The Function Of Belief

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Thank you for your interesting feedback Tao. I was unaware you were suffering. What specifically suggests to you that I have an inflated ego? You have made this claim several times with me already, especially when you did not understand or disagreed with my claims with science and global warming.

Its not what you say, its how you say it.

If a horse or a beast of burden were here in front of us, do you think it would consider itself flogged if I had words with it?

Like that. The way you think its respectful to answer everything with your own pointless, useless question that attempts to say " I know more than you " but which really says "I'm too arrogant to do straight talking" or "I cannot think of anything better to say". And you do this so often its just becoming too tedious to bother trying to respond to.

Am I promoting myself?

If you cant work that out then I aint gona help you.

Shall I throw my yoke off and come work for you, Equus_Tao?

Sorry, I really dont think it would work out.



You know what bugs me is that I know you are pretty smart and could be really interesting, BUT you are way too obsessed with trying to prove it all the time. In the doing you just come across as pompous, arrogant and conceited. It completely devalues some of your really good ideas, info and experience. Its a shame. I am not trying to tell you who you should or should not be but I am telling you its frustrating to talk with you, and not because of any intellectual superiority you may or may not have.

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Its not what you say, its how you say it.

Then it is not what you hear, but how you hear it. What you hear speaks volumes to me.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Like that. The way you think its respectful to answer everything with your own pointless, useless question that attempts to say " I know more than you " but which really says "I'm too arrogant to do straight talking" or "I cannot think of anything better to say". And you do this so often its just becoming too tedious to bother trying to respond to.

No definitely not respect. I ask questions instead of placing statements because until you answer the questions for yourself and resolve the conflict you will not see anything other than what you want to see. You say that people are beasts of burden and then you speak of flogging a dead horse. So then who is dead and what horse thinks that it is flogged with words? You want it in a statement so: I suggest you are under a delusion and your metaphor is broke.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You know what bugs me is that I know you are pretty smart and could be really interesting, BUT you are way too obsessed with trying to prove it all the time.

What makes you think you know what I am obsessed with? You have assumed. I hand you the remote: press the off button and I will become deaf and not reply or bother you. Have you read the Tao of Equus? It appears I am simply not your really interesting horse.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I ask questions instead of placing statements because until you answer the questions for yourself and resolve the conflict you will not see anything other than what you want to see.

I make statements, for the most part, without caveats because I figure it gives people a clearer target. I'm not afraid of putting myself out there. I hate rhetorical questions, and I dislike people who try to answer a question with a question. That's a salesman's trick, and I dislike salesmen.

Chris

[Paladin]

Cyberpi,

You do have a habit of re-framing an argument or statement and then addressing that issue instead of the original argument. Quite a neat trick if you can pull it off, many politicians do. Unfortunately it seems not all of your efforts in this vein result in well camouflaged spin.
It would seem that you simply aren't aware of this habit or are so invested in maintaining innocence that you would give up all reasonable discourse despite all evidence provided by your peers.
Now understand there isn't a value judgment in this, but your behavior in this respect is indeed curious.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I make statements, for the most part, without caveats because I figure it gives people a clearer target. I'm not afraid of putting myself out there. I hate rhetorical questions, and I dislike people who try to answer a question with a question. That's a salesman's trick, and I dislike salesmen.

Where did Tao ask a question? Who is selling anything??

Originally Posted by Paladin

You do have a habit of re-framing an argument or statement and then addressing that issue instead of the original argument. Quite a neat trick if you can pull it off, many politicians do. Unfortunately it seems not all of your efforts in this vein result in well camouflaged spin.

Could you show me where the original argument is? In the original post I see two questions. Are you looking for answers or are you trying to NLP one? As far as I am concerned the title should have read: 'The Function of Assumption'.

Originally Posted by Paladin

It would seem that you simply aren't aware of this habit or are so invested in maintaining innocence that you would give up all reasonable discourse despite all evidence provided by your peers. Now understand there isn't a value judgment in this, but your behavior in this respect is indeed curious.

So you have judged that I have got a habit I am not aware of, or I am guilty of something, that words try to maintain innocence, that my discourse is unreasonable, that someone here is a peer, and that evidence of me comes from someone here. Wow, that was very disturbing. With which shall I start? But then you say there was no value in your judgment. I surely disagree... there is some value in every judgment.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It can be a recipe for sin if such reasoning is used inappropriately. People will do what people will do, and when not being disruptive I can overlook a great deal, sometimes limits must be placed. What role am I playing? Just little ol' truth seeker me?, dad?, husband?, moderator?, supervisor?, chief cook and bottle washer? Each separate role brings with it a slightly different set of parameters.

Well you had noted on the thread "condemnation":

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I take exception to being taken out of context, and the fact that my tirade was noted at that time by me to FaithfulServant that I *was deliberately* acting out of character, in frustration over a person who couldn't seem to get it across that his methods were improper regarding how we do things around here.

So I am left uncertain what role or character you were acting as. The last sentence is disturbing to me: How 'WE' do things? Who was 'we' in your role?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

If you are like some people I know, their response may be entirely different given the benefit of 24 hours.

Please be sure to let me know if you think it changes.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

That is a matter of taste and personal preferences, would you not agree? If you would rather poker than chess, that is fine with me. But I'm not one that gets any thrill out of gambling, so I will have to insist on penny ante poker. The wife might have something to say about any smoking in the house though, fair warning.

I read assumption. In the spirit of my point, and trying to maintain the relevance all along with the OP: What would you prefer for dinner? I recommend something expensive, because I am paying.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So I am left uncertain what role or character you were acting as. The last sentence is disturbing to me: How 'WE' do things? Who was 'we' in your role?

I prefer my role as participant 99% of the time. I don't relish the thought of having to moderate when things turn ugly, I get no thrill out of exercising authority, if that might be what you are hinting at. I have explained in the past several times, sufficiently that I really do not understand what the pet peeve is. Have I made any similar mistake (as you deem it) since? In fairness, has any situation presented itself that was in any respect similar?

Quite the contrary, I think in my own personal participation I go to great lengths to accomodate others that hold views unlike my own. I have had heated and even frustrating discussions with many people around here. Some have over time become friends, others merely tolerate my presence and some I'm sure would just as well that I disappear. I hate none of them. As long as they are not disruptive to the community as a whole, I have no quarrel with them.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Please be sure to let me know if you think it changes.

Touche. In that regard I think you give mee a run for the money in the stubborn determination category. The difference being I do not understand what it is you have issue with, at least with mee I know what his pre-canned answer will be in advance.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

What would you prefer for dinner? I recommend something expensive, because I am paying.

Would you rather I act unlike myself? I had thought instead that perhaps you might enjoy a homecooked meal. I know when I spent a great deal of time on the road, that is something I came to treasure...a simple homecooked meal every once in awhile. But, you are the guest and I will allow for your preference...and even if you do end up buying, I assure the last thing I would seek is "expensive," especially for the pure excuse of opportunity. Not that the offer isn't appreciated, but momma didn't raise me and four siblings to abuse other's generosity.

I am no saint. I have never tried to portray myself as one, here or anywhere. I do what I think is best most of the time, and even when I don't I keep it to a minimum. I have faults, fallacies, frailties and weaknesses. I succumb to my preferred temptations.

Just like everyone else.

I'm not sure what or who it is you expect to find, but I hope you will be surprised that I am not really a tyrannical ogre. I just have to play one on rare occasions when circumstances deem it necessary or when Mercury is in retrograde.

[greymare]

but ogres have layers, like onions. i like onions. lol.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by greymare

but ogres have layers, like onions. i like onions. lol.

have you been on the water of life grey?

s.

[juantoo3]

Ummm, don't ogres smell like onions too?

And doesn't water of life taste like worms...Shai Halud (at least in the story "Dune")?


At least I believe so anyway. And that's how I get back on topic, tah-dah!

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

doesn't water of life taste like worms...?

I think Tao might consider this to be blasphemous.

s.

[greymare]

sorry guys, it must be the mother in me, I was thinking of Shrek

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Then it is not what you hear, but how you hear it. What you hear speaks volumes to me.

Well I am an open book, that should not be too difficult now should it?

I ask questions instead of placing statements because until you answer the questions for yourself and resolve the conflict you will not see anything other than what you want to see.

Nonsense. Such a method is a device of trickery. These questions framed specifically to try and lure someone into agreeing with you. You understand the scientific method, postulate an opinion and wait for commentary on it. That is not what you do. As others state, and I too thought of using in my last post, your dialogue is most akin to a travelling salesman or a politician. Slippery, deflective, deliberately trying to control the direction to your own agenda. Which, as far as I can see, is to prop up your own ego.
I on the other hand am unambiguous in my words. I never had an education other than that I gave myself and so I do not always use language perfectly. But I make efforts to be clear, even if I am found wrong. Which, given the broad range of expertise found amongst the patrons of this establishment, is often. But I am not so arrogant in my mindset of the moment to assume that I am nearly as clever as many of the people here. I love two things above all others. Looking and learning. Thats why I am here. I like to think my contributions help me focus my energies in particular directions and that those that engage with me are 1: similarly interested and 2: add to my internal database. Perhaps I come across sometimes as being absolutist in some areas of interest. Absolutism can be used as a device too, it adds emphatic resonance. And sometimes it can be valuable. But I do try to listen for the signs that such absolutism is failing to add anything to the debate, which given the nature of this site, is often. But my position as an atheist on a religious forum is a precarious one in that I want to bring value to a discussion, but I am treading a tightrope in which a swing too far in any direction leads to idealogical safety nets ending anything meaningful. With you, and your linguistic slights of hand, there is simply no point. You are never willing to engage as an equal. I applaud your ability to maintain such a device so consistently. But I do not find it clever. It achieves none of the aims you state it is meant to with me. It does not make me ask questions of my own ways of thinking or my beliefs. And from what I gather it does not work for anybody else either. Instead it puts my heckles up, makes me respond to the structure of your response rather than its meaning. I dont appreciate the condescension and your replies are so deeply wrapped in that that anything else they may carry is ignored.
As for pushing buttons... well so far the only person I have ever observed to push any of yours is you. So I'll leave that choice to you.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Where did Tao ask a question? Who is selling anything??

Could you show me where the original argument is? In the original post I see two questions. Are you looking for answers or are you trying to NLP one? As far as I am concerned the title should have read: 'The Function of Assumption'.

So you have judged that I have got a habit I am not aware of, or I am guilty of something, that words try to maintain innocence, that my discourse is unreasonable, that someone here is a peer, and that evidence of me comes from someone here. Wow, that was very disturbing. With which shall I start? But then you say there was no value in your judgment. I surely disagree... there is some value in every judgment.

Once again, QED. Simply amazing

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well I am an open book, that should not be too difficult now should it?

A day is a book and you write one daily.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Such a method is a device of trickery. These questions framed specifically to try and lure someone into agreeing with you. You understand the scientific method, postulate an opinion and wait for commentary on it.

You want a more scientific method... very well how much does the dead horse weigh?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

That is not what you do. As others state, and I too thought of using in my last post, your dialogue is most akin to a travelling salesman or a politician. Slippery, deflective, deliberately trying to control the direction to your own agenda. Which, as far as I can see, is to prop up your own ego.

Since you are disgruntled by mere questions, shall I stop asking them?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I on the other hand am unambiguous in my words.

Should I flog the horse that says otherwise?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

With you, and your linguistic slights of hand, there is simply no point. You are never willing to engage as an equal.

By your words, are we equal?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It achieves none of the aims you state it is meant to with me.

If the aim of a question is to receive an answer, then I surely do agree.