What's the most evil/controversial thing the Prophet has asked you to do?

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

My outlook is clearly stated in my first post in this thread; "I wonder how vehemently you will deny the irony of this entire discussion?" You have vehemently denied irony and your derision appears set to degenerate into acrimony.

And I clearly stated how your perception of irony is not based in fact. You think that I stated those explanations were truth, when I repeatedly explained they were speculations. The only irony that may be found is in your own unwillingness to look at what I've written, rather than mindlessly telling me that my views require as much faith as yours, when they obviously, to anyone willing to read carefully, do not.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Yes, thanks again for repeating the same garbage for the nth time, once again proving how much you enjoy responding to what you wish I'd written and not what I've actually written. I know how much easier it is to ascribe an absolutist position to someone, as it absolves you of any responsibility to actually understand their arguments. I'm glad that you've ignored my arguments in favor of your straw man. We should do this again sometime.

Your arguments are absurd so I respond in kind. Show some nuance and I'll respond in kind.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

And I clearly stated how your perception of irony is not based in fact. You think that I stated those explanations were truth, when I repeatedly explained they were speculations. The only irony that may be found is in your own unwillingness to look at what I've written, rather than mindlessly telling me that my views require as much faith as yours, when they obviously, to anyone willing to read carefully, do not.

The arrogance of youth, that's all I ascribe his dogma to.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

And I clearly stated how your perception of irony is not based in fact. You think that I stated those explanations were truth, when I repeatedly explained they were speculations. The only irony that may be found is in your own unwillingness to look at what I've written, rather than mindlessly telling me that my views require as much faith as yours, when they obviously, to anyone willing to read carefully, do not.

LOL , you summarily contend that the 'knowledge' you site in this thread is speculation and yet rely upon it as the authority by which you have proven your opinon correct and another person's irrational.

Furthermore, to site such 'knowledge'/speculation with the zeal demostrated here is to imply that you believe it is truth ... albeit fluid -such that requires a leap of faith; a behavior typically reserved for those you have labeled 'faith-heads'.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your arguments are absurd so I respond in kind. Show some nuance and I'll respond in kind.

That you have not the capacity to recognize the nuance, isn't my problem. You've grossly misrepresented my position throughout. If you'd like to go back and reread my words carefully, you'll see that.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The arrogance of youth, that's all I ascribe his dogma to.

ad hom and ignorance. Great combination.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

LOL , you summarily contend that the 'knowledge' you site in this thread is speculation and yet rely upon it as the authority by which you have proven your opinon correct and another person's irrational.

Furthermore, to site such 'knowledge'/speculation with the zeal demostrated here is to imply that you believe it is truth ... albeit fluid -such that requires a leap of faith; a behavior typically reserved for those you have labeled 'faith-heads'.

No, I have not relied upon it as authority or ever implied any of them were individually true, and if you truly believe that I have, then this conversation must have been way over your head. I have certainly never once implied that truth is fluid, nor do I think that the average "faith-head" believes it is either. That's an argument I've only heard from you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

ad hom and ignorance. Great combination.

So you learned a few words of ignorance, glory be.

Woot, you think you schooled us old stupid dogs, but we just won't play your dumbass game. You disrespect all, but really play a game, we've already played before here, again and again, and again, and again. So when you come up with new material, we'll treat you with respect, but you must earn it. The same ole, same ole won't cut it here.

IF you wish to dwell on anti-Mormon.com, go to it. If you wish to become a communist, so be it. If you wish to debate intelligently without baiting us with old, tired questions, you'll get treated without respect. Review archives please before posting old shit.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

That you have not the capacity to recognize the nuance, isn't my problem. You've grossly misrepresented my position throughout. If you'd like to go back and reread my words carefully, you'll see that.

Have you heard of argumentum ad abusurbdum?

Of course, I did. But I've seen your line of argument before, so it bored me. You were baiting to head down a predictable stream of thought.

I'd prefer Seattle, Solon, Pelagius who actually add something than read something copied out of textbook of arguments.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

No, I have not relied upon it as authority or ever implied any of them were individually true, and if you truly believe that I have, then this conversation must have been way over your head. I have certainly never once implied that truth is fluid, nor do I think that the average "faith-head" believes it is either. That's an argument I've only heard from you.

Again with the derision or should I claim "ad hom and ignorance"?

One must offer an opinion/argument from a position of authority ... you have laid out your position, current educational persuits, readings etc. and as such you have qualified such as authority.