Atheist Network

^-----

Is that troll in the pic above snorting coke?


FTR.. I don't think Big Rob is a troll at all.

I wonder about myusername though.... The whole post to me seems a little strange.

Well, I could just keep telling you you're full of shit and leave it at that, but that's no fun...



You're not immune from being wrong.



Actually, insinuating that I think all weddings are "disgusting spectacles" is "just stirring up shit."

Actually, for that matter, until you showed up, there wasn't any shit stirring in the thread.



Yet here you are, giving someone a pile of shit because she was reluctant to do something against her will.



"It's not an animal sacrifice, nobody is getting flagellated or doing anything against their will. It's just a cross burning with some silly magic words. That's all. What exactly is so disgusting about it?"



... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.



Yet here you are, giving someone a pile of shit for changing her mind about associating with (people whose) philosophies she doesn't share, to the point of finding those philosophies discomforting.



Yet here you are, giving someone a pile of shit because she's changed her mind about participating in a ceremony that supports a philosophy she finds discomforting.



If this conversation were about you...



Yeah, I can see where you got that from the OP.



Ah, finally, some meat...

Is username at fault for getting herself into the situation? Indeed she is. She admitted as much.

And if there is/are a lesson/lessons to be learned here for username, and she seems to have already learned it/them, it's: Think carefully before you commit to anything with such a significant dynamic, and/or don't be afraid to say "no" if your initial reaction is to say "no." Better to later want to change that "no" to a "yes" than the alternative.

None of which translates to this, "You're a shitty-friend-whiny-asshole because you changed your mind" guilt trip you're trying to lay on her.

Now for some coffee and dessert...



Uhm... okay? Is this the part where I give you a cookie and pat you on the head or something?



Can't really call someone a "friend" otherwise, can you...



That's nice, I guess. :shrugs:



(Of course, it's moot at this point, as the wedding's likely taken place by now, but...) Is there a reason "swallowing her high-strung pride" as you call it can't consist of humbling herself and explaining that she's changed her mind?



Ah, the old "lying is customary amongst close friends" defense. Why didn't I think of that?

It could be the case that she's already "lied" once by agreeing, for whatever reason(s), to do something she didn't want to do, and going through with it is just one lie on top of another, and another, and another, eventually...

On the other hand, of course, it could be the case that she didn't really know what she was getting into when she either said "yes" to being asked to or volunteered to help. Maybe she didn't know how fucked up a ceremony it was going to be until she read the program she's been helping with. Kinda like you agreeing to give your "friend" a hand, only to find out it's moving a dead body. The body of, as it turns out, a girl your "friend's" father raped and murdered; but you wouldn't know that because he promised his father he wouldn't tell, and a promise is a promise; and friends are friends, and they lie to each other all the time, and he just has a different definition of "white lie" than you do, so it's all good. Suck it up and start digging, Sten.



So, if friends lie to each other all the time, just how do you justify "safely say[ing] that every one of my friends has no problem with gays, does not believe in hell, does not believe that they're favored by some god who likes prayers more than he likes ethics, and is not a racist - from friendly discussion of these issues with each and every one of them"? How do you know each and every one of them isn't a closet homophobe, theist or racist, and simply good "white liars" with interesting ideas regarding what constitutes a "white lie"?

Or how do you justify implying that you "know what the philosophies of" your friends are? Or justify claiming that you and your friends "all have the same moral compass"?



Any relationship so frail that it could come apart at the seams over things like this can hardly be called a "friendship" as far as I'm concerned...

To say nothing of the fact that that kind of shit backfires all the time. Either your "friend" is intelligent and knows you're lying your ass off, which means you're insulting your "friend's" intelligence, or your friend is fucking retarded, stays with that annoying cunt, and in six months finds himself deserted by all of his "friends."

To say nothing of the fact that you're comparing stupid shit like shitty dresses and shitty compact discs and shitty presents and shitty bimbos and shitty cars to centuries worth of cathylick terrorism.



Yeah, relationships between a used car salesman and his customer. You know, the one who sold your "friend" that piece of shit you call a "beast."

And while it's inarguable that lies can be used for positive purposes, at what point does a white lie become not-white? If, as you say, "friends lie to each other all the time," how does one go about preventing a relationship that consists of the "lies friends tell each other all the time" from falling apart?

How do you justify calling that a "friendship" in the first place?



Maybe it's simply a case of having standards different than yours...

Would you prefer to have a cathylick friend or none at all?

"Do you take this woman to be be your lawful wedded wife?"

"I do" ('nt really.... but just to smooth things over...what's a lie between "friends")

False Dichotomy.

I'm really sorry man, because I enjoy our headbutting, but I'm going to have to concede this debate to you because I simply don't have the time to sift through your responses to every single sentence of my post. The alternative ISN'T to tell me I'm full of shit, an alternative could be to choose a large block of text and formulate a concise reply to it (while still telling me I'm full of shit), maybe 2 or 3 quotes per post are good but 20 freaking quotes and responses for a relatively short post is just excessive. As I said it's a forum post not an IM conversation, I wish you wouldn't treat it like it's happening in real time. Debates that are handled that way quickly spiral out of control, and a single response can take up an entire page.

I will say one thing though - there is a clear difference between what constitutes a "white lie" and a "lie". A white lie is designed to be tactful and save someone embarassment or hurt feelings. The examples you gave, of burying a body and whatnot, could not be called a white lie by any stretch of the imagination. White lies are intended to be harmless - when it becomes harmful it can't really be classified as a white lie any more, can it? None of the examples I gave were harmful white lies.

Whether you or I am right depends on your principles and what you hold important - the feelings of your "fake friend" or your views on religion. It truly is a matter of opinion. If she values this person as a true friend and wants to make her as happy as possible, then I am right. If she only hangs out with the bride because of her husband and doesn't really consider her a friend, then you are right.

Good talk dude, I look forward to the next time we disagree.

-------------------------
Rob, I know from experience that your immaturity only gets worse from here, so I'm going to nip it in the bud and totally ignore you from now on. Have fun talking to yourself.

I have to disagree... that may be how YOU use a 'white lie', but most of the time, a 'white lie' is used for the comfort of the person telling the lie in the first place. If someone asks me if I like their hair and I do not, I may find something I can honestly be complimentary about, but if I lie about it (white lie), I am doing it because I do not want to have to spend the time and energy it will take to be honest. People do it for THEIR comfort, not the comfort of the person being lied to.

Even the subset of the 'white lie', the 'social lie' is used for the teller to avoid the awkward social situation, rather than for anyone elses comfort...

"How are you?"
"Fine... thanks... "

People tell the social lie 'fine' instead of "Not so good... my dog ate my aunts cat, causing my aunt to have a stroke... I took her to the hospital, where I had a sexual encounter with a stranger and now my genitals are dripping... " because they know the person asking really could not care less and that THEY are asking the question as THEIR version of the 'social' lie... they are not asking because they care, but because telling that particular social lie ("How are you?") allows them to satisfy social grace without having to actually put any real effort into the interaction.

White lies are really no different than 'real' lies... hiding disinterest, unwillingness to be a friend enough to tell someone their hair looks like a shocked squirrel or hiding the body... we do not lie for the other person, we lie for our own needs and reasons.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, IMO.

Whilst I personally prefer honesty, I can understand why people tell each other white lies from time to time: to protect the other person's feelings and, in turn, their own, because in caring about the other person, they empathise with the other person's pain; if they hurt them, they'd feel that pain themselves.

A white lie: a trival, diplomatic or well-intentioned untruth

IMO, some people can't handle the truth and so, they WANT to be lied to. (I personally avoid such people; and them me. )

-----


BTW hun, about this bit in your post:



Are you saying that, what you'd convey to them is that you do like certain things about their hair (things which you honestly do like) so that they go away with the impression that you DO like their hair when your opinion of their hair overall is that it's awful?

I could also start insulting your mother. The options are virtually endless, so there's no false dichotomy there.



Okay. I'm not returning the "courtesy."



In the time it's taken you to whine about how I format posts...

Oh, and speaking of "alternatives," the alternative to username's going through with the ceremony isn't "you're-a-shitty-friend-whiny-asshole-because-you-changed-your-mind."



Which, of course, cannot be realized until the full effects of the lie manifest themselves.



"How does my makeup look?" she asks on her way out the door to a job interview.

"Uhm... oh... fine, honey... (if you were applying for a job as a fucking clown!!)"

The interviewer probably isn't going to tell her she looks like a clown either. So she'll go from interview to interview thinking she looks "fine, honey," failing to land a job because she looks like a clown, which will probably lead to embarrassment and/or hurt feelings, all stemming from the fact that the one person she should be able to depend on to tell her the truth is lying to her, ironically enough to save her embarrassment and hurt feelings.



The white lie your "friend" told was designed to be a tactful lie of omission - "Hey dude, I need a hand with something Saturday night. You up for it? Thanks man!!" - to save you the embarrassment (and perhaps hurt feelings) you might have experienced if he'd asked you for help moving a dead body in front of your other "friends" at the party. Probably would have been a little awkward, don't you think? How considerate of him to tell you that "white lie"!

But you'd have helped him anyway, right? I mean, even if he'd have embarrassed you, when you're someone's "friend," you just "suck it up, be an adult, and go dig up the body." After all, "it's not an animal sacrifice, nobody is getting flagellated or doing anything against their will," right?



So are automobiles.



It's nice to hear that you base your treatment of your friends on semantic crap shoots.



I showed you exactly how white lies can be and often are harmful. But hey, don't let a trivial thing like that get in the way of climbing back on your very tall but lame horse and expounding on a point that had already been ripped to shreds because you couldn't be bothered to take less time to read the post than it took you to whine about how it was formatted.



Uhm... well, if you hold to the principles of fallacious arguments then you're right!!



That you're arguing fallaciously isn't a matter of opinion.



Seriously? Are you really arguing that lying is a virtuous means of maintaining a "true friendship"?

Further, is username's friend also obligated to make username as happy as possible? If not, that's a double standard, plain and simple. If so, how do you make both of them "as happy as possible"? As things stand, you're damning username if she does and damning her if she doesn't, all because you're allowing no gray area in a situation you yourself demand is a matter of opinions, which nonetheless aren't magically immune to logic just because they're opinions.



In other words, the closer you, Sten, are to your friends, the more you lie to them.

With friends like that, who needs friends!



Right-o!

And Sten demonstrates that he is "growing up" by projecting his immaturity onto me.

I made a claim that he is in denial about his hypocrisy (without insults I may add) that I have backed up and he seeks to demonstrate that he is not in denial by putting me on ignore.

Christ....

Either way.... I win Sten. Thanks for the entertainment.....

Or did you want me to lie to you about your hypocrisy, projection and denial? After all that's what friends do....

Not really. My last reply took me about 10 minutes to write, whereas properly replying to every single one of your single-line responses would have taken me about 45 minutes. You're not exactly the average idiot Christian or Muslim - I have to proofread, check for continuity, consistency, grammar, spelling etc - and even then I still make mistakes. Then you will reply to each individual sentence again, multiplying the number of quotes until the latest post takes literally hours to reply to and I have to keep coming back to it over the course of several days.

The reason I bowed out of our last debate was because it was taking me well over an hour to reply to each post, time which I just don't have at the moment. It's also boring and tiresome after the fourth correspondance - the quotes get more and more numerous until they fill an entire page, and it becomes a burdensome chore instead of being fun. I don't know why you post on this forum, but I post for fun. In my mind there's no other reason. When the fun stops, I stop posting.
In the case of Rob, his replies become steadily more repetitive, aggressive, and nitpicking, until his smug self-righteousness becomes too much to tolerate and interacting with him is not fun but a frustrating, annoying experience. He often misses the point entirely and despite it being explained to him over and over again, he continues to repeat the strawman in his trademark smug fashion. I've noticed he attempts to emulate your style of exhaustive point by point debate (down to the closing point emphasised by italics at the end of the post), but unlike you he is incredibly bad at it.

It's your choice if you don't want to modify your post style to suit my time and attention span constraints - I can respect you not wanting to change your style even if I dislike said style - but wouldn't you have more fun if I was able to reply to your posts in their entirety instead of having to literally pick one or two quotes out of twenty, then thirty, then 50, then 70 points, all being quite valid? Most of the points you make are pretty relevant, and I always learn a lot and leave with a lot to think about every time we correspond, it would just be nice if it stayed fun for both of us and reasonably short and concise instead of becoming a 100 page behemoth of tangled quotes and divergent points. Believe it or not I would like to reply to all of the points you make, it would just be easier for my brain to handle them if they were lumped together into a block of text instead of spread out over 20 or 30 short quotes. Maybe you don't care if I can only respond to one or two of them, but I do.

But do what you like. You'll probably respond to this post line by line as well, and I will then only be able to choose one or two of the most important points to respond to instead of the whole thing. Whatever you want. Just don't blame me for not wanting to carry our debates past 3 or 4 posts.

Sten wins.

It would have taken less than 5 to read the post, which might have at least kept you from wasting your precious ten minutes rewording the same tired points that were destroyed in the post you didn't read.



Indeed...



There there...



Oh, I won't. I don't really play the blame game, but if I were, I'd just blame you for being a pompous fuckwit who can't consistently back up his arguments/refuses to acknowledge when his arguments are inconsistent.

[irony]Fantastic way of showing that you are not in denial/projecting your hypocrisy. [/irony]

Just sit back and let Sten make your points for you....

*removed - to remove reciprocal trolling...

There's nothing wrong with being annoying and watching your frustration at being unable to wiggle off the hook. The fact is you are in denial about your hypocrisy and you are also projecting your shit onto me demostrated by dishonest shit such as......



If you are going to make claims that I miss the point and am trying to build strawmen you have actually back up your claim. There's nothing you have had to explain over and over to me as it is YOU who demonstrating my point over and over with remarks like that. YOU are the one who is denial hence unwillingness to accept responsibility for your behavior.

As it is, this is nothing more than inflammatory trolling....




Sure I don't think I am as good as JIAC. I don't think I even want to be anymore. However, unlike you, I am prepared to learn from other members of the board and have my self importance deflated.

That said, I can't be doing that badly. After all, you just managed to display that you are indeed trying to project on to me and are in denial about your hypocrisy. All because you are unwilling to show the courage to take responsibility for what you said.

If you do reply, I expect you to show what an utter fucktard you are by continuing to deny your hypocrisy and project your failure to deal with your idiocy (because you have nowhere to go) back onto me.....

I read it. I thought you were splitting hairs more than "destroying" my arguments.

Comparing helping a friend to bury a body is hardly on the same level as saying some stupid magic words for them on their wedding day. Comparing false admiration for a shitty car a friend has JUST BOUGHT is not on the same level as ENCOURAGING them to buy a shitty car. Despite what your posts claimed ("so in your opinion, friends should lie to each other"), I was obviously not advocating lying to them about everything, just the inconsequential things that you are unable to change and would be better off being dealt with tactfully instead of with brutal honesty. Simply put, if you were brutally honest about everything, you wouldn't be a particularly pleasant person to spend time around.

A lot of these things, like the Catholic wedding being a "disgusting spectacle" and comparing it to a skinhead, Nazi, or KKK rally are a matter of opinion anyway. While you may think your friend's hair/car/girlfriend is shitty, someone else may think it/she is great. Despite what you may like to assert, just because I advocate lying to a friend about something inconsequential such as a hairstyle, doesn't mean I advocate lying to them about everything, especially things that will adversely affect their lives. I'm not a hairdresser, or a mechanic, or a relationship consultant. If I had expertise in the area I was lying about instead of just an opinion, then the effects of my lie might be extremely harmful. I wouldn't, for example, lie to someone that yes, the Jehovah's witness group they are thinking of joining seem like very nice people. There are degrees of harm, and that's something that you completely ignored, treating all lies as equal.

It seems like my argument was invalid from the start though as I severely misinterpreted how the OP felt about the Catholic "friend". The OP obviously never considered the bride as anything more than an acquaintance she was forced to spend time with. I was under the mistaken impression that she truly wanted to be friends with this woman, as she said she's never had a real friend (except for her husband, hopefully). In this case, she has no obligation to do anything for her.


Which particular arguments stand out as being inconsistent?

I notice you also use the word "pompous" a lot, but from where I'm sitting the tone of your messages are a lot more pompous than mine. I'm not the one who bangs on about "destroying" other people's arguments, saying "there there", implying that my opponent's request for a more coherent post format is similar to a crying baby, and asking them if I should pat them on the head and give them a cookie. Oh wait, I get it... It isn't pompous when you do it?

I don't really understand why you have this obsessive drive to accompany nearly every point with a personal attack - it's unnecessary, uncivilized, and adds nothing to the debate IMO. Certainly reduces the fun factor for me and makes me less inclined to stick around. I think of debating on a forum like playing a game of monopoly or chess - it's not really all that fun to play with someone who insists on yelling at you, loudly criticising every single tiny move you make, and pumping his fist all the time. Doesn't mean they are not a skilful opponent, however it does mean it becomes a chore to play with them.

Ok boys... separate corners...

I like your avatar, Sib. Did you take that picture yourself?

Yes... I have a bunch of him... he came into the house, so we have them with him on the wall, on us, etc. I have one I am going to play with where he is next to a bookshelf that has the same colours as he does.

What is funny is that the picture is not all that great, but when you crop it, it looks really awesome. I am having fun with that.