[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

Good. You've applied to Hemingway, now, please apply it to your own clumsy writing .

Haven't I already said that I think Orwell is wrong? I think your writing is plenty clumsy itself; should I start going through it with a red pen?

Originally Posted by dor

Michael jumps to the conclusion that your thoughts of what someone is thinking (in the case of harris, the inaccurate description of suicide 'terrorists') equate with someone holding a gun to your head.

You pointed this out, and I accepted this error. Was the instant replay necessary?

Originally Posted by dor

He uses the opportunity to share that he knows what Jainism is, intentionally skipping the more familiar amish or quakers....

I'm more familiar with Jainism than I am with the Amish or the Quakers. But thank you for asking. Your insight to my thought processes, my history, and knowledge is astonishing. Hey, what am I thinking now? Oh, yes. I'm having trouble deciding what to have for dinner. That's impressive.

Originally Posted by dor

wrong michael, i was pointing out redundancy and clumsiness of your writing.

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me until you explained yourself. But I guess that's an indication of unclear thinking on your part?

What was 2? Or is that 1 just for show?

Originally Posted by dor

ohhhhhh boy I am so scared is really my LAST chance michael?

Last chance, because I won't ask again. Poor phrasing, yes, but we already know what a terrible writer and speaker I am. But I think I listen (or at least read) better than you do.

Originally Posted by dor

In any event, its as tiresome as answering your silly "point" that I was 'deceived by normalcy' when I suggested that it's easier to learn about a religion that comes from your culture.

I did not say you were deceived by normalcy. You were using the convention of "you" as a general address. Specifically, you (read: dor) said, "when you have the cultural context, it is easier to stay undeceived by the 'exoticism'". Were you referring to me, specifically? I didn't think so, though I may have been wrong. Using the same style, I responded that if you are undeceived by exoticism, you are then open to being deceived by normalcy.

Disagree with me if you will, but disagree with what I say.

Originally Posted by dor

Is religion a large part of being a human being? Well, its a large part of humanity - nearly all of the world's art, literature and architecture for most human history was religious based...but i guess no one ever really found that it was important. you're right ..you win!

I had to think about how to respond to this. Because I could be nice, say thank you, and back off. But since you've enjoyed condescending to me about my condescending to you for having condescended to me, I'll play.

dor said, about religion, "my main, big point is you're denying a large part of your make up as human being"

I said, to paraphrase myself, "Explicate that."

And you, dor, made the above response (after having twisted yourself into a knot over that one word).

1. There is a difference between the experience of being human and the nature of being human. The difference is not always relevant (I would assume you would say it is not), but I would at least ask: which are you talking about?
2. Humanity is not a human being. You might as well say that living in houses is a large part of humanity, a large majority of the world's population live in houses, of one kind or another. Does that mean that living in houses is a large part of our make up as human beings?
3. History is not an indicator of component. Most civilizations of human history have committed atrocities in the name of expanding their domain. Does that mean that making war upon our neighbors is a part of our make up as human beings?
4. Importance is not an indicator of component. The appendix (the one in your intestine) is generally agreed to be unimportant, and thus there's minimal harm in removing it when it's infected. But it is nevertheless a part of our make up as human beings.
5. I don't care if other people agree or disagree with you. The request was directed at you, and it is your opinion I asked for. If you need someone else to have said so before you can say it, then that's your problem. But I asked for an argument, not a citation.

Though...if you had cited someone else's argument, and it was sound, then you would have made your point. I was genuinely curious, because you are not the first person to say this to me. My debate with a friend on the necessity of religion is still unfinished, so my request was sincere. If you wish to continue, then I will listen.

P.S. I've noticed that people tend to argue from a position where they assume they know something about the other person; specifically, there is a tendency to assume the other person disagrees diametrically, and there is a tendency to assume they know everything about the other person. The last time I pointed this out, I was told that this is how it's done. I can't agree with that style of argumentation; is this a standard part of a curriculum somewhere I don't know of? I don't claim to be above this, but I feel I do it less often and less clearly than other people do.