On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:36:23 GMT
Catawumpus <kimmerian@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> pataphor <pataphor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
> > You spoke of three basic ways.
>
> I said there are at the least three answers to the problem
> of evil. ("Maybe more, not any fewer.") But you stupidly
> claimed I said the opposite. According to you I made three the
> maximum, not the minimum. You still haven't corrected
> yourself, nevermind apologized, so you come up short on honesty
> as well as intelligence.
How did that comma after "ways" turn into a point? It is you who is
falsely representing my position by altering my sentences.
The "Maybe more, not any fewer." position was one you took in an
earlier post before you cemented your position into a 3 way dogma with
another -- later -- post were you asserted 3 basic ways, power, goodness
or knowledge.
> > I was referring to the sarcasm of the story itself.
>
> Likewise. The story itself depicts the Creator asking Job
> very sarcastic questions, as I said. I also offered some
> examples. So your claim I don't see sarcasm there is just more
> of your typical crap.
No, isn't it pitiful enough that I as a non English speaker have to
teach you the difference between rhetorical questions and sarcasm? The
former is what God's questions are in Job. To detect real sarcasm
one has to read the whole sentence without breaking it up into
separate parts, just like one has to do to with _Job_ or even Usenet
postings to grasp the point.
> > If you would realize it is a sarcastic story -- which you probably
> > don't
>
> If you could stop being such a total dumb**** -- which you
> probably can't -- you would realize I'm the only one here
> supplying examples of sarcasm in _Job_, viz. Yahweh's questions
> to his victim.
No, that's rhetorical questions God asks Job. The sarcasm lies in the
whole conclusion the reader has to make after reading _Job_ in that
there is no way Job's suffering can be explained or made acceptable. In
fact that is the whole propagation mechanism of the meme that has
captured your mind, using it to propagate itself by turning you into
its champion. Keep defying reason, you memetic slave! Attack people's
critical faculties first, like the memetic equivalent of an aids virus
attacking white blood cells. You think by now there is no cure?
Think again.
> > -- you wouldn't still use it as a metaphor for reality. This is the
>
> That's just you nattering again. No argument, no evidence
> and no response to anything that I've actually written.
> Nothing but your usual babble. You've hypnotized yourself with
> your own hand-waving.
Look, I understand your brain isn't capable of integrating complete
sentences or stories so you must fixate on partial meanings like the
blind beggars each re****ting a different part of the elephant, but
you've just got to trust me on this: There is an elephant in the room,
I can see it!
> > reason behind my claim
>
> Combining a baseless assertion with a non sequitur is less
> than reasonable.
If you cut things out of context it's no wonder my sentences do not
make sense to you. Be honest for a moment, is it just a contempt
facilitating method or does your brain really not posses the capacity
to integrate?
> > you're not able to tell fact from fiction.
>
> You disputed your claim in advance when you said the story
> is metaphorical to me, contradicting your idea that I'm
> confusing fact and fiction. Obviously you're unable to realize
> you shot yourself in the foot, but you've proved the
> blunderbuss you carry around _is_ good for something, after all.
The problem is you are using a metaphor for reality while that metaphor
is made incomprehensible deliberately because that is the way its
meme evolved into propagating. As such it is more like a koan, a
sarcastic joke or a chain letter. It is not an adequate metaphor for
reality because its content is not determined by its connection to
reality, only by the way it survives best by infecting new human minds.
P.
|
