It seems to me, fiddler, that you directed your comments and opinions to Pat's specific ideas as presented in his posts, and the ideas of Islam as you understand them. This is no infringement of the guidelines. Challenging members to further explain their ideas is what we do here, and while you are free to express you emotions about the ideas, you may find they have little impact. Where you do cross the line is in taunting the admin, whether it is me or any other. Whether you see consistency or not, it is there, and your last paragraph reads like a child having a tantrum, trying to create conflict and drama where there is none. This is the behavior that may eventually get you banned, because the group as a whole will not live with it for long.
On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > Your argument, here and elsewhere, is entirely specious and is nothing > more than drivel. You say that a tool-maker who creates a jimmy-stick > (car door lock disabler) allows the jimmy stick to be anything that it > chooses, and yet will punish the tool if it is used in the fashion to > which it was designed simply because the jimmy stick has no idea that > it was designed to do so. This argument fails on so many different > levels that I have difficulty knowing where to start. > > The best way to describe my feelings of disgust for this idea is to > use a vehicle for a concept, especially considering that we ourselves > are only self motorised vehicles. According to you and your ilk, we > are all vehicles for some use or whatnot. A creator, creating the > vehicle to be all-terrain or to be fuel efficient, then condemns the > vehicle if it performs adequately in the fashion that it was designed > to operate. The vehicle need not be aware of the limitation to violate > such limitation, and therefore is condemned. Your circular logic is > not only damaging to a single persons psyche, it is damaging to > humanity as a whole. > > A maker of some sort being inclined to damn a person for doing that > which they were intended is perfectly and exactly equivalent to a > disturbed child crushing an insect piece by piece for the crime of not > flying... after the child rips its wings off. This argument that is > presented (i.e. that we have free will although we are created for a > purpose) is disgusting and wrong. > > Immediately after islams inception, people began formalising lists of > silly arguments that are used to justify the existence of sad, > destructive, and dangerous arguments. You might try looking at these > fallacies in order not to repeat them quite so often. > > Yes molly, I know. I called out someone that you "just love." Live > with it or ban me, I'm tired of feeling uncomfortable knowing exactly > what I might say that will offend your tender sensibilities. Or maybe > just be consistent and warn them as well when they do the same. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
