[wonderer]

Many Christians too seem to have moved in the same direction. Why is it no longer acceptable for them to acknowledge that the basis of their beliefs is simply “faith”? Is it a matter of pride?

Reason envy?

[Johan]

Because those that have moved away from it have realized that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, but rather its a good way to be confidently wrong.

[kravarnik]

Because Protestants and Catholics constantly shift with the times, thus they start to mimic whatever the worldly “wise men” do. Scholasticism is the beginning point of this process. But since it’s a spiritual process, it is gradually achieves inner and outer (in)consistency.

So, instead of trying to demonstrate that all belief is on faith; and all knowledge is on belief; they try to play the epistemological game, whereby sensual data interpreted with particular epistemological criterion of evidentialism is the way to “show” the truth of Christianity.

While scholasticism was initially unbothered and with no grave consequences, as it secularized the mind of man, more and more metaphysical realities were abandoned in the quest of ultimate evidentialism based on natural philosophy. At some point, Descartes even entertained his own non-existence, of the self, thus he famously argued that the metaphysical property of “existence” of his own self is demonstrated by the fact that he thinks.

However, the point that the Western Christians should have made is that: we all have faith, because we all, ultimately, “believe”; and even our “knowledge” is maintained by belief and ultimately reduces to belief. Which belief is driven by faith. So, we all have faith, but the objects and contents of our faith changes. Christians should argue that Pagans simply have perverted faith, not that they don’t have faith and we “know” on the basis of “seeing, smelling, hearing stuff”, as if claiming that the senses are reliable to observe “existence” and “reality” isn’t itself “a belief” maintained by faith > because one cannot go out of his own senses to prove his senses.

Whatever way we slice it, we all believe; and even the things we “think we know” are beliefs. Absolute evidentiary certainty is a chimera that Aristotle created. Christ brought back the question to matters of faith, because “man lives by faith”.

[kravarnik]

So, we maintain, that man lives by faith; for God has endowed man with subjectivity so vast, with soul so rich, with person so free, that each man can freely “believe” and they will be “justified” by said belief/faith.

Nobody “knows”, but everyone “thinks they know”, but it remains as thought, subsisting as concept, stored as belief. God will count one’s faith in Him as righteousness, because that’s a willful effort by the person to “wish into reality” this “view” of the world.

That is: “faith” expresses what man “wants” reality to be. If you have “faith in God”, then one wants reality to be as God has expressed it is; and once one wants it, then they try to effect reality to bring about said change to be said likeness.

Thus, we all live by faith. Not only Christians should start admitting that again, but atheists also need to wake up and stop pretending to be what they are not. No, you’re not a “knower”, you’re a believer, like the rest of us, hoping that things are particular way and forming beliefs about things “you do not see”, but maintain by wishful thinking.

That is: atheists also need to confess to the subjective factors at play in the working of their mind and what they claim to be “true” and “known”. However, atheists tend to be arrogant and present themselves as “knowing”, when in reality they are in the same basked as the religious, but are too prideful to admit to it.

[kravarnik]

Anticipating atheistic arrogant diatribes:

– How do you know?
– I use my senses and the basis of sufficient repetitive occurrence I conclude “reality”.
– But how do you know your sense to be delivering an external, truly existing reality? And how do you know they accurate capture what happens, the events and the movement included therein?
– I reason deeply and critically over my empirical experiences, thus I come up with a logical and rational criterion to discriminate and eliminate error.
– But how do you know your reasoning is in any way connected to an external reality and your definition of things is accurate to the things themselves? That is: how can you test your criterion? Or, in other words, “the problem of criterion” – what is the criterion that establishes what sub-criterions of all possible criterions is the “right criterion”?

In essence, if you can justify sense data through rational criterion, then you need to justify the rational criterion; but either that goes ad-infinitum, thus osmething is taken on faith; or one fails to provide “a criterion for the criterion” or “a meta criterion that resolves the problem of criterion”.

Translating into: atheists have faith in their own reasoning, in their own word. Anyhow, we all have faith, Christians simply have faith in Christ, the Word of God. Atheists, for the large part, have faith in themselves – in their own reasoning, in their own ego.

[Algernon]

@wonderer , @Jbiemans , @kravarnik

“Reason envy”. Tongue-in-cheek? While that may play a part for some, seems like “pride” is what drives that also.

“Confidently wrong”. While that may apply to some who simply accept that “faith” is the basis for their belief, all the more “confident” are those who are adamant that their “reasons” – no matter how unsound – are convincing in and of themselves.

“However, the point that the Western Christians should have made is that: we all have faith, because we all, ultimately, “believe”; and even our “knowledge” is maintained by belief and ultimately reduces to belief. Which belief is driven by faith…Whatever way we slice it, we all believe; and even the things we “think we know” are beliefs…No, you’re not a “knower”, you’re a believer, like the rest of us, hoping that things are particular way and forming beliefs about things “you do not see”, but maintain by wishful thinking.“

Interesting that you seem to have included all Christian beliefs in “wishful thinking”. “Wish in one hand…”. Be that as it may, not all beliefs are equally sound. Some are much more sound than others. They are justified by solid evidence and/or sound reasoning. To hear some – invariably those who have neither solid evidence nor sound reasoning – tell it, any one belief is as good as another.

“Anyhow, we all have faith, Christians simply have faith in Christ, the Word of God”.

More accurately, by and large, “Christians simply have faith” in their own interpretation of the Bible which has its foundation in the Pauline “gospel” and the many subsequent derivations thereof. If they indeed had “faith in Christ” Himself, they would instead have faith in the words spoken by Jesus while He preached HIS gospel.

John 18

37…For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

John 12

47“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Matthew 6

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

There is a wide gulf between the gospel preached by Jesus and the Pauline “gospel”. So wide is the gulf that they are cannot be reconciled under the light of truth. One side is light. The other side is darkness. The words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel is light. Paul’s “gospel” is darkness. But followers of the Pauline “gospel” believe that that darkness is light. “How great is the darkness!”. They are blind,but believe that they can see. They do not hear Jesus’ “voice”. They do not receive Jesus’ “sayings”. The word Jesus spoke “is what will judge him at the last day.”.

[wonderer]

“Reason envy”. Tongue-in-cheek? While that may play a part for some, seems like “pride” is what drives that also.

Partially tongue in cheek, but only partially.

Do you think there is something wrong with having pride in having used good reasoning? If so why?

I encourage people to take pride in having used good reasoning.

[Algernon]

@wonderer

Pride? Never saw “Pulp Fiction”? Pride never helps. It only hurts.

Sound reasoning requires things such as objectivity, good critical thinking skills, good conceptual thinking skills, intellectual honesty and a love of truth.

When feelings such a pride enter the equation, objectivity often goes out the window along with everything else required for sound reasoning. Think of all those you’ve know who took great pride in their “good reasoning”, but whose reasoning was poor at best.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
pride noun
1. a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[wonderer]

Pride? Never saw “Pulp Fiction”? 

Argument from fiction?

Pride never helps. It only hurts.

Would you prefer to take your car to a mechanic who takes pride in his work, or one who is apathetic?

[Algernon]

@wonderer ,

The reference to “Pulp Fiction” wasn’t meant as an “argument”. No idea why you would reasonably think it was. Search on youtube for “Pulp Fiction Pride”. It’s a classic scene.

It’s as if you chose to ignore the main thrust of my post. Here it is again:

Sound reasoning requires things such as objectivity, good critical thinking skills, good conceptual thinking skills, intellectual honesty and a love of truth.
When feelings such a pride enter the equation, objectivity often goes out the window along with everything else required for sound reasoning. Think of all those you’ve know who took great pride in their “good reasoning”, but whose reasoning was poor at best.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
pride noun
1. a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.

[wonderer]

Sound reasoning requires things such as objectivity, good critical thinking skills, good conceptual thinking skills, intellectual honesty and a love of truth.
When feelings such a pride enter the equation, objectivity often goes out the window along with everything else required for sound reasoning. Think of all those you’ve know who took great pride in their “good reasoning”, but whose reasoning was poor at best.

Emotion is what motivates us to do much of what we do. So in light of understanding human psychology it is unrealistic to expect reasoning to be emotion free. If I hadn’t had some degree of emotional reaction to what you said, I wouldn’t have responded.

Certainly it can be good to be aware of what emotion is motivating us in many cases, but it unrealistic (denying one’s human nature) to think ourselves or others able to reason in an emotionless robotic way.

You didn’t answer my last question. Do you recognize that pride is not always bad? Can you recognize that Jesus expressed a simplistic view of human emotions? (E.g. many of the things he said about anger and lust)

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Johan]

This holds true for many “negative” emotions. Things like anger and envy can be amazing motivators. Also, “positive” emotions like love and happiness, can also be harmful if taken to extremes. Extreme love can lead to some disturbing behavior. Extremes happiness, like euphoria is what leads many people to become addicted to drugs.

[Algernon]

@wonderer ,

Kinda hoped that you’d be able to connect-the-dots. Evidently not. Let’s take another look at what I wrote earlier:

Sound reasoning requires things such as objectivity, good critical thinking skills, good conceptual thinking skills, intellectual honesty and a love of truth.
When feelings such a pride enter the equation, objectivity often goes out the window along with everything else required for sound reasoning.

Pride does not help to reason soundly. It might provide an impetus for some to try to reason soundly. But they aren’t the same thing. There’s a distinction that needs to be made between trying to reason soundly and actually reasoning soundly. Note what the second sentence above is saying a well. As I wrote earlier, “Pride never helps. It only hurts.”

Also, you seem to have a very simplistic understanding of “human psychology”. Let’s see if you can connect-the-dots now that you have the above. Hint: What’s common does not necessarily apply to all. As a matter of curiosity, did you grow up Christian?

Not sure why you brought Jesus into this. For all intents and purposes, Jesus has nothing to do with my position on “sound reasoning” and “feelings”.

You also seem to have a penchant for jumping to illogical conclusions. You should consider how much your being motivated by “emotion” affects your ability to reason soundly.

[wonderer]

Kinda hoped that you’d be able to connect-the-dots. 

I ask questions in order to better connect the dots. So why don’t you answer my questions?

[Algernon]

Any questions beside the following?:

Would you prefer to take your car to a mechanic who takes pride in his work, or one who is apathetic?

Do you recognize that pride is not always bad?

Can you recognize that Jesus expressed a simplistic view of human emotions?

The above were all addressed in my previous post. Did you read anything beside the first statement? Were there others?

[wonderer]

Any questions beside the following?:
Would you prefer to take your car to a mechanic who takes pride in his work, or one who is apathetic?
Do you recognize that pride is not always bad?
Can you recognize that Jesus expressed a simplistic view of human emotions?
The above were all addressed in my previous post. Did you read anything beside the first statement? Were there others?

I don’t recall any others, and yes, I read all of your post. However, to conclude that there were answers to my questions in there would involve jumping to conclusions, and I am trying to reduce the frequency with which I do that. So how about simply providing clear direct answers to my questions?

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Algernon]

For starters, none of those questions are well-formed. The first question is a false dichotomy. The next two are loaded questions. As such, there is no point in answering any of them directly.

Presumably what you are seeking is to understand my position. From what I can tell, your views on this topic are simplistic. It’s as if you’re trying to understand my position within that framework. There’s no way for you to get a solid understanding of my position using that approach since my views on this topic are built upon a very different framework that is not simplistic and are very different from your own.

Try setting aside your views and framework and rereading my responses. I’ve provided more than enough for you to gain a reasonably good understanding of my position if you do this.

[wonderer]

For starters, none of those questions are well-formed. The first question is a false dichotomy. The next two are loaded questions. As such, there is no point in answering any of them directly.
Presumably what you are seeking is to understand my position. From what I can tell, your views on this topic are simplistic. 

In that case the way I connect the dots is to jump to the conclusion that simply answering the questions (in any way that actually conveys your view) would expose the inconsistency of your beliefs, and you don’t want the inconsistency of your beliefs exposed.

I don’t know how you think I might come to understand your beliefs without you exposing your beliefs to scrutiny, and I wonder what you are so afraid of, but oh well. Thanks for the discussion.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  wonderer.
• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Algernon]

Or you could try asking questions that are not logically fallacious. The following should help you to form reasonable questions. But then, no doubt it’s so much more emotionally satisfying to pitch a hissy fit, jump to false conclusions and make false accusations. What to choose? What to choose?

False Dilemma
(also known as: all-or-nothing fallacy, false dichotomy [form of], the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)
Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes.  False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices.  Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.
Complex Question Fallacy
(also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question, false question)
Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.  It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.
From https://www.logicallyfallacious.com

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[wonderer]

Ah, it’s your pride being hurt that you are afraid of.

[Algernon]

Seems you’ve opted for “emotionally satisfying”: “pitch a hissy fit, jump to false conclusions and make false accusations”. May you some day gain more emotional and mental maturity than what you’ve exhibited on this thread.

[Johan]

I am sorry, but you seem to have a really strange definition for what “pitch a hissy fit” means, if you think that is what occurred here.

You said pride is always bad, wonderer pointed out where it wasn’t and asked you if you agreed, and you refused to answer the question. I don’t see how that qualifies as a hissy fit?

Have you changed your mind, and now agree that pride is not always bad?

(EDIT: Please remember you started this by saying “Pride never helps. It only hurts.”)

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Johan.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

I’m not sure why you all continue conversations like this where no one is actually trying to communicate and is instead just arguing about the conversation itself.

This is what happens when people don’t converse in good faith.

Start taking each other’s views more charitably–everyone; I’m not singling anyone out–or I’ll lock the thread. It’s useless at this point.

[Johan]

I continue because I see merit in both learning to better communicate my point, even to someone who is discussing in bad faith, and possibly helping the other party better communicate their point.

I don’t get as much exposure to this in real life because generally people do not behave this way face to face, so I take it where I can get it.

EDIT: I also don’t want to speak for wonderer, but I am pretty confident in this, it is not that we are not taking his view charitably, it is that we are both fairly literal in the way that we take what people say. If you say X, then you mean X. There is some subtext to take into account, but we don’t assume the subtext is the message. This is why we will sometimes ask for clarification. When you ask though, and someone responds with “well isn’t it obvious”, that is when we get into these kinds of stalemates.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Johan.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

@johan

I understand and empathize with the desire to improve your own discursive abilities, and also to attempt to help others do the same, but my point here is that it just perpetuates types of conversations I don’t want represented on the forum publicly–inane babbling in a circle and talking past each other, seemingly on purpose sometimes.

I also empathize the ‘style’ of replying to what people say instead of what they might mean in order to prove a point or hold people accountable for the words they use. However, it usually just comes across as being a pedantic steamroller. (Not an accusation to you or @wonderer necessarily.) I find it’s better to just ask simple clarifying questions instead. ‘Why did you say it like that? Is this what you meant?’ Letting the other person better explain themselves makes you seem charitable, lets them feel like you’re listening and trying to understand them instead of talking at them, and, as a result, actually can improve how you both communicate. So, you get what you wanted anyways!

Now I’ve further contributed to derailing this thread by talking about communication.

You guys are good at this.

[Algernon]

@thebeego,

Seems a bit premature to intervene at this point. At times it is necessary to talk about the conversation itself in effort to eventually arrive at well-reasoned conclusions.

Should not failures to “converse in good faith” be pointed out? Should not logical fallacies be pointed out? Should not refusals to acknowledge the logical fallacies be pointed out?

It’s not as if anyone has been so uncharitable so as to stoop so low so as to call another poster an “ass” or anything as happened in the “God as the greatest good or the result of the Kalam?” thread.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Any problem with my responding to @johan’s response to me? Some erroneous statements have been made about what has been said.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

I’ve found more often than not pointing out where someone is not conversing in good faith does nothing and usually causes further degradation in the conversation.

It’s better to just not feed those kinds of conversations.

I very much believe in the ‘marketplace of dialogue’, where the people who deserve responses should get them, and those that do not should not. I want as little intervention as possible, so as to not stifle constructive discourse prematurely, but I still believe intervention is necessary sometimes.

Hence my questioning about why people feel so inclined to continue conversations that clearly decline and devolve so quickly. If we didn’t feed into these things, they would happen much less.

Also, I’ve been around internet discourse long enough to be able to spot when it’s appropriate to intervene. You can disagree, but I’m trying to nip buds, not put out fires later.

Additionally, would you like to suggest that my accusation of ‘assery’ in the other thread was unfounded or inappropriate? Someone was acting like an ass–a fool–in a crucial aspect of the conversation and I said as much. Do you think there is no place for pointing out when someone is simply being a fool in certain respects, similar to how you think there is a place for talking about the conversation?

[Algernon]

I very much believe in the ‘marketplace of dialogue’, where the people who deserve responses should get them, and those that do not should not. I want as little intervention as possible, so as to not stifle constructive discourse prematurely, but I still believe intervention is necessary sometimes.

Hence my questioning about why people feel so inclined to continue conversations that clearly decline and devolve so quickly. If we didn’t feed into these things, they would happen much less.

In my experience, with individuals that bring intellectual honesty and reasonably good critical thinking skills to the table, specifying where they are failing to converse in good faith usually works out well. Sometimes it may take a bit of back-and-forth. Sometimes it takes even more than that. But eventually it usually works out. You have to give it a chance to play out. You seem to be inclined to quickly pass judgement on who and what “deserves responses” without allowing it to play out. Just as you quickly passed judgement on that other thread in calling the person an “ass”.

Additionally, would you like to suggest that my accusation of ‘assery’ in the other thread was unfounded or inappropriate? Someone was acting like an ass–a fool–in a crucial aspect of the conversation and I said as much. Do you think there is no place for pointing out when someone is simply being a fool in certain respects, similar to how you think there is a place for talking about the conversation?

Since you asked, I did find your “accusation of ‘assery'” both unfounded and inappropriate. Seemed like it was just a comment to another poster with whom he was in agreement. Seemed like you allowed your emotions to get the better of you.

Also, you seem to have missed the point in my bringing it up. Out one side of your mouth, you exhort others to be “charitable”. Which by definition entails judging others leniently or favorably. Out the other side, you called the poster an “ass” which is not at all lenient, much less favorable. How is that not hypocrisy on your part? If not for your exhorting others to be “charitable”, I wouldn’t have thought much of it – other than it being gratuitous name-calling.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

The ‘eventually it works out’ isn’t really something I agree with (at all) when it comes to internet conversations…about nearly anything.

Regardless, even if it’s true, on this forum, we’re sometimes talking about people who have been posting for years and in similar tones and manners as when they began. (I can’t speak to all the years in personal experience, but I’ve been here a decent amount of time–long enough to see the same comments and timbre of voice under the comments for many people.) I’m not holding my breath for most of the conversations to come around to hugs and understanding most of the time. It just doesn’t. I’m glad you’ve experienced the opposite, at least some, but I’m being realistic.

With regards to my ‘name-calling’, I explained myself in the other thread as adequately as I’m going to. If you find that inadequate, I can’t help it. I’m not immune to hypocrisy, so I won’t just say ‘nuh uh’ to that charge, but I don’t think I’ve transgressed in that area this time.

Unfortunately for us both, I get to decide when these conversations starting crossing lines into unproductivity and when someone is playing the fool enough to get called out for it (e.g., an ass–again, using it to describe behavior, not just demean someone). (Unfortunately for you because, well, I’m calling the shot and you’re not; unfortunately for me because, well, I have to call the shots and I don’t often want to be the one to do that, but I have to, and it’s difficult. I want to walk a line of keeping the forum free but also in line somewhat. I hate walking it sometimes.)

Finally, even if the moderator is a hypocrite, that doesn’t give anyone else license to break the rules and etiquette of the forum. I may be the biggest hypocrite on Earth, but I could also still be able to see when others break rules, even if I’m blind to it myself. I might need some intervention if that was the case, but I still wouldn’t necessarily be wrong in my judgement. People should always be careful when calling out hypocrisy, because many times it’s an admission the hypocrite is right in what they say (even if they aren’t living up to their own standard.)

I say that just to emphasize the importance of keeping the conversation within the bounds of forum etiquette.

I hate using so many words to do that, but here we are for the hundredth time.

[Algernon]

@johan,

For one, I never said, “pride is always bad”. @wonderer said that I said that. For another, ““Pride never helps. It only hurts.” is pretty much a quote from “Pulp fiction”. To understand my position correctly, you need to place it in context of everything else I wrote.

Pitching a hissy fit? Let’s look at an earlier post of mine:

For starters, none of those questions are well-formed. The first question is a false dichotomy. The next two are loaded questions. As such, there is no point in answering any of them directly.
Presumably what you are seeking is to understand my position. From what I can tell, your views on this topic are simplistic. It’s as if you’re trying to understand my position within that framework. There’s no way for you to get a solid understanding of my position using that approach since my views on this topic are built upon a very different framework that is not simplistic and are very different from your own.
Try setting aside your views and framework and rereading my responses. I’ve provided more than enough for you to gain a reasonably good understanding of my position if you do this.

First paragraph points out logical fallacies with the questions.

Second paragraph points out were @wonderer seems to have gone wrong.

Third paragraph points out how @wonderer can do better.

Instead of addressing the contents of my post, @wonderer responded with the following:

In that case the way I connect the dots is to jump to the conclusion that simply answering the questions (in any way that actually conveys your view) would expose the inconsistency of your beliefs, and you don’t want the inconsistency of your beliefs exposed.
I don’t know how you think I might come to understand your beliefs without you exposing your beliefs to scrutiny, and I wonder what you are so afraid of, but oh well. Thanks for the discussion.

Pretty much the type of response that a child might make when confronted with the truth: “Oh yeah, in that case…” while completely ignoring what was said. Hence “pitching a hissy fit”. How is that different from your definition?

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[Johan]

To me a hissy fit involves yelling and screeming. Nothing close to what wanderer did. He asked you a question for clarity and you were smug in your response and basically brushed him off without ever clarifying so he responded in kind.

Much like how when I directly quoted what you said, rather than saying “oh, I did say that, but what I really meant was …” You went back and pushed harder to insuinate that I was merely too dense to understand the context of what you meant.

Unfortunately the context is less important here because of the actual words you wrote. Do you now take it back and agree that pride isn’t always bad ?

[Algernon]

To me a hissy fit involves yelling and screeming. Nothing close to what wanderer did.

Hissy fit: an occasion when someone suddenly behaves in a very angry and unreasonable way

From <https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/hissy-fit&gt;

The reasonable way to respond to a post is to address the points of a post. Point-counterpoint. Instead wanderer not only unreasonably ignored all the content, but unreasonably jumped to a false conclusion and made false accusations. Note that there’s absolutely nothing about yelling and screaming in the definition above.

He asked you a question for clarity and you were smug in your response and basically brushed him off without ever clarifying so he responded in kind.

How does pointing out the folly of directly answering logically fallacious questions necessarily entail “smugness”?

Much like how when I directly quoted what you said, rather than saying “oh, I did say that, but what I really meant was …” You went back and pushed harder to insuinate that I was merely too dense to understand the context of what you meant.

Insinuate? If that’s what you inferred, that’s entirely on you.

You had erroneously asserted that I had said that I had said that “pride is always bad”, which I did not say. Then you quoted my quote of “Pulp Fiction” as if it were concrete proof that that were my position which was also erroneous. Instead of repeating my earlier statements, I pointed out that my position had already been made clear.

Unfortunately the context is less important here because of the actual words you wrote.

Actually, that’s not true. Context is always important. Good reading comprehension requires it.

Do you now take it back and agree that pride isn’t always bad ?

Once again, I never said that. No matter how many times you act as if I had said it, the fact will remain that I not only never said it, it doesn’t reflect my position. You’ve created a strawman. Are you not familiar with that logical fallacy?

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.

[Algernon]

App is not working properly. Placed my response to @johan at the bottom of the thread. Was unable to process the @johan tag properly.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Algernon.