Whereupon you berate them for being offended, then pound your chest like the Alpha Chimp.

Great stuff. Atheists the world over applaud you for all you've done and continue to do for our cause. Please keep up the good work. :thumb:


Good night you are stupid. Or is that weekdays only? Are there certain hours when you actually think, and can you come back then? Or is it only your mouth that's open 24 hours? :bonk:



You were planning to lie all along? :twitch:



Well, you're still here and showing all the symptoms of JPHOCD. :ale: Glad to oblige.



I know. I have you all insane, running through a field of petunias without a stitch of clothes on.



Good heavens, he sounds like Mojo Jojo. :twitch: OK, for your "friends" Lambchop the sock puppet and Harvey the invisible rabbit, I'll entertain your JPHOCD some more.



It's much simpler than actually checking, isn't it? :rasberry: Especially when it involves books with big words like "agonistic" and "hypostasis". I have to keep in mind you have a 4 letter limit on all words you can use.



To see it, I'd have to give you the password to OCLC, and you're not to be trusted with that after that little issue you had with 1-900 numbers.



Very good, in fact. Awesomely good. Brilliant. I can find out more in 2 minutes than you can in 6 weeks. Even if you use orbitz.com. You too spend lots of time "looking up" things I am sure, but that will usually be, in no particular order, the air, an oil pan, and your nose.



Oh, pick one, you know best after all:

1) As inferior as GM's latest quarterly stats.
2) As inferior as a mime at a hog calling contest.
3) As inferior as Superman perusing Lex Luthor's Kryptonite Collection.
4) As inferior as the Whos on Horton's trunk.
5) As inferior as a French chef compelled to be employed at Taco Bell.



That made about as much sense as putting stereo speakers on a rock. If you don't show some improvement we'll have to pick you up and put down something else to do the job, this time with the word WELCOME stitched across it.

Too bad, JPH. Your career in comedy is looking about as bleak as your career in Christian apologetics. Maybe a job will open up in the Abu Graib library.

I've enjoyed watching your thread degrade into the inevitable side show that all of your threads tend to do, but I'm getting bored and I have a long recording session to prepare for. Good thing, 'cause even your lapdog is petering out into yappy one-liners.

Feel free to have the last word, we wouldn't want your ego to implode and take out the Northern Hemisphere. Drop me a PM when you have some new material.
:wink:

[Soundsurfr]

Hey, just got in this pic of what's happening in the recording studio at Soundsurfr music...

Yeah, I gave your mother a free session! Still wiping the slobber off the floor. :tongue:

[jpholding]

Oooh ooh -- look there. The surfer dude just ran his board into a billboard for GEICO. :lol: Head first. So that's where they got the cast for the caveman commercials...


Cool. Whereupon you berate them for being offended, then pound your chest like the Alpha Chimp.

Yep, and they slink away in infinite shame. It's so great the military named an operation after it.


Great stuff. Atheists the world over applaud you for all you've done and continue to do for our cause.

I'll bet they do, and I'll bet they have barbell weights tied around their hands and that they clap on the sides of their heads. :rasberry:



Too bad, JPH. Your career in comedy is looking about as bleak as your career in Christian apologetics. Maybe a job will open up in the Abu Graib library.

Why not? Good pay, good benefits; better than your job wiping grease off of other people's guitar strings. :rofl: I guess you just can't keep up. Try some Redd Foxx.


but I'm getting bored and I have a long recording session to prepare for.

Let me guess -- it's 17 1/2 minutes long, right?



Feel free to have the last word, we wouldn't want your ego to implode and take out the Northern Hemisphere.

Oh, we're very good at damaging only select targets here. It's easiest to hit recording studios with all the jibber jabber than comes out of them there days. Be sure and sign up your best talent -- Spike Jones, Weird Al, and Dr. Demento. You'll desperately need their help the next time you try something here. :lmbo:

[Glenn P]

Don't try those games with me. You're now creating an artificial division in scope to cover your error. Otherwise you admit that there are times when it can be RIGHT to be insulting, and thus you concede my ultimate point in this thread.Ultimate point? Think back a bit there. Your OP was to ask whether or not there is anything insulting baout some particular comments. Now when I have provided reasons to say "yes," you're sliding the goalpoasts back, and you're berating me for not going after the new goalposts in the first place. What can be done with you?

Nor for me. I have more career options than most people do. Moreover, there is a fallacy inherent in your comment for there is no connection between having a stake and ability to be objective. If anything, why not say that I have MORE reason to be objective, because my concern means I will do things right?JP, you were questioning my objectivity without foundation. i replied by saying that if we're going to play such games, you're an even better target, since it is more likely that you will be defensive and lsess objective, since you have more at stake. What you have at stake is your reputation in terms of being offensive and insulting or not. Your first post was obviously an attamept to gain sympathy for the claim that you're not really an insulting person. Ergo, you are motivated to ddefend that position, whereas I don't care much one way or the other.

May I also inform you that this is the same foolish argument atheists use to claim that the disciples could not have reported on the words or deeds of Jesus without bias! Yes, you go right ahead and undercut your own professed faith. I imagine it won't bother you a bit to be intellectually inconsistent; it hasn't so far.Now who is engaging in fallacies? It's an interesting attempot at guit by association, but it won't fly. Recall, JP, that you accused me of not being objective. I responded by saying pot, meet kettle. And in any case, the disciples weren't dispassionate, and what of it? It doesn't follow that what they said is false.

One more chance. Pick 3 from Dimbo's list.So you will never deal with the substantive issues raised, and instead you want me to do the digging. Post 45 is there for you. I am no longer here for you, despite the way you enjoy digging deeper and deeper. Don't expect any further response. Any expectations I had of fairmindedness or willingness to listen to helpful feedback have been long destroyed. I have answered you according to your folly, and I am regretting it. *unsubscribes from thread*

[jpholding]

Ultimate point? Think back a bit there. Your OP was to ask whether or not there is anything insulting baout some particular comments. Now when I have provided reasons to say "yes,"

WHAT reasons? All you provided was, "because it could be seen that way" -- not a reason! If you don't know the "reason" means providing objective proof, then it's time to go back to school and learn about what logical fallacies are.


JP, you were questioning my objectivity without foundation.

No, I provided a reductio ad absurdum of YOUR presumptive questioning of MY objectivity. It's a tiresome game that answers nothing. Stop it and grow up. This has nothing to do with "sympathy"; this has to do with objective realities.



Now who is engaging in fallacies? It's an interesting attempot at guit by association, but it won't fly

It flew over your head. The point is your METHODS, which are the same as the atheists here. They too whine on about "motives" and "biases" while ignoring objective reasons to believe (or not) the NT.


Post 45 is there for you.

Post 45 is worthless subjectivist claptrap. I won't miss any further response; there's been none in the first place. Feel free to position yourself as the moralist on your high hill looking down your nose at the heathenous wretches who need your brialliant advice to get themselves out of wearing rags and eating dirt.

[rubidium]

A less polemic version of the Calculated Contempt would be helpful to this effect--instead focused on showing how vast the field can be (maybe with some expositions focusing on utilizing things like socio-rhetorical criticism), and then advising caution. It would more easily be taken by Christians too, since Christians do not group themselves under the category of "critic".
perhaps, but i don't think that the articles should be watered down (by reducing polemic) too much. i remember reading this article (http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon_CC1.html) a long time ago and while i didn't understand everyone on the first glance, it was encouraging to read the dialogue and to see Christianity defended in an intellectually defensible way.

[slaveofone]

I want to thank JP, Theonomy, Soundsurfr and others who contributed to this most entertaining and enlightening thread! I may be wrong in the following analysis, and perhaps both JP or Sound/Theonomy will quickly correct me from their perspective sides, but I believe the entire exchange here comes down to a single thing: difference of worldview. Perhaps a reference to Star Trek and two of our favorite Philosophers will give an adequate analogy to the two worldviews.

JP is operating from the Positivisitic Modernist word-view. Like Spock in Star Trek Classic, JP's epistemological basis is logic, reason, and rationality. He is the champion of objectivity. He looks out or can look out unimpeded on the world and it reflects back to him its truth and identity. Bare facts and evidences are his cry. He is the perfect person to help you think straight. He sees the connections between one thing and another and calls foul when someone tries to pull on one side of the string without recognizing the opposite but equal pull on the other end. At the same time, he is blinded because everything only has meaning as it is conformed to, by, and through his worldview. Thus, for instance, he can neither see nor allow anything to be “offensive” if it is not grounded in a rational analysis of objective evidence. He says justify! and means show me the rational evidences. He calls those whose epistemological basis is emotion—humans—illogical, irrational, and inconsistent. Of course, JP would probably not agree with that statement. In obedience to his worldview, he would not call these others human, he would call them stupid. But when it comes down to how Spock and JP see the other kind, human and stupid are two names for the same thing. Unless you happen to be a Positivistic Modernist like JP or a Vulcan like Spock, you will forever be stupid.

To speak in philosophical terms, JP is like Plato, standing on the ground of the Universal in which particulars are destroyed. How can he not call an annoying bug what it is or deal with it as it should be dealt with? And so fallen man is squashed beneath JP's heel. Grace shines forth, but not at the cost of nature, which is swallowed up and made nothing. So truth and logic remain and the end is known from the beginning, but a great many men whine and complain—and for good reason, because they have been forsaken.

Soundsurfr and Theonomy, on the other hand, are operating from a Phenomenalistic Post-Modern worldview. Like Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who does everything to attain what is human despite his rational and logical programming, their epistemological basis is emotion, feeling, and experience. They are the champions of subjectivism. They look out very much impeded on the world (if it even exists) and what comes back to them is nothing much more than themselves. Of course, they would probably not agree with that statement. In obedience to their worldview in which the world is defined and formed by how they feel about it, they would not think they are denying its existence, although someone like Spock, Plato, or JP would be quick to point out how and why they are. They disassociate things from Spock's logical connection and call foul someone who would pull on one end of a string and think the end of another string was affected. Thus, for instance, there is a difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person. The two are different and must be treated separately. Something is “offensive” because it is based in emotion. It doesn't have to be logical, rational, or based on any evidence whatsoever. The very existence of the feeling is itself justification. And since no feeling or emotion is right or wrong of itself, to think about calling someone's feeling of offense right or wrong is absurd. It simply doesn't matter what the reasons are for that feeling of offense. Data, with his emotion chip securely in place, points his finger and laughs at the ridiculousness and awkwardness of Spock—or in this case, JP—who cannot understand what it means to be human.

To speak in philosophical terms, Soundsurfr and Theonomy are like Aristotle, standing on the ground of the Particulars which ultimately replace the Universal. They fight to authenticate their humanity in the face of an animal who shows no humanity and would reject their own. Nature shines forth, but not at the cost of Grace, which is swallowed up and made nothing. And so they are true to their emotions and feelings, but make themselves to be nonsense, because only a Universal can define a particular.

[slaveofone]

Throughout this thread, I've seen these two world-views and their results work themselves out time and again. JP fails to understand or appreciate the humanity in others because he is operating on the level of the elitist and Soundsurfr and Theonomy fail to understand or appreciate the rationality and logic in JP because they are operating on the level of plebeian. Neither can grant the other room for movement since both their world-views define things in ways that cannot be reconciled. Soundsurfr and Theonomy work from their Phenomenalism to say there is not much outside themselves and so their feeling, emotion, or experience is the ultimate deciding factor. JP works from his Positivism to say he can know things objectively, that he can look at the world and discover bare facts and evidence that leads logically to a conclusion. If they are to be reconciled, then this is the way I would suggest it be accomplished...

Both need to understand how their world-views are flawed. JP needs to realize that no one can see things objectively and that to make that statement is not a self-contradiction because we are not denying the existence of the objective, we are just denying the ability to understand the objective objectively. We are allowing for the subjective to come in and become a part of JP's objectivity instead of being destroyed by it. Human reason is broken and all people look through a lens of world-view and belief which colors what they see so that there is no longer such a thing as bare facts or looking at something objectively. And so Soundsurfr and Theonomy need to understand that there is an objective outside them, apart from them, which renders some things nonsense and other things rational. We are thereby not taking away their subjectivity, but adding objectivity to it so that the objective is not destroyed. Even though all people look through a lens of world-view and belief which colors everything they see so that there is no longer bare facts and even though no one can looking at something objectively, there is, nevertheless, something objective that they are looking at and can subjectively be discovered. The task then is to peel away the layers in our subjective lens that distort what is objectively true. And there is then room for Theonomy and Soundsurfr to be emotional as they are and yet still work toward a correct rational understanding despite that. Instead of being crushed beneath JP's heel and treated like slime, they believe that JP is trying to help them. JP then finds that people are griping less at him and growing in their learning and understanding instead of continually playing the roll of victim that he expects from them. Why? Because they do not think JP is denying their humanity any longer, only trying to help them come to grips with it in the best manner. And perhaps JP also begins to understand his own flaws better and act more like a human being.

Pie in the sky dream? Probably. I expect JP to be JP and Soundsurfr to be Soundsurfr. But if there is another way, a way of change for both that will bring reconciliation and growth, that is the way... From Positivisitic Modernism and Phenomenalistic Post-Modernism to a Synthesis of the two—Critical Realism—with less of the errors on both sides.

Lonergan, Bernard J. F. Method in Theology. Minneapolis : Seabury Pr, 1979.
Meyer, Ben F. Reality and Illusion in New Testament Scholarship: A Primer in Critical Realist Hermeneutics. Collegeville, Minn : Liturgical Pr, 1994.
Meyer, Ben F. Critical Realism and the New Testament. Allison Park, Pa : Pickwick Pubns, 1989.
Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. [S.l.] : SCM Pr, 1979.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis : Augsburg Fortress, 1989.
Vanhoozer, Kevin. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

[jpholding]

JP needs to realize that no one can see things objectively and that to make that statement is not a self-contradiction because we are not denying the existence of the objective, we are just denying the ability to understand the objective objectively.

Is this something you understand objectively?

Other than that, I've seldom seen so many wrong ideas about me in one place.

[Paddyo]

I'm bumping this thread because JPH's justification of rudeness and insults will soon be revisited.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm bumping this thread because JPH's justification of rudeness and insults will soon be revisited.

And it always ends in tears....

And ironically, it's always the same group pouring them out.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm bumping this thread because JPH's justification of rudeness and insults will soon be revisited.

Yet another, "WAAA! He's a mennie" type of argument. No context, no reasons given, just hurt feelings.

[MarcusAndreas]

I'm now about halfway through my review of articles to see what can go on the new site and it's becoming more and more clear that all the guff passed around about how I don't do anything but insult opponents is vastly overstated, which might be expected since it is the likes of Trubee and Till who have been behind it in the first place.

It is clear first of all that the many of my articles do not address ANYONE AT ALL but a position.

Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?

I'd also like to note two articles and ask if anyone finds anything "offensive" in them:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html -- in particular, responses to Lowder and Carrier

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemmadef01.html

More and more I'm starting to wonder if this nonsense has had its genesis more in the frustrations of defeated opponents like Till and Trubee, and perhaps the overtstatements of a few malcontents who think even saying someone is "miseducated" is offensive, rather than in any sober analysis or review of the bulk of what I have produced these past 8 years.
Fundy atheists are usually arrogant morons (the worst kind) who are convinced that they know absolutely everything, and anyone who says something different is an arrogant moron who is very mean.

[mig_killer2]

I'm now about halfway through my review of articles to see what can go on the new site and it's becoming more and more clear that all the guff passed around about how I don't do anything but insult opponents is vastly overstated, which might be expected since it is the likes of Trubee and Till who have been behind it in the first place.

It is clear first of all that the many of my articles do not address ANYONE AT ALL but a position.

Here's something I'd like to know -- is it "insulting" to say that an opponent is:

"vastly underinformed"?
"miseducated"?
"uncritical"?


Because usually its a grave insult to vastly underinformed, miseducated, and uncritical persons to lump them in with your opponents? :shrug:

[Pumbelo]

Offensive? The standard answer to your articles are:
"You fat moron. All you do is using ad hominems and red herrings. And your real name is Turkel!"

If those militant pseudo-sceptics can't stand it when you smash them, let them complain about it.
The more often people complain about the rhetorics, the more often they admit that they have no arguments and don't like being defeated.

[gharfish]

And it always ends in tears....

And ironically, it's always the same group pouring them out.'Are you gonna cry ?! Well go ahead, you crybaby, Cry ! Wa-a-a-ah! ...HaHaHaHa !'

The group is now newly gone, BTW--dispersed. Is this good news then ?



.

[gharfish]

Yet another, "WAAA! He's a mennie" type of argument. No context, no reasons given, just hurt feelings.Please remove me from your buddy list. I have already done the same with you. We'll be done then as TWeb friends. There is such a thing as a little pixie of terror, but not fighting doves.




.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ghar, I thought you agreed to stay out of this area as it is not productive.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Offensive? The standard answer to your articles are:
"You fat moron. All you do is using ad hominems and red herrings. And your real name is Turkel!"

If those militant pseudo-sceptics can't stand it when you smash them, let them complain about it.
The more often people complain about the rhetorics, the more often they admit that they have no arguments and don't like being defeated.

I just found out that his real name is Bill Smith. SCANDAL!!!!

[gharfish]

I didn't realize I had stepped into Tektonics. I failed to see that, up top. I did see some bait left out for the last official remaining member of the whiner group. I will leave.

[Dee Dee Warren]

That's what I figured. BTW, I thought of you last night while watching this National Geographic special about this crocodile that totally killed this tourist. You need to control your people.

[gharfish]

Ghariyals are peaceful (to humans) crocodiles. Now fish, on the other hand...

[Dee Dee Warren]

This one tried to eat this poor girl, but the rangers killed it first. She was drowned though. Turned out though that the croc was mauled in some prior fight and was handicapped so probably was just desperate for food which caused him to attack the girl. He was very skinny. He probably wasn't going to make it long in the wild anyways.

[lilpixieofterror]

Please remove me from your buddy list. I have already done the same with you. We'll be done then as TWeb friends. There is such a thing as a little pixie of terror, but not fighting doves.

Nice to see your let your emotions control your reasoning. :thumb:

[jpholding]

I'm bumping this thread because I'm a frustrated nincompoop with nothing new to say on the subject of the use of riposte, and it makes me really mad that JPH is stealing away the Fluffy Bunny Jesus.

Fixed it for you. :thumb:

[aikidoka]

(ir)rational response squad groupies like to throw this charge at you all the time, meanwhile they call Christians ignorant and worse when it comes Brian (the) Sap(ient) saying religion is a disorder.

So, I really don't take their complaints seriously and in the past I just noted that Christ called the Pharisees vipers and sons of Satan and told them to grow up.

[Andius]

(ir)rational response squad groupies like to throw this charge at you all the time, meanwhile they call Christians ignorant and worse when it comes Brian (the) Sap(ient) saying religion is a disorder.

So, I really don't take their complaints seriously and in the past I just noted that Christ called the Pharisees vipers and sons of Satan and told them to grow up.

Which is the usual sign that they have run out of arguments (not that they had any good ones to start with in the first place). :lol: