Support NeoGAF

[videogamer]

I was conceding. Something foreign to internet discusions, I know. I was conceding the precise nature of your criticism, while still trying to demonstrate that he did have a good point to made. But you were more concerned with nitpicking to actually acknowledge his point.

Why should I acknowledge any points at all? I shouldn't need to answer this question for you.

So why are you posting in this thread, if not to contribute to the actual content of the discussion, rather than just jump on people for expanding upon the thoughts of others?

Gee, I'm the OP... didn't that contribute something?

 

[Boogie]

Well you sure as hell aren't contributing to the thread now

 

[videogamer]

Well you sure as hell aren't contributing to the thread now

Uh, I successfully pointed out an error you made.

 

[geogaddi]

:lol

Is that directed at me, or him?

no one really, just the situation


























yeah right

 

[Boogie]

Uh, I successfully pointed out an error you made.

an error? :lol

Okay, sure, whatever.

 

[videogamer]

an error? :lol

Okay, sure, whatever.

Yes, did you not concede?

 

[galeninjapan]

Yes, did you not concede?

You sure like to rub it in dont you.

 

[videogamer]

You sure like to rub it in dont you.

Well, from the diction, it seems as though he's being sarcastic. I was wondering if he was now saying that he was correct all along.

 

[Boogie]

Yes, did you not concede?

You corrected an error which had nothing to do with the point I was making. Congratulations. :lol

 

[videogamer]

You corrected an error which had nothing to do with the point I was making. Congratulations. :lol

Hmm? Let's look back:

You're taking it farther than what he said. He said used the word "religion". You've expanded it to "worldview" and tried to include things such as "science" and "philosophy".

Umm, no he's not. He's saying that for many people, religion is a strong part of their worldview, and to say that it should play absolutely no role in their politics is unreasonable.

First sentence is what you're adding. The second sentence repeats what the other poster already said.

 

[Boogie]

Yep, and there's still no point to your first post in the series.

 

[videogamer]

Yep, and there's still no point to your first post in the series.

Why not?

 

[Boogie]

Why not?

Because we've explained long since explained why he expanded that, but you've completely ignored that explanation in favour of this nitpicking.

Which makes it look like you weren't actually interested in the content of the discussion, but rather in pointing out whatever insignificant thing you can to argue about.

 

[demon]

[stoned South Park Towelie] I have no idea whats goin on...

 

[videogamer]

Because we've explained long since explained why he expanded that, but you've completely ignored that explanation in favour of this nitpicking.

Re-read the post. I said nothing about the ideas behind what he did. I made a comment only on what he did. That's the point.

 

[Boogie]

Re-read the post. I said nothing about the ideas behind what he did. I made a comment only on what he did. That's the point.

So your point was that you had no point. Gotcha.

 

[videogamer]

So your point was that you had no point. Gotcha.

Huh? The point was that he was.. bleh I'll just quote myself:

You're[that poster] taking it farther than what he said. He said used the word "religion". You've expanded it to "worldview" and tried to include things such as "science" and "philosophy".

How hard is it to understand?

 

[Boogie]

Huh? The point was that he was.. bleh I'll just quote myself:



How hard is it to understand?

It's hard to understand because it begs the question "So what?" So he expanded upon the other guys thoughts, in order to illustrate the results of that line of thinking. What's your point in pointing that out, if not to comment upon it one way or the other?

In pointing it out, it certainly seemed as if you felt that he shouldn't have "taken it farther than he said", and yet you have not made any explanation about whether that is the case or not, leaving your original comment to him, well, pointless.

 

[videogamer]

It's hard to understand because it begs the question "So what?" So he expanded upon the other guys thoughts, in order to illustrate the results of that line of thinking. What's your point in pointing that out, if not to comment upon it one way or the other?

So what?
It means that the poster responded against ronito's argument by pulling in information that is outside the field of ronito's post. The ronito spoke about religion. The other poster spoke about worldviews (not necessarily about the biases between the two--that was written out in following posts). In other words, geogadi didn't respond to ronito's post, but to something else. In fact, it borders on stuffing words in ronito's mouth because geogadi seems to imply that ronito wrote about worldview issues when he did not.

In pointing it out, it certainly seemed as if you felt that he shouldn't have "taken it farther than he said", and yet you have not made any explanation about whether that is the case or not, leaving your original comment to him, well, pointless.

I actually agree with him. This is because ronito made a sweeping argument that was not precise enough. But that doesn't matter. The point is that he takes ronito's post into a broader context than what ronito wrote.

 

[geogaddi]

Good morning.


Hammy, just for you, I'll lay out what I said in a nice, logical form.


1. Some people in politics decide on matters or think about matters based on what they believe.

2. What they believe, is formed by various things; science, education, religion, culture, etc.

3. A set of ideas they believe is called their "worldview", or sometimes simply referred to as one's philosophy. A set of ideas about things constructs a "worldview".

4. It is impossible for anyone to willfully get rid of one's worldview, therefore...

5. Beliefs necessarily have to do with politics since people (and not carrots, for instance) are involved in politics.

---------

Ronito probably might argue that religion shouldn't be a belief that is part of one's worldview, especially if they are doing politics.

The problem is that this belief is from his own worldview.

He'd have to make a case as to why religion shouldn't be a belief that is part of one's worldview, especially if they are doing politics.

Why does he need to make a case?

So that his belief can be considered and be taken seriously instead of it being labeled an unjustified, irrational belief. He'd have to prove that religion should not be part of one's worldview, especially if one is involved in politics.

 

[whytemyke]

Yet lawmakers will stand by this judge and say "At least he's a conservative judge and not an activist member of the judiciary!"

What's the over/under on years til he's moved to the Circuit Court by the Bush Administration? Two years?

 

[Phoenix]

[stoned South Park Towelie] I have no idea whats goin on...

"Towlie you are the worst character ever"

:lol

 

[videogamer]

Good morning.


Hammy, just for you, I'll lay out what I said in a nice, logical form.


1. Some people in politics decide on matters or think about matters based on what they believe.

2. What they believe, is formed by various things; science, education, religion, culture, etc.

3. A set of ideas they believe is called their "worldview", or sometimes simply referred to as one's philosophy. A set of ideas about things constructs a "worldview".

4. It is impossible for anyone to willfully get rid of one's worldview, therefore...

5. Beliefs necessarily have to do with politics since people (and not carrots, for instance) are involved in politics.

---------

Ronito probably might argue that religion shouldn't be a belief that is part of one's worldview, especially if they are doing politics.

The problem is that this belief is from his own worldview.

He'd have to make a case as to why religion shouldn't be a belief that is part of one's worldview, especially if they are doing politics.

Why does he need to make a case?

So that his belief can be considered and be taken seriously instead of it being labeled an unjustified, irrational belief. He'd have to prove that religion should not be part of one's worldview, especially if one is involved in politics.

Here is your first post:

That's impossible.

1. Philosophical worldviews affect any system (science, politics, religion, etc.) necessarily.
2. Religion, Science, Culture necessarily shapes one's worldview.
3. Everyone has a worldview

You are basically saying that people should eliminate their worldview when it comes to politics, but that is something absolutely impossible to do.

If anything, it is your own philosophy/worldview that upholds that "Religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other". That statement is on the same philosophical boat as any of the philosophies a religion is constructed upon.

My comments were primarily focused on the first two sections. In there, you seem to imply that ronito was speaking about worldviews. He was not. In the last part, you talk about his worldview and what you see as a bias. If you re-read my post, I didn't say anything about that.

 

[ronito]

I love it when people talk for me. No seriously I find it very interesting. All I'm saying is echoing what these men said:

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison

Notice I said religion and POLITICS. Of course religion influences how people vote on certain issues, even a lack of religion will influence how someone votes. That's impossible. But religion should have nothing to do with POLITICS.

 

[ronito]

Just wait...I'm sure it'll get even worse.