|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: IngoB you are a self-righteous prick
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
Hell:
where mousethief calls IngoB a bully.
lolz.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Saying that Fry could not do something because you can't imagine him doing something in an imaginary situation with a God he doesn't believe in is not the same as saying he is lying. That is just wrong.
Sure. And if you want to talk about something I have actually said, we could do that as well.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
You said
quote:
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
You cannot imagine Fry talking about eyeball eating worms if he met God, therefore he cannot be, therefore he is lying.
Explain to me exactly how this is a mischaracterisation of your position.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not a subject that anyone is ever 'right' about. You can argue well, even brilliantly - but you will never, ever know for sure that you are right (this side of the pearly gates).
That depends on what you mean by "sure". Obviously faith is required. But faith means acting for all intents and purposes as if something is sure, even if it cannot be demonstrated to be sure on the basis of available information. So you could say that I consciously choose to be sure.
Rather like Mr Fry, then.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Hell:
where mousethief calls IngoB a bully.
lolz.
I'm an asshole. Get it straight.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Hell:
where mousethief calls IngoB a bully.
lolz.
I'm an asshole. Get it straight.
No mate you are much more than that ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Hell:
where mousethief calls IngoB a bully.
lolz.
I'm an asshole. Get it straight.
Apologies. Do carry on ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You said
quote:
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
You cannot imagine Fry talking about eyeball eating worms if he met God, therefore he cannot be, therefore he is lying.
Explain to me exactly how this is a mischaracterisation of your position.
I said, right there, that I don't think Mr Fry was intending to lie about facts. I said, right there, that I think instead that he was not speaking from his heart. I explained, right there, that I thought this could be well understood as evading the public scrutiny of the TV audience falling upon his own pains. And while it was only implicit in what I said right there, namely in words like "I very much doubt" or "I bet", I must have explained myself explicitly half a dozen times on the original thread that I'm guessing, that I'm guessing based on psychology, and that my guess leaves me with a strong likelihood, not certainty.
Now, it is quite true that I have been saying all this in order to take Mr Fry down a notch. Because taken at face value, Mr Fry would appear here as kind of atheist saint. I don't think that he is that and certainly my interpretation of events is biased by that belief. But I insist that my analysis is rather realistic and likely. So if Mr Fry is indeed an atheist saint, then in this instance he left a lot of room for people to interpret his statements as something other than saintly. (Note: "other than saintly" does not mean "horribly evil".)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I said, right there, that I don't think Mr Fry was intending to lie about facts. I said, right there, that I think instead that he was not speaking from his heart. I explained, right there, that I thought this could be well understood as evading the public scrutiny of the TV audience falling upon his own pains. And while it was only implicit in what I said right there, namely in words like "I very much doubt" or "I bet", I must have explained myself explicitly half a dozen times on the original thread that I'm guessing, that I'm guessing based on psychology, and that my guess leaves me with a strong likelihood, not certainty.
You fucking liar. You said right there "I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there". You said that.
Well fuck you and your amateur pop psychology.
Your assumptions have no basis, you are just making shit up and expecting everyone else to take it as a perfectly reasonable assumption. It isn't, it is total shite.
quote:
Now, it is quite true that I have been saying all this in order to take Mr Fry down a notch. Because taken at face value, Mr Fry would appear here as kind of atheist saint. I don't think that he is that and certainly my interpretation of events is biased by that belief. But I insist that my analysis is rather realistic and likely. So if Mr Fry is indeed an atheist saint, then in this instance he left a lot of room for people to interpret his statements as something other than saintly. (Note: "other than saintly" does not mean "horribly evil".)
You are still measuring Fry by a standard that only exists in your head - namely that you don't think it is very likely he would do the things he said he would do.
[ 13. February 2015, 17:03: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Let's investigate more of the shit you've said about Fry shall we:
quote:
But this Stephen Fry stuff is basically just trying to grab your emotions while discussing the theoretical problem. It is inviting a leap to conclusions "this is so bad, nothing could possibly explain it". It's rhetorics, it's ultimately dishonest. Stephen Fry has no children whose eyeballs got eaten by worms, and the logical problem of benevolent God vs. crappy worlds doesn't require especially horrendous illustration.
Stephen Fry, according to you, cannot possibly be telling the truth because he doesn't have children.
quote:
I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
Stephen Fry is trying an evasive manoeuvre to avoid personal questions, according to you.
quote:
If it is obvious that Mr Fry would not actually say to God what he said, then it is obvious that Mr Fry was dishonest in claiming that he would. Unless you are saying that Mr Fry is either stupid or lacks self-awareness. I don't think either is the case. Mr Fry fronted with atheist apologetics when asked a personal question, without indicating that he was doing so. I do not do something equivalent on the Catholic side. Rather, if I want to answer personal questions, I do, and if I don't, I don't. Mostly I don't, but there's nothing dishonest about that preference. Obviously it is easier to avoid saying something around here than in an interview. But nobody forced Mr Fry to give that interview.
It is obvious he is being dishonest, according to you.
quote:
Thus you agree with my assessment! What Mr Fry said in the interview is not what he is likely to say to God. I didn't say that Mr Fry is a dishonest man (i.e., that he has a habitual character fault). I do not know Mr Fry, how can I say that? I said that what he answered in the interview is unlikely to be a honest answer to the interviewer's question. And I can judge that not because I know Mr Fry, but because Mr Fry rattled down some standard atheist apologetics. And it is just inherently unlikely for anybody that the thing they really want to tell God if they meet him after death is some tired apologetic rhetoric. That's so pretty much regardless of your convictions now, whether atheist or zealot, or anything in between.
He is not likely to say these things to God, according to you.
quote:
I'm sure that Mr Fry believes that bit of rhetoric he delivered. That doesn't mean that it wasn't recognisable as rhetoric, rather than as a revelation about his personal state of mind. And it is tired by frequency of use, something that a non-atheist can judge irrespective of truth value. It's a bit difficult to construct an analogy here, given the asymmetry of the situation. But I'm pretty damned sure that if I am worried on my deathbed about there being no God and no afterlife, then I will not reel off the tired apologetics of the cosmological argument. Horses for courses, that's just not the sort of thing that helps at that point. To repeat, I think it is entirely possible that Mr Fry would throw a "why that?" into God's face. I just don't think that the "that" there would be about "worms eating children's eyeballs". Unless Mr Fry happens to have a child whose eyeballs got eaten by worms, that is...
Fry is just using rhetoric, according to you.
quote:
I think he reflected long enough to decide against exploring in public what he might actually say to God. That's fair enough, of course. The technical dishonesty arises in not acknowledging that openly, but rather fronting with some standard apologetics. Yes, all that is my guess about what was going on there. But I think it's a pretty good guess. And if I am wrong, then I think Mr Fry can handle that some random guy on the internet was not thinking as highly of him as he should have. Mr Fry is a public figure, and so by his own choice.
Fry is not being open, according to you.
quote:
And if your first thought upon meeting a God that you thought did not exist was to confront Him with the question of human suffering, and if not your own suffering or the suffering of those close to your heart was foremost in you mind there, but rather a rare "worst case" of the type typically used in atheist apologetics, then you might indeed ask this specific question upon meeting God. But that is unlikely. Not on logical grounds, but on psychological ones.
Fry is not being logical, according to you.
Well, bullshit. Unless you live inside his head, there is no way you can assert any of that shite.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Saying that Fry could not do something because you can't imagine him doing something in an imaginary situation with a God he doesn't believe in is not the same as saying he is lying. That is just wrong.
mr cheesy, you are pointing toward the weakness in IngoB's strange argument regarding Mr Fry's psychology. However, it is unlikely that you will get IngoB to admit that he is wrong.
IngoB is here to feel like he is winning, and he has defined his terms very broadly on his own behalf and very narrowly on behalf of others. All you may get from him is an admission that other speculated psychological reasons of Mr Fry's are possible. Thus far he has been able to deflect any such admission.
In order for IngoB to feel like he's winning, all he has to do is accurately quote some bit of the Magisterium with which he agrees. In order to win against him (according to his construction) you would have to accurately quote some bit of the Magisterium which contradicts his opinion.
IngoB is a religious sociopath. I make no estimate of whether or not he is a devoted husband and father, a helpful neighbour, a thoughtful co-worker. He may be all of those or none. Based on his own posts and self-assessments, he is indifferent to the rejoicings or sufferings of others in their religious lives, as long as he meets his own goal (to feel like he's winning, per his terms).
He reminds me of economic sociopaths: people who absolutely do not give a fuck about others in their business world. They do not agonize over layoffs nor rejoice over bonuses given. "Fair" is only what the rules say they can get away with. They may be lovely people in their personal and social lives, but in this aspect of their lives, they only seek to meet their own goals. This is how IngoB operates on this board concerning religious matters.
What I find refreshing about IngoB is that he is honest in his self-assessment. He does not pretend to give a fuck, and he is aware that his lack of compassion is a failing as far as Christianity is concerned. He does not resort to the usual fig-leaf "I'm only trying to correct you for your own good, out of compassion." It is somewhat puzzling to that he remains Christian, given its founder's insistence on compassion. However, there is more than enough dry doctrine in Christianity's history to provide refuge and material for argument.
If you really want to get at IngoB, look at where he's sulking. Or you could use statements of the current Pope: Francesco shows bias toward compassion, and is also authoritative in the RC church, with results that IngoB may experience as grating.
Calling IngoB a "prick" is like me calling you "a very profane person" - a term of abuse with no power to offend, more likely to be worn as a badge of pride. You have to find out what he cares about, and being perceived as a prick is not.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You fucking liar. You said right there "I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there". You said that.
Yes, and I explained this right in the next sentence: "Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart." Can you not read?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are still measuring Fry by a standard that only exists in your head - namely that you don't think it is very likely he would do the things he said he would do.
Yep. And your problem with that is what precisely? How are you evaluating what Mr Fry says? Are you planning to do so experimentally, by murdering Mr Fry and then instantly committing suicide, so that you can be present when Mr Fry speaks to God? Or are you saying that you do not evaluate the stuff other people claim about themselves, but rather simply accept what they say at face value? If so, then why are you not simply accepting at face value what I say about my thoughts and motivations?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Stephen Fry, according to you, cannot possibly be telling the truth because he doesn't have children.
Rather, Mr Fry is unlikely to be telling the truth here since he does not have children whose eyeballs have become worm-food. I bet Mr Fry has never met any children whose eyeballs have become worm-food either. Such worms presumably exist, and I'm sure they are an all to real horror for some people on this planet. But for Mr Fry, you and me they are basically a "worst case" illustration in an apologetic argument advanced by atheists. It is possible that Mr Fry has taken this piece of abstract information so much to heart that it will run over from his lips when he meets God. I just don't think that it is likely. Call me cynical, if you like.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Stephen Fry is trying an evasive manoeuvre to avoid personal questions, according to you.
Yep, I think that that is most likely what he was doing there. You could add to this likely the pressure to produce something intelligent, in order to maintain his public image. A simple "I have no idea, really" may not have been good enough for him there.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is obvious he is being dishonest, according to you.
See that "If", the first word in the paragraph you have quoted? It establishes a conditional framework, where what follows is true if the condition is fulfilled. Anyway, indeed I consider it likely that Mr Fry was dishonest in the sense discussed, as far as answering the question of the interviewer goes.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He is not likely to say these things to God, according to you.
Correct. At least I doubt that this will be the first thing on his lips.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fry is just using rhetoric, according to you.
Actually, no. I said a lot more than that in the paragraph you quoted. I said: 1. Mr Fry probably believes what he was saying, even though it is the repetition of well-known rhetoric. 2. It is entirely possible that we would say something like what he was saying here to God. But then likely with the worm-eaten eyes replaced by some more personal experience of pain.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fry is not being open, according to you.
Likely he wasn't, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fry is not being logical, according to you.
No, I did not say this at all. I said that I was making my guess on psychological, not logical grounds. I said nothing whatsoever about Fry not being logical.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, bullshit. Unless you live inside his head, there is no way you can assert any of that shite.
Mr Fry is not some alien life form with whom we have made first contact and whose behaviour we are now studying. Mr Fry is a human being. We all constantly make guesses about what goes on inside the heads of other human beings, and doing so with a decent success rate is a big part of living a successful human life. Indeed, some people think that the only reason we evolved to become the smartest animals on the planet is because there was a kind of arms race about guessing what's up with other people.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
In order for IngoB to feel like he's winning, all he has to do is accurately quote some bit of the Magisterium with which he agrees. In order to win against him (according to his construction) you would have to accurately quote some bit of the Magisterium which contradicts his opinion.
Where in any of this have I made the slightest reference to the Magisterium? I feel like I'm winning because I said something rather sensible about a public performance of Mr Fry, and my detractor has all the reading comprehension of a nine year old on a cocaine rush.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Based on his own posts and self-assessments, he is indifferent to the rejoicings or sufferings of others in their religious lives, as long as he meets his own goal (to feel like he's winning, per his terms).
As far as religion is concerned, I feel I can barely handle myself. Furthermore, I feel that only a particular sort of person would profit from what I have to offer, at least as far as personal advice goes. And no, I don't mean "particularly saintly people". I am not proud of this, why would I be?
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
This is how IngoB operates on this board concerning religious matters.
Maybe. Or maybe it's just that not many people here cross the threshold where I think that I can and should help, and then do. But it's a fair enough characterisation for the most part.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
It is somewhat puzzling to that he remains Christian, given its founder's insistence on compassion.
The way, the truth and the life is in no way or form dependent on my ability to follow the way, the truth and the life. My satisfaction with the universe or myself is not a measure of reality.
That said, there's more than one way to fail Christ. That I have mine does not excuse yours.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
However, there is more than enough dry doctrine in Christianity's history to provide refuge and material for argument.
Exactly. I may not be good for much in Christianity, but I'm pretty good at dry doctrine and logical thinking. And unlike many here I do not believe that this dry work is irrelevant, or counterproductive. I think it is limited, but within its limits, essential and indeed normative.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
If you really want to get at IngoB, look at where he's sulking. ... You have to find out what he cares about, and being perceived as a prick is not.
It's just so beautiful to watch Christian compassion in action. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Perhaps then you should try to be a bit more interested in not making people upset. Possibly if you read the prayer thread in All Saints on a regular basis (as recommended by Erin) it might help you grasp that we are real people, with feelings and emotions and all, not just avatars provided for your amusement.
And if those real people have sorted out their feelings and emotions in All Saints or elsewhere, and are up for a round of the intellectually challenging amusement of Purgatory (and related boards), then I will happily meet them there.
You fucking hypocrite ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right.. surely nobody seriously believes that IngoB represents the views of x billion Roman Catholics?
Maybe not. But he does believe, I think, he represents the views that x billion RCs should have, because he believes the RCC and his understanding of the RCC are one and the same thing. At least, that's the impression I get!
I never know whether to admire this unshakeable self-regard. Or to worry about the possibility IngoB has an evil twin somewhere plotting the subjugation of planet earth!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Where in any of this have I made the slightest reference to the Magisterium? I feel like I'm winning because I said something rather sensible about a public performance of Mr Fry, and my detractor has all the reading comprehension of a nine year old on a cocaine rush.
The reference to the Magisterium was based on what I perceive to be your overall posting track record, not the particular thread in the OP. In the OP's thread, you speculated on Mr Fry's psychology and motivation. If you had been inclined to be reasonable or charitable, you would have admitted that other speculations - such as Golden Key's concerning privacy - were equally possible and reasonable speculations.
quote:
... there's more than one way to fail Christ. That I have mine does not excuse yours.
I never said it did.
quote:
I may not be good for much in Christianity, but I'm pretty good at dry doctrine and logical thinking. And unlike many here I do not believe that this dry work is irrelevant, or counterproductive. I think it is limited, but within its limits, essential and indeed normative.
Agree with all this, and mostly sympathetic to this approach.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
If you really want to get at IngoB, look at where he's sulking. ... You have to find out what he cares about, and being perceived as a prick is not.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's just so beautiful to watch Christian compassion in action.
I never said I was the model of Christian compassion either. Like you, I have my failings. But I might have expected to have your approval in teaching mr cheesy to fight more effectively; that's what it's all about, isn't it? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But here's the really fascinating part: you're always right before the fight as well.
Uncanny, isn't it?
No, it's not. What it actually is is a clear demonstration of the sheer fucking pointlessness of the 'fight' for anything other than your own smug self-satisfaction as you toy with everyone.
Your sole purpose for being here, Ingo, is to lecture everyone, whether they asked for it or not. You are here purely to stroke your own ego at your ability to wear other people down until they either shout "OH MY GOD, ENOUGH!!" or quietly commit suicide in the corner by chewing their own leg off.
The shouters end up in here, starting Hell threads about you. The others... well, this being the internet they might eventually recover.
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position, but for that to be true you'd actually have to create a genuine argument. You don't. You swan into threads solely for the purpose of showing people how goddamn brilliant you are at typing enough words for people's eyes to glaze over.
Valuable? How the fuck are you valuable?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's just so beautiful to watch Christian compassion in action.
It certainly would be.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Valuable? How the fuck are you valuable?
Well, I like him. Given my Ship popularity, that's probably not saying much, but whatever.
He's predictable. He views Purgatory as the place for serious intellectual debate. Yes, it's true that he sees it more as a boxing ring than a discussion - but once you know that about him I don't think he's that hard to avoid if you are not in the mood to spar.
And there's something to be said for keeping your arguments sharp by sparring in that way every once in a while. It's not his fault if his opponents sometimes lack reading comprehension.
I've also gotten really sick of liberals telling other people what they really think and feel as if they're too stupid to know.
[ 13. February 2015, 22:13: Message edited by: saysay ]
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I've also gotten really sick of liberals telling other people what they really think and feel as if they're too stupid to know.
You prefer it when a man more Catholic than the Pope does it?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
I've never actually see IngoB do that (not that I've read every post). He analyzes the rhetoric and may come to a conclusion about whether or not he believes the speaker, but he doesn't come right out and make accusations of the 'you might be saying X but you really think or feel y and nothing you ever say or do is going to convince me otherwise' type.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
You fucking hypocrite
Why hypocrite? I didn't say that I never participate on All Saints. I'm active on the workout thread, for example. And I sometimes feel that I can help out. And I do on occasion add my prayers there - though that's usually for the dead and I don't feel like dragging that in here now. I think that's enough to ask for some prayer once in a decade or so, when potentially facing some serious danger. But All Saints is just not my main thing around here.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
If you had been inclined to be reasonable or charitable, you would have admitted that other speculations - such as Golden Key's concerning privacy - were equally possible and reasonable speculations.
I know reading what I actually write isn't exactly all the rage around here, but as has been quoted multiple times on this Hell thread now, I actually advanced privacy concerns as a likely reason for Mr Fry's evasiveness - long before Golden Key ever commented on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
But I might have expected to have your approval in teaching mr cheesy to fight more effectively; that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Perhaps you are right. It would be rather entertaining to see mr cheesy trying to channel the Magisterium and/or Pope Francis.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position, but for that to be true you'd actually have to create a genuine argument. You don't. You swan into threads solely for the purpose of showing people how goddamn brilliant you are at typing enough words for people's eyes to glaze over. Valuable? How the fuck are you valuable?
Oh, I certainly "win" many discussions by attrition. But frankly, that's usually not exactly a case of me being repetitive while around me everybody else is trying to have this brilliant debate. It's more like, well, on this thread. No matter how often mr cheesy says "fuck" and "drivel", I can just send another block of text his way. No matter how many people who were not even on the original thread feel the absolute need to chime in, I can see them off too. And if we get the random hell host who projects his own failings and frustrations, why, I write yet another paragraph. Here we go.
And I can keep that shit up for twenty pages if need be. Whatever. I don't see why I should feel sorry about grinding people down who are trying to grind me down.
But I also bring real and unique information to these boards, and now and then even an original thought. And for the most part, in a well-argued fashion. And I do so because I actually care about doing that. Whether you appreciate that or not is neither here nor there for me, really.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Don't pretend to play dumb Dingo. You know who and what you are.
Hmmm. Must remember, pray for Dingo when he's dead.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
I don't think I'm alone in finding solipsism tedious.
Ingo certainly isn't an appealing advert for the faith he professes.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Don't pretend to play dumb Dingo. You know who and what you are.
Hmmm. Must remember, pray for Dingo when he's dead.
Tons, my friend. Pray for him tons.
i mean, the baby incident alone...
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
An excellent point.
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Hey, lay off IngoB, he provides a valuable service around here. A few years ago I was wavering on the brink of going back to the Catholic Church, everyone here was giving me great advice and encouragement and I was about two days from an appointment for a chat at my local church.
Then IngoB waded in and I cancelled.
Me too!
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
Which is why I loathe him.
It's all in Kant. All in Kant. What do they teach them in these schools?
[ 14. February 2015, 01:02: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Hey, lay off IngoB, he provides a valuable service around here. A few years ago I was wavering on the brink of going back to the Catholic Church, everyone here was giving me great advice and encouragement and I was about two days from an appointment for a chat at my local church.
Then IngoB waded in and I cancelled.
Me too!
You think he's working undercover for the Lutherans?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's all in Kant. All in Kant. What do they teach them in these schools?
Aquinas, evidently.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ingo has previously expressed the opinion that interactions on the internet aren't "real".
It suddenly occurred to me that this is pretty much on the same level as believing that when you turn the television on, the little people who live inside wake up and start doing things for your entertainment.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Don't pretend to play dumb Dingo. You know who and what you are.
Hmmm. Must remember, pray for Dingo when he's dead.
Tons, my friend. Pray for him tons.
i mean, the baby incident alone...
For personal reasons, I would like to retract and apologize for this really dumb joke.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo has previously expressed the opinion that interactions on the internet aren't "real".
I wonder if he's still believe that if someone online stole his identity and began running up a bill buying things online.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ingo--
If most of us don't understand your writing the way you intend, maybe it's something to do with your writing?
And, since you're basically writing for yourself, that makes some sense.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I've also gotten really sick of liberals telling other people what they really think and feel as if they're too stupid to know.
Except it's not just liberals that do that.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ingo--
Over on the "Defending God" thread on the Eighth Day board, you said:
quote:
I did not say that you need to have a worked out theodicy. I said that as an intelligent and educated man who has been confronted with theodicy, you must be able to answer why you still have reasonable doubt about the argument of the atheists. If you cannot but admit that they are right about this, then you cannot in intellectual honesty continue believing what you see as proven false. There's a difference between intellectual defence and offence, so to speak. I do not think that you need to be able to destroy atheist reasoning. But I do think that you need to be able to ward off their destruction of your faith. If however in your own best evaluation atheists have shown your faith to be wrong in some point, then I insist that you should stop believing in it. Once more, I do not speak against "I cannot see how this could work, but I will maintain my faith nevertheless." I speak against "I see that this cannot work, but I will maintain my faith nevertheless."
(Italics mine.)
Who died and made you God??? How dare you "insist" that anyone stop believing anything??? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
You're just one struggling human being, among all. You don't have the right, permission, nor authorization to insist. Nor the wisdom.
Look, not everyone approaches faith or life in the linear, all marked out, sharp-edged, tough as iron, inflexible,"THIS IS THE EXACT, COMPLETE TRUTH" way that you seem to do. Many of us need mystery and flexibility. Often, we cling desperately to whatever we can find. Most of us "see through a glass, darkly" much of the time. That doesn't mean you're smarter, better, more spiritual, more wise, or *more right* than anyone else.
Ingo, you're a beloved child of God, just like everyone else. But you're not "all that".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I also bring real and unique information to these boards, and now and then even an original thought. And for the most part, in a well-argued fashion. And I do so because I actually care about doing that. Whether you appreciate that or not is neither here nor there for me, really.
Cheers to this. You have all the empathy of a dyspeptic badger, and the intersocial comprehension of a pitcher plant, but I have a very high regard of people engaging genuinely - and I am convinced that you do that for the most part.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo has previously expressed the opinion that interactions on the internet aren't "real". It suddenly occurred to me that this is pretty much on the same level as believing that when you turn the television on, the little people who live inside wake up and start doing things for your entertainment.
Any statement one makes can be shortened and paraphrased until it says what one wants it to say. That shows very little about the person so targeted, but rather a lot about the person doing it. mr cheesy quoted above verbatim pretty much the entirety of my contributions that apparently led to this Hell call. Why don't you go and find fault with those, Mr "I don't give a fuck anymore"?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wonder if he's still believe that if someone online stole his identity and began running up a bill buying things online.
I've had my credit card details stolen, presumably due to some online transaction. I found my bank to be quite helpful in recovering the thousands of Euros that were withdrawn in hundreds of transactions. None of which has anything to do with what orfeo claimed I have said, much less with anything I have actually said. Unless, that is, if you are bragging about your responsibility for those crimes here? In which case the Ship of Fools will hear from some lawyers on Monday concerning releasing your identity. Just keeping real things real, mousethief.
(For edgy H&As: the above is rhetoric, I am not actually threatening a lawsuit but rather making a point about online reality. I am somewhat surprised that mousethief has the computer skills to click the "Add reply" button, I don't at all expect him to be able to crack some online merchant's website.)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is why I loathe him.
As I said elsewhere, I may be bruising, but you are a vicious man.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Who died and made you God??? How dare you "insist" that anyone stop believing anything???
Believing in what one knows to be an outright contradiction is a grave and dangerous evil, if not simply insane. It means for example that one can rape, murder and pillage one's neighbours and claim that this just is loving them. Yes, most people won't start with believing in that kind of contradiction, but once you allow this for anything, what precisely is going to stop them from ending there? Certainly nothing you can say, this is setting up a showdown of force. Believing in outright contradictions is hence a most dangerous failure mode of faith, and while I am not God I will fight it to the limits of my powers.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There is a clear pattern to your posts on that thread:
1. Stephen Fry is being dishonest.
I called you on this, so you qualified it
2. This is a 'technical' dishonesty
and then finally
3. This is just your opinion, based on the balance of probabilities as you see it.
Of course, if you actually believed that and were not just randomly spouting shite, believing that it exists inside your head and therefore it must be true - if you really believed that on the balance of probabilities he would not say that if he met God, you'd have said it in the first place.
Of course, you don't do such things, because you like to do the commanding pronouncing voice in your prose. It just doesn't sound as good inside your tiny mind to say at the beginning something like
"Well, y'know, I find it pretty hard to imagine Fry saying such and such because one would think he might first be thinking of the pain in his own life rather than some mythical child with worms eating his eyes that only exists in his imagination.."
Instead you try make the argument that Fry is being dishonest, that this dishonesty is implicit in the atheist position, that Fry has learned this parrot-fashion in order to one-day spill it on tv if/when he is asked the question and every thinking person would agree with this assessment.
That's just to start with.
And then we discover what you are really here for - winning debates, where 'winning' is measured only by your standard, where the quality of argument is only weighed by you, where you don't mind winning by force of verbage, where you don't mind pages and pages of drivel to the extent that you bore everyone else into silence.
Can't you see how pathetic that looks?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's quite clear that you simply don't understand the purpose of Hell. Hell is not here so "we" (meaning "not you") can heap abuse on anyone we find annoying (meaning "yes, that includes you") from the safety of our anonomised keyboards without fear of retribution.
(And fyi, being called a sick fuck is not lawful reason to hit anyone, so no, your argument falls at the first hurdle yet again)
Hell is here to stop these arguments breaking out on the other boards. I'll let you exercise your tiny imagination for a moment as to what SoF might look like without Hell.
Done? Good. Now quit your whining, because it's stupid and wrong.
That's the stated purposes of Hell; if it were its actual purpose, Hell would ban mobbing and personal abuse (distinct from good-natured flyting). Every other blog, discussion section & bulletin board I've visited survives without a snakepit and without arguments breaking out all over.
In any case, this is by the by, I'm not expecting the Ship to change (if that dogpile thread didn't do it, nothing will), I was refuting the bullying accusation in a (mildly) hellish way.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Where does Ingo say Fry is lying? Did I miss that? I thought the word he used was unlikely.
You might want to read the whole of his contributions to the thread:
quote:
I also do think that Mr Fry was being dishonest there. Not in the sense of factual lying, but I do not believe that he was speaking from his heart. Rather, he was simply reeling off a standard apologetic attack on God, a standard theodicy argument. Given that the interviewer did try to get a "personal angle" with his question, if perhaps in trite fashion, I think this was largely an evasive manoeuvre emphatically performed to shut down this personal line of questioning. In short, I very much doubt that Mr Fry would mention eyeball eating worms if he was actually faced with God. He might well go on about the many pains inflicted by the world then, but I bet it would be about pains a lot closer to his own experience.
You mean where he says not in the sense of factual lying?
Fraid I still can't see the problem. Unless of course expressing opinions about what people may be thinking behind the scenes is a sin in your book?
Ingo's guesses are not entirely unreasonable. He could be right.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe you're just self-deluded enough to believe that you 'win' arguments by the intellectual brilliance of your position,...
I've always thought that it was more important to Ingo that he not lose arguments, rather than win them. It's himself he's challenging. He expresses his opinions and defends them. I thought he'd indicated this already.
An excellent point.
And this is why we all end up feeling like he's treating us as props, not peers.
He's interested in ideas, not people.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He's interested in ideas, not people.
At least on the ship yes. Intellectual truth matters to him. It seems to be how he works out his salvation. I personally think he has a rather awful view of God and his intellectually heavy view of truth won't get him all that far spiritually but hey, if you accept his shortcomings he still has some interesting insights that can be illuminating.
Same as us all.
I wish you'd all lay off him. I'd hate for him to disappear. Would be a loss to the Ship.
[ 14. February 2015, 10:07: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He's interested in ideas, not people.
Is that such a bad thing on an anonymous web forum? So long as you remember there's a person behind the screen, seems legit to use the Ship in that way.
In any case, plenty round here act (I assume) nothing like they would in RL, so he's not alone on that score.
IngoB's a bullish debater. Well so what, no one's obliged to debate him, and he keeps it on topic. If I choose to take it, I appreciate the challenge. I doubt he'll be chased off or changed by this thread.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I wish you'd all lay off him. I'd hate for him to disappear. Would be a loss to the Ship.
I agree that he'd be a great loss, but I rather doubt that a minor spat like this one (he's had tougher calls than this) is likely to make him leave. He'll leave if and when he chooses to, and not as a result of a partial dogpiling. I don't think you and I are alone in defending him. I regard him as one of the most important contributors on the board (Christian unrest, anybody?). This kind of exchange is his meat and drink.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Every other blog, discussion section & bulletin board I've visited survives without a snakepit and without arguments breaking out all over.
Every other board would have banned your sorry arse for the shit you pull. Be grateful.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo has previously expressed the opinion that interactions on the internet aren't "real". It suddenly occurred to me that this is pretty much on the same level as believing that when you turn the television on, the little people who live inside wake up and start doing things for your entertainment.
Any statement one makes can be shortened and paraphrased until it says what one wants it to say. That shows very little about the person so targeted, but rather a lot about the person doing it. mr cheesy quoted above verbatim pretty much the entirety of my contributions that apparently led to this Hell call. Why don't you go and find fault with those, Mr "I don't give a fuck anymore"?
Interesting. I appear to have hit a nerve. Good to know you have some.
That was all very angry of you, but what you didn't do is explain how what I've said is actually wrong. I'm perfectly willing for my memory to be corrected, if only you could find the time to do it. But that's what I remember you saying - that you didn't care about your interactions with people on the internet because you didn't regard those interactions as real.
[ 14. February 2015, 10:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
