sin test 1

Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#21
Big surprise the dolt doesn't know what post modern means. There is a reason he is being ignored.
Is there some reason that those you disagree with must be insulted?

do we all deserve to be called names when our opinions differ from your own?

Am I to sit back while you do so to our membership...again?



Please show respect to those you decide to intact with..it makes my lob significantly more pleasant.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#22
Assumption:

The act of making ones self seem to be an ASS, while Impressing no one with Uninspired, Moronic and Pathetic Tantrums Inspired by Opinionated Nonsense.
 
Feb 8, 2013
1,172
173
just past the moons of Jupiter
#23
Is there some reason that those you disagree with must be insulted?

do we all deserve to be called names when our opinions differ from your own?

Am I to sit back while you do so to our membership...again?



Please show respect to those you decide to intact with..it makes my lob significantly more pleasant.
Not everybody, just one poster. Can't respect those who don't deserve it. I honestly don't interact with him either.

He has no place in this discussion if he can't understand the language. I can't help it if he is too lazy to educate himself. With the internet literally at your fingertips the only thing that would cause a person to be ignorant is willful ignorance.

I haven't insulted anybody. And I never did before, or currently. Certain members are permitted to insult others and when I report such posts, the moderator attempts to insults me. Thus I can only assume that this is the decorum that is desired.

Do you really want to derail another thread with something that ought to be handled in private?

I am more than willing to drop it.
 
Oct 7, 2012
1,916
383
NC
#24
I think C. S. Lewis describes it best...

Mere Christianity - The Law of Human Nature

EVERY ONE HAS HEARD people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that some thing has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.
Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.
We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses
 
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions