The Function Of Belief

[cyberpi]

It can be a recipe for sin if such reasoning is used inappropriately. People will do what people will do, and when not being disruptive I can overlook a great deal, sometimes limits must be placed. What role am I playing? Just little ol' truth seeker me?, dad?, husband?, moderator?, supervisor?, chief cook and bottle washer? Each separate role brings with it a slightly different set of parameters.

Well you had noted on the thread "condemnation":

I take exception to being taken out of context, and the fact that my tirade was noted at that time by me to FaithfulServant that I *was deliberately* acting out of character, in frustration over a person who couldn't seem to get it across that his methods were improper regarding how we do things around here.

So I am left uncertain what role or character you were acting as. The last sentence is disturbing to me: How 'WE' do things? Who was 'we' in your role?

If you are like some people I know, their response may be entirely different given the benefit of 24 hours.

Please be sure to let me know if you think it changes.

That is a matter of taste and personal preferences, would you not agree? If you would rather poker than chess, that is fine with me. But I'm not one that gets any thrill out of gambling, so I will have to insist on penny ante poker. The wife might have something to say about any smoking in the house though, fair warning.

I read assumption. In the spirit of my point, and trying to maintain the relevance all along with the OP: What would you prefer for dinner? I recommend something expensive, because I am paying.

 

[juantoo3]

So I am left uncertain what role or character you were acting as. The last sentence is disturbing to me: How 'WE' do things? Who was 'we' in your role?

I prefer my role as participant 99% of the time. I don't relish the thought of having to moderate when things turn ugly, I get no thrill out of exercising authority, if that might be what you are hinting at. I have explained in the past several times, sufficiently that I really do not understand what the pet peeve is. Have I made any similar mistake (as you deem it) since? In fairness, has any situation presented itself that was in any respect similar?

Quite the contrary, I think in my own personal participation I go to great lengths to accomodate others that hold views unlike my own. I have had heated and even frustrating discussions with many people around here. Some have over time become friends, others merely tolerate my presence and some I'm sure would just as well that I disappear. I hate none of them. As long as they are not disruptive to the community as a whole, I have no quarrel with them.

Please be sure to let me know if you think it changes.

Touche. In that regard I think you give mee a run for the money in the stubborn determination category. The difference being I do not understand what it is you have issue with, at least with mee I know what his pre-canned answer will be in advance.

What would you prefer for dinner? I recommend something expensive, because I am paying.

Would you rather I act unlike myself? I had thought instead that perhaps you might enjoy a homecooked meal. I know when I spent a great deal of time on the road, that is something I came to treasure...a simple homecooked meal every once in awhile. But, you are the guest and I will allow for your preference...and even if you do end up buying, I assure the last thing I would seek is "expensive," especially for the pure excuse of opportunity. Not that the offer isn't appreciated, but momma didn't raise me and four siblings to abuse other's generosity.

I am no saint. I have never tried to portray myself as one, here or anywhere. I do what I think is best most of the time, and even when I don't I keep it to a minimum. I have faults, fallacies, frailties and weaknesses. I succumb to my preferred temptations.

Just like everyone else.

I'm not sure what or who it is you expect to find, but I hope you will be surprised that I am not really a tyrannical ogre. I just have to play one on rare occasions when circumstances deem it necessary or when Mercury is in retrograde.

 

[greymare]

but ogres have layers, like onions. i like onions. lol.

 

[Snoopy]

but ogres have layers, like onions. i like onions. lol.

have you been on the water of life grey?

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Ummm, don't ogres smell like onions too?

And doesn't water of life taste like worms...Shai Halud (at least in the story "Dune")?


At least I believe so anyway. And that's how I get back on topic, tah-dah!

 

[Snoopy]

doesn't water of life taste like worms...?

I think Tao might consider this to be blasphemous.

s.

 

[greymare]

sorry guys, it must be the mother in me, I was thinking of Shrek

 

[Tao_Equus]

Then it is not what you hear, but how you hear it. What you hear speaks volumes to me.

Well I am an open book, that should not be too difficult now should it?

I ask questions instead of placing statements because until you answer the questions for yourself and resolve the conflict you will not see anything other than what you want to see.

Nonsense. Such a method is a device of trickery. These questions framed specifically to try and lure someone into agreeing with you. You understand the scientific method, postulate an opinion and wait for commentary on it. That is not what you do. As others state, and I too thought of using in my last post, your dialogue is most akin to a travelling salesman or a politician. Slippery, deflective, deliberately trying to control the direction to your own agenda. Which, as far as I can see, is to prop up your own ego.
I on the other hand am unambiguous in my words. I never had an education other than that I gave myself and so I do not always use language perfectly. But I make efforts to be clear, even if I am found wrong. Which, given the broad range of expertise found amongst the patrons of this establishment, is often. But I am not so arrogant in my mindset of the moment to assume that I am nearly as clever as many of the people here. I love two things above all others. Looking and learning. Thats why I am here. I like to think my contributions help me focus my energies in particular directions and that those that engage with me are 1: similarly interested and 2: add to my internal database. Perhaps I come across sometimes as being absolutist in some areas of interest. Absolutism can be used as a device too, it adds emphatic resonance. And sometimes it can be valuable. But I do try to listen for the signs that such absolutism is failing to add anything to the debate, which given the nature of this site, is often. But my position as an atheist on a religious forum is a precarious one in that I want to bring value to a discussion, but I am treading a tightrope in which a swing too far in any direction leads to idealogical safety nets ending anything meaningful. With you, and your linguistic slights of hand, there is simply no point. You are never willing to engage as an equal. I applaud your ability to maintain such a device so consistently. But I do not find it clever. It achieves none of the aims you state it is meant to with me. It does not make me ask questions of my own ways of thinking or my beliefs. And from what I gather it does not work for anybody else either. Instead it puts my heckles up, makes me respond to the structure of your response rather than its meaning. I dont appreciate the condescension and your replies are so deeply wrapped in that that anything else they may carry is ignored.
As for pushing buttons... well so far the only person I have ever observed to push any of yours is you. So I'll leave that choice to you.

 

[Paladin]

Re: The Function Of Assumption

Where did Tao ask a question? Who is selling anything??

Could you show me where the original argument is? In the original post I see two questions. Are you looking for answers or are you trying to NLP one? As far as I am concerned the title should have read: 'The Function of Assumption'.

So you have judged that I have got a habit I am not aware of, or I am guilty of something, that words try to maintain innocence, that my discourse is unreasonable, that someone here is a peer, and that evidence of me comes from someone here. Wow, that was very disturbing. With which shall I start? But then you say there was no value in your judgment. I surely disagree... there is some value in every judgment.

Once again, QED. Simply amazing

 

[cyberpi]

Well I am an open book, that should not be too difficult now should it?

A day is a book and you write one daily.

Such a method is a device of trickery. These questions framed specifically to try and lure someone into agreeing with you. You understand the scientific method, postulate an opinion and wait for commentary on it.

You want a more scientific method... very well how much does the dead horse weigh?

That is not what you do. As others state, and I too thought of using in my last post, your dialogue is most akin to a travelling salesman or a politician. Slippery, deflective, deliberately trying to control the direction to your own agenda. Which, as far as I can see, is to prop up your own ego.

Since you are disgruntled by mere questions, shall I stop asking them?

I on the other hand am unambiguous in my words.

Should I flog the horse that says otherwise?

With you, and your linguistic slights of hand, there is simply no point. You are never willing to engage as an equal.

By your words, are we equal?

It achieves none of the aims you state it is meant to with me.

If the aim of a question is to receive an answer, then I surely do agree.

 

[cyberpi]

Re: The Function Of Assumption

Once again, QED. Simply amazing

So I am invited yet again to assume... by the void of your answers. No thank you... I decline that evil.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

A day is a book and you write one daily.

You want a more scientific method... very well how much does the dead horse weigh?

Since you are disgruntled by mere questions, shall I stop asking them?

Should I flog the horse that says otherwise?

By your words, are we equal?

If the aim of a question is to receive an answer, then I surely do agree.

Count them: One, two, three, four rhetorical questions out of six sentences. QED indeed.

You don't get it. Instead of putting out your own intellectual product, what you do is mess with other people's words. This may amuse you, but the rest of us find it irritating and disingenuous.

Chris

 

[cyberpi]

Count them: One, two, three, four rhetorical questions out of six sentences. QED indeed.

You don't get it. Instead of putting out your own intellectual product, what you do is mess with other people's words. This may amuse you, but the rest of us find it irritating and disingenuous.

Chris

If they are rhetorical then what is their answer? Should I apologize for asking questions? Is it wrong to ask questions? Would you prefer that I not ask you questions?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Re: The Function Of Assumption

So I am invited yet again to assume... by the void of your answers.

Seems to me that you take gold medal in that race, mate. Your other medal is that for the person most likely to disappear up his own jacksie.

Obviously meaningful dialogue is not your aim in coming to this forum. You just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Fair enough. Whatever sails your boat....
I am sorry that you failed to see I was trying to reach out to you. Perhaps I should have done so in PM but I never PM anybody so the idea did not occur to me till now. I tried because I genuinely like parts of your thinking. But I can only bend so far, not before snapping, but before I bend out of your reach. So you can carry on flogging a dead horse, this one is way out of reach of your rod.

Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Tao, you have no questions so I have no answers. Since you consider it trickery to ask you questions then I will play a trick and ask you no more questions.

Quite the contrary, I think in my own personal participation I go to great lengths to accomodate others that hold views unlike my own.

Silas? Niranjan?

I hate none of them. As long as they are not disruptive to the community as a whole, I have no quarrel with them.

I do have quarrel because you did hate at least two.

Would you rather I act unlike myself?

Your claim on the other thread was that you were not being yourself, yet your claim here on this thread was that you were demonstrating yourself at the time. If I knew which was true then maybe I could answer the question.

I had thought instead that perhaps you might enjoy a homecooked meal.

I identify that as an assumption. I prefer what I offered which was dinner out on me. Your choice of location and your family is invited too. I prefer, recommend, and hope that it is expensive. I will probably wear shorts and a t-shirt though... I do enjoy the Florida weather this time of year.

 

[juantoo3]

Silas? Niranjan?

At the risk of repeating myself:

I prefer my role as participant 99% of the time. I don't relish the thought of having to moderate when things turn ugly, I get no thrill out of exercising authority, if that might be what you are hinting at. I have explained in the past several times, sufficiently that I really do not understand what the pet peeve is. Have I made any similar mistake (as you deem it) since? In fairness, has any situation presented itself that was in any respect similar?

Quite the contrary, I think in my own personal participation I go to great lengths to accomodate others that hold views unlike my own. I have had heated and even frustrating discussions with many people around here. Some have over time become friends, others merely tolerate my presence and some I'm sure would just as well that I disappear. I hate none of them. As long as they are not disruptive to the community as a whole, I have no quarrel with them.

That is my answer about Silas and Niranjan.

I do have quarrel because you did hate at least two.

No. I disapproved of *what they were doing.* There is a difference between disapproval and hatred, dispite the common propaganda.

Your claim on the other thread was that you were not being yourself, yet your claim here on this thread was that you were demonstrating yourself at the time. If I knew which was true then maybe I could answer the question.

Both are true. I will leave it to you to sort out, I have explained already.

I identify that as an assumption. I prefer what I offered which was dinner out on me. Your choice of location and your family is invited too. I prefer, recommend, and hope that it is expensive. I will probably wear shorts and a t-shirt though... I do enjoy the Florida weather this time of year.

I am willing to accomodate your preferences, but the presumption that I wish to abuse your generousity is just not how I reason. I am looking forward to tomorrow evening.

 

[cyberpi]

No. I disapproved of *what they were doing.* There is a difference between disapproval and hatred, dispite the common propaganda.

Doing, or saying? On a forum most people can not do anything but speak... to add words. I understand that you disapproved of what they were saying. I also disapproved with some of what each were saying too. Who wouldn't disapprove of what you were saying to them? Please go back and read those threads. Read what you said to them. When questioned though, you claimed to be acting out of character. Why couldn't anyone else use the same excuse? The people who did something with their disapproval though, is whoever banned them from speaking here. While I submit that a community is much more than just communication, the true interruption to any alleged community comes from that act of banning. Words come and go, but banning someone against their will for sharing words is a true disruption.

Notice on this very thread, more than a few disapprove of what I say and the way I say it. Where are the true speech police and behavior police?

Both are true. I will leave it to you to sort out, I have explained already.

This claimed business of acting out of character, or acting another role, looks dishonest to me.

I am willing to accomodate your preferences, but the presumption that I wish to abuse your generousity is just not how I reason. I am looking forward to tomorrow evening.

By your former words, it sounds like I could be abused if you spot what you claim to be arrogance. It is impossible though to abuse what I agree to or ask for. Key aspect of faith.

Law is a matter of ...

 

[Tao_Equus]

Notice on this very thread, more than a few disapprove of what I say and the way I say it. Where are the true speech police and behavior police?

True? I apologise if you have the impression I wish to 'police' or by any other method limit your freedom of expression. My purpose was to demonstrate to you that I found your style of engagement deliberately obtuse and unhelpful, arrogant and egotistical. I have at no time called for the banning of you or anyone else and would not do so unless the persons posts were composed entirely of cut and pastes or promoted hate/violence. Even the occasional, no RARE!!, 'real' bit of Mee we get is enough to qualify as acceptable. That would be my own criteria. But it aint my forum, and it aint yours so I cannot fathom why you harp on about it. All I can say is that if you are so doggedly rabbiting on about every slight, and you talk to them like you do here, then your family must be extremely happy you spend so much time travelling!! For the record: I hope you remain around here a long time... if there is no space for most types here then it would not be worth coming here.

Tao

Tao

 

[cyberpi]

True?

Tao, you asked a question and I have an answer. I have no quarrel whatsoever with you for the act of rebuking me, my beliefs, what I've said, the way I've said it, nor my style of posing you questions. Relax. I have disagreement with the content of your rebuke so far, but I personally appreciate the feedback whether I agree or disagree with it. If perchance I equally disapproved of your language, or found the content intolerable, or unbearable, I would consider it my failure if I banned you for the mere words.

There is no trickery intended in my questions. If they are annoying to you, realize now that I am aware that they are annoying to you.

Why do I go on about Silas and Niranjan... flogging the dead horse you might say... with juantoo3. I have my reasons. I don't mind if you view it as a sanctimonious nature. In a year I think I will be in Europe and would love to equally buy you dinner, if you wish.