Drop-kick me, Jesus, through the goalposts of life.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Au contraire, I'm merely responding in kind.

I beg to differ.

 

[gimmewhitecastles]

No, actually, quite unlike it, in fact.

you called him a showboating, attention-whore. that's an unassailable argument and personal attack if you ask me.

I didn't, since I'm only one person, and I'm currently debating 4 or 5 different people.

you're not debating. you're resorting to name calling. and you're not even getting the point people are making.

Ok, and how are you not guilty of what you accuse me?

as above. you resorted to name calling. your turned the whole discussion into a circus.

No, I attack failures to comprehend and deficiencies of intelligence because people are stupid and can't read.

if people are that stupid, why bother arguing with them?

I'm particularly outraged at the "journalist." I think what the kid did was stupid, but frankly I think banning celebrations itself is stupid. If it makes you feel better, I think the kid handled receiving the penalty well, but making the display itself is self-centered and ridiculuos for reasons I've already given.

so the kid is not an attention whore or are you just saying that to make me feel better?

I'm sorry that my position is too nuanced for your tiny brain to grasp, but there it is. Maybe try re-reading it a few times and maybe it will begin to sink in.

again you're resorting to name calling. if my brain is that tiny why bother arguing?

I think people project a lot of anti-religious rage onto me that doesn't exist. I'm not mad that the kid is religious. I think he's dumb for being religious, and I guess I'm sad in a very general sense that people haven't grown up enough to get beyond religion, but in this specific case I'm mad because someone decided to make it newsworthy because they thought they could spin it as some kind of secular persecution of a kid's religious beliefs -- which it isn't.

there are a lot of news out there i don't care about. but i don't force what i don't care about onto others. the media is free to do what they want. unless you want to resort to north korea style censorship.

Read the article's comments. This claim of yours is patently false.

i don't see why any news article would admit that their story is rubbish.

Why shouldn't I be outraged when the news foments false division among the general population? More to the point, why aren't you? How has this become tolerable "journalism"? Are you really that apathetic? Do you not understand that this type of attitude is exactly what allows this shit to continue to grow? That is won't stop until you finally decide to start giving a shit?

clearly your method of getting your point across is NOT working as this thread has shown. it's actually working toward the contrary. i've never in my life seen flaming result in a change of opinion. you've obviously never learned this life lesson.

if people don't have the filter to not get worked up about this then they are going to get worked up about something else. endless cycle.

all you're doing is making athiests look like just another bunch of fanatical zealots on par with the religious fanatics of today and in the past.

this is my last post on this dumb issue. take it as you wish.

/exit stage left.

 

[TheVrolok]

Not at all. I've made plenty of arguments in this thread, which is plain for anyone to see.

The only thing you have done in this thread is proven exactly what I said. You simply started this thread to drag religious banter into it so you could push your anti-religious mantra. I am quite familiar with the Socratic method; unfortunately what you fail to realize is that your entire style of argument comes off as nothing more than sophomoric condescension. It's actually amusing how scripted all of your responses tend to be. Be overly pedantic, cite some sort of logical/rhetorical device, then insult and condescend. Your arguments, while well written, come off like a child throwing a tantrum.

 

[Homerboy]

The only thing you have done in this thread is proven exactly what I said. You simply started this thread to drag religious banter into it so you could push your anti-religious mantra. I am quite familiar with the Socratic method; unfortunately what you fail to realize is that your entire style of argument comes off as nothing more than sophomoric condescension. It's actually amusing how scripted all of your responses tend to be. Be overly pedantic, cite some sort of logical/rhetorical device, then insult and condescend. Your arguments, while well written, come off like a child throwing a tantrum.

Do you know why they come off that way?...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

you called him a showboating, attention-whore. that's an unassailable argument and personal attack if you ask me.

He is an attention whore, and I explained exactly why that is. Truth is a legitimate defense to slander, so deal with it.

you're not debating. you're resorting to name calling. and you're not even getting the point people are making.

As I've explained at length, the kid is an attention whore, and I think being religious is dumb, but the people that think I hate the kid for being a religious attention whore are stupid.

as above. you resorted to name calling. your turned the whole discussion into a circus.

I guess you still have yet to get the nuances of my position to settle in with you. It is unfortunate that your intellect lacks the minimal dexterity such comprehension would require.

if people are that stupid, why bother arguing with them?

Such a monumentally idiotic idea. Racist people are stupid, why bother arguing with them? Creationist school board directors are stupid, why bother arguing with them? Faith healing patients that deny their children medical attention are stupid, why bother arguing with them?

No, I'm not going to let stupid people continue being stupid, and you yourself are stupid if you think it would be a good thing to do.

...so the kid is not an attention whore or are you just saying that to make me feel better?

The kid is clearly an attention whore. That isn't inconsistent with anything else I've said.

...again you're resorting to name calling. if my brain is that tiny why bother arguing?

Forgive me for hoping against all hope that you might actually use your brain and learn something.

there are a lot of news out there i don't care about. but i don't force what i don't care about onto others.

But you certainly are urging people not to care what you don't care about. That isn't significantly different.

...the media is free to do what they want.

No, they aren't.

...unless you want to resort to north korea style censorship.

False dichotomy.

{snip}

clearly your method of getting your point across is NOT working as this thread has shown. it's actually working toward the contrary.

Yes, I've obviously overestimated the intelligence of a great number of forum users.

i've never in my life seen flaming result in a change of opinion.

You don't get out very much, then.

you've obviously never learned this life lesson.

I prefer not to learn lessons that aren't true. That you do would explain a lot of your shortcomings.

if people don't have the filter to not get worked up about this then they are going to get worked up about something else. endless cycle.

So?

all you're doing is making athiests look like just another bunch of fanatical zealots on par with the religious fanatics of today and in the past.[/quote]
How so? Quite frankly, I think religious people should be even more outraged that the journalist trying to prey upon their naivete, but the fact is that they're too naive to realize they're being exploited.

my last post on this dumb issue. take it as you wish.

It is amusing that you think I would take it differently.

/exit stage left.

Bye.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The only thing you have done in this thread is proven exactly what I said.

Except for the fact that I showed exactly how what you said was false, and you've implicitly admitted as much later in this very post.

You simply started this thread to drag religious banter into it so you could push your anti-religious mantra.

No, I didn't. Your mind reading capabilities are as poor as your word-reading capabilities.

I am quite familiar with the Socratic method;

It doesn't appear so.

...unfortunately what you fail to realize is that your entire style of argument comes off as nothing more than sophomoric condescension.

Wait, you said that I wasn't making arguments, and that my responses in this thread "is proved"[sic] this claim of yours. Now, you're admitting that I have made arguments. Can you get your story straight?

It's actually amusing how scripted all of your responses tend to be. Be overly pedantic, cite some sort of logical/rhetorical device, then insult and condescend. Your arguments, while well written, come off like a child throwing a tantrum.

You can't refute them, so you merely try to diminish them. That's intellectually dishonest.

 

[TheVrolok]

Except for the fact that I showed exactly how what you said was false, and you've implicitly admitted as much later in this very post.

We were arguing the author's intent, how can you possibly claim to have absolute knowledge of fact in this case? You are clearly being intellectually dishonest. You stated your opinion, I stated my differing opinion, I cannot prove yours to be false, and you cannot prove mine to be false. Again, your argument boils down to "Nuh uh, what I said it 100% right, and you're wrong."

No, I didn't. Your mind reading capabilities are as poor as your word-reading capabilities.

Here's an example of your condescension.

Wait, you said that I wasn't making arguments, and that my responses in this thread "is proved"[sic] this claim of yours. Now, you're admitting that I have made arguments. Can you get your story straight?

Where exactly did I say you were not making arguments? In fact, I even stated that your arguments are well written. Also, another example of your condescension would be in highlighting my alleged typo "is proved" to give yourself some more intellectual high ground. However, I don't see anywhere I actually typed "is proved" for you to quote [sic], in fact, I don't see the word "proved" appearing at all in this thread. I also, don't see any of my posts having been edited. Are you just making things up now? Oh wait, now you meant to put "is proven" [sic], a typo (or incorrect usage of [sic] on your part. I suppose we're even?

You can't refute them, so you merely try to diminish them. That's intellectually dishonest.

I have stated my difference of opinion, and you (even though you'd like to believe) have not refuted my arguments either. Refuting them would imply some sort of proof of the author's undeniable intention, which you do not posses. Please, troll on though.

 

[Homerboy]

Just so I get this straight too, the OP bashes Fox News for bringing religion into it, yet he tosses "Jesus" into the thread title as to unquestionably rile more feathers in ATOT and get more eyeballs/debate on the topic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We were arguing the author's intent, how can you possibly claim to have absolute knowledge of fact in this case?

Please show me where I have made this claim.

You are clearly being intellectually dishonest.

I did not make the claim you say I have, but *I'm* being intellectually dishonest? I don't think so. 🙄

You stated your opinion, I stated my differing opinion, I cannot prove yours to be false, and you cannot prove mine to be false. Again, your argument boils down to "Nuh uh, what I said it 100% right, and you're wrong."

I supplied a plethora of evidence which lends credence to my opinion, and makes your opinion look naive, to say the least. Do you really think that this article had nothing to do with the religious nature of the kids performance? Do you really think that this would be newsworthy if a kid was flagged for doing cartwheels instead of a making religious display? If you answer yes to either of those questions, you are either a liar or stupid, plain and simple, and yet in order to disagree with my opinions you must answer those both in the affirmative.

So take your stance, chief.

Here's an example of your condescension.

Of course I'm condescending to you. You're obviously considerably less intelligent than a lot of people.

Where exactly did I say you were not making arguments?

You said, "your response is 'No, you're wrong, you're an idiot, I'm right.'" implying that I did not accompany my claims with substantive arguments, which is patently false, as you yourself are now admitting.

In fact, I even stated that your arguments are well written.

Yes, you obviously contradicted yourself.

Also, another example of your condescension would be in highlighting my alleged typo "is proved" to give yourself some more intellectual high ground. However, I don't see anywhere I actually typed "is proved" for you to quote [sic], in fact, I don't see the word "proved" appearing at all in this thread. I also, don't see any of my posts having been edited. Are you just making things up now?

I mistook the intended structure of your sentence to say "has proven" when you said "is proven," but in reading it again the original sentence structure works.

I have stated my difference of opinion, and you (even though you'd like to believe) have not refuted my arguments either.

Which arguments were those? Arguments from incredulity aren't valid arguments.

Refuting them would imply some sort of proof of the author's undeniable intention, which you do not posses. Please, troll on though.

If your claim is merely that I cannot read minds, and I cannot know with 100% absolute certainty the full details and motives of the author, then no, I would not and have not contested that claim. Like I've demosntrated, however, you have to be a special kind of idiot to think that the author's intent is different than I have characterized it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Just so I get this straight too, the OP bashes Fox News for bringing religion into it, yet he tosses "Jesus" into the thread title as to unquestionably rile more feathers in ATOT and get more eyeballs/debate on the topic.

I picked the headline because it is funny, and it has to do with football and Christianity which was pertinent to the cited article, but you go ahead and keep trying to baselessly ascribe motives to me that I don't really have. 🙄

 

[sandorski]

Just be glad that it wasn't the Incas who conquered/colonized the planet. Otherwise this kid would have dragged a spectator onto the field and cut his/her heart out in the end zone. 😱

 

[zinfamous]

this is a pretty dumb thing to get pissy about, CT.

If anything, it seems like the Fox writer blew this out of proportion, putting this into an attack on his religion when it clearly was not.

There is obviously nothing wrong about what the ref did, what this kid likes to go when he scores. The only thing wrong here is the douchenozzle at Fox grasping at straws, attempting to create rage and anger where none exists.

 

[TheVrolok]

I mistook the intended structure of your sentence to say "has proven" when you said "is proven," but in reading it again the original sentence structure works.

Wow, you are fallible. I never thought I'd see the day.

As for the rest, I have a dinner event to attend so I won't have time to continue the trolling chain with you. However, I do think it's a shame that you need to go around flaunting your supposed intellectual superiority, especially when you're often condescending people equally, and perhaps well more accomplished/intelligent than yourself. Unfortunately, I imagine it's just your lack of self-esteem coming to the surface. 🙁

I know your reply to this is going to be celebratory, so take your victories where you can get them (on ATOT it seems may be the only place?), and write out your bombastic and insulting version of "No way, YOU ARE!" but I won't be around to read it.

(See? I can be condescending, too!)