All religions are dangerous?

[_Moniker]

"As I said though rereading last night the thread and JAK's post again, made me appreciate just how brilliant he is." - marg

"You've been bamboozled." - Tarski

Priceless stuff in that discussion. I bumped it in the celestial forum.

I read that thread (a few times) and followed it closely as it was occurring. Funny thing-- it made me appreciate just how brilliant Tarski is.

[_Moniker]

marg

Kevin you are again misunderstanding JAK's position, he is not claiming every theist is dangerous.

dart

He said all religions are dangerous marg. I don't know why you're trying to save him from himself. This is what he said, and he should be held accountable. Let him back it up or denounce it. There is nothing unreasonable in this request.

Do you not see the flaw in your representation of what JAK stated and that which marg identified above, dart? JAK's statement (that you quoted in your OP) pertains to "all religions" not "all theists" as marg describes above. While you continue to offer challenge based on the hypothetical "Joe Blow" or more recently yourself, the more applicable challenge in terms of JAK's statement that "all religions are dangerous" would be "What does Joe Blow's religion teach him to do?

Tell me that you see that, dart.

Haven't been following closely. So, I likely should not reply. Yet, JAK stated this:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

He says religions are dangerous because they do such and such a thing -- to what? To the religion? NO -- to an individual. It strips from an INDIVIDUAL the intellect and replaces it with dogma. So, yes, it would boil down to an individual theist in the simplest sense. Religion isn't dangerous without the theists that it is stripping intellect from. Right???

Moniker,

I've been following this thread since it started and have read every single post here. While the majority of posts are quite lengthy, I don't recall a single instance where JAK claimed that all theists lack critical thinking or evaluation skills. Do you?

The quote that dart used for the basis of this thread is a statement on the nature/influence of religion and it's dogma, not a wholesale write off of the intellect of theists. dart's attempt to individualize/personalize the statement is where it goes wrong.

I've read every page but the current one -- just caught the tail end. I only looked to his original statement. Whose intellect is being stripped? It comes down to his statement that religions "seek to destroy the intellect" -- whose? The individual.

I have not stated that JAK said, "all theists lack critical or evaluation skills". I replied that JAK made a statement -- that religion seeks to destroy intellect.

I think individualizing the statement is appropriate. Religion is not some glob of goo -- it is made of people. How do you separate what he says religion does -- from those very people that are on the receiving end of the religion?

JAK does apparently believe the Amish are dangerous because their religion requires them to ride in buggies -- this is a behavior that he said is dangerous. He never came back to my points. He ACTUALLY relied on ONE individual acting in a reckless manner to then say that the entire Amish community is dangerous because of it. It's in an early post -- surely you caught that?

Moniker,

Please re-read the exact words which I addressed to you. You will find nothing in those words in context to warrant your statement here:

Moniker stated:
JAK does apparently believe the Amish are dangerous because their religion requires them to ride in buggies -- this is a behavior that he said is dangerous. He never came back to my points. He ACTUALLY relied on ONE individual acting in a reckless manner to then say that the entire Amish community is dangerous because of it. It's in an early post -- surely you caught that?

None of my comments reflect this misrepresentation. It was you who used an illustration of your on-the-road-encounter with the Amish. Not only did I respond to that statement, I later quoted you verbatim regarding that encounter.

The causal link to danger was never stated by me regarding the Amish interpretation of Christianity. It continues as a straw man attack on what was never stated.

My repeated statement to you was this:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

The danger in religion is from minimization of reason and evidence in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence.

Why you persist in this straw man attack is a puzzle. The principle is the recognition and use of information as opposed to the insistence on doctrine and dogma which is counter to available evidence and information.

Religion tends to market dogma and doctrine. In that, we find “Dangers of Religion” my topic title in another thread which was repackaged by dart for this thread.

JAK

Why won't you reply to dart? Why do you keep replying to me?

I am NOT making a straw man attack! You replied to my one man in an Amish buggy and said this showed the danger of the Amish religion.

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

The Amish were in that buggy as a result of religious belief(s). Thus, yes to your question: “Really?”

Yes. It demonstrates that religion, religious practice and beliefs are dangerous.

The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them.

YOU said it! I said you said it. You say that the buggy driving is a "practice" is a danger to themselves and others. You said it a few times but I'm too lazy to go look for every quote of you saying it. Why do you insist on saying you did not say it? There is NO tenet of the Amish that tells them to drive recklessly. You took one story on ONE individual (that is Amish) and said this demonstrates that the Amish are "a danger not only to themselves" but to me as well.

Can someone explain (other than JAK) where my strawman is. If he says it, I says he says it -- how is that a strawman???

[Guest]

JAK - with all due respect, you said:

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

Forgetting whether your conclusion is true or false, this is a claim that you made. And is the claim that Moniker was / is addressing.
In one sense, of course the buggy driver presented 'some' danger - he was on the road in the first place! Any vehicle on the road presents some danger. Surely such an observation isn't worthy of any debate. But what hasn't been demonstrated is that the danger presented in Monikers 'story' was due to the driver being Amish. As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with anything.

Go to New York, and ask for a 'horse-drawn' ride round the city. The 'driver' probably won't be Amish.
If Amish don't pose any more reasonable level of danger than anybody else poses (if they were to also choose to drive badly), then where is the actual point?

Moniker actually ended that original claim with:
"Does this mean anything? No."

As far as I understand it, she was just sharing a story practically as a joke! (Correct me if I'm wrong Mon). The joke being that anybody would actually blame the Amish for dangerous behaviour based on that incident! One bad buggy-driver does not a dangerous religion (or religious attitude) make. If you deny that is what you were arguing, can I respectfully ask you to look at the direct quote not more than 10 lines up?

I know we've been over the 'relative' dangers. But there are relative dangers in all modes of transportation. From horse-drawn buggies, to motor-bikes, to stupidly powerful sports cars. Being on the road AT ALL is dangerous. But either way, you did make the claim that Monikers story was an example of Amish 'danger' - specifically. Whereas I - and many others - would simply catagorise it as the dangers of driving a horse-drawn buggy badly!

But whatever the conclusion of your original assertion, I can't for the life of me see how Moniker is involved in a 'straw-man argument' if she attempts to refute that conclusion.

[_JAK]

Are all believers in God participants in religion?

According to JAK, they must be. That's why I'm know I'm not "misrepresenting" him.

He did say, after all, "Theists rely on the doctrine and dogma ready-made by the myth-makers who invented the myths."

So it seems for JAK, theists cannot be so easily divorced from religion.

Just calm down and wait for him to respond. No matter how he responds, one of you will be embarassed. I'm guessing it will be him.

Incidentally, I was perusing some old threads and came across a similar discussion where JAK was trying to speak on logic, when Calculus Crusader and Tarski mopped the floors with him. This wasn't surprising, but what did surprise me is that it seemed to be the flip side of this discussion because marg was there at JAK's side through the entire embarrassing ordeal, defending him at every turn, calling him brilliant, rejecting Tarski's hilarious refutations.

I mean come on now. Now I feel better knowing that Tarski and Gad had a similar excruciating experience with JAK; they came extremely close to calling JAK an idiot on several occassions.

I was laughing so hard through that discussion, especially around page 8 it got really hilarious when someone called in Tarski to refute CC, and it turned out Tarski agreed with him and thgen started making JAK look foolish for ever thinking he was qualified to speak on the matter. It got especially funny when GAD busted JAK for plagiarizing a citation from, you guessed it, another website, while passing it off as something he said himself- just trying to sound smart I guess.

"JAK, yeah, he finally signs on to wiki and presents an analysis, but maybe he'd be better off going back to his role of quote-mining anything on the internet that's of no relevance to the discussion? " - Gad

"JAK, you absolutely do not know how to correctly identify relevant fallacies. The jig is up. You are the kind of person it is useless to debate. A person armed with the ability to cut and paste and access the wiki and google. I bet you would doggedly debate quantum field theory with me too wouldn't you." - Tarski

"After all your bloviating, it turns out you don't know the difference between valid and sound? Priceless! An argument can be valid without being sound." - Tarski

"Tarski you are incorrect to think JAK doesn't understand sound, valid form, and what ad hominem fallacy is." - marg

"As I said though rereading last night the thread and JAK's post again, made me appreciate just how brilliant he is." - marg

"You've been bamboozled." - Tarski

Priceless stuff in that discussion. I bumped it in the celestial forum.

Be advised, dart,

In your misstatements and inaccurate reference to what I have stated, you consistently “poison the well” (logical fallacy) as marg so aptly observed.

You have yet to preface a comment: according to JAK and express with accuracy what JAK actually said nor have you been inclusive of the context.

You have yet to quote with accuracy the centrality of what I actually stated:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

In conjunction with that: Truth by assertion is unreliable. Religions rely on truth by assertion. That is the case historically back hundreds of centuries. In the absence of accurate and reliable information, religions have invented myths.

Again, historically, but closer to our time, it is religion which must revise to comply with the genuine discovery that objective, clear, transparent, and skeptically reviewed study produces. Science does not conforms to religious dogma. Rather, religious dogma is revised as a result of that objective, clear, transparent, and skeptically reviewed study. The process of doctrinal shifts in religion is generally slow. Myths have not been on the cutting edge of information and cumulative knowledge.

Perhaps you don’t really understand it, and that’s why you avoid issues. No personal attack, name calling, etc. is an honest address of issues before you. None of your ad hominem posts address the points. They evade them.

Such substitution of personal attack rather the address of issues and accurate representation of what was said is sufficient reason to cease any address. Such are my reasons for not addressing most of your posts.

As others have observed in support of my comments, religions do rely on doctrine and dogma. They declare truth absent evidence or fact. It’s a flawed and inaccurate method for reliable discovery or conclusion.

JAK

[_Moniker]

Moniker actually ended that original claim with:
"Does this mean anything? No."

As far as I understand it, she was just sharing a story practically as a joke! (Correct me if I'm wrong Mon). The joke being that anybody would actually blame the Amish for dangerous behaviour based on that incident! One bad buggy-driver does not a dangerous religion (or religious attitude) make.

Let's make this simple for all:

75% of my posts I am being silly! 20% there is silliness incorporated within some slight seriousness -- let's just call it me being a smart ass. 3% is me rambling on about stuff that will later be deleted. The remaining 2% might be a stern sort of, "I'm thinking here" type of posts.

You can all make your own determination as to which category the above paragraph fits.

[_JAK]

JAK - with all due respect, you said:

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

Forgetting whether your conclusion is true or false, this is a claim that you made. And is the claim that Moniker was / is addressing.
In one sense, of course the buggy driver presented 'some' danger - he was on the road in the first place! Any vehicle on the road presents some danger. Surely such an observation isn't worthy of any debate. But what hasn't been demonstrated is that the danger presented in Monikers 'story' was due to the driver being Amish. As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with anything.

Go to New York, and ask for a 'horse-drawn' ride round the city. The 'driver' probably won't be Amish.
If Amish don't pose any more reasonable level of danger than anybody else poses (if they were to also choose to drive badly), then where is the actual point?

Moniker actually ended that original claim with:
"Does this mean anything? No."

As far as I understand it, she was just sharing a story practically as a joke! (Correct me if I'm wrong Mon). The joke being that anybody would actually blame the Amish for dangerous behaviour based on that incident! One bad buggy-driver does not a dangerous religion (or religious attitude) make. If you deny that is what you were arguing, can I respectfully ask you to look at the direct quote not more than 10 lines up?

I know we've been over the 'relative' dangers. But there are relative dangers in all modes of transportation. From horse-drawn buggies, to motor-bikes, to stupidly powerful sports cars. Being on the road AT ALL is dangerous. But either way, you did make the claim that Monikers story was an example of Amish 'danger' - specifically. Whereas I - and many others - would simply catagorise it as the dangers of driving a horse-drawn buggy badly!

But whatever the conclusion of your original assertion, I can't for the life of me see how Moniker is involved in a 'straw-man argument' if she attempts to refute that conclusion.

Incorrect analysis, ROP.

Moniker writes:
HA! Just yesterday one brave (foolish) Amish man veered straight into my path! I had to quickly apply my brakes and swerve, and those behind me followed suit! I was going about 55 (the speed limit) and his horse and buggy darted right in front of me to go to the other side of the road. On my way home I wanted to pass a large semi on a hill and turned on my blinker to give notice that I was going to enter the right lane. Woops! There was a buggy right in front of me in that lane. SWERVED back in to the left lane.

Moniker writes:
Uh, so if they present a danger then we need to get rid of all automobiles? WHAT? So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous? Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT???? (bold emphasis to show your position)

I addressed Moniker’s example directly quoting her. Do you see the bold emphasis in the quote above? It’s a direct quote form Moniker.

I merely took her example and identified the danger inherent in horses and buggies on roads built for 55 MPH speeds for cars and trucks. The practice of using horses and buggies (in Moniker's example) is a practice drawn from religions dogma. There are many other practices drawn from religion which might be cited. Moniker used this one. I addressed it. (Your reference to a horse drawn ride in NYC is irrelevant to the use and religious doctrine which produces the use of horses by Amish in Moniker's example.)

GoodK observed that the Amish do not educate their youth beyond the 8th grade. Why? It’s because they oppose education on religious grounds. That opposition to education places their youth at risk. Information and education facilitate power. Absence of education do what? It reduces power. It reduces power over one's environment, one's access to information, and one's opportunity to make fuller use of information available. Therein lies "Dangers of religion."

Absence of education and information is ignorance. Hence “Dangers of Religion.”

What is relevant here is the principle of information and education vs. ignorance. The illustration/example was only that and Moniker admitted that there was danger in her statement above. "So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous?" Moniker. I responded to her "so what" question directly.

That there are other dangers in other situations is irrelevant to the “Dangers of Religion” thread which was started previously. To offer up multiple dangers not connected with religion in no way minimizes the “Dangers of Religion” as religion uses truth by assertion as basis for its doctrines and dogmas.

Truth by assertion fails as an accurate, reliable path. Wherein religion promotes misinformation and ignorance, religion poses danger to those who are so indoctrinated.

Again, it was never a contention that dangers do not occur in situations which are relatively removed from religious dogma and indoctrination.

She did not appear to tell the “story” as a joke in the discussion we were having about “Dangers of Religion.” Nor did she (Moniker) follow up as if she had told treated it as a joke. Exactly the opposite was the case. She used the reference as an attack on the principle expressed in “Dangers of Religion.” It became a major argument by Moniker, however it in no way addressed the principle that:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

This is the principle contention which has not been refuted or even addressed as some individual posts have resorted to off-topic tangents as well as ad hominem. Such tactics are an evasion of the issue presented.

The additions to the principle restated above are these:

Truth by assertion is unreliable. Religions rely on truth by assertion.

JAK

[_Some Schmo]

It is a very time consuming task to correct misrepresentations and when done repeatedly as you have done in this thread, it indicates high probability of intellectual dishonesty through diversionary disingenuous tactics. The fact that you are lying and claiming I said I accused everyone of misrepresentation in that thread in the Celestial forum is evidence to me of your lack of integrity in discussion. I don't think that was a mere slip up.

...

But no, you with your lack on integrity in discussion choose to distort once again JAK's position. Why am I bothering wasting my time responding to you? You simply are not worth it.

This is an excellent and accurate articulation of exactly what I was thinking the last time dart responded to me. Like I said, I was about to go through and address all his comments, but the dude refuses to acknowledge the forest because of all those damn trees, and it's just not worth correcting him.

I think one of the major problems with this entire thread is that there is no common agreement on what people mean when they use the words "danger" and "dangerous." It seems to me that some are using it to mean physical danger while others are using it in more general terms (it can be considered dangerous to my marriage to tell my wife her butt looks fat in those jeans, for instance).

The discussion is rendered useless when people are arguing with there own pet interpretation of the word (which favors their position) in mind rather than an agreed upon definition. Maybe it was outlined before and I missed it, but I'm pretty sure we don't even have agreement on that one important parameter.

[_JAK]

Moniker actually ended that original claim with:
"Does this mean anything? No."

As far as I understand it, she was just sharing a story practically as a joke! (Correct me if I'm wrong Mon). The joke being that anybody would actually blame the Amish for dangerous behaviour based on that incident! One bad buggy-driver does not a dangerous religion (or religious attitude) make.

Let's make this simple for all:

75% of my posts I am being silly! 20% there is silliness incorporated within some slight seriousness -- let's just call it me being a smart ass. 3% is me rambling on about stuff that will later be deleted. The remaining 2% might be a stern sort of, "I'm thinking here" type of posts.

You can all make your own determination as to which category the above paragraph fits.

Moniker,

It seems to me that this gives you the Dick Cheney plausible denial for any statement you make.

If you intend it seriously, but it is established by analysis to be incorrect, you can just say you were
“being silly.”

If you are able to establish a thoughtful valid position, it’s “I'm thinking here.”

Unless you clearly distinguish one from the other, misunderstanding is a certainty.

I addressed your comments as they appeared on the screen. Absent an on-screen clarity that I’m joking, I took your comments at face value as if they were intended to be intelligent, thoughtful observation.

Perhaps that’s a hazard particularly for me in that I have participated in discussions which were intended to be thoughtful address of issues.

With close to 1,500 posts on this forum (nearly double mind), how should I treat your statement here? Is this one of your “silly” posts as you present percentages, or is this a serious post (one of the “2%”)?

It looks as if you are serious. But with only “2%” of your posts “I'm thinking here,” that would make this post in the minority of your posts.

By no means have I read all your posts. So, I only know what I see on the screen in a given post.

I don’t attempt to judge that post by an invisible standard, but rather by exactly the words you place on the screen.

Anyone coming in new to this form has only what they see before them. They cannot know the history of a given person who has more than 1,000 posts on the forum.

Hence, they have only what they see on the screen as they come in.

In the threaded format, it’s easy to see clearly that a given post is directly linked as response to another post. Here, all posts show at the end. In this particular thread we now have (last count) 10 pages of posts. Finding a particular post to cite it specifically is not easy. Further, it’s time consuming. Since I have limited time to participate here, I must rely on those posts which I have read and that is nearly always fewer posts than have been made (unless someone has less than 10 for example). People who have 1,000 and more posts have written that which I have not seen nor is it possible for me to see all of those posts.

So, perhaps it’s best if I take you at your word and conclude that 95% of your posts are as you describe them.

It was likely, then, my error to regard so many posts as “I’m thinking here” posts to which I responded as if they were “I’m thinking here.”

JAK

[_Ren]

Incorrect analysis, ROP.

I had a feeling you might say that :)
But don't worry, I'm getting used to the disappointment of being told that I 'just don't get it' ;)

I merely took her example and identified the danger inherent in horses and buggies on roads built for 55 MPH speeds for cars and trucks.

Except the danger involved in her story was a buggy-driver pulling out in front of her - which is dangerous driving. So the example Moniker provided didn't demonstrate that point.

Moniker - I think you may have to tell the 100's of other stories where you managed to drive into town, and not have the Amish running around in front of you like crazy cowboys on a regular basis.
Otherwise, it may well be that the entire Amish reality is determined by that one story. *shrug*

The practice of using horses and buggies (in Moniker's example) is a practice drawn from religions dogma.

I don't accept that using a horse and buggy to ride around is more inherently dangerous than other forms of transportation in any significant way, as long as the driver sticks to the rules of the road. My New York horse-and-cart example is relevant to that. If you are going to be declaring that 'dangerous' as well, then good for you. At least you are consistent. But you may well be a bit alone in that opinion.

Are you aware of any movements amongst New Yorkers to ban the horse-and-cart rides? Cos they aren't 'necessary', and if the danger is as 'clear and present' as you claim (especially in a massive, busy metropolitan area like Central New York, with 1000's of cars all over the place...), then it wouldn't seem worth it to keep running them.
Are New Yorkers unable to process information sensibly?

There are many other practices drawn from religion which might be cited.

I'm sure there are. But the point of my reply was to address the accusation that Moniker was attacking a 'straw-man'. You can consider her attack 'unsuccessful' if you like, but it wasn't an attack on a straw-man. She was tackling a point you made...

I addressed it.

And is refuting the conclusion you came to. Again - doesn't matter whether (in your mind) she was successful or not. She wasn't attacking a straw-man. She was contending a conclusion that you DID come to.

(Your reference to a horse drawn ride in NYC is irrelevant to the use and religious doctrine which produces the use of horses by Amish in Moniker's example.)

Like other examples I have provided, it is relevant to your declaration of using a horse and buggy on the same roads as modern vehicles 'dangerous'.
I do not accept that the horse-and-cart rides of New York are significantly 'dangerous'. And if a Catholic cart driver in New York were to do something 'silly' in a similar way to Moniker's story, it would have nothing to do with the fact that they are Catholic.

GoodK observed that the Amish do not educate their youth beyond the 8th grade. Why? It’s because they oppose education on religious grounds.

Now this is an observation that is actually worth talking about! All I've been trying to do thus far is reach a conclusion on the 'buggy' issue. Which frankly, should be dead already. Perhaps you believe that too. (Although we might disagree on the reasons why...)

That opposition to education places their youth at risk.

If those kids were to attempt to live outside of their community, then I could see that. But if they are going to be living inside their community, then no - I don't see that. A less 'complex' life doesn't need as 'complex' an education.
Don't get me wrong - I do see concerns there. But 'dangerous'? Nope - not seeing that as accurate.

I'll tell you what I DO see as dangerous about the Amish lifestyle. No.1 on my list would be the isolation of some Amish communities - to the point of having genetic problems in offspring. That certainly is a worry to me, and I'd certainly be willing to call that 'dangerous'.
If some of them do not seek medical help 'from the outside', then I'd also see an issue there. But I believe as Moniker pointed out, these days most of them do. (If I'm wrong on that though, then of course my opinion may change).

I'm perfectly willing to accept some 'dangers' may be involved in the Amish lifestyle. I'm just not willing to:

a. Declare any little 'quirk' or 'cultural difference' to be a 'danger' just because it's different.
b. Ignore all the inherent dangers in our 'Oh-so-advanced' secular society. You haven't once addressed the point I've made that cars producing pollution and greenhouse gases can easily be argued to be far more dangerous than the Amish driving horse-drawn buggies. If anything, the modern world should be learning something from them...!

"So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous?" Moniker. I responded to her "so what" question directly.

But you only responded to one part of it. The part directly afterwards was:

"Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT????"

To offer up multiple dangers not connected with religion in no way minimizes the “Dangers of Religion” as religion uses truth by assertion as basis for its doctrines and dogmas.

I'm trying to determine if what you declare to be 'a danger' does actually deserve to be called 'a danger' in any significant way.
That is perfectly relevant to the discussion.

She did not appear to tell the “story” as a joke in the discussion we were having about “Dangers of Religion.”

May not appear that way to you.
But I'd consider her ending (That I've already mentioned) a clue.
I'd consider the 'HA' at the beginning a clue.

Nor did she (Moniker) follow up as if she had told treated it as a joke.

Actually, I think Moniker can speak for herself there. And I'm pretty sure she has.

Exactly the opposite was the case. She used the reference as an attack on the principle expressed in “Dangers of Religion.”

She has been attacking the notion that danger must be generally applied to the Amish because of the story she told. That's it.
You can decide it's anything you like. But I think Moniker knows what she intended better than you. Just a thought...

t became a major argument by Moniker, however it in no way addressed the principle that:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

So she isn't allowed to address a claim made by you. i.e.:

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

Is this what the above is meant to mean?

This is the principle contention which has not been refuted or even addressed as some individual posts have resorted to off-topic tangents as well as ad hominem.

I think the claim that the Amish are dangerous because they ride around in horse-drawn buggies is on topic to the subject matter you have just quoted. And Moniker has every right to address that point. And it wouldn't be attacking a straw-man, because it IS a conclusion that you asserted.
I want to reach some conclusion on this before moving onto accusations concerning others.

[_JAK]

It is a very time consuming task to correct misrepresentations and when done repeatedly as you have done in this thread, it indicates high probability of intellectual dishonesty through diversionary disingenuous tactics. The fact that you are lying and claiming I said I accused everyone of misrepresentation in that thread in the Celestial forum is evidence to me of your lack of integrity in discussion. I don't think that was a mere slip up.

...

But no, you with your lack on integrity in discussion choose to distort once again JAK's position. Why am I bothering wasting my time responding to you? You simply are not worth it.

This is an excellent and accurate articulation of exactly what I was thinking the last time dart responded to me. Like I said, I was about to go through and address all his comments, but the dude refuses to acknowledge the forest because of all those damn trees, and it's just not worth correcting him.

I think one of the major problems with this entire thread is that there is no common agreement on what people mean when they use the words "danger" and "dangerous." It seems to me that some are using it to mean physical danger while others are using it in more general terms (it can be considered dangerous to my marriage to tell my wife her butt looks fat in those jeans, for instance).

The discussion is rendered useless when people are arguing with there own pet interpretation of the word (which favors their position) in mind rather than an agreed upon definition. Maybe it was outlined before and I missed it, but I'm pretty sure we don't even have agreement on that one important parameter.

SS,

Your brevity of academic wit and correct analysis is excellent.

Without question, it’s important (in serious discussion) that people clarify and be given opportunity to clarify meaning which may appear ambiguous.

Your statement is a perspective with which I agree.

Definitions and intended meaning are always critical to meaningful discussion and understanding.

I also agree with marg’s comment regarding the difficult and time-consuming effort to track down posts. But, it’s not only the post, it’s the context of the rejoinder which is also critical if discussion with understanding is a primary goal.

Your post-count offers you far more status if that is a consideration.

My agreement is with you and marg as I post with your comments remaining on screen.

JAK