Only adult in the room?

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Is adult discussion possible any more?

Poll ended at Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:08 am

yes
4
100%
no
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 4

Korah
Under Suspension
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Dixon, CA

Only adult in the room?

Post #1

Post by Korah »

Hey, I'm not trying to insult the Forum or anyone here, but things are just crazy these days. Yeah, Jerry Seinfeld fears to tread on college campuses for fear of getting blackballed on political correctness--nobody can tolerate humor any more. I'd like to suggest it's worse than that. No one can tolerate serious discussion any more. How about we reserve say, this one thread for no side-tracking on the one side to gay weddings nor knee-jerk rejection of supernaturalism and on the other side no assumption that appeal to the Bible (or Koran or religious Law) settles anything either.
How about someone suggests something for discussion and I decide if it's a subject challenging adult conversation. When that plays out (maybe really quickly, as people's sensibilities seem to get trampled upon really quickly) we can settle on some other subject for adult discussion.

User avatar
cnorman19
Apprentice
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:56 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Contact:

Post #31

Post by cnorman19 »

Just a quote that I thought apropos:

When asked what his IQ was, Stephen Hawking replied:

"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
"The Torah is true, and some of it may even have happened." -- Rabbi William Gershon

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry; but why on Earth should that mean that it is not real?" -- Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; J. K. Rowling

"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God -- but to create him." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #32

Post by Zzyzx »

.
[Replying to post 31 by cnorman19]

Another quote: "Those who claim to be highly intelligent irritate those who really are intelligent" (adding "and everyone else").
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Korah
Under Suspension
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Dixon, CA

Post #33

Post by Korah »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Korah wrote: "Am I half-way to China yet?"
A navigational error may have occurred somewhere near Venus or perhaps Pluto.
If I had noticed this post before I sent you those overly personal PMs, I would have realized that you may have a sense of humor after all. Provide more evidence and I may change my mind and stop saying that I am willing to debate anybody--just not you.

Korah
Under Suspension
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Dixon, CA

Post #34

Post by Korah »

cnorman19 wrote: Just a quote that I thought apropos:
When asked what his IQ was, Stephen Hawking replied:
"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
Ironically, you are correct, and THIS FACT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE IQ ADDICTS THEMSELVES.
Yes, the late Grady Towers' article "The Outsiders" has been endlessly reprinted in all the high-IQ journals. Successful people of high IQ do not join these societies, they are busy succeeding, leaving most of the high-IQ groups as pity-party social clubs. They recognize that "too many aptitudes" capabilities wind up preventing them from focusing on marketable skills other than computer nerd gigs. They recognize their neotyny (near-sighted, boyish) hinders their social acceptance.
ISPE does have a mission, but not one PC acceptable currently. Mensa tends to be a meat market as it (alone) has equal numbers of males and females.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #35

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Korah wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
Korah wrote: "Am I half-way to China yet?"
A navigational error may have occurred somewhere near Venus or perhaps Pluto.
If I had noticed this post before I sent you those overly personal PMs, I would have realized that you may have a sense of humor after all. Provide more evidence and I may change my mind and stop saying that I am willing to debate anybody--just not you.
I trust that readers suspect that your real reasons for refusing to debate H2H have nothing to do with my supposed lack of humor.

BTW, it might be prudent to review Personal Messaging Rules: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed in Personal Messages (PM).
2. Civility and respect are to be expected in PM exchanges.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Korah
Under Suspension
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Dixon, CA

Post #36

Post by Korah »

Zzyzx wrote: BTW, it might be prudent to review Personal Messaging Rules: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed in Personal Messages (PM).
2. Civility and respect are to be expected in PM exchanges.
Thanks for the advice--I had assumed that since Random Ramblings allows no freedom that PMs must be the place. So much for logic.

But I am encouraged that your warning would seem to indicate that you are not dead-set on my banishment from DC&R. Thanks for the temporary lee-way. (Am I allowed to issue thanks here in DC&R, or is that too personal?)
EDIT THIS PART OUT, PLEASE, IF AGAINST THE RULES!
May I inquire, sir, what are your qualifications (if any) for debating in the field of Higher Criticism of the four gospels? Please excuse my ADHD (and persistent Alzheimer's of 60 years duration since I turned 13), but I don't recall seeing any evidence of such from you.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #37

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Korah wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: BTW, it might be prudent to review Personal Messaging Rules: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed in Personal Messages (PM).
2. Civility and respect are to be expected in PM exchanges.
Thanks for the advice--I had assumed that since Random Ramblings allows no freedom that PMs must be the place. So much for logic.
It is prudent to actually read Forum Rules rather than attempting to "logic" them.

I did not, BTW, report the uncivil PM comments and personal attack – but could have
Korah wrote: But I am encouraged that your warning would seem to indicate that you are not dead-set on my banishment from DC&R. Thanks for the temporary lee-way.
My "dead-set on your banishment" has existed ONLY in your mind.

Banishment decisions are made by vote of eight people (Admin and Moderators) after repeated Comments, Warnings and Final Warning for rule infractions. Even if one person favors banishment, that is only one vote in eight.

In fact, I would prefer that you continue as a member AND learn to debate issues rather than focusing on personalities and personal comments, AND learn to substantiate claims with something other than your own opinions and conclusions.
Korah wrote: (Am I allowed to issue thanks here in DC&R, or is that too personal?)
It would be more appropriate to make such comments in PM rather than in threads – but no big deal.
Korah wrote: EDIT THIS PART OUT, PLEASE, IF AGAINST THE RULES!
May I inquire, sir, what are your qualifications (if any) for debating in the field of Higher Criticism of the four gospels?
This Forum does not require "qualifications" to debate ANY issue. Those who think they have superior qualifications are welcome to demonstrate their great knowledge (if they can – rather than just proclaiming "qualifications" and pontificating).

I make no claims to such knowledge or expertise, but seem to do okay debating self-proclaimed "experts."

My background is in Earth science (specifically fluvial geomorphology) which seems to come in handy at times. Also, that background in science taught me to look critically / analytically at claims of knowledge to learn if they were credible and independently verifiable – and to effectively challenge those which are not.
Korah wrote: Please excuse my ADHD (and persistent Alzheimer's of 60 years duration since I turned 13), but I don't recall seeing any evidence of such from you.
"Credentials" don't count for much in debate.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #38

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 37:
Zzyzx wrote: fluvial geomorphology
I'd need to tell on Zzyzx for cussin'.








(random ramblings)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #39

Post by Zzyzx »

.
JoeyKnothead wrote: I'd need to tell on Zzyzx for cussin'.
I sure did curse it more than a few times in grad school Joey.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Korah
Under Suspension
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Dixon, CA

Post #40

Post by Korah »

[Replying to post 30 by Zzyzx]
They say that in Thermonuclear War the one to strike first wins (or at least "wins" until the second strike obliterates it too).
Hopefully that analogy won't hold as you have unilaterally trotted out in Christianity and Apologetics your preferred "Q" as the first topic to discuss. Good fake by me, I guess, saying all along I wanted to start with the Passion Narrative that I would present as really best based on the S Source per Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Logically good place to start, but I'm out on a limb seeing John (for ch. 18 to 20 or 21, anyway) as preceding the Synoptics. With that one I would have gotten crucified before I started, as Fundies whether Christians or atheists both insist the Synoptics came first. Even Teeple doesn't see it my way and I otherwise use him like he's God.

But no harm to you (by inadvertently helping me) because trotting out Q embarrasses the Fundies no end with a slam dunk for atheism. Too bad that it turns out that critical scholars are currently in disarray, but cramming Q down Fundie throats is all that matters.

Post Reply