Debate discussion
Religion
>
If this just doesn't say it ALL
message 51:
by
Liz
(new)
Aug 03, 2009 04:22PM
lol. maybe we should always point out the obvious because they obviously don't get it
reply
|
flag
Yes, I do see the metaphor. At least you are able to admit that you were wrong on the other part.
wrong and misunderstood are two totally different things
He misunderstood it. His understanding was wrong.
@Nathan- your metaphor is made of fail, hate to break it to you :) Seriously, my English teachers would've flunked your ass soooo hard for that uncreative and uninspired comparison-not to mention inaccurate. I could think of much more poignant and cutting metaphors or similes to use against Christianity, if I so desired. Although you might learn something, I feel it would ultimately be wasted on you. ^-^ Go back to Creative Writing 101 and then try to entertain us, please.
Lee wrote: "@Nathan- your metaphor is made of fail, hate to break it to you :) Seriously, my English teachers would've flunked your ass soooo hard for that uncreative and uninspired comparison-not to mention i..."
Isn't Nathan an English teacher?
Stfu, Lee. Like you know more than he does.
Isn't Nathan an English teacher?
Stfu, Lee. Like you know more than he does.
Aetheists are just as likely to make errors as Christians or Jews or Hindus.Well, I can think of one pretty egregious error that Christians, Jews and Hindus make that atheists do not.
Nathan wrote: "Come on, Nathan. Yet again, you put everything down to a mistake.I didn't put anything down to the mistake except for the fact that you made a mistake."
Which is putting everything down to ANOTHER mistake. You just contradicted yourself.
Nathan wrote: "I was flipping through the television stations this morning when I cam upon a religious channel. They were preaching away about saving my soul when I noticed something. Along the bottom of the sc...""I cam" Looks like an error on your part. Does that make you an "undereducated, overzealous idiot" too?
The metaphor(even though I hate to admit it) was actually a good one. Seeing as how it was thought out. You actually have to look deeper than just seeing the mistake. If that makes any sense...
"You are a moron. I never put everything you said down to anything. I pointed out one mistake you dumbass. If you can't understand the English language, don't bother speaking to me."You are the one who is supposedly the English teacher. Why do you degrade the language? Your foul comments are not only abusing it, they're are also irrelevant to the topic. Why can't you debate over my points and not my errors? The same goes for the Christians.
Please point out the failure of my metaphor. You are quickly throwing around accusations but, as usual, not backing them up. It's your metaphor, and you're an English teacher? Tell me what's so creative and original about it then. You may have the mechanics of the English language down pat, but I notice you're not a Goodreads author.
What in the hell does that have to do with anything? That he hasn't written a novel, or if he has he didn't put it on goodreads? jesus Lee you are GREAT at pointing out the tiniest little things and blowing them up in an attempt to disguise your stupidity.
Look who's talking.
*sigh* I was simply pointing out that Lee has done this many times before in different debates, and Aaric you have never seen me do something like this so i don't know what your talking about.
Not exactly that. But you just did point out a tiny little thing and blew it up. In my opinion at least.
Look who's talking. XD
@Chandani: oh, I'm great at many, many things. But try to wait till you've known me for more than a week before you start to list them XD
♥♥♥♥♥
Lee wrote: " Look who's talking. XD
@Chandani: oh, I'm great at many, many things. But try to wait till you've known me for more than a week before you start to list them XD
♥♥♥&heart..."
I second what Nathan said.
You're dumb. Wow! What a witty insult! Not. See, that's sarcasm. I usually wouldn't bother explaining that, but you don't seem too quick on the take my good man.
I second what Nathan said.
Though I suppose I must give you *some* credit, Nate. You, at least, are able to come up with at least a rudimentary response.
lee do you come on here just to be a bitch?
Lee trust me if i thought you were worth typing an actual response for i would have typed one. But quite frankly i dont think your worth anything at all , which is what i'm giving you :)
lee do you come on here just to be a bitch? No.
Why don't you tell me what isn't since you are the one making the accusation that it is not an apt metaphor?
While it's really your job to defend your writing, I'll go ahead and throw you a bone (metaphorically ;D).
Lemme see if I have your metaphor straight:
The typo made in a religious leader's name is representative of the failings of Christianity as a whole, no?
If you had been more specific it might have made a good metaphor, but as it is it's highly likely it was a technician (could even be an atheist one) who made the mistake, not Pastor Gwen. Hell, let's go ahead and say the tech is an Atheist. The typo can be a representative of the typo he made in picking his religious belief's, also known as Atheism.
Just as he made the typo in the religious leader's name, resulting in a damage that lady's reputation, the typo he made with his soul will result in it's eternal damnation.
Anyway I got off track there and didn't really give your little metaphor the picking apart it deserved. My apologies. I wasn't faulting you on it being a metaphor-simply that your's is an extremely obvious and dull one, lacking in creativity, that anyone with two eyes and half a brain could pick out.
Like I said, the typo could be applied better to atheists or religious hypocrites, rather than a specific religion as a whole.
Sorry, Nate, but I didn't read most of your post. Because, you see, in debate, if you have to bring out personal insults, you've automatically lost. Try again next time :)
♥
"Sorry, Nate, but I didn't read most of your post. Because, you see, in debate, if you have to bring out personal insults, you've automatically lost."False.
No...I see his..(her?)..point. My english teacher told me that when someone starts getting personal in an argument, it means they are losing. They're getting desperate.
I disagree. When I know I have the upper hand is when I use personal insults, salt in the wounds if you will.
I've always been such sugar and spice, eh?
I like you Davis, but you really can be a malicious bastard :)
Davis wrote: "I disagree. When I know I have the upper hand is when I use personal insults, salt in the wounds if you will."Perhaps your insults puts "salt in the wound" Davis, i wouldn't know as you haven't had a fair opportunity to insult me. However, Nathan's insults to me have seemed sort of defensive on his part.
And seriously Nathan, if we have such a large variety of words to choose from in the entire English language, why is it the only ones you can come up with are:
Dumbass
Fuck
Moron?
And not many more.
"Why can't you debate over my points and not my errors?Restate your stupid point, whatever it was, and I will debate it. "
My point was, perhaps everything you say about Christians IS true, however, you can't assume/prove anything with a misspelled word. That's ridiculous.
Mod
"
ahahaha. Mental twins.
My point was, perhaps everything you say about Christians IS true, however, you can't assume/prove anything with a misspelled word. That's ridiculous. A misspelled word that was being broadcasted on tv, preaching to people the good ways of Christianity, and telling them to call "Paster". It does prove to some extent the pure idiocy of organized religion and its preaching.
Aha ... from Pastor to Paster to Pester. Modern Christianity is surely interesting.
"I disagree. When I know I have the upper hand is when I use personal insults, salt in the wounds if you will."
ahahaha. Mental twins.
Funny, I thought we were here to debate, not to try to attack and insult people and make them feel bad about having different opinions.
Mod
And we don't intend them to feel bad, that's just an unfortunate side result of showing them the facts.
Lauren wrote: "The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. And we don't intend them to feel bad, that's just an unfortunate side result of showing them the facts. "
Rofl
I'm hungry but I'm afraid to make pancakes? Pathetic.
And we don't intend them to feel bad, that's just an unfortunate side result of showing them the facts. Ah, I see. So when you call someone an idiotic spic bitch asshole you're not intending them to feel bad? Then why even say it, since it seems to have no other obvious purpose?
