after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?
http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
Plenty of atheists also believe that stealing is wrong, and I would be
surprised to hear of any evidence that a Christian would be less
likely to rob me under such circumstances, but I am open to looking
into the evidence if there is any. It's hard to see how anyone could
know, though; we are talking about a completely hypothetical
situation. In the real world, of course, Christians are over-
represented in the prison population.
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
On Nov 13, 8:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
In Atheist and Creationist society, the ratio of honest christians and
theiving atheists is about the same, Very low in both
populations...actually I don't know of _any_ honest christians in the
creationistt "tent"
On Nov 13, 8:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
LL. That's a presumptuous and contradictory question. Who's to say
the atheist would be anything like that? The Christian is just as
likely and probably more likely to "see a need and point his gun at
you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment."
The question presumes that the Christian would be the moral and
ethical one and the atheist would not, but you offer no evidence that
that would be the case. Just because someone claims to be "holier
than thou" doesn't mean he is moral and ethical. A higher percentage
of christians are convicted criminals than atheists based on their
presence in the general population. I'd opt for the atheist who is
more likely to be truly moral and for the right reasons.
Maybe a similar question should be asked of a young boy: "Who would
you rather be approached by in the dark, an athiest or a Catholic
priest?" The question is no more as presumptuous than yours.
> On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:12:17 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment? > http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
Perhaps we could reword the statement?
Would you rather cross paths with an honest
Atheist than a thieving christian?
Now, to me that makes much more sense.
At least it has some basis in fact.
On Nov 14, 2:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
This thread is acting as a great example of the potentially loaded
nature of discussions. See the atheists on this thread who do not
want to accept the discussion with the pre-conditions presumed in
Dingbat's hypothetical thought experiment:
* a crisis situation, a choice between an:
* "honest" Christian, and
* "thieving" atheist
Given the eristic and polemic nature of this forum, I'm not surprised
that atheists are hesitant to answer the question as presented. It
contains loaded and emotive presuppositions that could have an
implication beyond the simple nature of the thought experiment itself.
So instead answering the question "honestly"[1], we see some atheists
behaving "dishonestly", and not really interested in debate. Why
should such atheists be so dishonest and not reputable when an
"honest" debater would answer dingbat's simple, honest question
honestly?
What a vindication for me in the "honesty" wars. Thank you, Dingbat,
for an example that I believe helps to vindicate my "honest" behavior
on this forum. :D :D
Best Regards!
[1] using the same scurrilous kind of assessment folks like Bob T.
Think, Rupert, Observer, Max, A42 and other meisters of polemics have
accused me of, one can see in another context why I am justified in
being very careful in identifying which pre-suppositions I wish to
accept in pursuing discussions.
> On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> This thread is acting as a great example of the potentially loaded
> nature of discussions. See the atheists on this thread who do not
> want to accept the discussion with the pre-conditions presumed in
> Dingbat's hypothetical thought experiment:
> * a crisis situation, a choice between an:
> * "honest" Christian, and
> * "thieving" atheist
> Given the eristic and polemic nature of this forum, I'm not surprised
> that atheists are hesitant to answer the question as presented. It
> contains loaded and emotive presuppositions that could have an
> implication beyond the simple nature of the thought experiment itself.
> So instead answering the question "honestly"[1], we see some atheists
> behaving "dishonestly", and not really interested in debate. Why
> should such atheists be so dishonest and not reputable when an
> "honest" debater would answer dingbat's simple, honest question
> honestly?
> What a vindication for me in the "honesty" wars. Thank you, Dingbat,
> for an example that I believe helps to vindicate my "honest" behavior
> on this forum. :D :D
> Best Regards!
> [1] using the same scurrilous kind of assessment folks like Bob T.
> Think, Rupert, Observer, Max, A42 and other meisters of polemics have
> accused me of, one can see in another context why I am justified in
> being very careful in identifying which pre-suppositions I wish to
> accept in pursuing discussions.
> On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> This thread is acting as a great example of the potentially loaded
> nature of discussions. See the atheists on this thread who do not
> want to accept the discussion with the pre-conditions presumed in
> Dingbat's hypothetical thought experiment:
> * a crisis situation, a choice between an:
> * "honest" Christian, and
> * "thieving" atheist
> Given the eristic and polemic nature of this forum, I'm not surprised
> that atheists are hesitant to answer the question as presented. It
> contains loaded and emotive presuppositions that could have an
> implication beyond the simple nature of the thought experiment itself.
I might agree with you if the author had written "an atheist". He
wrote "the atheist" which in Fowler's English implies that atheists in
general are thieves. He wrote "a Christian" which atheists would agree
with; i.e., that out of 2+ billion Christians, at least one doesn't
steal.
> So instead answering the question "honestly"[1], we see some atheists
> behaving "dishonestly", and not really interested in debate. Why
> should such atheists be so dishonest and not reputable when an
> "honest" debater would answer dingbat's simple, honest question
> honestly?
> What a vindication for me in the "honesty" wars. Thank you, Dingbat,
> for an example that I believe helps to vindicate my "honest" behavior
> on this forum. :D :D
> Best Regards!
> [1] using the same scurrilous kind of assessment folks like Bob T.
> Think, Rupert, Observer, Max, A42 and other meisters of polemics have
> accused me of, one can see in another context why I am justified in
> being very careful in identifying which pre-suppositions I wish to
> accept in pursuing discussions.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:18:10 PM UTC+2, LL wrote:
> .....................................The Christian is just as > likely and probably more likely to "see a need and point his gun at > you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment."
Off course he is, because then on Sunday he goes to church, confesses his crime and asks for forgiveness. He will be forgiven and if the following day he dies, he goes to heaven.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:28:47 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
> On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you > > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who > > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is > > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and > > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment? > http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> This thread is acting as a great example of the potentially loaded > nature of discussions. See the atheists on this thread who do not > want to accept the discussion with the pre-conditions presumed in > Dingbat's hypothetical thought experiment:
> * a crisis situation, a choice between an: > * "honest" Christian, and > * "thieving" atheist
> Given the eristic and polemic nature of this forum, I'm not surprised > that atheists are hesitant to answer the question as presented. It > contains loaded and emotive presuppositions that could have an > implication beyond the simple nature of the thought experiment itself.
> So instead answering the question "honestly"[1], we see some atheists > behaving "dishonestly", and not really interested in debate. Why > should such atheists be so dishonest and not reputable when an > "honest" debater would answer dingbat's simple, honest question > honestly?
> What a vindication for me in the "honesty" wars. Thank you, Dingbat, > for an example that I believe helps to vindicate my "honest" behavior > on this forum. :D :D
> Best Regards!
> [1] using the same scurrilous kind of assessment folks like Bob T. > Think, Rupert, Observer, Max, A42 and other meisters of polemics have > accused me of, one can see in another context why I am justified in > being very careful in identifying which pre-suppositions I wish to > accept in pursuing discussions.
Well, Brock we can always count on you to reinforce the anti-atheist bigotry.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:28:47 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
>> > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
>> > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
>> > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
>> > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the
>> > moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
>> This thread is acting as a great example of the potentially loaded
>> nature of discussions. See the atheists on this thread who do not
>> want to accept the discussion with the pre-conditions presumed in
>> Dingbat's hypothetical thought experiment:
>> * a crisis situation, a choice between an:
>> * "honest" Christian, and
>> * "thieving" atheist
>> Given the eristic and polemic nature of this forum, I'm not surprised
>> that atheists are hesitant to answer the question as presented. It
>> contains loaded and emotive presuppositions that could have an
>> implication beyond the simple nature of the thought experiment itself.
>> So instead answering the question "honestly"[1], we see some atheists
>> behaving "dishonestly", and not really interested in debate. Why
>> should such atheists be so dishonest and not reputable when an
>> "honest" debater would answer dingbat's simple, honest question
>> honestly?
>> What a vindication for me in the "honesty" wars. Thank you, Dingbat,
>> for an example that I believe helps to vindicate my "honest" behavior
>> on this forum. :D :D
>> Best Regards!
>> [1] using the same scurrilous kind of assessment folks like Bob T.
>> Think, Rupert, Observer, Max, A42 and other meisters of polemics have
>> accused me of, one can see in another context why I am justified in
>> being very careful in identifying which pre-suppositions I wish to
>> accept in pursuing discussions.
> Well, Brock we can always count on you to reinforce the anti-atheist
> bigotry.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:28:47 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
> >> On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> >> > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> >> > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> >> > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> >> > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the
> >> > moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> >> This thread is acting as a great example of the potentially loaded
> >> nature of discussions. See the atheists on this thread who do not
> >> want to accept the discussion with the pre-conditions presumed in
> >> Dingbat's hypothetical thought experiment:
> >> * a crisis situation, a choice between an:
> >> * "honest" Christian, and
> >> * "thieving" atheist
> >> Given the eristic and polemic nature of this forum, I'm not surprised
> >> that atheists are hesitant to answer the question as presented. It
> >> contains loaded and emotive presuppositions that could have an
> >> implication beyond the simple nature of the thought experiment itself.
> >> So instead answering the question "honestly"[1], we see some atheists
> >> behaving "dishonestly", and not really interested in debate. Why
> >> should such atheists be so dishonest and not reputable when an
> >> "honest" debater would answer dingbat's simple, honest question
> >> honestly?
> >> What a vindication for me in the "honesty" wars. Thank you, Dingbat,
> >> for an example that I believe helps to vindicate my "honest" behavior
> >> on this forum. :D :D
> >> Best Regards!
> >> [1] using the same scurrilous kind of assessment folks like Bob T.
> >> Think, Rupert, Observer, Max, A42 and other meisters of polemics have
> >> accused me of, one can see in another context why I am justified in
> >> being very careful in identifying which pre-suppositions I wish to
> >> accept in pursuing discussions.
> > Well, Brock we can always count on you to reinforce the anti-atheist
> > bigotry.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Nov 13, 8:29 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> Plenty of atheists also believe that stealing is wrong, and I would
be
> surprised to hear of any evidence that a Christian would be less
> likely to rob me under such circumstances, but I am open to looking
> into the evidence if there is any. It's hard to see how anyone
could
> know, though; we are talking about a completely hypothetical
> situation. In the real world, of course, Christians are over-
> represented in the prison population.
>
Yes, Christians are over-represented in prison populations, but
overall, non-religious people are under-represented in the general
population. So, it's not suprising a greater percentage of Christians
are in prison.
[quote]
"A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't
believe in a god to be about 9-10%.[12] A 2008 Gallup poll showed that
a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal
spirit exists.[41] The most recent ARIS report, released March 9,
2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion,
of which 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist"
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Bill Bowden wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:29 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you > > > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who > > > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is > > > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and > > > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment? > http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> > Plenty of atheists also believe that stealing is wrong, and I would > be > > surprised to hear of any evidence that a Christian would be less > > likely to rob me under such circumstances, but I am open to looking > > into the evidence if there is any. It's hard to see how anyone > could > > know, though; we are talking about a completely hypothetical > > situation. In the real world, of course, Christians are over- > > represented in the prison population.
> Yes, Christians are over-represented in prison populations, but > overall, non-religious people are under-represented in the general > population. So, it's not suprising a greater percentage of Christians > are in prison.
> [quote]
> "A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't > believe in a god to be about 9-10%.[12] A 2008 Gallup poll showed that > a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal > spirit exists.[41] The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, > 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion, > of which 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist"
> On Nov 13, 8:29 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> > > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> > > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> > > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> > > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> > Plenty of atheists also believe that stealing is wrong, and I would
> be
> > surprised to hear of any evidence that a Christian would be less
> > likely to rob me under such circumstances, but I am open to looking
> > into the evidence if there is any. It's hard to see how anyone
> could
> > know, though; we are talking about a completely hypothetical
> > situation. In the real world, of course, Christians are over-
> > represented in the prison population.
> >
> Yes, Christians are over-represented in prison populations, but
> overall, non-religious people are under-represented in the general
> population. So, it's not suprising a greater percentage of Christians
> are in prison.
You misunderstand my claim. Saying "non-religious people are under-
represented in the general population" doesn't really mean anything,
except possibly that the percentage of non-religious people are small.
When I say that Christians are over-represented in the prison
population, obviously what I mean is that the proportion of prison
inmates who are Christian is greater than you would expect it to be
considering the proportion of the general population who are
Christian.
But who would I choose if it was a Christian with a gun or an atheist
(and not 'the' atheist mind you) whose sense of fair play dictates
that I shouldn't be molested..then of course, I'd pick the atheist.
And your point is?
On Nov 14, 12:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> On Nov 13, 11:12 am, Dingbat <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you
> > on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who
> > would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is
> > wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and
> > points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
> This thread is acting as a great example of the potentially loaded
> nature of discussions. See the atheists on this thread who do not
> want to accept the discussion with the pre-conditions presumed in
> Dingbat's hypothetical thought experiment:
> * a crisis situation, a choice between an:
> * "honest" Christian, and
> * "thieving" atheist
> Given the eristic and polemic nature of this forum, I'm not surprised
> that atheists are hesitant to answer the question as presented. It
> contains loaded and emotive presuppositions that could have an
> implication beyond the simple nature of the thought experiment itself.
> So instead answering the question "honestly"[1], we see some atheists
> behaving "dishonestly", and not really interested in debate. Why
> should such atheists be so dishonest and not reputable when an
> "honest" debater would answer dingbat's simple, honest question
> honestly?
> What a vindication for me in the "honesty" wars. Thank you, Dingbat,
> for an example that I believe helps to vindicate my "honest" behavior
> on this forum. :D :D
> Best Regards!
> [1] using the same scurrilous kind of assessment folks like Bob T.
> Think, Rupert, Observer, Max, A42 and other meisters of polemics have
> accused me of, one can see in another context why I am justified in
> being very careful in identifying which pre-suppositions I wish to
> accept in pursuing discussions.
I consider a contrasting assessment to yours, that indeed the evidence
indicates a quality of honesty and integrity that your accusation is
not careful to take into account. I simply remember that on forums
like this one, where the meisters of stink ply their polemic, eristic
wares, there are several kinds of profitable reason for careful
behavior in regards to OP questions, especially ones with the
possibility of "implicit" or unstated premises:
* it is usually false to consider that there is only one "implicit"
question, usually there can be more than one such question, leaving
the "implicit"/unasked question ambiguous and poorly specified
* the implicit questions often contain pre-suppositions so poor and
epistemologically untenable, that it would be embarrassing to
explicitly state them, therefore, the question is left unsaid. In
response to thus, I figure if the question isn't worth explicitly
stating by the person asking, then there is no virtue in asking the
respondent to put more effort into the response than the asker was
willing to do.
* the implicit questions often seem to contain ad hominem, contempt
and disdain, and other unsavory, emotive and loaded presuppositions
that make the implicit question less about an honest inquiry, and more
about the bite of a venomous invective and vitriol. In response to
this, I figure there is no virtue in requiring a respondent to put
honest and legitimate effort into a response, when the asker is simply
looking to inject the venom of discord and hatred into the discussion.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 12:27 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You keep sending that very stupid site Brock.
>> One can only wonder why ... :)
> Indeed.
I'm going to go with "What's a pithy way of sharing the limitations of
Ian's response in a productive manner?" for $200, Alex[1] ...
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> > Evidence proves that you are dishonest.....your protestations
> > notwithstanding.
> LOL, perhaps such accusations are not much more than a modified version of this:
> I consider a contrasting assessment to yours, that indeed the evidence
> indicates a quality of honesty and integrity that your accusation is
> not careful to take into account. I simply remember that on forums
> like this one, where the meisters of stink ply their polemic, eristic
> wares, there are several kinds of profitable reason for careful
> behavior in regards to OP questions, especially ones with the
> possibility of "implicit" or unstated premises:
> * it is usually false to consider that there is only one "implicit"
> question, usually there can be more than one such question, leaving
> the "implicit"/unasked question ambiguous and poorly specified
> * the implicit questions often contain pre-suppositions so poor and
> epistemologically untenable, that it would be embarrassing to
> explicitly state them, therefore, the question is left unsaid. In
> response to thus, I figure if the question isn't worth explicitly
> stating by the person asking, then there is no virtue in asking the
> respondent to put more effort into the response than the asker was
> willing to do.
> * the implicit questions often seem to contain ad hominem, contempt
> and disdain, and other unsavory, emotive and loaded presuppositions
> that make the implicit question less about an honest inquiry, and more
> about the bite of a venomous invective and vitriol. In response to
> this, I figure there is no virtue in requiring a respondent to put
> honest and legitimate effort into a response, when the asker is simply
> looking to inject the venom of discord and hatred into the discussion.
