tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post8619701120098322161..comments2024-03-07T10:02:32.188-08:00Comments on The Atlantean Conspiracy: Natural Law vs. The Legal SystemEric Dubayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11495527904246265068noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-18313226608043820232010-12-14T16:32:55.691-08:002010-12-14T16:32:55.691-08:00Casual Observer,
This is what I call a heated deb...Casual Observer,<br /><br />This is what I call a heated debate:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRKcPZt61SQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-58802281271969198122010-12-14T15:53:23.351-08:002010-12-14T15:53:23.351-08:00Thank you Casual Observer for your wise judgement ...Thank you Casual Observer for your wise judgement and ruling concerning this debate. Your proclamations are like the voice of God, and your scoring impeccable. If you haven't noticed however, moaning about my insults is not a criticism I take seriously, in fact I find it kind of childish. Like politicians who insist that politeness is to accuse their opponent of being economical with the truth rather than being a liar, so much of "polite conversation" is nothing but a weakness to be frank. You are entitled to your opinion, but I consider it the utterance of a self-appointed fool.<br /><br />Ben, I understand, you have no antithesis, zilch, you just prefer living in an oppressed society rather than trying to live in a free one, bless your cotton socks.<br /><br />You remind me of the house slave that so roused anger in the black emancipation movement. "I live in the big house. Do not abolish my slavery. What will happen to me? I may have to live with those calloused hand niggers."<br /><br />But I will not challenge your perspective any further unless you give me call to. You are entitled to embrace your slavery with pride. You are a post-modern man Ben, and one day it maybe that you ask that question which can only occur to a postmodern mind. The question is this: Am I alive? When you ask yourself that question, and one day you will, remember this, freedom is as essential to the growth of a man as being is to his existence. Without freedom you can never be fully alive. You will only ever be one of those zombies seen in a B horror movie. I hope one day that you will stop being a house slave.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-33504250381468611112010-12-14T09:27:09.975-08:002010-12-14T09:27:09.975-08:00Correct, I have no antithesis, nor did I ever say ...Correct, I have no antithesis, nor did I ever say I had one. I don't even really believe the legal system is definitely better. I have only ever been pointing out issues I saw with applying the common law idea to practical, specific applications. All of these ridiculous dogmatic beliefs Nonoun has been arguing against exist only in his mind, not mine. <br /><br />I am well aware that people on this site will have trouble understanding my views, just as I have trouble understanding theirs. The point of starting a conversation is to work through that wall. It is obvious that this conversation has failed in that respect, as the Casual Observer notes.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-85835784966465057852010-12-14T06:57:15.747-08:002010-12-14T06:57:15.747-08:00Wow, it's been a little while since I've v...Wow, it's been a little while since I've visited, but I can't help notice how far from anything you guys have gotten. It looks like you really need to either quit while you're behind, or exchange email addresses and continue this exchange off Eric's website. (Not that either of you probably want to give the other any semblance of personal information.)<br /><br />I think ultimately I have to agree with Ben. He has occasionally been an "argumentative dick" here, occasionally rude and even once or twice said something contradictory, but I haven't seen him derail the conversation and resort to petty insults quite as much as Nonoun. What does the Free Man Thesis have to do with anything? If you're looking to merely get him arguing with you in a reasonable mannner about something, Nonoun, this probably isn't the correct forum in which to start an entirely new conversation. I'm not going to say that Ben necessarily came here in good faith (who knows?), but you can't expect someone to respond reasonably when they are constantly attacked and put on defensive. I'm noticing Eric is staying out of this, too...hmm. If I were him, I'd probably shut down comments at this point. <br /><br />The bottom line is, most likely neither of you are at all like you sound here to one another. Both of you (and Eric in the main body of his website) have shown good writing and have made good points at one moment or another. Chances are better that the medium in which you are conversing is causing too much noise and confusion for anyone with such different views to be able to work together and establish an adequate baseline.Casual Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-84840593309404768432010-12-14T06:31:15.513-08:002010-12-14T06:31:15.513-08:00Wow, you're right Ben. No, really. You don'...Wow, you're right Ben. No, really. You don't attempt to present an antithesis to the Free Man thesis. You dismiss it. Your argument is that you can have a corrupt legal system designed to serve the interests of the ruling elite, criminalize, oppress, and exploit the population, based on deception, and that's better than not having it.<br /><br />That's fascinating. <br /><br />I'm sorry, I didn't get it. It strikes me as such a strange argument that it's taken me all this time just to understand. At first I thought you were arguing against the Free Man movement, then I realized that you weren't, I mean I realized that you were just ignoring their whole thesis without offering any antithesis. And I interpreted that to mean that you were just here to wind people up — not listen or engage with the argument. Sorry, you're not here to wind us up. You believe that such a corrupt and despotic system is better than no legal system. It blows my mind that someone can think that. But it's a point of view. You're entitled to it. It's odd. But okay.<br /><br />No antithesis. Just it's better to be oppressed and exploited than to risk living in a freer society.<br /><br />It still prompts me to ask, why do you come to a conspiracy website? I mean, we're not here trying to make sense of this crazy world simply so we can say, cool, that's how they exploit us, great huh?<br /><br />Don't you see that your viewpoint is gonna be difficult for us even to understand? Not that your not entitled to it. But, you know, to me, you're view is kind of insane. But, okay Ben, you views are your views.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-63987256935716125442010-12-14T04:41:15.745-08:002010-12-14T04:41:15.745-08:00Why would I have an antithesis? We haven't eve...Why would I have an antithesis? We haven't even been talking about it! That's the first time you've even brought up those four theses, and then you accuse me of not responding to them. It's really quite laughable. If those four theses had been what we were discussing for the past 100 posts, then you'd have a point. <br /><br />I have no problem discussing them, but I don't have any particular desire to continue talking at you when you're not paying attention. It's a waste of time. If you were capable of a reasonable discussion without ignoring half the responses or resorting to pointless insults, I'd be happy to discuss it, but I see no reason to believe that you are capable of treating opposing viewpoints with any semblance of respect. <br /><br />I also don't believe for a second that you actually entered this conversation in good faith, frankly. To be honest, I thought I was dealing with two different people the first time you switched to insult-laden rhetoric, so apparent was the contrast with your previous posts. <br /><br />As I have said several times, I am not here to "win," but to understand. I don't care if you claim victory; you've already done that many times. I am only disappointed that you've proven incapable of explaining your reasoning to me. It may very well be that the problem is on my end, but it's obvious I'm not going to find anything but insults talking to you.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-6180399936846173202010-12-14T01:23:46.298-08:002010-12-14T01:23:46.298-08:00haha, what happened to that last sentence? It beca...haha, what happened to that last sentence? It became a kind of riddle I guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-11205476928983499732010-12-14T01:21:50.160-08:002010-12-14T01:21:50.160-08:00By the way Ben, even I've got an anti-thesis a...By the way Ben, even I've got an anti-thesis against the free man thesis.<br /><br />I'll tell you mine if you mine if you tell me yours?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-29520751283658489432010-12-14T01:09:27.513-08:002010-12-14T01:09:27.513-08:00Ben, is that your way of saying that you have no a...Ben, is that your way of saying that you have no antithesis to any of the propositions presented by the Free Man Movement? <br /><br />You write that I didn't pay attention to your argument. Well, I did try to summarize it. Your thesis is <br /><br />1. Doing away with the legal system would not result in a perfect system. <br /><br />I agree with that, but only because perfect is such a strong word.<br /><br />2. Doing away with the legal system would leave us unprotected. <br /><br />I think that's a relative argument because we're not very protected now. It's certainly debatable. Maybe a very interesting debate. But it's not an anthesis to anything in the Free Man thesis.<br /> <br />If my summary of your position missed out anything important please just cut and paste it, or restate it so that a poor reader like me can notice it. Anyway, at the moment I can't find a word that you've written that offers an antithesis to the Free Man thesis, not one word. You're welcome to prove me wrong. I'm interested to see if you can do that. And if you can I will apologize.<br /><br />But if you can't, then it does look as if I was right. No moaning on your part hides the fact that you have no antithesis — zilch. And that means that you were arguing against something when you have no argument against it. Kind of crazy don't you think? I mean, even the creationists has an antithesis about fossils. You know, God put them there to test us. That's an antithesis.<br /><br />Now this is a kind of interesting place for you to quit. You see, if you come back to this website, and try the same disruptive trick, well I'm going to know how deal with you. I'll just ask you to state your anthesis. And if you haven't got one, and your argument is based purely on dismissal I'm simply gonna copy and paste this<br /><br />"Ben said...<br />You do not need evidence to show that they are wrong."<br /> <br />Which is a kind of stupid statement if you think about it.<br /><br />Now the ball's in your court Ben. Your antithesis — I'm waiting for it. No antithesis, and I take that as an admission that Ta Wan, Eric and myself were right. <br /> <br />Your antithesis is ....?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-10097004033565662092010-12-13T11:30:38.193-08:002010-12-13T11:30:38.193-08:00As it seems that you wish to merely continue argui...As it seems that you wish to merely continue arguing against these fantastical beliefs that you are assigning to me in your head, I think it's probably safe to say this...I hesitate to even grace it with "argument"...is over. You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with some imaginary hate-filled construct who loathes free thought and exults in ...I don't know what. Somehow it enjoys going on websites and being called an imbecile repeatedly, which seems a little strange.<br /><br />It seems rather useless for me to continue responding; you have shown that you have not read much of what I have written, so I don't see any reason to think that you will read anything I might write in the future. You have been going on increasingly long rants which are increasingly off-base from anything I have been saying, and at the end of the day you parrot almost exactly what I said at the beginning of the discussion with Eric, while acting as though you're arguing against me. It is, shall we say, "remarkable."<br /><br />Judging by the abundance of "you lose," "checkmate," "seek medical help," I'm guessing you're not particularly interested in continuing dialogue either. You merely wish to insult me, which doesn't actually require any input from me. My input doesn't seem to affect your idea of my beliefs anyway!Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-46414384186039948442010-12-13T06:42:45.274-08:002010-12-13T06:42:45.274-08:00Ben, there's no return from your last statemen...Ben, there's no return from your last statement, but if you wish to continue please tell me your antithesis to these propositions.<br /><br />1. The legal system is constructed by and for the ruling elite.<br /><br />2. The legal system is used as a tool of oppression.<br /><br />3. The legal system is based on deceit.<br /><br />4. The legal system can legally be resisted.<br /><br />Now, I happen to believe that there is a reasonable antithesis. But dismissal is not it. The moment you start addressing the thesis is the moment I'll return to sharing a proper discussion with you. <br /><br />I entered this conversation in good faith, only to find out quickly that you "appear" not to be interested in exploring any thesis present to you. You dismiss them all. That is not the attitude of someone searching for truth, seeking to be constructive, or even acting with rational intelligence. <br /><br />I have outlined the thesis of the free man movement as I understand it in four clear points. If you have an arguement against the thesis address the thesis. I await with hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-74009674226236826492010-12-13T04:59:19.153-08:002010-12-13T04:59:19.153-08:00You guys consistently say that I believe things th...You guys consistently say that I believe things that I do not, and then ridicule me for it. It is an amusing tactic, if a little transparent. I'm not sure how you might hope to ever come to an agreement with anyone if that's your approach, but presumably you're not a hermit, so I guess it must work on some people. <br /><br />I honestly don't have any idea how to converse against this tactic, though. I don't even think you're reading what I'm writing now, except to pull out isolated quotes to try to needle me with. <br /><br />I think it's pretty obvious here who is trying to piss off who. Again, I am not the one constantly insulting you. <br /><br />What is also interesting is that you have actually now begun saying something very similar to what I was initially saying, That even small seemingly obvious things can be difficult. I think we could actually have found a lot of common ground here - it's disappointing that you're too preoccupied with insulting me to actually try to converse. <br /><br />If you read what I actually wrote, you would find me repeatedly saying not "Eric, you're wrong," but "Eric, it's complicated." I'm pretty sure I've never flat-out said he's wrong except for obvious things like the melting point. I have simply pointed out flaws with his argument and asked for explanation, because I assume it is best for everyone if his logic is sound and not riddled with holes. I ask because much of the time, when something doesn't make sense to me and I ask someone, the gaping holes that I saw turned out to be my own error. Here, those holes have been filled not with logical explanations, but with insults. <br /><br />Who's the one full of hate, again? I can only assume from your constant insistence that I believe things which I don't (and have told you I don't) that you really have no interest here beyond insulting me.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-67836458572947804182010-12-13T03:13:16.045-08:002010-12-13T03:13:16.045-08:00For future reference Ben, the established or offic...For future reference Ben, the established or official version of reality does not enjoy home side advantage. Knowledge is power, which means not only that knowledge is a source of power, but that knowledge and what constitutes knowledge is constructed and structured by power. It's no more neutral or unbiased than the television news. <br /><br />What I've tried to explain to you during our search for truth, is that even what constitutes a fact is a difficult issue. The word of God? A rock? Something said by a man in a white coat or printed in a learned journal? <br /><br />After that thorny issue, you have the challenge of interpreting the facts. Not easy. Dog actually is god spelt backwards. Fact. Whether it means anything is another issue. Maybe, maybe not? Don't be so dogmatic as to argue it doesn't, unless you have convincing proof. Just be honest, you don't know. Try this, I can't prove that theory is wrong, but I believe this one ..." Okay. If it sounds like a better theory maybe people will be convinced. You got a better theory? Maybe the guy who bred the first Dog, it was a bred according to etymologists, had three kids named David, Oz and George. Heck do some research, back it up. Or maybe he actually was a satanist that thought reversing god would be fun if applied to a animal he "created". If you have a theory let's hear it, but don't be a bitch.<br /><br />Now, I can understand that you hate conspiracy crazies. It's scary to think that you've been deceived by the priest in church, but scientist in his laboratory, or whatever. Don't sweat it if you can't deal with it. Watch the X Factor. Do something you can handle. You don't need to believe in conspiracy theories. Worlds a lovely place. Governments made of the finest men and we elect them again and again. <br /><br />You can proves somethings Ben. 2+2 = 4. But even the theory of gravity isn't true at the quantum level, or so we're told. it's good if you can learn to live with ambiguity. But even if you can't try to live with a little less hate. Life is better that way. people might like you, instead of calling a dick.<br /><br />Good luck Ben.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-40509753417280461012010-12-13T01:16:42.382-08:002010-12-13T01:16:42.382-08:00Oh thank you Ben, you have finally dropped your hy...Oh thank you Ben, you have finally dropped your hypocritical mask.<br /><br />“You do not need evidence to show that they are wrong.”<br /><br />“You're right, I can't prove Eric wrong… I don't need to.”<br /><br />“all I need to do to win by default is point out the gaping flaws in his thesis.” <br /><br />Oh Ben, you can’t even do that. You just dismiss his thesis and protest that you are seeking the truth. Oh, Ben, your lies are showing now.<br /><br />“… all he wants to do is hang out with his conspiracy buddies and exult in the fact that they know all this secret stuff …” <br /><br />Ben, this the hate that you sought to hide and yet was so obvious and caused such hostility. Ben, you are nothing but a bitter twisted arsehole. You hate conspiracy theorists and you’re so fucked up you spend your time visiting this website just trying to piss people off. Pathetic Ben. You lose, Checkmate. You medical help. You need a psychologist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-40209431436465154952010-12-12T20:29:31.983-08:002010-12-12T20:29:31.983-08:00Furthermore, your whole argument against the free ...Furthermore, your whole argument against the free man movement is not an antithesis but reactionary.<br />You don't challenge any of the propositions within the thesis. <br /><br />1. The legal system is constructed by and for the ruling elite.<br /><br />2. The legal system is used as a tool of oppression.<br /><br />3. The legal system is based on deceit.<br /><br />4. The legal system can legally be resisted.<br /><br />All you have to say about these propositions is "nothing's perfect."<br /><br />You write, "By pointing out the flaws in your argument, you have a chance to fix them so that other people don't think you're an idiot."<br /><br />Where do you point out the flaws in that argument? You ignore that argument and leap into your own.<br /><br />Your thesis is <br /><br />1. Doing away with the legal system would not result in a perfect system. <br /><br />2. Doing away with the legal system would leave us unprotected. <br /><br />Those statements are not criticisms of the free man thesis. In addition, they are extremely weak arguments for reasons I have explained above. <br /><br />Once more, you have not disproved any proposition in the free man thesis. You have argued that the thesis is not important because you prefer the current corrupt system. It's a point of view. Not one likely to be shared or valued among freedom seeking conspiracy theorists. It's a distraction to any discussion about the free man thesis, and culturally irritating for a group of people who do not share your slavish attitudes.<br /><br />If I'm wrong, If I've misunderstood you, please go through the four propositions of the free man thesis, one by one, and outline your antithesis. That's a challenge. I await with interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-56622182052541660692010-12-12T08:23:18.386-08:002010-12-12T08:23:18.386-08:00You do not need evidence to show that they are wro...You do not need evidence to show that they are wrong. They need evidence to show that they are right. It's that little thing called "the burden of proof." We don't need to believe everything any crazy person tells us because we can't disprove it. If you want to change the status quo, the burden of proof is on you. If you want to challenge the generally-accepted derivation of a word, the burden of proof is on you. <br /><br />You're right, I can't prove Eric wrong. I'm not trying to, either - I don't need to. If Eric never manages to present a coherent argument, he'll never convince any reasonable people, and he'll never upset the system. He's the one who wants the system upset, not me; I have no vested interest in this proposition. I have the home field advantage - all I need to do to win by default is point out the gaping flaws in his thesis.<br /><br />Now on this website, surrounded by people who agree with him, he'll be fine. If all he wants to do is hang out with his conspiracy buddies and exult in the fact that they know all this secret stuff that everyone else is too dumb to get, he'll do great. I thought he was trying to move past that. If he keeps saying seemingly ridiculous things like dog/God or water melts at 33 degrees with no evidence that they're not actually ridiculous, that's not going to happen. You can redirect this discussion towards my personal flaws if you wish - I assure you they are many - but that's not going to do Eric or the conspiracy theory movement any good.<br /><br />I've been wrong before, though - once or twice.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-6126060654068539672010-12-12T06:49:53.886-08:002010-12-12T06:49:53.886-08:00"The fact that you include "it's not..."The fact that you include "it's not true" as one of my illegitimate dismissals is amusing...what better reason would there be to dismiss an argument than it being untrue?"<br /><br />That's not true. See how it works? You didn't show it's not true, you just stated it's not true. And I proved that it was true. Here it is again:<br /><br />"Do you think etymologists didn't think of everything you did and more? They're linguists, man. They do shit like that for a living! If a word had a "nontraditional" origin, the professionals most likely would have caught it. All of the origins you might suggest already fall within the realm of etymology, not outside it. Your insistence that you are more knowledgable than actual experts in this field is questionable to say the least."<br /><br />Here's another example:<br /><br />"Because something isn't PERFECT does not mean it is not BETTER. No system will ever be perfect; that argument is not applicable."<br /><br />An amazing argument considering your previous statement was "As Eric put it, the reason most of us follow the rules is not just the written law – it’s our understanding of what is best for the society as a whole. However, and this is the important part – not everyone will."<br /><br />You write "Requiring evidence in order to believe something is not the same thing as arrogant dismissal." True, and no ones expects you or anyone else to believe something without evidence and a logical interpretation of that evidence. I'm not arguing that you should believe Eric. I'm skeptical.<br />saying that dog is god backwards is on the face of it no more convincing than saying rats is star backwards. I am not criticizing your beliefs, I am criticizing the very thing I have shown, and you deny, that you dismiss people's concerns, people's theories, without any evidence to show that they are wrong. Even there are other explanations for the origins of these words, that in itself does not invalidate Eric's proposition.<br /><br />The charge stands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-60158473170740204392010-12-12T05:33:10.157-08:002010-12-12T05:33:10.157-08:00The fact that you include "it's not true&...The fact that you include "it's not true" as one of my illegitimate dismissals is amusing...what better reason would there be to dismiss an argument than it being untrue?<br /><br />If you had read what I wrote with an eye to actually trying to understand me instead of trying to discredit me, you might also have noticed that I said that a simple Google search would have told Eric that those words have totally different origins. Now he is not only trying to say that there is a connection, he is trying to say there is a connection where an expert has said there is not. Very different scenario.<br /><br />It's also amusing that you say my arguments are not rightly called arguments, when that is exactly what I have been saying about Eric's posts! Notice that he had no backup to his claim that soul, solar, and solace or Dog and God are connected - he just said they were, as though it were self-evident that he is correct. There were no reasons why.<br /><br />Requiring evidence in order to believe something is not the same thing as arrogant dismissal. It's called skepticism. All I am doing here is suggesting that Eric might want to provide evidence for his claims instead of arrogantly stating them and assuming they are self-evident, which they are not to any reasonably skeptical person.<br /><br />If you come out on the Internet with a theory and no evidence to back it up, and then call people arrogant, argumentative, and idiotic when they point out that you have no evidence, you really can't expect to get anywhere. Like I said, I'm trying to help you guys out here. By pointing out the flaws in your argument, you have a chance to fix them so that other people don't think you're an idiot. Criticism is a very necessary thing when your thesis is that the entirety of world society should be changed. That's not something we should just roll with because it sounds good. If the elite are as powerful as you say, then an attempt to overthrow them or negate their power is likely to result in millions if not billions of deaths. As a society, we can't afford to take that plunge without being certain that we're right.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-81567287433934684842010-12-11T20:59:35.684-08:002010-12-11T20:59:35.684-08:00I claim that your arguments are not rightly called...I claim that your arguments are not rightly called arguments. You do not engage with the thesis of other people, rather you dismiss their thesis on dubious grounds, "nothing is perfect," "you are not an expert," "it's not true," then, having simply dismissed their thesis you present your own.<br /><br />Let us examine your response to Eric's simple proposition that solar, soul, and solace have esoteric, by which, in this context he means hidden religious connections. Your whole dismissal is based on credentials. Here it is:<br /><br />"Do you think etymologists didn't think of everything you did and more? They're linguists, man. They do shit like that for a living! If a word had a "nontraditional" origin, the professionals most likely would have caught it. All of the origins you might suggest already fall within the realm of etymology, not outside it. Your insistence that you are more knowledgable than actual experts in this field is questionable to say the least."<br /><br />Pure, total dismissal. Exactly like the creationist in my analogy. No engagement with the thesis, no engagement with the internal logic of the thesis, no enquiry, no antithesis, pure dismissal. <br /><br />You might deny it, for all I know you might be so unaware of yourself that you can't see it, but that's exactly what you do. That's not constructive, it's annoying, and that's why you generate such hostility.<br /><br />Antithesis: the negation of the thesis as the second stage in the process of dialectical reasoning. Not the arrogantt dismissal of the thesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-44921675625022405262010-12-11T19:45:19.875-08:002010-12-11T19:45:19.875-08:00...Really? That's how you're going to resp......Really? That's how you're going to respond? Really, now. Please tell me this isn't seriously the level of intellect I'm dealing with here. That would be extremely disappointing.<br /><br />If you are going to claim that I believe things that I do not believe and have never said I believe, then yes, I am going to dismiss that claim. I'll make an exception for a statement quite that ridiculous.<br /><br />Furthermore, if you intend to argue not with my opinions, but with some fantastical opinions that you have assigned to me in your mind despite me explicitly saying that I don't believe them, this conversation probably isn't going to go anywhere.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-43957458524018008752010-12-11T18:06:33.763-08:002010-12-11T18:06:33.763-08:00LOL
"I've already said many times that I...LOL<br /><br />"I've already said many times that I have not been dismissing any problems at all. You have accused me of saying that, but that doesn't make it true."<br /><br />Which, true to form, is just another dismissal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-19135526774411992442010-12-11T13:29:25.091-08:002010-12-11T13:29:25.091-08:00...I thought you wanted to end it. Is that not wha......I thought you wanted to end it. Is that not what the "I've wasted my time enough with you" meant? We can continue if you like, I was just trying to be considerate; it seems obvious that you're not interested in conversation, so I thought continuing would be pushing it too far. Notice that it is not me who gets frustrated or resorts to insults.<br /><br />I've already said many times that I have not been dismissing any problems at all. You have accused me of saying that, but that doesn't make it true. I suggest you read what I've actually been saying, instead of simply assuming that I believe whatever you think I do.<br /><br />Arguments don't have to lead nowhere, unless they devolve into name-calling and a refusal to consider the possibility that you are wrong. Who said we can't agree as to what constitutes a fact? I don't think I ever said that. That fossils exist is a fact. That they prove evolution is not a fact.<br /><br />It doesn't need to be either evolution or creation. It could be something completely different. However, both of them cannot be right, because many of their arguments are mutually exclusive. But if they never talk, they'll never figure anything out. They'll just assume they're right, because their logical flaws won't ever be pointed out to them.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-52870538393087669352010-12-11T11:25:41.162-08:002010-12-11T11:25:41.162-08:00You argue that "evolutionists and creationist...You argue that "evolutionists and creationists SHOULD talk." Why should they? They can talk — but should? Why, especially if they cannot even agree what constitutes a fact, let alone how to approach interpreting those facts? But Ben knows best, those arguments are just ignored. The problems with the legal system dismissed — "imprefections." The apparent link between solar, solace, and soul dismissed — "you are not an expert." Even an explanation about why arguments are doomed not to achieve anything, dismissed — "people SHOULD talk." <br /><br />You assume that either evolutionists or creationist are right. You mean that out of all the possibilities only one of these two beliefs can be right. You don't think that maybe they both has some glimpse of the truth within them, or perhaps they are both completely wrong. That doesn't even show awareness of the range of theories that exists with creationist and evolutionary camps. <br /><br />No Ben, dismissal isn't arguing, it's not even the beginning of an argument. It's reactionary and stupid, There's no reason why we should engage with you when you simply dismiss our views in your arrogant and obnoxious way.<br /><br />You want to end this conversation. But I thought you said people SHOULD talk. They can talk, if the conversation has any value. You disagree, "no,they should talk" yet your actions tell a different story. As Ta Wan said right at the beginning, "Ben is an argumentative dick."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-39396884100003034072010-12-11T06:05:47.795-08:002010-12-11T06:05:47.795-08:00That "writing mistake" isn't particu...That "writing mistake" isn't particularly relevant...my rebuttal applies equally well to the "revised" version. You're just playing semantics.<br /><br />I assure you I am well aware of how complex the truth is. That has, after all, been the basis of half my argument!<br /><br />Evolutionists and creationists SHOULD talk. Presumably, one of them is actually right. Say it was evolution, which I happen to think is more likely. If evolutionists and creationists never talked, the creationists would go to their graves believing something that is false. There's no value in that. Who wants to live their life believing in something that's wrong? Aside from Ta-Wan, I think most of us want to know the truth. If no one who disagreed ever talked, then we'd never learn new things as a society. We'd never progress.<br /><br />In any case, I think it's obvious at this point that everyone involved is just tired of the discussion, so I think it's probably time to call it a day.<br /><br />I believe most disagreements have more common ground than is initially apparent; I hope at some point we might figure out what that is. It has proven difficult so far...Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6187812747707644707.post-75755273082049532822010-12-10T23:15:51.550-08:002010-12-10T23:15:51.550-08:00Oh here's the reference:
http://papers.ssrn.c...Oh here's the reference:<br /><br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com