"Don't want to be deleted on my blog? Speak on topic and do so in a respectful manner."
Dan
It's not strange that Dan chooses to place demands on others at his blog, that he chooses not to follow at other people's blogs. As has been said before, If Dan didn't have double standards, he'd have no standards at all.
I'm trying to stay out of the conversation at Art's, but Dan repeatedly offers "reasonable" as if it is a measure of something objective. Yet, simply reading what Dan writes it is clear that "reasonable" is both subjective and a subjective measure which Dan seems to imbue with an almost mystical power.
"We can understand morality APART from the Bible. Also, EVEN IF we look to the bible, we still must use our reasoning to guess at which "rules" found in the Bible are universal rules."
How is the above not simply a rephrase of "we do not need divine revelation"? Unless it's a denial that the Bible is "divine revelation".
4 comments:
It's a rare case indeed when I can read Dan's comments and they are on the topic of the blog. He almost ALWAYS goes off topic with a dozen or more tangents, no matter how many times he's been asked to not do so. And yet he demands everyone else stay on topic?!?!?!?
I got tired of him doing that on my blog and banned him years ago.
I still indulge his flights of fancy because it points out his utter unwillingness to give those at his blog as much freedom as he gets here. I can't tell if his insistence on going off topic is just how his mind works, or if it's intentional and his way of avoiding things that are difficult for him.
It's indeed a conundrum, so I am less likely to try and figure his sorry ass out. I do believe he avoids as a default response to that which he finds too tough to counter, and he's not really willing to put in the effort to produce a legitimate counter argument. He'll say he's been doing that, but it's mostly superfluous crap...mostly a reiteration of his favored "that's your opinion which you've not 'objectively' proven to be true." Yeah, Dan. We get that's what you think. When do we get to see a solid, evidence/fact-based argument to counter ours? I don't want to hear what you think is "reasonable" as if you truly understand the word rather than simply presuming it means anything when you use it. I want an actual argument which compels me to doubt my position, which might actually compel me to reject my position. "Nyuh uh" is always the best he has.
Art,
I think that Dan's shtick is pretty simple. He likes to make simple, declarative statements ("God loves gay marriage.") where he clearly appears to be making a claim representing the Truth about something. Yet when pushed, he runs and hides behind ("It's just my opinion."). He wants to assert his hunches as "reality", until it's pointed out that they're not, then he needs to hide behind "multiple truths" or "opinion" or "reasonable" so he doesn't have to back up his claims.
The fact that he can't answer a simple question without asking 4-5 more questions or changing the subject entirely is just part of his world where everything is subjective.
He demands unreasonable levels of "proof or data" from us, while refusing to live up to those same standards himself. His relatively recent "multiple truths" excuse is just one example.
Post a Comment