Newcastle mass murder plot - no terrorism ere mate

Sliver · 1 Aug 2015 at 09:21

Resorting to slurs. I thought we were past that. Evidently not.

Tefal · 1 Aug 2015 at 09:22

Sliver said:
Resorting to slurs. I thought we were past that. Evidently not.

from the man who two seconds before called religion

Sliver said:
an error in thinking.

:/

Sliver · 1 Aug 2015 at 09:24

Tefal, that wasn't an ad hominem. It was just a statement of fact.

Xordium · 1 Aug 2015 at 09:28

Sliver said:
Resorting to slurs. I thought we were past that. Evidently not.

It's not a slur it's an observation. You appear, from your posts, to have a problem with context.

Sliver · 1 Aug 2015 at 09:29

Xordium said:
It's not a slur it's an observation. You appear, from your posts, to have a problem with context.

My observations of your posts seem to reveal you have a problem with accepting that you can be mistaken.

Xordium · 1 Aug 2015 at 09:36

Sliver said:
My observations of your posts seem to reveal you have a problem with accepting that you can be mistaken.

You need to look a bit harder because I am often mistaken and am happy to admit so and have done several times in recent memory. To prevent that from occurring I tend to keep to things I know to be true or general flippantry - this thread encompassing the latter. Context ...

Sliver · 1 Aug 2015 at 09:38

Xordium said:
You need to look a bit harder because I am often mistaken and am happy to admit so and have done several times in recent memory. To prevent that from occurring I tend to keep to things I know to be true or general flippantry - this thread encompassing the latter. Context ...

Good for you. You nailed context and conceded that you're not omniscient. Progress of a kind I feel.

Thekwango · 1 Aug 2015 at 11:53

Xordium said:
Actually it is a very intelligent post. If one accepts that fact and recognises that the acceptance of religion involves the acceptance and belief in actual irrational thought then we can quite easily classify religious expression as a mental health illness highly associated with schizophrenic delusions. That means we can quite easily then argue it is a causative agent of disease and therefore ban religion in the same way we would ban anything else that is shown to have such a causative link. We could add it to the new drug's bill.

You know fine the well that is not what was meant by his post.

Sliver · 1 Aug 2015 at 12:18

Thekwango said:
You know fine the well that is not what was meant by his post.

He does this often. He makes an argument then when it's shown to be incorrect he shifts to ad hominem or strawman like he did with me a few posts earlier when he started banging on about me not understanding context. It's his way of avoiding saying, ok I got that wrong.

Xordium · 1 Aug 2015 at 13:43

Thekwango said:
You know fine the well that is not what was meant by his post.

/facepalm

Of course I did.

Sliver said:
He does this often. He makes an argument then when it's shown to be incorrect he shifts to ad hominem or strawman like he did with me a few posts earlier when he started banging on about me not understanding context. It's his way of avoiding saying, ok I got that wrong.

Right ...

I do love our little conversations. Every now and then it's like watching an episode of Homeland ... oh Carrie's off her meds this week.

Sliver · 1 Aug 2015 at 13:49

Xordium said:
I do love our little conversations. Every now and then it's like watching an episode of Homeland ... oh Carrie's off her meds this week.

And you've proved my point for me. Ad hominem instead of addressing my argument.

[TW]Fox · 1 Aug 2015 at 13:53

Arthur Hucksake said:
Unless they aren't shouting Jesus, Flying Spaghetti Monster etc he will never be dubbed a terrorist. That is the difference.

Yea, because the IRA was primarily about religion. Not.

Thekwango · 1 Aug 2015 at 14:00

Xordium said:
/facepalm

Why are you facepalming? I don't understand your 'fail'?

Xordium said:
Of course I did.

So then what was the point of your post? Was it meant as sarcasm or simple whimsy? Was very difficult to tell. To be honest it came across to me that you were being serious.

Or do you believe you post to be correct?

SexyGreyFox · 1 Aug 2015 at 14:03

Thekwango said:
Why are you facepalming? I don't understand your 'fail'?

He didn't fail, I saw he was taking the pee

Thekwango · 1 Aug 2015 at 14:54

Dimple said:
He didn't fail, I saw he was taking the pee

So why the 'facepalm' I'm confused?! Glad you saw the sarcasm in his post. I didn't, so maybe the facepalm was for my fail??

Tefal · 1 Aug 2015 at 14:55

Sliver said:
Tefal, that wasn't an ad hominem. It was just a statement of fact.

It was it was an insult to everyone with religious beliefs.

If it was a fact as you claim you'll very easily be able to prove it's an "error in thinking" or a " delusion" as you claim.

So please do.

Tefal · 1 Aug 2015 at 14:55

Thekwango said:
So why the 'facepalm' I'm confused?! Glad you saw the sarcasm in his post. I didn't, so maybe the facepalm was for my fail??

It was a facepalm that you missed clear sarcasm.

Xordium · 1 Aug 2015 at 16:09

Thekwango said:
I didn't,

I did give a slight clue for anyone who may be in doubt before you jumped on that post:

Xordium said:
I tend to keep to things I know to be true or general flippantry - this thread encompassing the latter.

Sliver · 1 Aug 2015 at 16:28

Tefal said:
It was it was an insult to everyone with religious beliefs.

If it was a fact as you claim you'll very easily be able to prove it's an "error in thinking" or a " delusion" as you claim.

So please do.

There's a reason Dawkins called his book, The God Delusion. That's right, DELUSION !

Also my comment wasn't aimed at any one person. If you Tefal are insulted by it, then that is on you NOT me.

Thekwango · 1 Aug 2015 at 17:54

Tefal said:
It was a facepalm that you missed clear sarcasm.

I'm sorry but I don't think it's very clear that it was meant to be sarcastic.