BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath
- Thread starter webby
- Start date
- Status
Zak,
Zak,
You claim that Knight’s definition was “more anthropocentric and relativistic” than the definition you used, but that isn’t true. You defined absolute morality as a “system of ideas” rather than a “standard.” Ideas are “personal opinions or beliefs,” “thoughts to be presented as suggestions,” “concepts that exist only in the mind.” A standard is “an acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value,” “a criterion,” “a degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment.”
However, by using weaker definitions, you weakened your position. Perhaps a less “anthropocentric and relativistic” definition would have been:
Zak,
It appears to me that you chose the definition that had the weakest meaning possible to better bolster you position. That’s okay, because that is what debates are all about, right? Choosing the words and definitions that best suit your position.
You claim that Knight’s definition was “more anthropocentric and relativistic” than the definition you used, but that isn’t true. You defined absolute morality as a “system of ideas” rather than a “standard.” Ideas are “personal opinions or beliefs,” “thoughts to be presented as suggestions,” “concepts that exist only in the mind.” A standard is “an acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value,” “a criterion,” “a degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment.”
However, by using weaker definitions, you weakened your position. Perhaps a less “anthropocentric and relativistic” definition would have been:
What do you think? Oh well, it’s too late now I suppose. As you said, we might have “run out of posts before we ran out of definitions.”
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Hmmm.
Was I a Christian? The answer to that question is a mystery that depends on one's theology. According to OSAS folks I could not have been a "real Christian" since I am not one now. According to most evangelicals and liturgicals (and me), I was a Christian.
Why I left the church is public knowledge. No juicy scandal or anything very interesting to most folks. Email me at my profile and I'll discuss it futher if you'd like.
(I may be a bit slow returning emails since I am a trifle busy right now...)
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Re: Zak,
Re: Zak,
Re: Zak,
Truly said. I chose the definition, from among many, that I felt would benefit my position. As did Knight, apparently...
Knight's definition is totally dependent upon human morality since it requires his "absolute" construct to be superior to human constructs. Without the human constructs, he has no absolute system of morality since there would be nothing to be superior to...
Exactly my point. Thanks for the input.
Freak
New member
Zakath, when caught red handed, nervously claimed: As nearly as I can tell that is two minutes. It appears we are discussing a matter of seconds here.
That is irrelevant! You broke the rules, Zakath.
You said it was a matter of "seconds" though ealier in the sentance you stated it was "two minutes", which is it?
Minutes is miuntes, seconds is seconds.
Zakath is just not the same man as he once was. What's wrong? Is God, perhaps, getting your attention?
That is irrelevant! You broke the rules, Zakath.
You said it was a matter of "seconds" though ealier in the sentance you stated it was "two minutes", which is it?
Minutes is miuntes, seconds is seconds.
Zakath is just not the same man as he once was. What's wrong? Is God, perhaps, getting your attention?
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
my goodness, some one is testy today! Feeing guilty about ones own tresspasses maybe?
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
yes sir! Mr Goose sir!
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Jay,
You are so eager to see me humiliated, you're drooling all over yourself.
Before you gloat too loudly, take a look at the bottom of my post. If you use both eyes, you'll see that the elapsed time between the post and the edit was two (count 'em) two minutes. That was the rule.
My question was based upon the wording of the rule. If it was 2 minutes and one second, how am I supposed to know that since TOL's clock doesn't show seconds on posts?
That, of course, assumes that the clock and edit tag were working as described which, until we hear from the Webmaster, is not necessarily the case...
Why don't you ask "Maxwell's demon" if he has any suggestions, bouncing one?
You are so eager to see me humiliated, you're drooling all over yourself.
Before you gloat too loudly, take a look at the bottom of my post. If you use both eyes, you'll see that the elapsed time between the post and the edit was two (count 'em) two minutes. That was the rule.
My question was based upon the wording of the rule. If it was 2 minutes and one second, how am I supposed to know that since TOL's clock doesn't show seconds on posts?
That, of course, assumes that the clock and edit tag were working as described which, until we hear from the Webmaster, is not necessarily the case...
Why don't you ask "Maxwell's demon" if he has any suggestions, bouncing one?
Zakath
Resident Atheist
It would appear that the referee (the Webmaster) is more interested in bludgeoning the non-believer than answering questions...
My question remains unanswered, since I did not appear to break the two minute rule by exceeding two minutes between my post and edit, why am I being chastized?
Could it be that "they're all out to get me"...
"Someone hand that man another folding chair..."
My question remains unanswered, since I did not appear to break the two minute rule by exceeding two minutes between my post and edit, why am I being chastized?
Could it be that "they're all out to get me"...
"Someone hand that man another folding chair..."
Last edited:
Posted by Freak:
"Zakath is just not the same man as he once was. What's wrong? Is God, perhaps, getting your attention?"
Whether this is true I dont know. But I do know you throw out the same boring trash over and over again. You sir havent changed at all I'm sorry to say.
"Zakath is just not the same man as he once was. What's wrong? Is God, perhaps, getting your attention?"
Whether this is true I dont know. But I do know you throw out the same boring trash over and over again. You sir havent changed at all I'm sorry to say.
I am being MORE than fair with you.Originally posted by Zakath
It would appear that the referee (the Webmaster) is more interested in bludgeoning the non-believer than answering questions...
My question remains unanswered, since I did not appear to break the two minute rule by exceeding two minutes between my post and edit, why am I being chastized?
Could it be that "they're all out to get me"...
"Someone hand that man another folding chair..."
The rules clearly state the post is to be deleted, but I am allowing it to stay. However it would also be unfair to Knight if I didn't at least post a warning since the rule was indeed broken. The script software automatically generates the "this post was last edited by..." message as soon as 2 minutes have elapsed, therefore, no matter how you slice it the rule was broken.
The only alternative would be to ignore the rules completely and assume that everyone will set their own rules relative to them.
webmaster,
I have had the problem, though, that when I hit edit, it takes a minute for the post to load. During this time, it counts down the timer, thus making me past the time even though I hit the button in plenty of time (for some reason, edits do not load fast, and I am on a cable connection).
I do think that Zak should get the benefit of the doubt, which he did for the first post, but I also think he should have known to not post the second post of his.
Perhaps both his second post and the webmasters could be deleted from the thread (the ones refering to the editing, not the actual post nor the webmasters response to it)?
I have had the problem, though, that when I hit edit, it takes a minute for the post to load. During this time, it counts down the timer, thus making me past the time even though I hit the button in plenty of time (for some reason, edits do not load fast, and I am on a cable connection).
I do think that Zak should get the benefit of the doubt, which he did for the first post, but I also think he should have known to not post the second post of his.
Perhaps both his second post and the webmasters could be deleted from the thread (the ones refering to the editing, not the actual post nor the webmasters response to it)?
I agree with the first part of your post which is why I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side.... the rules state....
Editing your posts in a battle should be unnecessary! You have ample time (48 hours) to compose your post and you can preview your post limitless times before you post it using the "Preview Reply" button.
To avoid the time limit issue simply make sure your ready to post your post when you post it! I think that's reasonable.
- Status