tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7731758061883178414..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Chinwendu's tearsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1123957551439702242011-01-17T18:52:49.788-05:002011-01-17T18:52:49.788-05:00And to think, of all James White's polemic enc...<i>And to think, of all James White's polemic encounters, no one has stooped to Patrick's level.</i><br /><br /><i>Ad arguendo</i> that one has to "stoop" to Patrick's level, obviously Gottlob is totally unfamiliar with the history of numerous of White's opponents in the past. Their blatant usage of his sister's conversion to Rome comes to mind. Gottlob, if you want to be taken seriously, say things that are factual, please.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4648794063462612692011-01-17T08:23:58.381-05:002011-01-17T08:23:58.381-05:00Gottlob said:
"Just because something is pub...Gottlob said:<br /><br />"Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible. Do you agree with this basic distinction?"<br /><br />Of course, the logic is reversible. Why assume that Patrick's use is illegitimate or impermissible? Where's the argument?<br /><br />Rauser put this in the public domain for all the world to see. So what's the big deal?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73501389211965555232011-01-17T07:00:39.202-05:002011-01-17T07:00:39.202-05:00BTW, Bnonn has further responded over on his blog ...BTW, Bnonn has further responded over on his blog <a href="http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/why-wont-randal-rouser-answer-some-simple-questions/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60412639421241484912011-01-17T06:50:37.429-05:002011-01-17T06:50:37.429-05:00no one has stooped to Patrick's level
Alas, I...<b>no one has stooped to Patrick's level</b><br /><br />Alas, I'm the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world. Moreover, thanks to Gottlob taking drastic urinary measures against me, I'll no doubt soon be the urea of the planet as well. At this rate, I might as well dive headfirst into an outhouse pit in a Mumbai shanty town and end it all.<br /><br /><b>You continue to miss my point against Patrick, which is that common sense should have told him that a picture featuring Randal *and* his daughter was not appropriate for polemic purposes.</b><br /><br />1. Falling back on "common sense" in and of itself isn't an argument. Rather, what's sensible or insensible here is the very bone of contention.<br /><br />2. Plus, as Steve pointed out, Rauser is the one who indicated it was his daughter in the photo with him. It's not obvious to an unconnected party like me that it's his daughter.<br /><br /><b>Your argument is jejune.</b><br /><br />Well, your talk about pee is jejune! What's more, it reeks of toilet humor. Indeed, I take great umbrage that you'd bother bringing up urine in the first place, especially on a Christian blog. Common sense should have told you that talking about urinating on floors is not appropriate for polemic purposes. Good day, <i>sir</i>!Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26112881127359547342011-01-17T06:50:16.188-05:002011-01-17T06:50:16.188-05:00Gottlob said:
Just because something is public, i...Gottlob said:<br /><br /><b>Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible. Do you agree with this basic distinction?</b><br /><br />1. Of course, it doesn't have to be morally permissible. It can simply not be morally impermissible. It can be morally neutral.<br /><br />2. Even if I were to agree for the sake of argument that "Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible," it doesn't therefore exclude the possibility that <i>some</i> of its uses could be morally permissible. Or to put it another way: without further delineation the claim "just because something is public doesn't necessarily mean its use is morally permissible" is as reasonable as the claim "just because something is public doesn't necessarily mean its use is morally impermissible."<br /><br />3. So you'd need to explain how to adjudicate between what's morally permissible vs. impermissible here.<br /><br /><b>If not, do you condone urinating in the floor of public libraries?</b><br /><br />1. Importantly, just because something is a social faux pas, or just because something is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral.<br /><br />2. At the risk of stating the obvious, urinating on almost any floor - public library floor, private library floor, a florist's floor, the thirteenth floor (then again, maybe the poltergeist would give you this one) - is generally frowned upon! It'd be frowned upon even if you went into a restroom and relieved yourself on the restroom floor. In fact, perhaps more so, since you wouldn't exactly be very far from a urinal if you were in a restroom. Anyway, not only is your example irrelevant, but now I'm extremely wary of ever inviting you to my place since I take your example as a veiled micturitive threat against my clean and shiny dorm room floor!<br /><br />3. While we're on the topic, would urinating in public places always be immoral? Say you're driving across America. Say you're on a freeway in the middle of nowhere. Miles away from the nearest rest stop let alone town. Say you really had to pee. Would it be immoral to pull over on the side of the road, duck behind a tree or some other object that'd give you cover, and relieve yourself?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30997105617228823572011-01-17T04:46:55.177-05:002011-01-17T04:46:55.177-05:00Gottlob: >>You continue to miss my point aga...Gottlob: >>You continue to miss my point against Patrick,...<<<br /><br />So, Gottlob, does that then give you the green light - <i>yellow</i> light, rather - to <i>piss</i> the point with your peepee analogy?<br /><br />*rimshot* Thank you, ladiesn'gennelmen, I'll be here all weekend. Tip your waitress.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5003384970672324902011-01-16T21:13:08.103-05:002011-01-16T21:13:08.103-05:00I'd add that Randal is the one who identified ...I'd add that Randal is the one who identified the girl as his daughter. What's obvious to him isn't obvious to a bystander.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82987450248176509642011-01-16T18:22:33.917-05:002011-01-16T18:22:33.917-05:00Bnonn,
Just because something is public, it follo...Bnonn,<br /><br />Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible. Do you agree with this basic distinction?<br /><br />If not, do you condone urinating in the floor of public libraries? After all, if they didn't want you to urinate on the floor, you'd think they'd station guards in every room. Why wouldn't they provide such basic protection of their facilities? <br /><br />Perhaps posting family pictures on the internet isn't wise...you should contact James White of Alpha and Omega ministries and tell him what a fool he is. Actually, I'll just forward him your comments, so he's clear on your opinion of him having pictures of his daughter on the website. And to think, of all James White's polemic encounters, no one has stooped to Patrick's level.<br /><br />Had those pictures been private and Patrick acquired them, then he'd be guilty on two counts and not one. You have attempted to argue that he is only guilty of one count if he's guilty of both. Your argument is jejune. <br /><br />You continue to miss my point against Patrick, which is that common sense should have told him that a picture featuring Randal *and* his daughter was not appropriate for polemic purposes. If you can't see why this violates common decency (much less Christian decency among professing believers), then you are "naive and stupid."<br /><br />If <i>espousing high moral ideals and failing to meet them</i> is what makes one a hypocrite, it looks like all Christians are. You'll need to distinguish how Randal is any different, or else admit your own hypocrisy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08925810228631136599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36334816999664410972011-01-16T16:34:23.818-05:002011-01-16T16:34:23.818-05:00Gottlob, how was it inappropriate of Patrick to us...Gottlob, how was it inappropriate of Patrick to use a photo which Randal himself put online?<br /><br />Firstly, it wasn't a picture of Randal's daughter. It was a picture of Randal <em>with</em> his daughter. So it's not as if Patrick was singling <em>her</em> out; rather, he was singling out Randal, and happened to use a picture that also featured his daughter, because the setting of that picture was the most ironic one he could find. Ie, Randal constantly gets on his high horse about social justice, the plight of the poor etc, berating us for not taking a more active role in solving these problems (as if he knows what we do already). Yet he has photos taken of himself sitting in coffee-houses that are probably parts of a franchise that has wiped out countless local coffee shops, sipping a latte made with coffee beans which are undoubtedly not fair trade. In other words, Randal is a hypocrite.<br /><br />Secondly, if Randal didn't want his daughter's picture on the internet, then he shouldn't have put it there! But since he did, I don't see how using that picture (when his daughter is not even the focus) is a problem. This just suggests how naive and stupid Randal is. He puts photos of his loved ones online, but then has a fit when someone posts them somewhere else. That's just idiotic. Randal doesn't have enough sense to protect his daughter in this basic way? I'm glad my parents were not as thick as he is.Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35815366573220502152011-01-16T15:33:37.697-05:002011-01-16T15:33:37.697-05:00As Steve pointed out, Rauser is a playactor.
Well...<i>As Steve pointed out, Rauser is a playactor.</i><br /><br />Well, I'd say Steve is being <b>extremely</b> gracious with his characterization, because after carefully reading through all the various related articles and combox discussions Rauser comes across to me as an emotional bully, and a straight up punk.<br /><br />I realize this will probably not strike some as a particularly "charitable" observation, but it's my well considered opinion.<br /><br />Were Randal Rauser and Glenn Peoples separated at birth? Birds of a feather...<br /><br />In Him,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84515428754827338232011-01-16T12:14:15.669-05:002011-01-16T12:14:15.669-05:00TUTD,
I agree it does apply to Randal...and all m...TUTD,<br /><br />I agree it does apply to Randal...and all men. It's the Gospel.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08925810228631136599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38226816343486249052011-01-16T12:09:53.537-05:002011-01-16T12:09:53.537-05:00Aztexan,
There is none righteous, no not one. If ...Aztexan,<br /><br />There is none righteous, no not one. If reminding each other of this constitutes self-righteousness, there can be no preaching or exhortation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08925810228631136599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1556844182129683902011-01-16T12:05:46.458-05:002011-01-16T12:05:46.458-05:00The following is applicable to Randal Rauser:
&qu...The following is applicable to Randal Rauser:<br /><br />"Your lips are dripping with vitriol and hatred, why? Seek Christ and his grace, so that you can be liberated from your self-righteousness project."<br /><br />Hat tip: GottlobTruth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88885840235721809822011-01-16T12:03:09.810-05:002011-01-16T12:03:09.810-05:00Aztexan,
There is none righteous, no not one. If...Aztexan,<br /><br />There is none righteous, no not one. If reminding each other of this constitutes self-righteousness, there can be no preaching or exhortation.<br /><br />TUTD has been spouting off at the mouth for some time now, and someone needs to call him/her out. <br /><br />Just the other day someone thought TUTD was calling Carl Trueman a liberal. TUTD was really just spouting off in detest of liberals.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08925810228631136599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76413459187065130272011-01-16T10:53:51.693-05:002011-01-16T10:53:51.693-05:00>>Your lips are dripping with vitriol and ha...>>Your lips are dripping with vitriol and hatred, why? Seek Christ and his grace, so that you can be liberated from your self-righteousness project.<<<br /><br />Have you "Gott" any idea how self-righteous you sound? You <i>must</i> be making an ironic joke. Right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50998247052263043362011-01-16T10:37:33.450-05:002011-01-16T10:37:33.450-05:00Patrick Chan,
Something is wrong with your brain ...Patrick Chan,<br /><br />Something is wrong with your brain if it never registered that attaching pics of Randal with his little girl to a polemic piece wasn't a good idea. It is just basic common sense dude. And yes, I'm being sarcastic about your brain...sarcasm is ok. I grant that your intentions/motives were good. I just think that you used bad judgement. I suggest that you admit it as a bad decision, and maybe Mr. Rauser will admit some things he did wrong. And then you chaps can have a real debate, instead of a food fight.<br /><br />Truth United and Divides,<br /><br />Your lips are dripping with vitriol and hatred, why? Seek Christ and his grace, so that you can be liberated from your self-righteousness project.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08925810228631136599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39545475426008936562011-01-16T09:09:27.730-05:002011-01-16T09:09:27.730-05:00"Plus, I could make the same allegation of in...<i>"Plus, I could make the same allegation of inappropriateness about what Rauser originally wrote and on which my satire was based. Here's what Rauser originally wrote: "her legs had been amputated and somebody had rammed a large blade up her vagina." So, if what I wrote was inappropriate, then wouldn't what Rauser first wrote be inappropriate as well? How is "an 8 year old being lobotomized" inappropriate, while "legs . . . amputated" and "a large blade [rammed] up her vagina" appropriate or at least less inappropriate?<br /><br />So I ask: why is my posting the picture I posted wrong while Rauser posting the picture he posted fine?"</i><br /><br />Your questions point out that Professor Rauser is a Liberal Pharisee Hypocrite.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46890255547356581402011-01-16T09:09:05.534-05:002011-01-16T09:09:05.534-05:00P. Chan: >>What's more, her prowess in c...P. Chan: >>What's more, her prowess in combat easily surpasses Mace Windu's. :-)<<<br /><br />I had wondered if they might be related! A lady who can kick some tail <i>and</i> sell the hell outta some malt liquor is definitely my kinda gal!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32333007505342577782011-01-16T08:44:27.296-05:002011-01-16T08:44:27.296-05:00Well, I confess to playing the wiseacre, myself. Y...Well, I confess to playing the wiseacre, myself. You see, in the comm-box of "The Day Mother Africa Cried and Dr. Z's Soul Died" (or whatever), I openly questioned the <i>real</i> reason behind the good doctor's apostasy. If memory serves it went along these lines:<br /><br /><i>Are we quite positive that Dr. Z lost his (obviously spurious) "faith" due to the tragedy Randal unfolds? Could it be the trauma that put Z "off of God" was years of daily dealings with all that Third World p[*$$]y? "Yoinks!" indeed. "Nurse! Purell and a barf bag, stat!" every day for years. Just saying.</i><br /><br />Now, I didn't use "*$$" in place of letters. But this was on a <i>liberal</i> forum, and that particular nickname is as tame as it is ancient. And while the essence of my quip might be considered crude by some knee-jerkers, I don't see how it wouldn't have made just as much sense had Z been a proctologist, urologist or, for that matter, a dentist. It was not <i>I</i>, after all, who chose to make Z an OBGYN.<br /><br />It would seem Mr. Rauser objects strongly to feline euphemisms for the v**ina, but has no qualms about yanking our heartstrings - or firing our gag reflex - by graphically describing the mutilation of same.<br /><br />Rauser, I demand you cease and desist this fascist censorship! A man has a right to be heard, and we will not accept your dictatorial tyranny, you oppressive pig! We demand hope and change we can believe in! We shall overcome! YES WE CAN!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37450546639258687262011-01-16T08:00:11.171-05:002011-01-16T08:00:11.171-05:00Hm, that's a real shame! But please feel free ...Hm, that's a real shame! But please feel free to post your comment here if you like, aztexan (if you don't already have your own blog or don't want to post it there or whatever).<br /><br />I don't know that I can answer her real vs. fictional status. But as far as her uncanny wisdom and sense, I'd say Chinwendu would find a kindred spirit in Botswana's Mma Precious Ramotswe. What's more, her prowess in combat easily surpasses Mace Windu's. :-)Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21618837400706042982011-01-16T03:51:58.612-05:002011-01-16T03:51:58.612-05:00Drah. Muh. The good prof even deleted my contribut...Drah. Muh. The good prof even deleted my contribution to the discussion, which contribution <i>I thought</i> was a perfectly fair question. Apparently our Randy's liberal sensibilities run just so deep. Oh, well.<br /><br />Do you believe "Chinwendu" is legit, or some wiseacre making a point? Either way, I <i>love</i> it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com