"...if you think I have made a factual mistake in any of my actual words, the things I have actually said, would you please cite my exact words and explain where my mistake is."
You will note, no doubt, that the source for this quote was your comrades repeatedly arguing against points I have not made and me just making fact-based points where there was nothing to disagree with. So, I asked them politely to simply point to any line of something I have said and explain how it is mistaken and I can correct my mistake... and they have not done so.
So, you're mocking me, apparently, for being willing to admit a mistake if they would just point to one but not them for arguing against points I have not made?
You appear to think it is not rational for people to argue against points you have not made, while you personally argue against points others have not made.
You are the only person I've ever encountered who considers it slander when they are quoted accurately.
So, yes it's relatively amusing when you whine about behavior in others when you are oblivious to it in yourself.
As to your problem with Fred, take it up with him. Prove him wrong. Humbly and respectfully use rational, objective, evidence and prove him/them wrong.
Craig, you are the one making out like I'm doing something wrong. I'm just stating facts.
You pointed me to this source of yours and I politely asked him some questions. He said he'd answer and I've waited for four weeks now. I've asked him if I should keep checking or not and have not heard.
I'm just saying that my questions point to reasonable holes in his argument and I've done all I can do. If he has no answers, then I'm left with my own answers as the most reasonable ones of which I'm aware. That's all I'm saying.
I'm not assuming any negative intent on his part, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just stating that your source has not done anything to help your arguments so I'm left with my understanding (ie, the understanding I have of those who've said the same sorts of things that I've said) being the most reasonable answers I have seen thus far.
You seem to just thrive on bitter divisiveness, brother. Let it go.
I pointed out to you not to complain, but to point out this ongoing problem I've encountered in trying to get direct answers to questions pointing to holes in their theories from my more conservative brethren.
Pretty consistently, these questions go ignored or they'll answer other questions that I've not asked while they begin character attacks and questioning motives, no matter how respectful or polite or reasonable my approach is. I just wonder why that happens so often.
"Craig, you are the one making out like I'm doing something wrong."
Nope, you asked a question and I gave you some potential answers.
"No criticism, no complaint, just me, wondering."
I can speak only for myself. A concept that sometimes seems to elude you. So, I can say that I have answered volumes of your questions as directly as I know how, and you have been unsatisfied. It seems as though there might possibly be a problem with how you choose to accept answers when you get them.
Of course, you must be aware, that you suffer from the same problem you accuse others of. Specifically not answering direct questions.
Again, no accusations, but is it not possible that people respond to you based on your actions?
I see you chose to take my advice and inquire about the status of the situation.
I also see that Fred answered you.
I note that he recognized what so many others have about you.
"All you do is repeat the same talking points."
"Myself, and a couple of other people have answered your talking points, but you don’t like our answers. That’s all well and good, but just because you don’t like our answers doesn’t mean you haven’t been answered."
I find it interesting that everyone who interacts with you (with a different view) comes to virtually the same conclusions. It seems as if there are two possibilities.
1. It seems possible that everyone who disagrees with you is engaged in some sort of conspiracy to frustrate your humble and sincere seeking after the truth. In doing so everyone refuses to answer any of the Reasonable, Rational questions you politely ask while you provide complete, prompt, answers to all of their questions.
2. It is possible, that there is something in your presentation or your arguments that is unimpressive, unengaging, or unsatisfying to people who have spent some time studying the topics under discussion.
I can't say for sure which it is, but it seems unlikely that there is a conspiracy being organized against you by every single blogger you interact with.
As for your charge that your questions have not been answered.
It seems quite clear that he intends to write individual blog posts addressing your concerns. It seems as though your issue is that he is not responding as quickly as you would like or in the way you would prefer.
It also seems as if some of your comments have been moderated.
While I (and others) have chosen not to moderate you, I have no problem with bloggers who choose to moderate and to control what content get's posted.
Having said that, as far as I am concerned, this thread and the "topic" is closed.
"But it is demonstrable that he has not directly answered many if not most of my questions."
Why would you presume that you are entitled to have every question you ask answered in a manner that meets your approval?
He was quite clear that he would be addressing various aspects of things you raised in a series of blog posts.
"A third possibility is that, within some circle of religious conservatism, there is a blindness that makes it difficult to talk with them... that their certainty in what they "know" has made them unable to deal with calm, cool, rational questions."
Sure, that is possible, but isn't that just another way of proposing a conspiracy. Isn't it also possible that what you consider to be "calm,cool, rational questions" are not. Isn't it possible that people are aware that your questions are not unique to you, and that they have been addressed elsewhere, so the prospect of giving you answers that are already available is not something that seems like a worthwhile use of time?
"If I were actually being hard to understand, then my more liberal readers would be able to say so."
Yet, nowhere did I suggest that you were hard to understand. It is quite the opposite, as you spend so much time substituting repetition for argument, that understanding you is the least of peoples problems. Unfortunately, you must have forgotten that there have been liberals who have made the same points as non liberals. Most recently over at Johns, but Alan and Geoffy did their fair share as well.
"So, do you see how that undermines your hunch that " It is possible,..."
So, you are now suggesting that it is impossible for anyone to find your arguments wanting in any possible sense.
"... you can't really lay that at my feet, right?"
No, of course not it is simply unimaginable that anyone could even suggest that you bear even the tiniest degree of responsibility for communicating and a clear and persuasive manner. It can only be that everyone else is at fault.
"I certainly know that you all have misunderstood my actual positions... why is that?"
If I do misunderstand your actual positions, it is possibly due to lack of answers to clarifying questions. The problem you have is that when people can provide quotes of your own words which contradict you, you can't seem to understand the fact that that is a problem.
"I'm very interested in this topic."
A. It's not really a topic. B. I don't care.
"So, for instance, you appear to be agreeing with Fred that he HAS answered my questions... "
No, I am not. By virtue of the fact that I can read at a post high school level I can see with my own eyes, that he and others have answered some of your questions. I can also see that he has said that he will be writing additional posts that address some of the issues that you have.
It seems to confuse you when people don't specifically answer every specific question, especially when you ask it multiple times. You don't seem to understand that even it is possible to answer questions in a more general sense (or to address multiple questions with one response). So, I believe that between what has been written and what will be written, your questions will be addressed. That, however, is my opinion and I will just have to see what happens.
Now, since I have addressed the questions raised in your second comment, I see no reason to belabor the point.
I will further note that you apparently chose to ignore the part where I said that this topic was closed.
I have chosen to (in the way of grace) respond to your comments posted after I was clear about this topic being closed.
12 comments:
You will note, no doubt, that the source for this quote was your comrades repeatedly arguing against points I have not made and me just making fact-based points where there was nothing to disagree with. So, I asked them politely to simply point to any line of something I have said and explain how it is mistaken and I can correct my mistake... and they have not done so.
So, you're mocking me, apparently, for being willing to admit a mistake if they would just point to one but not them for arguing against points I have not made?
How is that rational?
"How is that rational?"
I don't know how you judge rational.
You appear to think it is not rational for people to argue against points you have not made, while you personally argue against points others have not made.
You are the only person I've ever encountered who considers it slander when they are quoted accurately.
So, yes it's relatively amusing when you whine about behavior in others when you are oblivious to it in yourself.
As to your problem with Fred, take it up with him. Prove him wrong. Humbly and respectfully use rational, objective, evidence and prove him/them wrong.
I've asked him questions. He's not answered them.
Until he's answered them rationally, I have to consider his opinion unsupported and problematic. What else can I do?
"What else can I do?"
I seems you have a few choices.
1. You can pout.
2. You can respectfully and politely follow up.
3. You can make presumptions about his motives and pretend as if they are correct.
4. You could ask him what his plans are.
5. You could complain to me, instead of dealing with his directly.
There, a few things you could do. I know you aren't helpless.
Craig, you are the one making out like I'm doing something wrong. I'm just stating facts.
You pointed me to this source of yours and I politely asked him some questions. He said he'd answer and I've waited for four weeks now. I've asked him if I should keep checking or not and have not heard.
I'm just saying that my questions point to reasonable holes in his argument and I've done all I can do. If he has no answers, then I'm left with my own answers as the most reasonable ones of which I'm aware. That's all I'm saying.
I'm not assuming any negative intent on his part, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just stating that your source has not done anything to help your arguments so I'm left with my understanding (ie, the understanding I have of those who've said the same sorts of things that I've said) being the most reasonable answers I have seen thus far.
You seem to just thrive on bitter divisiveness, brother. Let it go.
That would be amusing.
I pointed out to you not to complain, but to point out this ongoing problem I've encountered in trying to get direct answers to questions pointing to holes in their theories from my more conservative brethren.
Pretty consistently, these questions go ignored or they'll answer other questions that I've not asked while they begin character attacks and questioning motives, no matter how respectful or polite or reasonable my approach is. I just wonder why that happens so often.
No criticism, no complaint, just me, wondering.
"Craig, you are the one making out like I'm doing something wrong."
Nope, you asked a question and I gave you some potential answers.
"No criticism, no complaint, just me, wondering."
I can speak only for myself. A concept that sometimes seems to elude you. So, I can say that I have answered volumes of your questions as directly as I know how, and you have been unsatisfied. It seems as though there might possibly be a problem with how you choose to accept answers when you get them.
Of course, you must be aware, that you suffer from the same problem you accuse others of. Specifically not answering direct questions.
Again, no accusations, but is it not possible that people respond to you based on your actions?
Dan,
I see you chose to take my advice and inquire about the status of the situation.
I also see that Fred answered you.
I note that he recognized what so many others have about you.
"All you do is repeat the same talking points."
"Myself, and a couple of other people have answered your talking points, but you don’t like our answers. That’s all well and good, but just because you don’t like our answers doesn’t mean you haven’t been answered."
I find it interesting that everyone who interacts with you (with a different view) comes to virtually the same conclusions. It seems as if there are two possibilities.
1. It seems possible that everyone who disagrees with you is engaged in some sort of conspiracy to frustrate your humble and sincere seeking after the truth. In doing so everyone refuses to answer any of the Reasonable, Rational questions you politely ask while you provide complete, prompt, answers to all of their questions.
2. It is possible, that there is something in your presentation or your arguments that is unimpressive, unengaging, or unsatisfying to people who have spent some time studying the topics under discussion.
I can't say for sure which it is, but it seems unlikely that there is a conspiracy being organized against you by every single blogger you interact with.
As for your charge that your questions have not been answered.
It seems quite clear that he intends to write individual blog posts addressing your concerns. It seems as though your issue is that he is not responding as quickly as you would like or in the way you would prefer.
It also seems as if some of your comments have been moderated.
While I (and others) have chosen not to moderate you, I have no problem with bloggers who choose to moderate and to control what content get's posted.
Having said that, as far as I am concerned, this thread and the "topic" is closed.
"But it is demonstrable that he has not directly answered many if not most of my questions."
Why would you presume that you are entitled to have every question you ask answered in a manner that meets your approval?
He was quite clear that he would be addressing various aspects of things you raised in a series of blog posts.
"A third possibility is that, within some circle of religious conservatism, there is a blindness that makes it difficult to talk with them... that their certainty in what they "know" has made them unable to deal with calm, cool, rational questions."
Sure, that is possible, but isn't that just another way of proposing a conspiracy. Isn't it also possible that what you consider to be "calm,cool, rational questions" are not. Isn't it possible that people are aware that your questions are not unique to you, and that they have been addressed elsewhere, so the prospect of giving you answers that are already available is not something that seems like a worthwhile use of time?
"If I were actually being hard to understand, then my more liberal readers would be able to say so."
Yet, nowhere did I suggest that you were hard to understand. It is quite the opposite, as you spend so much time substituting repetition for argument, that understanding you is the least of peoples problems. Unfortunately, you must have forgotten that there have been liberals who have made the same points as non liberals. Most recently over at Johns, but Alan and Geoffy did their fair share as well.
"So, do you see how that undermines your hunch that " It is possible,..."
So, you are now suggesting that it is impossible for anyone to find your arguments wanting in any possible sense.
"... you can't really lay that at my feet, right?"
No, of course not it is simply unimaginable that anyone could even suggest that you bear even the tiniest degree of responsibility for communicating and a clear and persuasive manner. It can only be that everyone else is at fault.
"I certainly know that you all have misunderstood my actual positions... why is that?"
If I do misunderstand your actual positions, it is possibly due to lack of answers to clarifying questions. The problem you have is that when people can provide quotes of your own words which contradict you, you can't seem to understand the fact that that is a problem.
"I'm very interested in this topic."
A. It's not really a topic.
B. I don't care.
"So, for instance, you appear to be agreeing with Fred that he HAS answered my questions... "
No, I am not. By virtue of the fact that I can read at a post high school level I can see with my own eyes, that he and others have answered some of your questions. I can also see that he has said that he will be writing additional posts that address some of the issues that you have.
It seems to confuse you when people don't specifically answer every specific question, especially when you ask it multiple times. You don't seem to understand that even it is possible to answer questions in a more general sense (or to address multiple questions with one response). So, I believe that between what has been written and what will be written, your questions will be addressed. That, however, is my opinion and I will just have to see what happens.
Now, since I have addressed the questions raised in your second comment, I see no reason to belabor the point.
I will further note that you apparently chose to ignore the part where I said that this topic was closed.
I have chosen to (in the way of grace) respond to your comments posted after I was clear about this topic being closed.
Post a Comment