• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Recent content by Michael S. Pearl

  1. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    Nothing new there. All that has been addressed repeatedly. Ad nauseam. It is not a detour. It is a perspective which you have not addressed with your account. You only take your one interpretation into account. That is tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is a malady. Because of your tunnel vision...
  2. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    Uh, you missed something. I said, "I admit that I did not need to describe your analogy as terrible. I admit that I could simply have said: "Your analogy is delusive for positing a business email as if it were a love letter", and I could have gone on from there, and my points would be the same."...
  3. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    In fact, I called it terrible. But I also indicated how you can recognize a deficiency which you had not noticed previously. Hence, it was no dodge. I admit that I did not need to describe your analogy as terrible. I admit that I could simply have said: "Your analogy is delusive for positing a...
  4. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    Yet another ambiguous statement on your part. If you understood the relationships between possibility, actuality, understanding, and expression, and if you used awareness of those relationships when expressing yourself, you would not so often resort to ambiguity - except on purpose, when...
  5. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    Huh? I did not pivot. I pointed out that, when you attribute a position to me without even being bothered with any need for justification, you are not being intellectually honest. I pointed out that, when you realize that you have erroneously attributed a position to me but are unwilling to...
  6. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    So, it is for the sake of intellectual honesty that you attribute a position to me without caring to justify your attribution or, in the alternative, without caring to acknowledge an error on your part?
  7. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    Prove it.
  8. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    All irrelevant. You said "your claim as to the absolute authority" which as a reference means you attribute that claim to me, and there is no such claim. You are wrong. Adding more words does not make you less wrong. Adding more words is merely a distraction from what is/was the issue.
  9. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    There is no such claim.
  10. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    You acknowledge that there are actual emotive factors. You acknowledge that actual emotive factors can significantly affect actual expression. You do not factor in actual emotive factors, because (you erroneously assume that) they are insulated from "intersubjectively checkable evidence." You...
  11. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    When you “discipline” claims “by restricting” them such that they do not take account of author subjectivity, you ignore all emotive possibility, and you ignore the person of the author.
  12. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    A purposefully ignorant method guarantees a decisively ignorant result.
  13. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    That is a lie. You admit that you ignore the person of the author. Ignoring effects ignorance. You are purposely ignorant, and your “argument” is rife with ignorance, and your “argument” depends on your purposeful ignorance.
  14. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    You have once again proven my point. You have NOT taken any emotive possibility into account. What you admit to having done is ignore any and all emotive possibilities since the author intent is treated as irrelevant. What you have done is arbitrarily dismiss the person of the author. By...
  15. M

    Origins Of Christianity

    You have never taken account of the emotive, and, in particular, you never considered whether it is possible that there is an emotive possibility which fully accounts for the interpretation put forth as the polemic possibility. You have not investigated whether the polemic possibility is...
Back
Top Bottom