[SA] Well, I didn't use "blatant lies". [Arlo] I did. After at least six (on my last count) times of answering the same questions I've been asking you and Ham, seeing nothing but evasion after evasion, this morning Platt wrote "Arlo can't even answer a few simple, direct questions." Perhaps Platt would care to produce one question I have not answered?
[SA] I said "deceive", but maybe their both mayapples. I think the point I was making was Arlo asked you questions and you didn't answer them, and those questions are based on your 'evolve', 'need for an origin', and 'intention' comments. [Arlo] Beyond this, Arlo asked these questions because he was tired of seeing the same old moronically glib "oops" used to deride people who espouse any view different than whatever one he holds. "Oops oops oops", yeah, its smug and ridiculous. But what does Platt, who loves to deride others, offer instead? Hence my questions. And hence the only answer he can only allude to (since he seems incapable or unwilling to be honest), "Abracadabra! Poof! of Qualigod". [SA] If you say these events happen, but don't provide an answer - without even an 'I don't know' comment, then what are you holding back? Thus, why I grouped my answer with 'deception', 'hiding', or 'learning something'/'in transition'. [Arlo] He is holding back because he is not here for honest dialogue, SA. As Pirsig said of the Chairman, he is not a Truth-Seeker but a propagandist for a particular ideology. He knows the absurdity of his claims, he knows they are a theist revision, but he won't be honest about that because then he loses the ability to act like he supports the MOQ. At the very least, Ham is honest in his opposition to the MOQ, even if he too is incapable to defend his absurd claims. [SA] >From my perspective, it's mainly been Ham, with his "consciousness evolves" comment and then his blatant disregard to comment upon this quote of his. He probably doesn't even know what his own words mean. It's his track record. His 'mo'. [Arlo] Ham and Platt share this same theist "Qualigod/Essigod" view. So the parallel in questioning is natural. There was one that preempted this one about evolution, and that is "what changed?" I've answered this several times, and each time I get "no no no, stupid reductionist Arlo". Fine, I said, if I am wrong, if the physiologists are wrong, then what is right? What, according to the Qualigod view, changed during the timeline that left "no consciousness" on one side and "consciousness" on the other. My view was assailed as "oops". As moronic as that is, I don't care, but then I asked "what do YOU think?" Both have been unable to answer, as their only answer "Qualigod poofed it into the timeline" reveals not only their theism, but their inability to even articulate a decent theistic proposal. In the end, all that's left is a sad dishonesty and use of lies that really should be something they reflect on in quiet. You see, I too, SA, have hopes that somewhere inside there is something that would be ashamed at the chicanery they perpetrate here. But I am a cynic, and you appear to have more hope than I. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
