返回列表 回覆 發帖

Religion 當談到"唬爛"時...

George Carlin did a really good comedian job, mixing popular believes about christianity with his own humour. I do hope that dior is only putting this up for fun, however if he is gonna put this as evidences / suppliments for any useful argument, he is gonna get slaughtered all around.

Judging that he puts up an English show and understands the show, he should be able to read this.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
Term it as you like Sharmen, if you are interested in discussing the actual topic, speak, if you are not, simply stay away.

speaking in that context, I may term your reply as the extra piece of fish.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
very easily, that extra piece of fish had its usage, now it showed that dior was merely posting things "in the name of 'christianity is bad'" without any in depth understanding. Now Sharman can grab your own piece of fish and go home, because my "so called fish" had been used and could no longer be considered extra.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
If you cannot derive that, out of all the major "religions", only the image of Christianity fits in what George Carlin describes as religion, and that Dior has a track record of defaming Christianity, and that this forum bears the domain "exchristian.hk", you are not at the level I should talk to, and don't pretend you are at a higher level than me.

If you are implying the Dior is not refering to Christianity, you say that his original is the extra piece of fish in this "Christianity Religion" forum.

Trying to mock people, at least get the fact straight.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
In what part of quran did it mention there is a "loving God" a.k.a. Ala?

Buddah needed money for its temple, that didn't made him what George Carlin laughing at.

Simple finger printing didn't work for you?

Just admit you made a mistake, and stop pretending, or, shall I put it, let go of your own misunderstanding (that there may be a directional level different).


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
Having no reply from Sharman, I believe he had given up on arguing with me, or may be given up on me.

My main point was not trying to show that who is wrong and who is right here, I was just (unexpectedly) trying to show that how Dior processes some information without understanding and posting things here, and I hope he does not establish this as his track record in the future. As stated, I myself appreciates how George Carlin did a good job as a comedian, I myself laughed when he made some statements. Just that points of his is invalid in making structured argument against Christianity on an intellectual level.

Most of his arguments (or should I put, statements) was trying to put up paradoxes that requires sophisticated explanation to go through, however he stopped at an intuitive level and started making conjectures.

Twin paradox in general relativity was a paradox, wave-particle duality of light was a paradox. Nonetheless both of them became resolved and had since became corner stones for fileds of physics, and none of the solutions were intuitivem all are very sophisticated, and until today not much people dispute them.

The main paradoxies George tried to put up concerns predestination and suffering, all had very established explanation within Christianity context, George Carlin just failed to go through them.

All in All, statement remains
George Carlin did a really good comedian job, mixing popular believes about christianity with his own humour. I do hope that dior is only putting this up for fun, however if he is gonna put this as evidences / suppliments for any useful argument, he is gonna get slaughtered all around.


And I am surprised this thread actually protraited dior as what I stated earlier and had shown that Sharman is good at (only?) distinguishing extra pieces of fish and bringing discussion off topic.

If there shall be no more discussion concerning logic and facts, I shall remain silence again in this post.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
本帖最後由 jimmychauck 於 2011/9/20 08:26 編輯

The statement was just an opening guess, if you have time, fine, may be I was the one who was out of patient, good that you have time. Amd I did not refer to anything about time constraint, I was wildly guessing your willingness to continue discussion.

I will let you have that Ala is loving, so what? does that make Muslim what George Carlin was laughing for? Did Muslim had "Bible"? Did Ala "Made human in his own image"? does Ala has person? Main point is finger printing, fit George's list into Ala and then you can prove your point. I might be wrong to assume that "There was no mention in Quran that Ala is loving", but nonetheless "Christianity talks more about a loving God then Muslim" and stop stupid rebutal against that statement by using things like "oh yeah? how about God killing this, that? burnt that to death? Oh, very loving."

And stop trying to bring discussion off topic, and pin to the point.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
本帖最後由 jimmychauck 於 2011/9/21 01:28 編輯

Good.

Talk to the audience and tell them that you think George Carlin could be talking about Muslim as well.
I am fitting the "image" in, not "it" in, as I have told you, trying to show you that you do not have the ability to correctly interpret what others are saying, that you actually think George could be addressing anything but Chrsitianity, and Dior did post this thread in the "the religion of Christianity" board of the "Exchristian" forum, not because of that reason.

Lets bring back that some Chinese,司馬昭之心,and may be you are not a pedestrian so you didn't get it. Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity.

It wasn't about the uniqueness of the religion itself, it was that George was uniquely talking about Christianity, thats why finger printing worked. This time, the quote is: "trying to put down some argument, use clear and concise logic."


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
I didn't say it had to be only Christianity in this board, I said he intend to be laughing at Christianity, as I have reasoned, disprove that reasoning when you can.

And as mentioned, what I have pointed out is already enough, you can keep your opinion that George is laughing at middle east Muslim, that just shows your level of reasoning ability. And enough of this discussion if you would agree with my reasoning.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
The reasoning had already been blatently written

Dior intend to be laughing at Christianity
only the image of Christianity fits in what George Carlin describes as religion

Dior did post this thread in the "the religion of Christianity" board of the "Exchristian" forum

Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity


Agree with that, or don't, and hence show others your reasoning ability.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
fine, you stated, there are some other, name them.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
Avoid providing the reaosn or any queried information with whatever excuse you want, it just shows how good you are at certain areas.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
so you are using 1 statement in my reasoning
Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity

which simply asks you to make a verdict yourself (because when you go to a court, they always arrive at a verdict), and now blaming me for blackheart waste your time itimidate you bla bla bla.


And until now decline to provide any decent argument.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
You very much fail to show us you have the ability to understand that the when statment
Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity

exists within a reasoning context, it is retorically asking you to justify your opposite idea.

Then we conclude the discussion above.
1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
wahahaha,

I have not followed your principle of "case is in legal process, cannot speak outside of course" and provided, restated, interpreted my reasoning in this board. Asking you to do the same, provide your reasoning here, information here, for discussion, you say it is in the courts hand, you cannot disclose anything.
Now you are accusing me of not wanting to discuss here, because "I" brought this case to the court? Your logic is just absolutely screwed.

Fine, I now commit criminal contempt, I will discuss the case here, outside of the "court" (as if it exists, dah..), as the case is in "legal process". Get the court to charge me when you like, or provide information to it, that I am talking about the case outside the "court".

So, I shall remain triumph here, since you decline to provide arguements or dicuss here, until the "any court" makes a verdict (and of course, there is still a 50% chance the verdict is to my favour), and in the "court", you will provide statements to the "judges" (dah, like they exists), and "they" shall tell you the verdict.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
Just that you know
Bring this case before any court and tell the judge that Dior did not post this thread intending to laugh at Christianity

was a statement made by me. It is an instruction to you (well, lets for a moment disregard the fact that it is a retorical statement). So when I didn't perform any action of bring it to the court, it must have been you who brought the case to the court.
And since I have receive none legal notice from no court, I presume that there is none, even I am willing to commit criminal contempt, I cannot. May I be provided with the name, address of the court, such that we appear.

So conclusion remains as follow, or may be we should add some more:
1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee

Oh, am I talking to someone imagining a court? I am no expert in Delusional disorder by I think there is one case here.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
Oh, bringing something to the court before resolving the issue peacefully, is an act of love, interesting.

I am no expert of law, but I believe if you have to state that this case is in trail in any court, you at least have to state which court, or else your statement will not be effective

1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction.
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee.
5. You failed to even tell which court you bring a law suit to


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
which simply asks you to make a verdict yourself (because when you go to a court, they always arrive at a verdict), and now blaming me for blackheart waste your time itimidate you bla bla bla.
was a statement made by me. It is an instruction to you (well, lets for a moment disregard the fact that it is a retorical statement).
May I be provided with the name, address of the court, such that we appear.


Hi~~, you blind? you read English?
1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction.
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee.
5. You failed to even tell which court you bring a law suit to
6. Do you read English?


state. (instruction)


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
you still failed to understand retorical statement, and still failed to follow simple instruction to "state" information I queried upon. "May I be provided...." blablabla is not a question, its also an instruction.

1. You failed to show that you understand sarcism, retorical questioning.
2. You failed to provide reasonig or queried information.
3. You failed to show that you can distinguish between a staturary statement or instruction.
4. You failed to show that you can distinguish between the addresser and the addressee.
5. You failed to even tell which court you bring a law suit to
6. Do you read English?
7. Do you understand context?
8. You failed to follow simple instruction.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
Being polite does not mean not an instruction, nor that you shouldn't know you should inform the opposite party that which court should appear before.

Now miss spell of word should stop no people with general understanding of English of understanding it means "Sarcasm".

You have still failed to state any information I requested, be it legal non legal, logical non logical.


所以我只管問,永遠不會答 leefeng 爛屍 發表於 2023/10/7 13:39
返回列表
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個