Not when one person hits and runs with judgements, no, there isn't a conversation.
Here's the rub: there are always gonna be people whose opinions differ from ours. Sensible adults work this out via dialogue.
But a dialogue actually requires you to engage with and interact with what I say, not dodge, dismiss, ignore, and avoid. And, certainly not stand on a pedestal and expect me to accept your presuppositions, arguments, and claims wholesale without a challenge — something you've done from the beginning.
But let's make this simple. In your original comment, you presupposed "wisdom and compassion" were positive things. You just assumed I would also accept these as positive things.
For the sake of argument, what if I didn't? As an Atheist, 1) What does that matter to you? and 2) What pronouncement can you make which is objective?
That is, one which transcends your personal experience, culture, time, and location?
Or to simplify 2), maybe, simply 3), can you make an objective pronouncement to me regarding the value of wisdom and/or compassion?
It's a waste of time. I've answered those questions in discussion with abolitionist. If you're interested in my point of view (you're not), go and read the link. Don't bore me with the same circular, word-salad nonsense again.
Do you really want to go there? I can downvote you at a much higher weight. You are abusing the flagging system. That's frowned upon around these parts you know. I know you're new so I'm cutting you some slack, but there's only so much patience in these old bones.
I know you've been on cheetabot's list too, for plagiarism. It wouldn't take much... Just sayin'
You're suffering wounded pride, maybe, coz I wouldn't play your little game. That's a shame. I'm sorry for your pain but it's best for you to just get over it. Trust me.
Go and play with some Christians. They're probably gonna be more accommodating to your regurgitated bible snippets and entitlement to attention.
I'm not "abusing" the flagging system as there are no rules regarding how it is to be precisely used. You're, at this point, trolling.
Neither have I "plagiarized" anything. Every citation has been properly cited — unlike you who admittedly quoted from a book without referencing it.
You insist you don't want a "dialogue", yet continue to make comments. You came here. You made the comments. You refuse to defend them. You've made the accusations. You refuse to actually defend any of them.
Now you're threatening me because I downvoted your continued trolling. My "game" is asking you to justify your original argument which was unsolicited. You don't want to engage or dialogue because you're utterly incapable of defending your position.
You insist "I don't want to talk about this with you." Yet you're the one who started the conversation and continues to reply. Even more so, you insist I'm the one with the problem, despite the fact you're the one who refuses to have any semblance of a conversation besides ad hominems, threats, and snide remarks.
I'll let the conversation stand on its own. I think a "sensible person" will learn a lot from the contrasting conduct.
Not when one person hits and runs with judgements, no, there isn't a conversation.
But a dialogue actually requires you to engage with and interact with what I say, not dodge, dismiss, ignore, and avoid. And, certainly not stand on a pedestal and expect me to accept your presuppositions, arguments, and claims wholesale without a challenge — something you've done from the beginning.
But let's make this simple. In your original comment, you presupposed "wisdom and compassion" were positive things. You just assumed I would also accept these as positive things.
For the sake of argument, what if I didn't? As an Atheist, 1) What does that matter to you? and 2) What pronouncement can you make which is objective?
That is, one which transcends your personal experience, culture, time, and location?
Or to simplify 2), maybe, simply 3), can you make an objective pronouncement to me regarding the value of wisdom and/or compassion?
Hear me, oh Entitled One:
I don't want a dialogue with you!
It's a waste of time. I've answered those questions in discussion with abolitionist. If you're interested in my point of view (you're not), go and read the link. Don't bore me with the same circular, word-salad nonsense again.
Thank you for your time.
I knew your first downvote was intentional. Haha!
Favour returned.
For the sake of argument, as an Atheist, how exactly can you find an objection to hypocrisy or lying?
Unlike the original, which I retracted (and has remained retracted), these downvotes are strictly intentional.
Do you really want to go there? I can downvote you at a much higher weight. You are abusing the flagging system. That's frowned upon around these parts you know. I know you're new so I'm cutting you some slack, but there's only so much patience in these old bones.
I know you've been on cheetabot's list too, for plagiarism. It wouldn't take much... Just sayin'
You're suffering wounded pride, maybe, coz I wouldn't play your little game. That's a shame. I'm sorry for your pain but it's best for you to just get over it. Trust me.
Go and play with some Christians. They're probably gonna be more accommodating to your regurgitated bible snippets and entitlement to attention.
I'm not "abusing" the flagging system as there are no rules regarding how it is to be precisely used. You're, at this point, trolling.
Neither have I "plagiarized" anything. Every citation has been properly cited — unlike you who admittedly quoted from a book without referencing it.
You insist you don't want a "dialogue", yet continue to make comments. You came here. You made the comments. You refuse to defend them. You've made the accusations. You refuse to actually defend any of them.
Now you're threatening me because I downvoted your continued trolling. My "game" is asking you to justify your original argument which was unsolicited. You don't want to engage or dialogue because you're utterly incapable of defending your position.
You insist "I don't want to talk about this with you." Yet you're the one who started the conversation and continues to reply. Even more so, you insist I'm the one with the problem, despite the fact you're the one who refuses to have any semblance of a conversation besides ad hominems, threats, and snide remarks.
I'll let the conversation stand on its own. I think a "sensible person" will learn a lot from the contrasting conduct.