In your last post you made biased* negative judgments about other's characters (in this case a large group of people called "the religious") and arrogantly contrasted those negative judgments with your own claimed superior character. [" When I give, and when I work for social institutions, I do it because I want to, not because I need to get in good with God. .. Obviously though, most people don't have the good character to be good without a God looking over their shoulder."] By making a claim to have a nobler character than the group you targeted for denigration - "the religious" - you made your character an issue in the discussion. As I said I don't share your high opinion of yourself and the latest post provides no reason to doubt that judgment.
*(biased because you can't really read the hearts and minds of other people; thus you have nothing but bias to base your put down of religious folks motivation)
I am not interested in talking about your character or lack thereof
Since you already made an insinuation about my character in your first paragraph, the sentence above would seem untruthful. Hmm. Still no reason to change my opinion.
, but find it fascinating you think you have enough information to examine mine.
I posted that "The only way we have to judge others characters is by their actions. I see no reason based on your posts on SI to think you have a good character. On the contrary, I see an arrogant elitist desparate to assert her superiority." Clearly I am limited to forming an opinion re. your character by how you behave on SI and I noted that my judgment is based on that.
Truly, your nasty posts, as always, are fabulously revealing. Thanks for continually being nasty in your posts to me- it's nice to know some things never change.
Truly, your nasty posts, as always, are fabulously revealing. Thanks for continually being nasty in your posts to me- it's nice to know some things never change. It's also nice when you provide words like the above to use in my reply to you. If I had chosen my own words btw, they would likely have been milder. As an example, when I made a negative judgment about your character in an earlier post, I said "I see no reason based on your posts on SI to think you have a good character." Now, "No reason to think you have a good character" is certainly milder than saying "you display a bad character", which I could have said. Plus I allowed that my judgment was limited by being based on your posts. Would you or have you been as mild in your hostile comments to me? I don't think so.
You took some quoted statements, and then drew illogical conclusions from them, based on the passages you yourself bolded.
On the contrary, my conclusions were quite logical. In fact, my "conclusions" were mostly quotations of things Brooks himself said, except for the single claim that liberalism erodes character. That is my opinion ( and I am able and willing to argue on behalf of it if you wish). Even though I have identified it as my opinion it is awful close to something Brooks said, "..the very act of receiving welfare may make recipients more liberal - and hence less likely to give."
If my conclusions had really been illogical, surely you would have addressed the alleged illogic, which you didn't, rather than simply try to insult me.
How much more illogical can one get? I understand that this might be annoying to you, but the fact that you were illogical is your fault, not mine. It was my fault for pointing it out, however. And I accept complete and total blame for pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in your post.
When you get around to pointing out a logical fallacy, let me know. Outside of your own mind's dream world that is - by dream world, I mean the world where you are superior to the herd and can read the minds and hearts of religious believers and reveal to us that they aren't driven by pure goodness as you are.
PS- the idea that god driven chairty is "bribery" to God, is not an idea of my origination- it's a very very old idea,
It's a shallow and silly idea. And a transparent attempt to put down a demonstrably generous group of people (per Boooks studies) and assert your own personal moral superiority to them.
Brooks chided liberals for denigrating charity. And your claim to know the alleged inferior motivations of religious givers - that they are "bribing God" when they give blood, volunteer their time to secular as well as religious charities, etc. - is a pretty good example of the denigration of charity that Brooks was talking about. You have unwittingly offered first hand evidence that liberals do devalue charity by trying to put down the alleged motives of the most charitable members of our society as you did here: [" If you look at religiously driven donations as "bribery" to God, to allow you into the Pearly Gates, it begins to look less like good character."]
It is a relatively common idea that intelligent people, on both sides of the issue, can examine without rancor.
Then your inability to post without rancor to people on the other side of issues is a sign of .... what ??? LOL
Seems you are unduly hostile to ideas you do not agree with, or understand, or both.
Hey, you did it again - I just have to copy your words for my own reply: Seems you are unduly hostile to ideas you do not agree with, or understand, or both.
Perhaps when you talk of malicious bigots, you are, in fact projecting?
Nah, you simply displayed malicious bigotry against religious people.
I don't think you realize how truly unintentionally humorous your posts are to me.
Sure. Sure you find my posts humorous. That's why a few posts from now you will fall into another hissing, spitting fit of rage and angrily order me never to post to you ever again ("I don't like you. I don't want to talk to you. Please do not post to me." Etc.) - as you have done several times before. But in a few months, you'll get over the injury to your self-esteem and initiate uninvited posting to me again - as you have also done several times before - the last time just the other day on this thread. |
