If he did Brandon would've gotten his face rearranged a few times. He's an Internet tough guy, not someone who has the nerve to be this rude in the flesh.
toldailytopic: "Soup kitchens": Do they help or hurt the homeless?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
If he did Brandon would've gotten his face rearranged a few times. He's an Internet tough guy, not someone who has the nerve to be this rude in the flesh.
I have intelligent conversations with intelligent people.
Oh really. So I guess your mighty IQ just drops a little when you deign to talk to us, great one.
For someone so high on himself you spend an awful lot of time with we idiots and morons here on TOL. If you're right, what the world does that say about you?
MrRadish
New member
Which you certainly don't have with the intelligent people on TOL. I think that answers my question. Thanks! :thumb:
:rotfl: Which can only mean you spend a lot of time talking to yourself and you have MPD.
It hasn't been called MPD for more than a decade, now. It is now known as DID: Dissociative Identity Disorder. And it is not something I deal with. A man your age should really grow up.
OH! That changes everything. Glad you're keeping up.
Obviously. Sometimes folks refuse to deal with something they should.
The Emperor has no clothes! :rotfl:
I gathered that you're not a kid from your profile picture. But I assume that many of the assessments that you're referencing were done when you were in school. That is where a lot of these standardized tests are performed, after all.
As for the laziness, that's all relative. If everyone were more motivated, our sense of laziness would shift, don't you think?
Pity. It's good place to meet intelligent people and develop your own thinking.
It's natural to assume a lack of depth to someone who mostly responds to serious arguments with insults. What else do you expect? That people will just notice your debating skills when you don't use them?
TOL is a real grab-bag. There are some really smart people, some really crazy people, some really dumb people, and a few who might be a combination of several of those things.
Now that is hard to imagine. Are you sure it isn't just that he disagrees with you?
Then it's merely a difference between the two sides. One side sees the good being done, one side is convinced that it's working some greater evil.
I make it a point to spend my time with exactly those sorts of people. And it's easier to find and keep them as friends when you don't just dismiss them with an insult for disagreeing with you. My closest friend is a very smart, very devout Christian. I have a lot of respect for him, but we will probably never come to much agreement on religion.
No, it just proves you don't know what you're talking about.
lain:You took the position that I needed to grow up, and then you made a juvenile comment. Who's the hypocrite?
The most recent assessment was a few months ago, and included the IQ test [first one ever, for me]. I brought up the tests to show consistency.
Quite. But some people just refuse to believe they are capable of thinking issues through.
For instance, one part of my job occasionally entails subtracting ten percent from a price. Most of my co-workers either use a calculator or ask someone else what the answer is. That's what I mean by lazy. And if I'm wrong and they aren't lazy, then I'm usually the smartest person in the room. And that's sad.
Any other point to it?
I wasn't responding mostly with insults. Go back and read my posts. I explained how TH was wrong in his usage of most of the verses he brought up. The he decided to argue about principle, as if telling someone to not fight a mugger is the same as telling them to give to the poor. And then he and bybee brought up the Good Samaritan, as if that were the same thing. At that point how am I supposed to believe I'm dealing with intelligent people?
That's the entire internet. Pretty much any forum site, certainly.
Anyone who thinks a parable, from which we should learn, about a guy who gets beaten near to death and left to die and the guy who comes along and takes him to where he can get some care and pays for it, as the man is unconscious, and was robbed of all his money anyway, is a parable that teaches we should give money to the homeless guy hanging around outside the liquor store is someone who more than disagrees with me. he isn't thinking properly. He's seeing things that aren't there. He's reaching. His heart bleeds worse than Oliver Queen's.
Wrong.
The point of the OP is that we should do more than just give handouts, because handouts don't do anyone any good. TH made the implied accusation that the argument of the OP was that we shouldn't feed the hungry at all.
I don't just dismiss people for disagreeing with me. As I've pointed out, I don't recall ever calling kmoney a name without it being a joke. And I made sure he knew I was joking. And there is a lot on which we disagree.
How often have I called you names?
Yes, nit-picking snobbery seems to be one of your "strengths." :up:
If memory serves ... :think:
Apparently, I should add ventriloquism to my repertoire. :jolly:Lighthouse said:
Easy one. YOU! :kiss:
No, you were mostly responding to illustration with declaration peppered and punctuated with them.
Won't help. I actually set out a few of them in constructing your errors to little effect.
Well, you attempted to narrow one and when I gave you an example of that being errant both in terms of the larger Christian context, the Jewish tradition and understanding and the particular relating to Luke you just hid the counter in a large section of quotes and ignored it with one of those insults.
Then you declared a couple of scriptural comments inapplicable, even though I'd set out and thereafter set out again why they were as a matter of principle, leading to your ignoring and failing to answer, again...and there was my string cite to Knight on point that you simply never addressed. Else, spot on. :thumb:
Actually, no. Luke says to give to those who simply ask. And we're told elsewhere to pray, visit, feed, etc. those who need it. Really, the Bible is filled with examples of the good in doing that which isn't required of us by anyone.
The same thing as someone doing for another though they aren't obligated by more than their conscience? Absolutely.
Easily, they're making arguments you can't counter.
Anyone who thinks that was the point being made either isn't reading or can't. That you continue to frame any consideration in the meanest (and frequently errant) context says something about the bias you're locked into and a certain hardness of heart that it sponsors. Both are misinformed and unfortunate. But even where the addict is the beneficiary you've been met with a reasoned counter.
Ironic.
Doubly ironic.
No, it's called analysis and application. The Bible is filled with support for my position and condemnation of your narrow attempt at legalism.
Christ died for the people you turn your nose up at, as though you're not standing up to your neck in filth absent grace.
lain:You're wrong Brandon. I set out the OP. I even set out the post Knight made to clarify his initial position. It was about the damage he thought that kitchen did. No larger position emerged for some time.
Wrong again. I never said it. Quote me. My initial point was only that feeding those in need was an absolute good. Thereafter, once the more became a part of your side bar I agreed, while being surprised by your taking it up, still holding the one and the other weren't/aren't mutually exclusive.
:rotfl: Brandon, that's precisely what you do. Shall I quote you?
so what about soup kitchens?
Right!
Right!
If you've ever been hungry, and I mean over 24 hours without anything to eat you have an inkling of need.
To feed the hungry, to share from my excess, without questions, is a mandate from the Lord God.
I asked the question what is charitable giving? How much is enough?
The answer I received was, 10 percent of your time, talent and money in any workable combination for you, is mandated. Anything beyond that is charitable.
And "enough" is when you do what is in front of you to do.
Right!
If you've ever been hungry, and I mean over 24 hours without anything to eat you have an inkling of need.
To feed the hungry, to share from my excess, without questions, is a mandate from the Lord God.
I asked the question what is charitable giving? How much is enough?
The answer I received was, 10 percent of your time, talent and money in any workable combination for you, is mandated. Anything beyond that is charitable.
And "enough" is when you do what is in front of you to do.
finally a post on topic
Actually, most of them have been. Brandon's misunderstandings have everything to do with the foundation (and actual application) of the principles that make them possible and sustain them. Or, I suppose, one could stand on the sideline and make dismissive remarks aimed at people engaged in a necessary struggle.
That's one strategy.
lain:
You took the position that I was acting childishly, then made a juvenile comment. I told you that you should grow up as a way to call you on your hypocrisy.
:blabla:No, you were mostly responding to illustration with declaration peppered and punctuated with them.
Won't help. I actually set out a few of them in constructing your errors to little effect.
Well, you attempted to narrow one and when I gave you an example of that being errant both in terms of the larger Christian context, the Jewish tradition and understanding and the particular relating to Luke you just hid the counter in a large section of quotes and ignored it with one of those insults.
Then you declared a couple of scriptural comments inapplicable, even though I'd set out and thereafter set out again why they were as a matter of principle, leading to your ignoring and failing to answer, again...and there was my string cite to Knight on point that you simply never addressed. Else, spot on. :thumb:
Actually, no. Luke says to give to those who simply ask. And we're told elsewhere to pray, visit, feed, etc. those who need it. Really, the Bible is filled with examples of the good in doing that which isn't required of us by anyone.
The same thing as someone doing for another though they aren't obligated by more than their conscience? Absolutely.
Easily, they're making arguments you can't counter.
Anyone who thinks that was the point being made either isn't reading or can't. That you continue to frame any consideration in the meanest (and frequently errant) context says something about the bias you're locked into and a certain hardness of heart that it sponsors. Both are misinformed and unfortunate. But even where the addict is the beneficiary you've been met with a reasoned counter.
Ironic.
Doubly ironic.
No, it's called analysis and application. The Bible is filled with support for my position and condemnation of your narrow attempt at legalism.
Christ died for the people you turn your nose up at, as though you're not standing up to your neck in filth absent grace.
You're wrong Brandon. I set out the OP. I even set out the post Knight made to clarify his initial position. It was about the damage he thought that kitchen did. No larger position emerged for some time.
Wrong again. I never said it. Quote me. My initial point was only that feeding those in need was an absolute good. Thereafter, once the more became a part of your side bar I agreed, while being surprised by your taking it up, still holding the one and the other weren't/aren't mutually exclusive.
:rotfl: Brandon, that's precisely what you do. Shall I quote you?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Another astounding display of repartee and debating acumen from Mr LH esquire there....
:rain:
:rain:
Hey, if you can't climb the mountain you might as well laugh at it.
lain: Speaking of:
"Well, you attempted to narrow one and when I gave you an example of that being errant...you just hid the counter in a large section of quotes and ignored it with one of those insults."
Seemed worth posting again.
- Status