I was simply stating that if you choosed to demoralize our beliefs no matter how much you might disagree with them that you were being hypocritical yourself. I did not in any way degrade Christ, the true meaning of christmas or any other beliefs of yours. I do respect Christians and their decisions to believe in what they like, but that doesn't mean that I am inclined to believe everything they say myself.
I've not been demoralizing your beliefs. Chiefly, I was explaining to Punqsux why what he said was offensive to mine. I've never gone ranting on about "atheist fanboys"...
You say you are respectful, but your tone and wording disagree.
Please, Jsweeney... this is what I'm talking about. I'm sure even you can admit that when punq says "xmas" in abbreviation for christmas, he's not using it in malicious intent to get jibes at Christians nearby.
At the begining, he unintentionally was. After a couple of pages of debate and discussion, he realized that he unintentionally was, and he appologized. I found that accpetable, and considered the issue closed, until other people decided they wanted to be the third man in on the argument. I
It's just a common phrase and, if you think it offensive, that's your decision but generally it's not known to be a vulgar obscenity, so stop acting like he's corrupting the word christmas.
If it weren't generally seen as offensive, bartleby wouldn't make it a point to add that fact into it's usage notes. I guess just because a belief isn't held by a majority it's invalid?
A — He also said that PERSONALLY he makes a decision to "take the 'Christ'" out of Christmas BUT he doesn't disrespect other's beliefs by expecting them to do the same.
1-According to your statement, this belief is valid.
2-If this belief is valid, all beliefs of the same structure should be valid.
3-Thus, if I personally made the decision to call all African Americans the well known slur typically uttered against them, but didn't expect others to do the same, it would be ok and completely unoffensive, right?
As point three is obviously absurd, the original statement cannot be logically true. I guess already saying it was intentionally absurd wasn't enough... I have to write out the proof.
I'm not quite understanding you here, JS. He has the right to do what he likes in the world, this is why the country is free, we have our independence and choices to believe in what we want if anything at all.
The fact that he can personally doesn't do it and doesn't expect others to doesn't free him from being offensive. He stated that if he was being offensive, it was unintentional, and thus it is a moot point now.
By taking the christ out of christmas he most likely means not LITERALLY, but like me, he doesn't particularly emphasize that part of the holiday. He also said that he respects other peoples decisions TO emphasize that part of the holiday. Immoralizing holidays themselves is an entirely different subject, look at Easter. Parents have weaved magical fairy tales for their sons and daughters that a giant bunny hops from door to door delivering chocolate filled eggs.
No actually it isn't. Calling Christmas Xmas is the PINACLE of the secularization of the holdiday. That was my point when I was discussing it with Punqsux. Again, since that issue is already resolved, further discussion on it is moot. If you wish to start a new dialoge on it, that would be something different, but Punqsux and I have come to terms, and I have no further desire to plumb the depths of his psyche.
What exactly was the original purpose of that holiday, hmm? The point is, not every american chooses to celebrate holidays like they should, and it's his right to express his beliefs or non-beliefs how he likes. It is NOT meant to be inflammatory to Christians by not emphasizing Christ in christmas. It may be focused primarily on Jesus for everyone else, but not for atheists or non-believers in God/Christ/etc.
Again, discussion on this is moot, as that issue is already resolved. Look to Loot2Core's issues with Punqsux or Sblymnl if you want to dredge something up. I'm done discussing any issues from this thread discussing or analyzing Punqsux... we've come to terms.
Yet, it's ok to continuously berate mine, eh?
Yep, "Christian fanboys" sounds like something someone respectful of one's beliefs would say.
Like I said, I used that term loosely. If this is going to be like punq and I have to constantly reiterate myself and my opinions I don't want a part of this. A constructive conversation and better understanding, sure, but not that.
So, would it not be offensive if I loosely used the term "pompous twit?"
You don't want to be part of this, yet you keep getting involved.
Your actions betray you, deadzone.
And specifically I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to another certain individual on the board who likes to misquote punq, replace words that he said for something entirely different in meaning and jump to conclusions.
If you're going to throw pointed allegations around, make sure you aim correctly... they have a tendency to stick, and wildly tossed ones will spark off arguments you don't want to have.
It's easy to agree with those who agree with you. Punqsux and I reached an understanding, and we began at complete opposite points. This is not trival. Your agreement with Sblymnl is. That would be like saying I agreed with BigNick or Loot2Core. Anyone who has the ability to read the passages can figure that out for themselves.
This thread actually HAD a useful conclusion, because Punqsux and I came to a loosely defined set of terms and agreement.
OK, but that still doesn't change the fact I agree with him.
And it shouldn't. But it doesn't change the fact that that goes without saying, is a trivial statement, and does nothing to further any argument.
From a utilitarian point of view, they are wasted words.
He is just a part of this thread as you are so don't dismiss my sentence that easily.
Yes I can. Agreeing with him does nothing to prove any point.
It's a trivial statement.
You can say you agree with Bignick or lootr2core all you like.
I don't need to. From the text of the argument, that is blatantly obvious.
And lootr2 wasn't quite finished in flaming punq or so I believed, so no, it did not come to a peaceful and happy resolution.
Then you should have attacked loot2cores postings and not mine.
My posts became non-issues as soon as an agreement was reached.
I read the thread and decided to put my input into it.
you.
