If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, do you still celebrate Christmas?

[jcribb16]

You are still going in circles.  You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.   That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.   You continue on with your circular refutes - I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.  I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.

thank you for trying to help and realize on what to expect in here and i am very appreciative about it.. im just gonna ignore em and hopefully you can rest a bit... as i have already did im done with them for good get better ^^
[/quote]

You're welcome and thank you.  Happy New Year!

[falcon9]

You are still going in circles.  You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.

Yes, that's what debating consists of.  It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions.  Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so.  Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.

That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.

Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
 

You continue on with your circular refutes -

They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'.  If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.

I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.

I read your circumventing and responding posts.  I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own.  On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.

I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
[/quote]

[falcon9]

No sir, my health problems got bad and I had to prioritize.

In that case, you're posting some now so, either things have gotten better or, you've re-priortized.

[falcon9]

im just gonna ignore em

Still waiting for that to occur after a few false pronouncements which were immediately voided by further replies.

 

these guys dont even recognized your health issues and saying you bailed....  such egomaniacs tho.. fo real...

It's been awhile however, I don't recall her mentioning health issues prior to bailing.  Mentioning them now, after the fact has no bearing on a lack of previous information.

[jcribb16]

You are still going in circles.  You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.

Yes, that's what debating consists of.  It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions.  Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so.  Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.

That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.

Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
 

You continue on with your circular refutes -

They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'.  If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.

I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.

I read your circumventing and responding posts.  I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own.  On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.

I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.

[/quote]


Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does.  I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone.  You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact.  Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.
No 'hand-holding' here.  Just a heads-up.  I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided, have given up in here and have even quit FC.  I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.  

[jcribb16]

No sir, my health problems got bad and I had to prioritize.

In that case, you're posting some now so, either things have gotten better or, you've re-priortized.

Actually it's none of your concern.  I post for my bonus just like all others.  I bookmark some, read some, and felt led to say something because of what was going on. 

[sammywantsya]

You are still going in circles.  You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.

Yes, that's what debating consists of.  It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions.  Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so.  Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.

That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.

Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
 

You continue on with your circular refutes -

They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'.  If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.

I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.

I read your circumventing and responding posts.  I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own.  On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.

I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.

Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does.  I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone.  You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact.  Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.
No 'hand-holding' here.  Just a heads-up.  I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided, have given up in here and have even quit FC.  I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.  
[/quote]

so truee and it was hard enough of those 2 egomaniacs ruin the fun out of it....

[falcon9]

You are still going in circles.  You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.

Yes, that's what debating consists of.  It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions.  Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so.  Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.

That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.

Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
 

You continue on with your circular refutes -

They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'.  If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.

I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.

I read your circumventing and responding posts.  I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own.  On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.

I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.

Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does.  I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone.  You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact.  Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.

The definition of "opinion" remains the same for everyone.  I choose to occasionally refute unsupported opinions because they aren't equivalent to factual statements.

No 'hand-holding' here.  Just a heads-up.  I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided ...

If, by "one-sided", your meaning is that I use reason and many of those people you "feel bad for" do not, then isn't that a shame?  Their being unable to debate using reason is not my responsibility.  Their insistance upon making irrational and unsupported claims is not my responsibility.  Apparently, you are implying that it is yours.

I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.

These forums are open to posting and replies by anyone who chooses to participate in them.  This includes false characterizations of "mocking or goading" and definitely includes refuting unsupported nonsense in the D+D forum.  If any participant's sensibilities are so fragile that they 'feel persecuted', the choice remains to participate or not in these forums.  Reread the prelude to the D+D and ponder it a moment.

[jcribb16]

im just gonna ignore em

Still waiting for that to occur after a few false pronouncements which were immediately voided by further replies.

 

these guys dont even recognized your health issues and saying you bailed....  such egomaniacs tho.. fo real...

It's been awhile however, I don't recall her mentioning health issues prior to bailing.  Mentioning them now, after the fact has no bearing on a lack of previous information.

You were way too much into refuting opinions that to care about anyone's health.  Falconer and Jordandog knew about my health issues but that need not concern you either since you still consider it bailing.  

[falcon9]

it was hard enough of those 2 egomaniacs ruin the fun out of it....

Your conception of "fun", as well as your passsive-aggressive and unsupported characterizations, have no bearing on choosing to reply or not.

[sammywantsya]

im just gonna ignore em

Still waiting for that to occur after a few false pronouncements which were immediately voided by further replies.

 

these guys dont even recognized your health issues and saying you bailed....  such egomaniacs tho.. fo real...

It's been awhile however, I don't recall her mentioning health issues prior to bailing.  Mentioning them now, after the fact has no bearing on a lack of previous information.

You were way too much into refuting opinions that to care about anyone's health.  Falconer and Jordandog knew about my health issues but that need not concern you either since you still consider it bailing.  

ignoring is so much fun.. glad i took my profile pic out.....

[falcon9]

You were way too much into refuting opinions that to care about anyone's health.

I'm sure I can go back and find at least one post made where I indicated concern for someone's health.  It may not have been yours, (IIRC, it was for "Abrupt"; someone who'd previously participated in several heated exchanges with me).

Falconer and Jordandog knew about my health issues but that need not concern you either since you still consider it bailing.

I'm not in any off-forum contact with either of those people and wasn't previously aware of your health status.  That said, the lack of being aware of that particular event had no bearing on refuting specious assertions you'd posted, (since, if you were well enough to post before those issues and are posting now, those issues aren't currently relavent).

[falcon9]

ignoring is so much fun.. glad i took my profile pic out.....

However, it isn't really "ignoring" when continued passive-aggressive posts are being made.  Just a heads-up on that.

[falcon9]

No sir, my health problems got bad and I had to prioritize.

In that case, you're posting some now so, either things have gotten better or, you've re-priortized.

Actually it's none of your concern.  I post for my bonus just like all others.  I bookmark some, read some, and felt led to say something because of what was going on. 

Exactly, it isn't my concern although you felt it necessary to mention regardless, (as an 'excuse', explanation or cop-out - who knows?).

[jcribb16]

You are still going in circles.  You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.

Yes, that's what debating consists of.  It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions.  Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so.  Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.

That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.

Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
 

You continue on with your circular refutes -

They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'.  If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.

I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.

I read your circumventing and responding posts.  I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own.  On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.

I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.

Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does.  I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone.  You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact.  Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.

The definition of "opinion" remains the same for everyone.  I choose to occasionally refute unsupported opinions because they aren't equivalent to factual statements.

No 'hand-holding' here.  Just a heads-up.  I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided ...

If, by "one-sided", your meaning is that I use reason and many of those people you "feel bad for" do not, then isn't that a shame?  Their being unable to debate using reason is not my responsibility.  Their insistance upon making irrational and unsupported claims is not my responsibility.  Apparently, you are implying that it is yours.

I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.

These forums are open to posting and replies by anyone who chooses to participate in them.  This includes false characterizations of "mocking or goading" and definitely includes refuting unsupported nonsense in the D+D forum.  If any participant's sensibilities are so fragile that they 'feel persecuted', the choice remains to participate or not in these forums.  Reread the prelude to the D+D and ponder it a moment.

1. Observe the golden rule
Treat others as you would like to be treated.
(You know this does not mean for others to constantly make your opinions look baseless, specious, unsupported to the point where you don't enjoy debating.  Courteousness of others with regards to speaking with them about their opinion or thoughts is what should be happening.  **Yes, a D&D topic can be sparky and heated over view points, but when view points are not acknowledge right off at the start, but instead shut down because you always consider others' views as baseless, unsupported, circular, etc., they aren't being given fair opportunity to stand by their reasons, whether they make sense or not.  Why debate then, because you've closed them out.)
 
2. Your use of the forums is a privilege, not a right, and we may revoke your access at any time and for any reason.
(You think it's a privilege to constantly badger others by not returning the favor of courteousness of respect for their opinions/beliefs/views?  Debating is usually of differing views, but not constantly using the same words over and over and over to others because you deem any of theirs unsupported, baseless, specious, including not providing factual info for an opinion, is not making it a privilege to enjoy it.  You are acting like it's your right to control these debates because your views are always accurate and correct and therefore there's no reason to tolerate anyone else who doesn't agree.)

**
A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk! **