Why Do You Debate about Religion?

[Alaude Drenxta]

Your statement and your emoticon seem so horribly opposed....

I do so adore irony.
There was a metaphor in it, but my excessive laziness keeps me from explaining it. XD

 

[Dant?s de Divinity]

Try to live in the Middle Ages. Ignorance spawning people getting burned in the stake was to die for.



:'(

I was thinking more tribal societies in Africa. They fought but never waged war, hunted but only took the meat that they needed, didn't waste anything, some tribes even treated woman as equals thousands of years before the thought even occurred to people in Europe.

With the increase of technology the threat that something might go wrong increases as well.

 

[Forever Atlas]

Square-Enix.....ilu <3

I seriously laughed. XD

That seems to be the common trend around here these days. People get so angry when you disagree with them, act like ****s, then accuse you of flaming them.


Remind me to rep you once I get the chance.

Wow, for some reason I must get under people's skin. They keep freakin' logs it seems of what and where I say things. lol A sort of Luthor like obsession

Anyway, I laughed too, because he took a lot out of context and obviously has a distorted view on the matters that were being discussed and seemed to get the wrong "vibe" from me.

For example: trying to prove that JWs in that case were persecuted by atheists. Wrong. Not liking to discuss things with people who dont have the same view as I do. Wrong. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

That being said, I'll go into more detail when I can access a computer. =)

 

[square-enix]

Wow, for some reason I must get under people's skin. They keep freakin' logs it seems of what and where I say things. lol A sort of Luthor like obsession

Hahaha, logs. I used three of your posts. But I assure you, if I do keep logs, you'd be the last person I'd have in mind. I tire of seeing posts with "lol", copious amounts of periods misplace in posts, or any of the things you have interest in (like participating in Forum Insanity judging from the last few posts in your history)
The last thing I would do is keep logs of your activity. Don't you worry, you're not that important.

Anyway, I laughed too, because he took a lot out of context and obviously has a distorted view on the matters that were being discussed and seemed to get the wrong "vibe" from me.

For example: trying to prove that JWs in that case were persecuted by atheists. Wrong. Not liking to discuss things with people who dont have the same view as I do. Wrong. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

So, when you posted Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, you weren't trying to prove that Jehovah Witnesses were being persecuted? Well, if I was in error, I'll apologize.
For now, this link will take you to the thread in question. (specifically, it'll take you to Phoenix's post, which starts the discussion) To be fair, if anyone else is interested, they can go to the thread and see if I misinterpreted Forever Atlas's intent. (I can always quote the post where he is in fact arguing the Jehovah Witnesses were being persecuted by Atheist but that won't give you the full picture_

As for, "Not liking to discuss things with people who dont have the same view as I do.", when you suggested we take the Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton to PM, you opened up the discussion with

"I just took this out of the thread because I dont feel like another big debate going up"
I responded with "Why even mention this case if you didn't want to discuss it?"

I already posted above how you ended the discussion.
Again, if anyone is interested, I'll post the PMs so Forever doesn't feel like he has been misrepresented.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

No, I'd say the point was QUITE clear.

I was thinking more tribal societies in Africa. They fought but never waged war, hunted but only took the meat that they needed, didn't waste anything, some tribes even treated woman as equals thousands of years before the thought even occurred to people in Europe.

With the increase of technology the threat that something might go wrong increases as well.

Educate yourself, please.

 

[Forever Atlas]

Hahaha, logs. I used three of your posts. But I assure you, if I do keep logs, you'd be the last person I'd have in mind. I tire of seeing posts with "lol", copious amounts of periods misplace in posts, or any of the things you have interest in (like participating in Forum Insanity judging from the last few posts in your history)
The last thing I would do is keep logs of your activity. Don't you worry, you're not that important.

I'm glad to hear that =)


Before I continue, I know you all like your definitions, so here, I'll post some.

Discuss- the act of discussing; talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered

There is no problem with that. I expect to and do encounter MORE people that disagree with me than agree. If I wasn’t willing to discuss our contrasting points of view, there would be no point in talking to them would there?

Now, when the discussion turns into a heated argument, I respectfully say I must leave.

Debate - strife; contention, a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers

Yes, a debate is a TYPE of discussion. However, I do not like it when it goes into arguments

Argue - To engage in a quarrel; dispute, it may also imply disputing in an angry or excited way.

Let us say your parents are arguing. You aren’t going to say, “Oh they are just talking”. Even if you do say that, you know in your mind there is a difference. They are arguing. To argue is usually a bickering in a heated way. That is what I do not like to do.

The above supports the fact that you like it when people agree with you in discussions. The latter (you get easily offended) is supported with posts such as this where you'll say threads need to be closed just because you don't agree with what's being posted.

So are you telling me you do not like it when people agree with you? I don't deny that I like it when people agree with me. I'm sure most people do. It seems that a lot of people here think I get offended easily. I dont, trust me. I dont know what has been translated into that, however, if it seems that way, let me make it known now, I do not. I defend my beliefs the same way everyone else does to a certain point. I draw the line where each side has clearly shown their points and going beyond that would just allow tempers to flare and mud to be slung with many times a condescending and bitter, disrespectful tone.

And its interesting you left out this part of what I said:

I hope that all can benefit from everyone's words. Learning from one another in one way or another. An interchange of knowledge if you will.

Square-Enix.....ilu <3

I seriously laughed. XD

That seems to be the common trend around here these days. People get so angry when you disagree with them, act like ****s, then accuse you of flaming them.


Remind me to rep you once I get the chance.

He obviously agreed with you. Why don’t you reprimand him too?

So, when you posted Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, you weren't trying to prove that Jehovah Witnesses were being persecuted? Well, if I was in error, I'll apologize.

It’s interesting how you just go to "being persecuted" from the below:

Another example would be when you posted "Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton" to "prove" that Atheist prosecute Jehovah Witnesses (when that wasn't the case). You didn't like the fact that I disagreed with you and suggested we take it to PM, which we did.
Your claims were then disproved and I was gifted with the PM

I did say that Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted. Even in agreement with others Ken Jubber wrote that "Viewed globally, this persecution has been so persistent and of such an intensity that it would not be inaccurate to regard Jehovah's witnesses as the most persecuted religion of the twentieth century".

Was I talking about by atheists? No. However, while SOME DO persecute Jehovah's Witnesses, I was not speaking about Atheists in that thread.

First off I was replying to this:

No one has been put on jail today for Christianity, no one has been linched today for Christianity, no one has been denied a job today for Christianity, so what persecution are some people in this thread referring to?

Notice, he did not say anything about Atheists. As a matter of fact, the thread wasn't about Atheists, it was just about not liking Christianity. You dont have to be atheist to not like Christianity.

If that is what you thought (that I was talking about Atheists), as I said, it was a misconception.

For now, this link will take you to the thread in question. (specifically, it'll take you to Phoenix's post, which starts the discussion) To be fair, if anyone else is interested, they can go to the thread and see if I misinterpreted Forever Atlas's intent. (I can always quote the post where he is in fact arguing the Jehovah Witnesses were being persecuted by Atheist but that won't give you the full picture_

I'm glad you posted the thread, that way, yes people can see with their own eyes, that I was not speaking about Atheists. As a matter of fact I don’t quite remember what thread it was, or if it was even in the PM to you, I know I clearly said the majority of those who persecute are the ones who claim to be Christians. If you find that post please let me know

As for, "Not liking to discuss things with people who dont have the same view as I do.", when you suggested we take the Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton to PM, you opened up the discussion with

"I just took this out of the thread because I dont feel like another big debate going up"
I responded with "Why even mention this case if you didn't want to discuss it?"

Please take note of the terms defined above.

Also, I'd like to point out, that I have been threatened many times in little nicely packaged PMs in the past by mods and others that, I will be banned for going off topic. I don’t like to deal with that abuse of power. For some reason I am not liked so I seem to be an easy target for them. The rules of the forums is to stay on topic anyway in each thread. So I like to stay as close as I can to those rules there. The reason as many times I’ll say to some I’ll PM you or make another thread on that subject etc. etc. Notice I also said this:

Kaz I suggest you stick closer to your topic of your post, I see you are fairly new to the Forums, so just a word lol... if you get into a debate... chances are it'll go on for a while, tempers will flare, and 99.9% of the time, Christians "lose" on this site lol... so keep debating in debating threads as much as you want but debates in non-debating threads to a minimal

Anyway, back to the main discussion. I know this is not the only reason that people dont like Christianity, and its not a reason that ALL people have as to why they dont like Christianity. As I stated on the previous page there are others. However, I do know that people just dont like to be told what to do with their life. They dont like the idea that there is someone more powerful than they are that has set a standard to live their lives by. They feel that they have the total and complete know it all of how to live their lives and just want to do what they please.

On the same note, some who even claim to be Christian, purposely do not want to hear what is in the Bible because they dont want to feel accountable for their lifestyle. They too dont want to make changes to do what is required of them according to Bible teachings, so they claim "I have Jesus in my heart. So I am saved" which is plainly not what the Bible says. Stuff along those lines.

The fact that the thread wasn't meant to be a debate is why I PMed you. I didnt want to get off topic. However, I did try to stick to the topic of the thread.

Hahaha, logs. I used three of your posts. But I assure you, if I do keep logs, you'd be the last person I'd have in mind. I tire of seeing posts with "lol", copious amounts of periods misplace in posts, or any of the things you have interest in (like participating in Forum Insanity judging from the last few posts in your history)
The last thing I would do is keep logs of your activity. Don't you worry, you're not that important.

Again, if anyone is interested, I'll post the PMs so Forever doesn't feel like he has been misrepresented

Well, you sure like to keep my PMs

I was going to dispute square-enix's post initially

I’d like to hear what you were going to say lol


here comes S-E with his long reply to my long post lol

 

[square-enix]

Before I continue, I know you all like your definitions, so here, I'll post some.

Discuss- the act of discussing; talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered

There is no problem with that. I expect to and do encounter MORE people that disagree with me than agree. If I wasn’t willing to discuss our contrasting points of view, there would be no point in talking to them would there?

Now, when the discussion turns into a heated argument, I respectfully say I must leave.

Debate - strife; contention, a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers

Yes, a debate is a TYPE of discussion. However, I do not like it when it goes into arguments

Argue - To engage in a quarrel; dispute, it may also imply disputing in an angry or excited way.

Let us say your parents are arguing. You aren’t going to say, “Oh they are just talking”. Even if you do say that, you know in your mind there is a difference. They are arguing. To argue is usually a bickering in a heated way. That is what I do not like to do.

Thank you. All this does is reinforce my previous point.

If you notice, after each definition you give me, you'll say something similar to "I like discussions, but not when arguments start". I have bolded and colored them in blue to help you. There are two problems with this.

1) In my last post, I already explained to you that the definitions of "discussion" and "debate" or any other synonym (yes, argument is a synonym) are too similar for "I like discussions. I do not like to debate." to ever make sense. It's self contradicting.
The only difference is your current post is that you've changed your stance to "I like discussions. I do not like heated discussions."
You're using the same faulty stance.

2)The pieces of text that are bold and blue are essentially saying you hate it when arguments arise and you leave the discussions. When arguments arise, that means someone has made a rebuttal to your claims.

By your own admission, your own post supports "I like discussions when people agree with my views, but not when my views are opposed." as an accurate view for you.
If you do not like this view, I also posted

"I like giving sermons" because they're one-way communication. People simply listen to you and you don't have to deal with any rebuttals.

because you always quote scripture.

Let us say your parents are arguing. You aren’t going to say, “Oh they are just talking”.

This is entirely unfair. You propose a hypothetical situation where you tell me my parents are arguing. Since it is your hypothetical situation, I have to except that they're arguing. Of course I'm not going to say "they are just talking", because you're the one presenting the situation.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's doesn't work. You're giving negative connotations to words like "argument" and "debate" while giving positive upbeat connotation to "discussion"
The denotation of these words are just too similar.

Your current view of "I like discussions. I do not like debates/augments/discourse/etc" does not make sense.
I believe the ones I've provided are an accurate representation of your stance on debating religion. (certainly better than your current view)

Hopefully I have explained everything sufficiently that I do not have to explain it for a third time.

So are you telling me you do not like it when people agree with you? I don't deny that I like it when people agree with me. I'm sure most people do.

You're taking it out of context. The end result of an argument is either rebuttals or agreement.
"You like it when people agree with you" is emphasized because by your own posts, you have made it clear that you do not like arguments. Your other posts have shown that you get offended if someone posts something opposing your ideals.
Since you do not like the rebuttal side of arguments, you favor the part of arguments when someone agrees with you.
That is why "I like discussions when people agree with my views, but not when my views are opposed." is more accurate than "I like discussions, but not debates"

It seems that a lot of people here think I get offended easily. I dont, trust me. I dont know what has been translated into that, however, if it seems that way, let me make it known now, I do not.

If you believe that, ok. I believe that you believe you don't get offended easily.

I defend my beliefs the same way everyone else does to a certain point. I draw the line where each side has clearly shown their points and going beyond that would just allow tempers to flare and mud to be slung with many times a condescending and bitter, disrespectful tone.

That's certainty debatable. I've read instances where your views were adequately refuted, and then you "draw the line" and claimed that member flamed you.

If you were okay were debates, you would stick it out; not accuse anyone of flaming or presume that flaming would happen if the discussion persisted. (which is a very arrogant presumption by the way)

I'll use the Watchtower example again. You presented an argument. I said the entire premise of your argument was that you misread. You "draw the line" and said the discussion was over because we both gave our views.

Except, the discussion wasn't over at all. The discussion was a simple fact based discussion where I was wrong, or you were.
It wasn't a philosophical discussion where you can say "lol let's agree to disagree."

And its interesting you left out this part of what I said:

I left it out because you hardly seem to want to "I hope that all can benefit from everyone's words" when you're asking for threads to close and dropping out of discussions.

He obviously agreed with you. Why don’t you reprimand him too?

Because I wasn't having a discussion with him, so the view I applied to you doesn't apply to me. Besides, I like debates. Thanks for grasping at straws.

I did say that Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted. Even in agreement with others Ken Jubber wrote that "Viewed globally, this persecution has been so persistent and of such an intensity that it would not be inaccurate to regard Jehovah's witnesses as the most persecuted religion of the twentieth century".

Was I talking about by atheists? No. However, while SOME DO persecute Jehovah's Witnesses, I was not speaking about Atheists in that thread.

First off I was replying to this:

Notice, he did not say anything about Atheists. As a matter of fact, the thread wasn't about Atheists, it was just about not liking Christianity. You dont have to be atheist to not like Christianity.

If that is what you thought (that I was talking about Atheists), as I said, it was a misconception.

So your whole problem is that I used the word 'Atheist"? For that, I apologize. I meant absolutely no offense.

If you'll allow it, I'll take out the word "atheist" as to not offend your sensibilities.

Another example would be when you posted "Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton" to "prove" that Jehovah Witnesses were persecuted. (when that wasn't the case). You didn't like the fact that I disagreed with you and suggested we take it to PM, which we did.
Your claims were then disproved and I was gifted with the PM

There, the word atheist is no longer there. My point, however remains the same. You wanted to prove that Jehovah Witnesses were persecuted with that particular case. I refuted your points in PM, and you dropped out.
[If anyone believes I have changed the my point by taking the word "atheist" out, point it out.]

I'm glad you posted the thread, that way, yes people can see with their own eyes, that I was not speaking about Atheists. As a matter of fact I don’t quite remember what thread it was, or if it was even in the PM to you, I know I clearly said the majority of those who persecute are the ones who claim to be Christians. If you find that post please let me know

I think you're missing the point of why I gave Watchtower v Village of Stratton as an example. Using the word "atheist" was a blunder on my point. However the point remains the same. Our discussion regarding Watchtower v Village of Stratton shows that you're offended by opposing views, which supports the

"I like discussions when people agree with my views, but not when my views are opposed. "

view.

Please take note of the terms defined above.

Also, I'd like to point out, that I have been threatened many times in little nicely packaged PMs in the past by mods and others that, I will be banned for going off topic. I don’t like to deal with that abuse of power. For some reason I am not liked so I seem to be an easy target for them. The rules of the forums is to stay on topic anyway in each thread. So I like to stay as close as I can to those rules there. The reason as many times I’ll say to some I’ll PM you or make another thread on that subject etc. etc. Notice I also said this in another thread on the very same subject:

Riiiiight. Even so, that has no relevance on the fact that you said you didn't want a big debate. You said you didn't want to debate. All your words. My conclusion was that you didn't like opposing views.

If you were in fact worried about straying off topic, your opening statement would have been similar to
"I took this to PM because I didn't want to be warned for straying off topic"
Instead, you said "I dont feel like another big debate going up"
Words are everything.

The fact that the thread wasn't meant to be a debate is why I PMed you. I didnt want to get off topic. However, I did try to stick to the topic of the thread.

No, that thread is in Religious which is in Intel Discussion which is in Discussion. Refer to the first section regarding your misuse of definitions. Everything is fair game in discussion unless it's blatant spam.

Perhaps you should not be responding to my posts for fear of straying off topic.

Well, you sure like to keep my PMs

I keep all my PMs until I my inbox is filled. Is this another attempt at thinking you're special?

 

[square-enix]

After my post here, we take the discussion to PM.
Forever Atlas' argument is the following

I just took this out of the thread because I dont feel like another big debate going up

Edit:

So, I finally got around to checking this Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton case and I need some help on the claims you've made, Forever Atlas.


"even the mayer and police officers didnt want a certain group of Christians doing what they do."
I need some help finding where exactly it is you see this. When I was reading I saw "prohibits "canvassers" from "going in and upon" private residential property to promote any "cause" without first obtaining a permit from the mayor's office by completing and signing a registration form."
Meaning they had a regulation prohibiting any solicitors that didn't have a permit. I don't see anything about a specific group of Christians.

As the courts found if you read more into it, the law was found to be made specifically for that group though they couldnt say it because doing that would be outright illegal.

You said this was a series of court cases, so perhaps you meant a different one? I can't find where the Stratton regulation in question prohibits only Jehovah witnesses.

Its not what was written in the law, however, how it was enforced. Whole reason the law was overturned.

Also, the mayor said some derogatory statements about Jehovah witnesses or the like?

Dont know, never said they did. So I wouldnt know.

I'll also need help with
"So they tried banning them and even tried arresting them."
The Watchtower claimed that the ordinance violates their freedom of speech. No more, no less. It deals nothing with banning or arresting.

They didnt do it... as I said, however they "tried". If they did, the court cases would have ended so much faster.

The weirdest thing about your claims is that we're talking about Ohio. It's like going to the Bible Belt and claiming discrimination because you're Christian.

Except other Christian groups do not recognize JWs as Christians and JWs dont include themselves in that group either.

As Phoenix and you yourself have brought up, if there's any sense of prejudice, it mostly by people within the different denominations of Christianity. I don't think any sensible person who's in a minority religion who openly attack the majority if they valued their life.

As I've said before in other posts yes it is along with others people in Christendom who do the acts

As I've said, I can't find where you're seeing the "Jehovah witnesses were discriminated against because they were Christian"

You are right.... thats not how people look at it. Anyway look at 20th century history as I stated in another post. Archibald Cox's book even mentions some reasons. And there are much more matters that go unnoted however I know about them.

Also, you've labeled Agnosticism / Atheism - Free Inquiry, Skepticism, Atheism, Religious Philosophy (you gave two links to it) is a pro atheist/agnostic site. It's not. The main site is Welcome to About.com The section, "Atheist/Agnostic" is a sub section of it. The site ranges from any other number of topics. Health, Sport, Tech, Other Religions and such.

Yes I know.... >.> I didnt direct you to ABout.com the homepage, I directed you to another part of it.... -.- its not a big deal dude.

_____________________________________________

I response with

I just took this out of the thread because I dont feel like another big debate going up

Why even mention this case if you didn't want to discuss it?

As the courts found if you read more into it, the law was found to be made specifically for that group though they couldnt say it because doing that would be outright illegal.

No, that's not quite correct. The court decision was that the ordinance violated the First Amendment. Let me make that very clear to you. The court decided that the ordinance was illegal because anyone who wanted to solicit (be it selling, political, environmental, health, or religious pamphlets) was required to first identify themselves by registration. This (meaning registration to solicit) according to the Court was a violation of freedom of speech.
No where does the court say that they made their decision based on the fact that the law was targeted specifically at Jehovah witnesses. In fact, they specifically say that the ordinance was content-neutral.

Its not what was written in the law, however, how it was enforced. Whole reason the law was overturned.

And how exactly was it enforced? Previously you claimed: "So they tried banning them and even tried arresting them." and still haven't provided any proof of it.
I corrected you above. The law was overturned because it violated the First Amendment in the Court's eyes. They didn't say they overturned it because the law was targeting Jehovah witnesses. The Jehovah witness who took the case to court didn't even say the Village of Stratton tried to arrest/ban his group. He specifically said: that it (the ordinance) was unconstitutional both "on its face" and "as applied" to them.

Dont know, never said they did. So I wouldnt know.

But you did say: "even the mayer and police officers didnt want a certain group of Christians doing what they do"
In the sources you gave, it said the mayor made derogatory statements, so you must not have read the same thing as me. Since you obviously didn't read the sources you provided; what "didn't this mayor and police officers want a certain group of Christians doing what they do?" You must have a source, so what is it?

They didnt do it... as I said, however they "tried". If they did, the court cases would have ended so much faster.

Now you're just arguing with me over semantics. I know you typed "tried". I'm clearly capable of reading. The point is that you claimed that the Village of Stratton attempted arrest and banishment on the Jehovah witnesses when:
1) It is not mentioned in the court case at all
2) The Jehovah witnesses did not charge the Village of Stratton with unreasonable arrest/banishment. For the third time, they charged the Village of Stratton for what they believed was their First Amendment being violated. So the problem is, where's your proof of this attempted banning/arrest.

Except other Christian groups do not recognize JWs as Christians and JWs dont include themselves in that group either.

Jehovah Witnesses don't consider themselves Christians. You must be a Jehovah Witnesses. And other "Christians" don't consider Jehovah Witnesses to be Christians. Those are very very big generalizations. Naturally, you have proof.

You are right.... thats not how people look at it. Anyway look at 20th century history as I stated in another post. Archibald Cox's book even mentions some reasons. And there are much more matters that go unnoted however I know about them.

Again, you completely changed the subject and dodged my query. You claimed several times throughout your posts that Jehovah Witnesses were discriminated against in Ohio and that the ordinance was overturned because of that fact. Yet, you provide no source, and the sources you did provide prove that the case was overturned because it violated the First Amendment in the Court's eyes. (And this is the third time I will be telling you why the ordinance was overturned)

Yes I know.... >.> I didnt direct you to ABout.com the homepage, I directed you to another part of it.... -.- its not a big deal dude.

No, I don't quite think you "know"
You specifically said that atheism.about.com was a Atheist/Agnostic site. (Click here for the post )
If you "knew", you wouldn't have claimed it to be a Atheist/Agnostic site. You were wrong. I corrected you and made you more informed. There's no reason for you to play it off because it's only a waste of both of our time. And please, let's not try and put this on me by saying "its not a big deal dude". Obviously it's a big deal to you if you feel the need to bullshit your way through a mistake rather than admitting it.

Also, there's really no need for you to respond to this post. I know you misread what the entire case was about. You misread it and thought Jehovah witnesses were discriminated against based on their religious status, when the case did not deal with that at all.
Quite frankly, there's no reason for you to respond if you're going to try and bullshit about your mistake/misreading. I only checked out the case because I thought you actually found a case where Christians were persecuted by non-Christians but that wasn't the case. You don't need to waste your time coming up with bullshit reasons as to how Jehovah Witnesses were discriminated against (when they weren't), and I don't need to waste my time reading and responding to the bull.
Either you can actually read the case here or properly gather your information before you wish to make claims. I don't go out looking for conflict and only respond to things that pique my interest, but when I do, I'm not looking to waste my time with responses that are clearly faulty.

_______________________

Forever Atlas responds with

Well you said what you had to say, I said what I had to say, its not going to change your views if I have anything more to say and I am in no way going to argue soooo lol thats all

And there. Enough bitching from me in a day.

 

[Forever Atlas]

ooooh double posting! oooooh! bad I'm going to tell on yoU!!!

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

moar i say, eye needz moar.

But seriously, it is quite blatantly obvious that you do not like debates, Forever Atlas.

Why you're denying it I can not understand, as you seem to contradict yourself entirely in your explanation as to WHY.

You sound like you have dementia or something.

 

[Forever Atlas]

moar i say, eye needz moar.

But seriously, it is quite blatantly obvious that you do not like debates, Forever Atlas.

Why you're denying it I can not understand, as you seem to contradict yourself entirely in your explanation as to WHY.

You sound like you have dementia or something.

Eh.

The whole reason this is going up is because I acknowledged I dont like to debate. >.> I was the one who said I dont like to debate.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Which you are perfectly entitled to.
There are many people who don't.

Square was just pointing out the evidence in what you said, and you reacted to it, quite offended.

Nobody likes their hypocrisy pointed out. But if that's how you feel, no need to feel bad about it.

I love people who agree with me, even blindly, in fact most people do.

However, even more, I like arguing. Debating. Discussing opposing views.

 

[Forever Atlas]

Which you are perfectly entitled to.
There are many people who don't.

Square was just pointing out the evidence in what you said, and you reacted to it, quite offended.

Nobody likes their hypocrisy pointed out. But if that's how you feel, no need to feel bad about it.

I love people who agree with me, even blindly, in fact most people do.

However, even more, I like arguing. Debating. Discussing opposing views.

Hypocrisy? Anyway, I'm not going down that road. Square was pretty much saying, its not that I dont like to debate, its that I dont like to be proved wrong or have people disagree with me.

If thats how he views the matters thats fine. I have already stated my standpoint. There are many others I know who will agree with him. Still I know there are many who will agree with me.

I have yet to be offended. When I am, trust me, you'll know. Its quite hard for me to get there to that point though. I dont let little things people say bother me. However, as I have said before, I know where to draw the line. After everyone has said what they need to say and obviously each side is adamant in their views, then each side's points have been made. Going off into a bicker will not add anything positive to the discussion.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Actually, "bickering" IS the discussion.

It is this back-and-forth exchange that causes people to explain themselves, discuss their ideas, and allow others to express their own.