Hall of Shame -- Discussion

LOL
Not as bad as calling non-religious people unethical.

While I disagree with the definition of “ethical” that Ucci uses, it has been supported in previous threads.

But that is no reason to fly off the handle and prove his point, is it?

If obnoxious arrogance is what I believe non-religious people are likely to infer from such a comment, I didn’t think it could be seen as flying of the handle. Just because they can be used to offend (as can countless tame terms in certain contexts) does not necessarily mean they are always used gratuitously.

I understand where you are coming from, but in my estimation you crossed the line.

End of discussion.

yes sir
if i need any more stigma ill know what to do

Hmm, I put you both in the Hall of Luddites for not knowing how to use pms.

I’m not a Luddite am I?

Not yet, I don’t think.

The thread started out before I locked the main HoS sticky. I could either delete the thread (which would have been rude to Standard and made me look like a despot), not split this discussion off the sticky (which would have dirtied the thread, and permanently immortalized my n00b mod mistake, and left all future HoS posts open to discussion which they aren’t), or split it into a second thread (which let the discussion continue and let me clean up this matter as cleanly as possible).

I opted for the second thread option.

Or delete the thread and continue it in pms. You’re the luddite; sorry standard.

It was already a matter of public record – presumably others had seen the thread. To have taken it up privately after that suggests weakness.

Have you ever confronted someone in public who was terribly wrong? I have, and the first thing they do is suggest that they take it in private because otherwise the whole world will see what a fool they are. The righteous, on the other hand, have no problem with public discussion.

good point xunzian. It’s good that you’re not a despot.

Luddite? I don’t even know what that is, but I’ll assume it’s an insult - so your comment surely belongs in the right thread!

And if you’re so against this type of discussion, why click on a thread called “Hall of Shame - Discussion”? Rather strange…

Luddite: One who opposes technical or technological change.

I’m corrupting it here to mean somebody who doesn’t know how to work a computer. 'Cause that’s what the English language is all about.

riiight

I can work my computer.

My computer works it.

Oh yeah baby! Do it for me one more time!

kingdaddy wrote:
Is there another way to prove anything other then practical application?

Ahh…practical application. A topic close to my heart.

Practical application is something missing from many of a philosophers toolbox.

I urge you all to start looking for application to what you study.

Theory is fine, but without application knowledge is useless (useless, except as another mind distraction from living life.)