Well here is the thing greg. We are discussing a post submitted by me which is a valid description for the state of affairs when it comes to the authority of major social systems/views.
Why are we discussing that? Because you falsely alleged that I didn't have any philosophically defensible basis for my beliefs. You were wrong on several counts but I provided you with one philosophical basis that is quite defensible.
Since then you've not poked one hole in that philosophical treatment. You've submitted several posts which were full of unfounded personal attacks and nothing more. You continue in the process to submit innuendo, insinuation and out right accusations of dishonesty on my part. None of which is justified and none of it has made a dent in that philosophical statement you wrongly claimed couldn't be made by me.
I will begin tagging the wrong, unjust, or empty sniping comments you submit even though, if I understood you correctly, criticising you is arguing with Jesus not you ... go figure that one.
>>>"I didn't imply or claim to have a nonsytematic system but what I do post is exempt from the problems associated with the major categorical systems because the attributions of corruption don't/can't apply (see referent post)."
>>>No one can tell because you refuse to be forthright 1(unjust and false) about the basis2(false) for your positions, rendering them closed to examination 3(false).
and untestable. You are beyond corruption. Must be nice.4(unjust)
1. I have contributed descriptive and detail comments on how my views are based, and have always been willing to provide further clarification. You have contributed nothing at this point including any substantial criticism. Your repeated complaint about 'blowing smoke' has no foundation and as such amounts to nothing more than an unfounded personal attack.
2. The basis is stated: The endemic nature of corruption is described and evidenced by recorded history.
3. From the original philosophical post I made a very broad declaration using the word 'all.' Here is the statement:
"conventional science, mainstream religion, or any mainstay worldview is the exclusive basis for understanding our existence is really being up the creek with out a paddle, as all are belief systems bound to venture into corrupt waters of perverted doctrine, coercive control, and manipulation by self serving elite authorities, infecting devotes with dogmatic attitudes, who then attack and ridicule any who would raise uncomfortable questions.
They are illusory divisions of people into ideological groupings which inevitably betray their own ideological foundations in corruption of core principle to cleanse ‘evil’ from their midst, paradoxically committing the most heinously brutal crimes in recorded history, over and over again. This predictable outcome never fails."
Testability: This statement is completely open to examination, though I find myself in the odd position of telling you, the faithless, how easy it is to examine.
It would be false if you can show even one of these categories to be free from corruption as I've described it. It would be false if even one of the descriptors could be shown to be untrue for even one of the categories. It would be false if recorded history doesn't completely validate the statement. It is true only if there is evidence for every and all characteristics of the given description. Find one thing false and the whole statement is false. If evidence isn't available to show the validity of every and all, the entire statement fails. Test away! Or, is it so obviously true that such an examination would just be pointless busy work.
4. I've not made any personal claim to be beyond corruption. That was an unjust snipe.
>>>"I didn't claim any worldviews to be false, I did claim the applications of the systems are corrupt, I provided a justification for that claim,..."
Here's what you said: "...all are belief systems bound to venture into corrupt waters of perverted doctrine, coercive control, and manipulation by self serving elite authorities, infecting devotes with dogmatic attitudes, who then attack and ridicule any who would raise uncomfortable questions."
You made an accusation that you backed up with assertions nothing more5(false). You seem to think 6 (unjust) that you are exempt from any corruption by refusing to answer honest questions7 (false and unjust) about your own views. In fact you imply 8(false)that having any worldview at all inevitably leads to the corruption that you find so distasteful. Of course you must first KNOW what is pure before you can identify the CORRUPT.9(unjust, well sort of empty also) You claim to SEE this and yet you claim to have no EYES (no worldview).10 (false, empty)
5. I used the records of history to support my statement.
6. Another unjust snipe. I am a human being and have never impied otherwise.
7. Does repeating a false allegation numerous times make it feel more right to you. My views are spread out all over the place and I have not refused to answer a single question about them.
8. I've implied no such thing. In fact, in the last post I specifically notified you that I do not hold that view.
9. We all know what corruption is greg. Don't we???
10. I claim to be able to see corruption for what it is but not to have no eyes, as in world view.
>>>"Your insistance that my perspectives must fit neatly into one or the other of your classifications is unfounded."
Your obsession with hiding behind the clouds of smoke that you produce by rubbing words together is rather humorous. 11 (false and unjust)
11. Well that one is just obvious.
<<In fact those who think they have no preconceptions and dogmas are in my experience the most blindly intolerant, tolerant people one could ever hope to meet>>
"Yet another baseless allogation. One ironically based on your preconceptions and dogmatic adherence."
Whatever an allogation is I'm not sure, but it was a simple observation.12(false) Do you have any preconceptions or dogmas?
12. An 'allegation' is an accusation that someone has either done something or is doing something in this case something untoward. Was the spelling error too much of a reach for you?
I was not born yesterday and have used my time in this life to give lots of thought to these issues. So, when I come to a discussion like this, it is after giving thought and consideration over time to the concepts under discussion (preconception). I have considered doctrine from various sources and consider them guidance. However, our circumstance in the world is dynamic and unique from moment to moment, not static. We are living, where as dogma is not. Each moment is alive with fresh experience. Certainly we can hold to principle but doctrine is not applicable in the same manner to every situation. So, I would not describe my self as a dogmatic person and whatever preconceptions I may bring to an experience is subject to change as new information and circumstances inform me further on the concept.
>>>"You know nothing of me, my life, or my circumstance. Yet you judge me."
Yet another thing that you apply to me but that does not seem to apply to you. Too funny! 13 (unjust, false)
13. What evidence do you have that I've judged you greg? I have pointed out your errors and inconsistancies in this discussion which are simply facts. I don't know you at all. I do know that you compared me with Jesus and then judged my way of thinking to be unworthy of serious consideration.
<<As it is, you are just blowing smoke...>>
"What smoke?"
You can't or won't see it, because your eyes are closed so you won't get smoke in your eyes.14 (empty, unjustified)
14. Another empty personal attack based on nothing more than your uncalled for animus toward me. Even when I ask you for clarification you just repeat an empty attack on a level not above name calling.
>>what I do post is exempt from the problems associated with the major categorical systems because the attributions of corruption don't/can't apply"
YA, RIGHT! No position eliminates even the possibility of corruption. Is THAT your position?15 (False, unjust)
15. That is not my position, as I've previously stated. I am perfectly capable of stating my own position. The referrent post was regarding major systems which have been corrupted and are bound to be. 'No position' would eliminate the possibility of corrupting the position since it doesn't exist to be corrupted in the first place. That however, is not my perspective and I haven't claimed or implied that it is.
Ok greg. There was 15 pretty glaringly mean spirited comments, which were uncalled for. Was that your goal? Why don't you take a shot at explaining yourself this time? |
