About these pipe bombs

[floridays]

I'm all for philisophical exploration, but from the tiny amount I've looked into him, he doesn't seem to have stated anything I haven't already heard. Some I agree with, some maybe not.

Whatever, I just offered an offering.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

From the perspective that @floridays brings up, yes, Trump is a bad person. We all are. I prefer to own my own badness, and let others worry about theirs. Only when one person's badness violates the rights of another does anyone need concern themselves with other peoples' badness.

So yes, we can agree Trump is a bad person.

 

[floridays]

From the perspective that @floridays brings up, yes, Trump is a bad person. We all are. I prefer to own my own badness, and let others worry about theirs. Only when one person's badness violates the rights of another does anyone need concern themselves with other peoples' badness.

Actually, from my perspective, all are bad. Your, and my badness always violates another, we do not live in a vacuum, unless you do. You're the philosophical guy however, I'll defer to you.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

So yes, we can agree Trump is a bad person.

Asked and answered.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Actually, from my perspective, all are bad.
Your, and my badness always violates another, we do not live in a vacuum, unless you do. You're the philosophical guy however, I'll defer to you.

I said we are all bad. I disagree that our badness always violates another, as that would suggest that we couldn't be bad without the existence of others. What I said was that we ought not concern ourselves with the badness of others unless they violate the rights of others, which is a Biblical principal. Matthew 7:2-5

"2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

 

[BrownFlush]

So yes, we can agree Trump is a bad person.

I don't know how you can judge anyones morality. You have made it clear that morality doesn't apply to you.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

I don't know how you can judge anyones morality. You have made it clear that morality doesn't apply to you.

You know nothing about morality.

 

[floridays]

I said we are all bad. I disagree that our badness always violates another, as that would suggest that we couldn't be bad without the existence of others. What I said was that we ought not concern ourselves with the badness of others unless they violate the rights of others, which is a Biblical principal. Matthew 7:2-5

"2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

I'm an extremely stupid guy, you have to bear with me.
Either repost your points one at a time or set me free to demolish them cumulatively, your choice. It will be cleaner one at a time. Your choice.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I'm an extremely stupid guy, you have to 'bear with me'.

I'm glad it's not 'bare with me'!

 

[BrownFlush]

You know nothing about morality.

Not yours.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I'm an extremely stupid guy, you have to bear with me.
Either repost your points one at a time or set me free to demolish them cumulatively, your choice. It will be cleaner one at a time. Your choice.

Ok,

I said we are all bad, to which you responded:

Actually, from my perspective, all are bad.

So we agree on that point. Demolish away, at your own argument.

I said we should concern ourselves with our own badness, and only concern ourselves with the badness of others if they violate another person's rights. You responded:

Your, and my badness always violates another, we do not live in a vacuum, unless you do.

I disagree that our badness always violates other people. But that misses the point I was making anyway. You need to worry about the plank in your own eye before worrying about the speck in your neighbor's eye. Feel free to demolish Jesus' teachings, if you think you have it in you.

I specifically mentioned violating other people's rights. You committed a strawman fallacy by broadening the argument to violation in general. And you failed to explain how one person's badness always violates another person, let alone their rights. But that was more of an aside, and not central to my argument. Feel free to explain how someone's badness always violates another person. I'm interested in how you think that works.

I'm not going to seperate this into individual posts for you. So when you quote, delete everything between the quote annotations that you aren't specifically responding to. Repeat that process for each point. There's nothing really to argue, but feel free to give it your best shot.

 

[floridays]

Before I forget, you actually named Trump individually, that is what raised my ears. I will continue to read your response.

 

[floridays]

Ok,

I said we are all bad, to which you responded:



So we agree on that point. Demolish away, at your own argument.

I said we should concern ourselves with our own badness, and only concern ourselves with the badness of others if they violate another person's rights. You responded:



I disagree that our badness always violates other people. But that misses the point I was making anyway. You need to worry about the plank in your own eye before worrying about the speck in your neighbor's eye. Feel free to demolish Jesus' teachings, if you think you have it in you.

I specifically mentioned violating other people's rights. You committed a strawman fallacy by broadening the argument to violation in general. And you failed to explain how one person's badness always violates another person, let alone their rights. But that was more of an aside, and not central to my argument. Feel free to explain how someone's badness always violates another person. I'm interested in how you think that works.

I'm not going to seperate this into individual posts for you. So when you quote, delete everything between the quote annotations that you aren't specifically responding to. Repeat that process for each point. There's nothing really to argue, but feel free to give it your best shot.

New
Before I forget, you actually named Trump individually, that is what raised my ears. I will continue to read your response.

I have no idea why my post wasn't hooked to your's here is an initial response, it is above but not attributed as a response to you. WTF.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Before I forget, you actually named Trump individually, that is what raised my ears. I will continue to read your response.

That was because I was trying to satisfy @DriveInDriveOut's question. You pointed out, correctly, that everyone is bad. I was agreeing with you within the context of the question at hand. If all are bad, and Trump is part of all, then Trump is bad. But I couldn't leave it at that, because I would be painting myself into a corner.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

New
Before I forget, you actually named Trump individually, that is what raised my ears. I will continue to read your response.

I have no idea why my post wasn't hooked to your's here is an initial response, it is above but not attributed as a response to you. WTF.

It's ok, I got the notification. The whole thing started when I posted a meme that suggests that the people who hate Trump are "Non Player Characters" (NPC) who are just repeating the same talking points and lack the capacity to formulate their own thoughts, or even defend the position they espouse. I don't really think that, just thought the meme was funny, and was appropriate to the conversation. @DriveInDriveOut's question seemed designed to group me in with the people I was deriding. But the point of the meme is that Trump haters are incapable of nuanced thought. The only proper, pithy, response to such an inquiry is that "it's complicated".

 

[floridays]

That was because I was trying to satisfy @DriveInDriveOut's question. You pointed out, correctly, that everyone is bad. I was agreeing with you within the context of the question at hand. If all are bad, and Trump is part of all, then Trump is bad. But I couldn't leave it at that, because I would be painting myself into a corner.

I suggest in further attempts don't worry about painting yourself in a corner. If you are painting truth, there will be no corner for you to be caught in.

I was in the process of picking apart your last post, unfortunately for me, I don't deal well in responses as you dished it out. That is why I requested one point at a time.
I feel confident I can pick it apart, in a mangled manner, but picked nonetheless.
I've praised you for your smarts previously, you picked the wrong field to venture into this time.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I suggest in further attempts don't worry about painting yourself in a corner. If you are painting truth, there will be no corner for you to be caught in.

I was in the process of picking apart your last post, unfortunately for me, I don't deal well in responses as you dished it out. That is why I requested one point at a time.
I feel confident I can pick it apart, in a mangled manner, but picked nonetheless.
I've praised you for your smarts previously, you picked the wrong field to venture into this time.

Agree to disagree.

 

[floridays]

Agree to disagree.

I haven't started yet.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I haven't started yet.

I just meant about wandering into the wrong field. I'll await the results of your "picking".

 

[floridays]

I said we are all bad. I disagree that our badness always violates another, as that would suggest that we couldn't be bad without the existence of others. What I said was that we ought not concern ourselves with the badness of others unless they violate the rights of others, which is a Biblical principal. Matthew 7:2-5

In the first place your "badness" violates you, yourself as a person, by definition you are defiled, that means anything you touch or humanly interact with is defiled, by you.. Can we agree to this?