Nah, this isn't about rep, but rather baiting. Tam isn't taking the bait because she is honest and intelligent enough to see this for what it is.
Making Peace With Tambora
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
Nah, this isn't about rep, but rather baiting. Tam isn't taking the bait because she is honest and intelligent enough to see this for what it is.
Artie.
Bro.
My main man.
I wish to point out, for the bazillionth time, that at no point in the course of the last several days have I said that it is universally and without qualification acceptable to beat one's wife.
Furthermore, if you return to the "why men won't marry you," you will find that Kmoney (whom I think everyone will agree to be of very moderate sensibilities) has, not so much agreed with the particulars of what I've said, but has essentially conceded the basic theses which cause you so much discomfort.
Elo. has disagreed even with my basic theses, but only by saying: "Because God said so." Ask him if you doubt this.
Given the fact that you insist on repeating that I've said something other than I've said, I feel as though I must conclude that one of the following is true:
1. The British educational system simply isn't that good when it comes to learning how to read with any level of comprehension.
2. You simply aren't that bright
3. I have been unclear in my expression.
4. You are being intentionally obtuse for rhetorical purposes.
5. You haven't bothered to read more than a few lines of anything that I've read on the subject as of late, for whatever reason.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Argumentum ad populum, Trad? Say it ain't so.
The problem isn't Arthur's, the problem is yours.
You said the words, now you have to live with them. They're part of your identity now.
The problem isn't Arthur's, the problem is yours.
You said the words, now you have to live with them. They're part of your identity now.
Now? You are too generous.
It's actually not an argumentum ad populum. I'm not saying that what I am saying is true because "most people think so." I'm actually making an argument from authority, oddly enough, appealing to the "authority" of Kmoney and Elo, where Kmoney and Elo are cited as "authorities" on what is consistent with or contrary to basic, common sensibilities/tastefulness.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You're splitting fallacies.
The words are yours, Trad. Your advocation for the beating in of a wife's face until she's dead (purely as argument, of course) won't be forgotten.
This.
Oddly enough, AnnaBenedetti, I have to agree with Rusha.
This really isn't really a recent development. I've for some time now expressed my openness to the possibility that certain classes of crimes, at least in principle, merit brutal punishments. As I recall, this was a point of disagreement a while back when you were still calling yourself a Catholic.
I'll never forget.
Depending on the meaning of the word "a," then I am guilty as charged. :idunno:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Well, they're added to all the rest...
Well, this was just recently. There is a history. The difference is that previously, advocating beating a wife (including beating her to death) would have received an infraction OR at the very least a warning.
I have no doubt that back in the days of the caveman, such behavior was seen a normal. Apparently, some people have not evolved.
Thankfully, there is the LEGITIMATE law to deal with modern day neanderthals.
elohiym
Well-known member
Funny, just yesterday I was pondering that idea. My feeling is that cavemen were likely not wife beaters and rapists. It seems to go against natural survival instincts, imo. Notice these modern men are justifying wife beating and rape with their interpretation of religious texts. The problem, as I see it, is false religious doctrines and black hearts, not devolution. The golden rule is so simple even a caveman can follow it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
|
|
I guess some people are allowed to see the humor of it all, but not others. :think:
And "insincere"? You mean like when Tam and Rusha piously pronounce they will pray from Doser's troubled soul? :chuckle:
I think that your assessment of the condition of post-lapsarian humanity is too optimistic. There's a reason that Moses had to lay down the Law.
And for what it's worth, I'm not relying solely on religious texts. I could give natural law arguments to the same effect.
I see the problem as these males of whom we are speaking wishing to change the meaning of the Bible in order to conform it with their own views.
glorydaz
Well-known member
elohiym
Well-known member
My argument was more than, "Because God said so."
I refuted your argument by refuting your premise about the Law of Moses.
You want a secular argument but can't make one.
elohiym
Well-known member
Yes, similar to how the Muslims do it.