The Narnia Code (1 Viewer)

[Mike375]

I did not deny anything I had said. I objected to your dishonest interpretation of it. If you behave in a dishonest manner to me (as you have done) then don't get upset if I suggest you might treat your clients in a similar manner.

How was I dishonest?

Can you show me any "words" I changed?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

So what does Rabbie tell the 5 year old?

It doesn't matter. Waiting until someone is capable of absorbing and understanding an item of information is not 'removing' it.

 

[dan-cat]

I did not deny anything I had said. I objected to your dishonest interpretation of it. If you behave in a dishonest manner to me (as you have done) then don't get upset if I suggest you might treat your clients in a similar manner.

I really think you need to get change this 'dishonest' track you're on and address what is actually being posted. With regards to my comments you have interpretated them completely wrong.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

How was I dishonest?

Can you show me any "words" I changed?

You're still doing it. You know you didn't change the words; you imposed an additional, subtly distorted meaning to them.

 

[Alc]

...and I say that we generally do when the events don't meet our expectations hence popularity of religion

How do you account for the fact that the number of people who accept one or more gods as the reason behind things happening (e.g. earthquakes) has dramatically decreased over the centuries, in spite of us not having an alternative explanation for these things? Yes, we have a pretty good idea of how they happen, but far fewer people today believe there is a 'why'.

 

[Mike375]

And don't forget:

learn to read before you learn science

What sort of science could you learn if you can't read?

 

[dan-cat]

Agree. Best to go with the God option to fill in the gaps.

I understand your point. The 'tooth fairy' option is actually used when science cannot be understood and it is seen by most as beneficial.

 

[Mike375]

You're still doing it. You know you didn't change the words; you imposed an additional, subtly distorted meaning to them.

You are assigning skills to me I don't have.

What the fuck are you talking about? Rabbie and Rich will be the first to tell you that I lack skills with English.

 

[dan-cat]

How do you account for the fact that the number of people who accept one or more gods as the reason behind things happening (e.g. earthquakes) has dramatically decreased over the centuries, in spite of us not having an alternative explanation for these things? Yes, we have a pretty good idea of how they happen, but far fewer people today believe there is a 'why'.

No, no, no you're not allowed to do that. I asked the question first.

How do YOU account for the popularity of religion in the first place before it's decline.

 

[Rabbie]

I agree that the comments regarding dishonesty and distortion are unnecessary and simply untrue.

You may agree with Mike that saying "I would not teach a 5 year old Ballistics" is a rejection of science. I don't. I think that is an unwarranted and dishonest interpretation of what I said.

 

[dan-cat]

You are assigning skills to me I don't have.

What the fuck are you talking about? Rabbie and Rich will be the first to tell you that I lack skills with English.

I disagree with your choice of words but I agree that these personal accusations are farcical.

 

[Rabbie]

You are assigning skills to me I don't have.

What the fuck are you talking about? Rabbie and Rich will be the first to tell you that I lack skills with English.

I have never made a single comment about your English language skills. Perhaps you are confusing me with Colin?

 

[Mike375]

If you can't tell the 5 year old about ballistics when the ball bounces...then what story do you make up....Or do you just go silent?

 

[dan-cat]

You may agree with Mike that saying "I would not teach a 5 year old Ballistics" is a rejection of science. I don't. I think that is an unwarranted and dishonest interpretation of what I said.

Agree or disagree. Very simple. Levelling accusations of dishonesty because you don't agree with someone's position is at best unhelpful.

You're being way too trigger-happy with it. There was nothing whatsoever dishonest about my comments which you took a dislike to.

 

[Mike375]

I have never made a single comment about your English language skills. Perhaps you are confusing me with Colin?

I think so But I am not saying you were wrong

 

[Rabbie]

Agree or disagree. Very simple. Levelling accusations of dishonesty because you don't agree with someone's position is at best unhelpful.

You're being way too trigger-happy with it. There was nothing whatsoever dishonest about my comments which you took a dislike to.

And you are not??
What about this post which you now seem to have deleted?

---Quote (Originally by Rabbie)---
I have never made a single comment about your English language skills. Perhaps you are confusing me with Colin?
---End Quote---
He was responding to Mike Gurman. READ the posts.

Was it because I was replying to a post which said "Rabbie and Rich will be the first to tell you that I lack skills with English." Perhaps you should also read the posts before striking your holier-than-thou attitudes

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

You are assigning skills to me I don't have.

What the fuck are you talking about? Rabbie and Rich will be the first to tell you that I lack skills with English.

When someone says something, and you quote them, then follow it with "so..." and an interpretation of what you think they mean, then they tell you that's not what they mean, but you continue to assert that it must be what they mean, because the words can be made to mean what you say they mean, and you didn't change the words...

..at best, that's just wrong and not a very useful. At worst, it could be dishonest - it certainly appears dishonest to many experienced debaters, even if you are in fact doing it quite innocently.

 

[Rabbie]

And don't forget:



What sort of science could you learn if you can't read?

Exactly. Thats why I don't teach advanced Ballistics to my 5year old grandson. Commonsense not a rejection of science

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

If you can't tell the 5 year old about ballistics when the ball bounces...then what story do you make up....Or do you just go silent?

You're playing ball in the park with a 5 year old - the ball bounces. Blurting out a treatise on ballistics to a child who probably couldn't understand it just doesn't seem a normal and appropriate thing to do.

If the child seems advanced and interested enough to hear something like that, then it might be appropriate, especially if the child actually asks what's going on.

And in that latter case - the child wants to know and could understand - if you were to make something up, or say that nobody knows the reason - or something like that - only then are you actually removing the science; up until that point, it wasn't even there to be removed.

 

[Mike375]

When someone says something, and you quote them, then follow it with "so..." and an interpretation of what you think they mean, then they tell you that's not what they mean, but you continue to assert that it must be what they mean, because the words can be made to mean what you say they mean, and you didn't change the words...

..at best, that's just wrong and not a very useful. At worst, it could be dishonest - it certainly appears dishonest to many experienced debaters, even if you are in fact doing it quite innocently.

How did I change words. Did I selectively (is that a word?) quote, that is, only use a selection of words from Rabbie's postings.

Could you point out the errors so I don't repeat them.