Wade and Shermer

[_beastie]

It wasn't imagined at all, is was explicitly stated by you in the words "in fact". (Bolded so you don't mis the clear reference to what it was you were asking for).

Is English your native language? Seriously. You act as if you are incapable of understanding the context of words. You've done this with "at odds" and "odd", and now with this.

In fact, (tee hee) you act as if you interpret each word within the sentence in a purely literal fashion, without the ability to synthesize the words in a sensible manner.

So, again, you thought I was asking you to provide an authoritative FACT. Where did you imagine I expected you to get this FACT? Is there some Big Fact Book that you imagined I wanted you to check?

"In fact" actually can simply mean "in reality". The reality is that the vast majority of human beings would agree that men having sex with young boys is destructive and unhealthy. That's the "in fact".

Adv. 1. in fact - in reality or actuality; "in fact, it was a wonder anyone survived"; "painters who are in fact anything but unsophisticated"; "as a matter of fact, he is several inches taller than his father"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+fact

Honestly, if you're not using this as some game, it is IN FACT quite strange that the implied meaning of my question escaped you. OF COURSE I WAS ASKING YOUR OPINION.

I don't know what you are talking about? I didn'tt insist that those words be used, and reasonable people wouldn't think that I had. I simply declined conceding to your potentially misleading use of the word "fact", and rephrased your question so as to avoid potentially misleading.

Are you sure you teach comprehension skills?

You refused to answer the question until you rephrased them with the words IN YOUR OPINION.

Again, you act as if English isn't your native language.

Yes, I teach comprehension skills, and yes, you need them.

I don't know for sure? It depends on the strength and nature of the verification. It's possible that I might change my opinion after reasoning the matter through. However, I tend not to give such valueless (to me) hypotheticals much thought, since they tend not to reflect my experience in this world.

<<<-----------------------see avatar

(man, I'm finding a lot of use for this avatar)

Well, at least you admit that all your morals are relative, based on what God tells you is OK or not. That's the type of thinking that leads people to plow airplanes into buildings.

As for me, if "God" told me that it was fine and dandy for men to have sex with young boys, I would conclude that God was not worthy of worship.

[_wenglund]

Hi Beastie,

It would take too much time to go through each of your insinuations about me in regards to the phrase "in fact" and di-convolute them (you unwittingly reaching the zenith of irony when wondering if English is my native language), and such an enterprise would likely go uncomprehended and tortured by you as usual.

Suffice it to say that while I am fully aware of the connotation you noted, and figured the implied meaning of your question, I am also aware of how the phrase can be misunderstood when used in different ways in a given sentence, and I am also aware of your pathalogical propensity to misunderstand and mischaracterize what I say (your last post being just one in a long string of cases in point). It is for this reason (i.e to avoid misunderstandings and mischaracterizations), and not as a game, that I chose to rephrase your questions. You would have know this were you capable of comprehending my explicit and repeated explanation for why I chose to avoid phrasing things the way you did (see where I speak of "misleading" above)

Oh well.

I don't know for sure? It depends on the strength and nature of the verification. It's possible that I might change my opinion after reasoning the matter through. However, I tend not to give such valueless (to me) hypotheticals much thought, since they tend not to reflect my experience in this world.

<<<-----------------------see avatar

(man, I'm finding a lot of use for this avatar)

Well, at least you admit that all your morals are relative, based on what God tells you is OK or not. That's the type of thinking that leads people to plow airplanes into buildings.

As for me, if "God" told me that it was fine and dandy for men to have sex with young boys, I would conclude that God was not worthy of worship.

One cannot rationally interpret from my qualified response to a specific, though unrealistic hypothetical, that all my morals are relative (such would, at the very least consitute the fallacy of composition). Nor can one reasonably surmize that my uncertain and rationally dependant response is the kind of thinking that leads people to plow airplanes into buildings (such would, at the very least constitute the fallacy of non sequitur). However, one may come to such conclusions by wildly misconstruing what I have said, or by thinking like a monkey (yes, you are getting plenty of use out of your avatar, and rightly so--though for different reasons than you may "think").

The bright side, though, is that this time you didn't falsely accuse me of not answering the question. That is at least some progress.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

One cannot rationally interpret from my qualified response to a specific, though unrealistic hypothetical, that all my morals are relative

Oh forgive me. You're right. I can only conclude that your morals about adult men having sex with young boys are relative.

But wait. If you believe in the Book of Mormon, then you also have relative morals about killing people. (Nephi/Laban)

If you believe Joseph Smith's polygamous activities were divinely sanctioned, you also have relative morals about sexuality in general.

Perhaps it would be easier for you to explain which of your morals are NOT relative. Which moral guideline would you NOT abandon if told to do so by God?

[_beastie]

It would take too much time to go through each of your insinuations about me in regards to the phrase "in fact" and di-convolute them (you unwittingly reaching the zenith of irony when wondering if English is my native language), and such an enterprise would likely go uncomprehended and tortured by you as usual.

Well, durn. Does that mean you're not going to share the location of the Authoritative Fact Book?

IN FACT, Wade, it gives me the skeevies that you insisted on qualifying your responses with IN MY OPINION, and then stated perhaps this opinion could change if mandated by God.

[_harmony]

I don't know for sure? It depends on the strength and nature of the verification. It's possible that I might change my opinion after reasoning the matter through.

You don't know for sure how you'd react to such a pronouncement coming over the pulpit? You could accept something so repulsive, something so damaging, just because a man told you God said so?

This isn't accepting polygamy, where at least the participants were adults. This isn't even a lifting of the ban on homosexual encounters where again the participants are adults. This is being required to accept sexual activity between adult men and children, and you can't give it an unqualified HELL, NO!?

Good WTFing Grief! My respect-for-Wade-o-meter just bottomed out.