Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Sparko]

OK, I have just traced this thread and tried to follow all of the various exchanges, with an emphasis on the exchanges involving Teal. I read all her comments, and my responses to those comments. As best I can tell, this entire exchange is based on one post where I said, "evidence, maybe; proof, no." Apparently, the "maybe" created the impression that I was proposing that there was an impression that the information about apostolic martyrdom might not be evidence for the life of Jesus being as claimed. I completely missed, in the subsequent discussion, that this turn of phrase had created that perception.

In fact, the use of "maybe" was simply a turn of phrase. If someone said to me, "sugar has been shown to contribute to obesity and cancer," my response might be, "obesity, maybe; cancer is not proven." It's my way of saying, "there is adequate evidence to assert that it contributes to obesity, but the jury is still out on cancer." So, in the context of my statement, I was saying, "we can admit the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence for believing the claims about Jesus are true, but I believe it is inadequate evidence (i.e., the claim is not proven).

If that was the source of the confusion, and it was based on that brief phrase - hopefully that clarifies. If not, then I have no idea what question it is you think I'm avoiding, so someone will have to restate.

It took me two minutes to trace back teal's comment to this post and this question which you never answered but danced around:

I thought about starting another thread for this, but it seems right in line with the intent of this one.

Can anyone think of any examples of this? As in, somebody dying for an ideology that either they knew or believed to be false? I'm going to guess not, which is why this thread exists.

But it's a weird thing to consider. What would be some examples of this? Would we even consider the person that would do this mentally sound? (that's not a great way to phrase it but I can't think of anything better atm)

[carpedm9587]

It took me two minutes to trace back teal's comment to this post and this question which you never answered but danced around:

If the question is, "can I prove it has occurred," no. I have no example. It would require a pretty specific kind of messaging, and it seems to me doubtful anyone would leave information behind that would say, "I don't believe these specific parts but do believe in the overall value." Somehow, I doubt that kind of message would ever be left behind.

That it fits within the possibilities of the human psyche? My comment was that I saw nothing about this proposition that makes it impossible. Indeed, it is a variation on "the message is good, the messenger not so much."

I was pretty sure I had responded to this in another post, but I am not finding it, so apparently I never actually posted it. That's happened to me more than once. My apologies for the confusion. I was also tracing back conversations with Teal, so I didn't review the exchanges with Zym.

[One Bad Pig]

If the question is, "can I prove it has occurred," no. I have no example. It would require a pretty specific kind of messaging, and it seems to me doubtful anyone would leave information behind that would say, "I don't believe these specific parts but do believe in the overall value." Somehow, I doubt that kind of message would ever be left behind.

That it fits within the possibilities of the human psyche? My comment was that I saw nothing about this proposition that makes it impossible. Indeed, it is a variation on "the message is good, the messenger not so much."

I was pretty sure I had responded to this in another post, but I am not finding it, so apparently I never actually posted it. That's happened to me more than once. My apologies for the confusion. I was also tracing back conversations with Teal, so I didn't review the exchanges with Zym.

Why did you answer (well, dance around) your own question instead of the one Zym asked?

[carpedm9587]

Why did you answer (well, dance around) your own question instead of the one Zym asked?

My answer to Zym was here. It addressed the question he asked, and I received no response from him objecting to it, so I considered his question asked/answered. Teal questioned my answer, and I responded to her response. Apparently, the sentence "it depends on what 'ideology' means to you," was problematic. I wasn't saying it depends on what the word "ideology" means, I was saying it depends on specifically which ideology he was referring to, and I outlined the two possibilities.

I did not dodge or dance around anything, AFAICT. And I have no found any questions that I did not respond to at some point. I cannot control the dynamic that has emerged here that I have some sort of nefarious agenda. This is a passtime for me, largely something I do to relax during work breaks. I enjoy breaking down ideas and playing with them to see what makes them tick. Nothing more nefarious than that. Some seem OK with that. Others I seem to tick-off regularly. Such is life.

[One Bad Pig]

My answer to Zym was here. It addressed the question he asked, and I received no response from him objecting to it, so I considered his question asked/answered. Teal questioned my answer, and I responded to her response. Apparently, the sentence "it depends on what 'ideology' means to you," was problematic. I wasn't saying it depends on what the word "ideology" means, I was saying it depends on specifically which ideology he was referring to, and I outlined the two possibilities.

I did not dodge or dance around anything, AFAICT. And I have no found any questions that I did not respond to at some point.

That was not an answer - that was a kabuki dance.

I cannot control the dynamic that has emerged here that I have some sort of nefarious agenda. This is a passtime for me, largely something I do to relax during work breaks. I enjoy breaking down ideas and playing with them to see what makes them tick. Nothing more nefarious than that. Some seem OK with that. Others I seem to tick-off regularly. Such is life.

Who here thinks you have 'some sort of nefarious agenda'?

[Sparko]

If the question is, "can I prove it has occurred," no. I have no example. It would require a pretty specific kind of messaging, and it seems to me doubtful anyone would leave information behind that would say, "I don't believe these specific parts but do believe in the overall value." Somehow, I doubt that kind of message would ever be left behind.

That it fits within the possibilities of the human psyche? My comment was that I saw nothing about this proposition that makes it impossible. Indeed, it is a variation on "the message is good, the messenger not so much."

I was pretty sure I had responded to this in another post, but I am not finding it, so apparently I never actually posted it. That's happened to me more than once. My apologies for the confusion. I was also tracing back conversations with Teal, so I didn't review the exchanges with Zym.

You are still dancing around the question. It isn't can you prove it happened. It is "Can anyone think of any examples of this? As in, somebody dying for an ideology that either they knew or believed to be false?"

[Sparko]

My answer to Zym was here. It addressed the question he asked, and I received no response from him objecting to it, so I considered his question asked/answered. Teal questioned my answer, and I responded to her response. Apparently, the sentence "it depends on what 'ideology' means to you," was problematic. I wasn't saying it depends on what the word "ideology" means, I was saying it depends on specifically which ideology he was referring to, and I outlined the two possibilities.

I did not dodge or dance around anything, AFAICT. And I have no found any questions that I did not respond to at some point. I cannot control the dynamic that has emerged here that I have some sort of nefarious agenda. This is a passtime for me, largely something I do to relax during work breaks. I enjoy breaking down ideas and playing with them to see what makes them tick. Nothing more nefarious than that. Some seem OK with that. Others I seem to tick-off regularly. Such is life.

To which Teal said:

No, it does NOT. He is asking you to defend your own premise that: "Would a person die for something they think is untrue, but the results of it they believe are honorable and good for humanity? I think that is possible. "

This isn't rocket science. Teal felt you did not answer Zym's question where he was asking you to defend your own premise as Teal says above.

[carpedm9587]

That was not an answer - that was a kabuki dance.

Apparently to you, Teall, and perhaps Sparko.

Who here thinks you have 'some sort of nefarious agenda'?

OK, "nefarious agenda" is probably stronger than it needed to be. Bottom line is there is a small subset of the posters here who tend to infer a negative intent/purpose/dynamic to many of my posts. If my post is not clear, they don't say, "that wasn't very clear to me, can you restate," I get "that was a kabuki dance." If I miss a post, I don't get, "did you see my post <here>?" with a link or a post number, I get accused of dodging/dancing/avoiding. Add to that the regular references to dishonesty, disingenuousness, outright lying, and so forth. At first I set out to defend myself, but it rapidly became clear that there is a subset of posters here who have already decided what kind of poster I am and they are not going to be dissuaded. So now I just work to focus on the discussion and let people make whatever comments they wish. I'm interested in the ideas and tearing them apart to see what makes them tick, and I am interested in knowing more about how members of "the right" think and what motivates them. Ater a reasonable effort to correct misperceptions about myself, eventually I just have to accept them as they are and move on. Ultimately, what defines me is me - not what someone else thinks of me.

As that old hippy said, "I don't let nobody rent space in my head."

I just wish I was as good at it as he was...

[carpedm9587]

You are still dancing around the question. It isn't can you prove it happened. It is "Can anyone think of any examples of this? As in, somebody dying for an ideology that either they knew or believed to be false?"

I cannot provide a real-world example of this happening (for the reasons stated). I do believe it fits within the possibilities of the human psyche.

If that answer is not clear enough for you, then I have no idea how to help you.

[Sparko]

I cannot provide a real-world example of this happening (for the reasons stated). I do believe it fits within the possibilities of the human psyche.

If that answer is not clear enough for you, then I have no idea how to help you.

hey I am just trying to clarify what Teal was asking of you. You said you could not find it. I found it in a couple of minutes. And when I pointed out the problem you still did not answer it. Until just now.

[One Bad Pig]

Apparently to you, Teall, and perhaps Sparko.

If you think it only appears that way to those you named, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

OK, "nefarious agenda" is probably stronger than it needed to be. Bottom line is there is a small subset of the posters here who tend to infer a negative intent/purpose/dynamic to many of my posts. If my post is not clear, they don't say, "that wasn't very clear to me, can you restate," I get "that was a kabuki dance." If I miss a post, I don't get, "did you see my post <here>?" with a link or a post number, I get accused of dodging/dancing/avoiding. Add to that the regular references to dishonesty, disingenuousness, outright lying, and so forth.

Here is a splendid example of why dialogue with you is so frustrating. Your post was not unclear; it clearly danced around the question. The accusations of dodging/dancing/avoiding tend to have everything to do with posts to which you provide, at best, an indirect response, not to posts you allegedly missed. Quit immolating strawmen, and quit beating around the bush in lieu of answering the point at hand, and those accusations will decline considerably.

[carpedm9587]

hey I am just trying to clarify what Teal was asking of you. You said you could not find it. I found it in a couple of minutes. And when I pointed out the problem you still did not answer it. Until just now.

From your perspective, Sparko. From my perspective, my answer was not different substantively different from the previous two answers. It was merely more terse. That may be the problem - I am guilty of providing more information than was strictly asked for. That may be confusing some people.

[carpedm9587]

If you think it only appears that way to those you named, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

So this is an marvelous example of the usual dynamic. I named three people who explicitly responded. I said nothing about anyone else - but somehow you managed to infer that from what I said, and added a snide comment to the mix. It's the snide comments that make me realize "minds are set," and further assertions on my part will very likely be useless.

Here is a splendid example of why dialogue with you is so frustrating. Your post was not unclear; it clearly danced around the question. The accusations of dodging/dancing/avoiding tend to have everything to do with posts to which you provide, at best, an indirect response, not to posts you allegedly missed. Quit immolating strawmen, and quit beating around the bush in lieu of answering the point at hand, and those accusations will decline considerably.

I answered the question directly, though perhaps in more detail than was necessary, and that may be the problem. When I stripped out the extra detail, the same answer was apparently well received by at least one person. As for the rest, I don't beat around the bush, I don't do strawmen, and I do the best I can to answer the questions asked. The rest I leave to you. If you find the discussions frustrating, I suggest you stop engaging. Continually engaging in frustrating exchanges is not something I would recommend to anyone.

[Sparko]

From your perspective, Sparko. From my perspective, my answer was not different substantively different from the previous two answers. It was merely more terse. That may be the problem - I am guilty of providing more information than was strictly asked for. That may be confusing some people.

nope. nobody is confused.

[carpedm9587]

nope. nobody is confused.

As you wish.

I can only tell you that, from my perpective, I provided the same answer the second time that I provided the first time - simply shorter. My position and reasons have not changed.