Yes but my original objection was never how a believer went about rationalizing the belief, it was that the rationales are not rational. I am familiar with most of the rationalizations, though I think that term is a misnomer because they are actually irrational.
That was not the question posed though, and to your point I also inferred the people involved argue their rational to the others rational to determine the rationality of their thinking. Pad never gave any rational information of his own arguement to confer the rational thinking of others. He asked do they have rational reasons or Are they just irrational. Go back and slowly read what I said. Two or Three times if it helps.
Big Billy gave info towards his rationality towards Santa. We agreed upon Santa. I then went on to ask him about what god does he not want me to believe in? Is this so confusing? I'm inferring his ability of rational thinking compared to my rational thoughts. We may both agree or not on the rational or irrational, however, we were able to take in account what the other is thinking to determine the rationality of said subject.
Nobody every suggested anything outside of two people discussing their meaning and comprehension of whatever to decide the rationality of it. Please tell me who have continued to suggest or imply anything other than that.
Heh, maybe I am just stoned but I find this confusing. "Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle".
But re-reading your #201 post I see that you were indeed saying the same things I later did. I still don't see how him not acknowledging you while later acknowledging me makes him a hypocrite. It may make him inconsistent, or perhaps he missed the post, but it doesn't qualify as holding others to a standard that he does not live up to himself. Or am I again confusing your points? Are you saying that he too occasionally ignores information while simultaneously accusing others of doing it? Is ignoring someones opinion of your conduct the same as ignoring evidence of fact? I really don't care if oly ignores my opinion of his behavior, the contempt comes from his promotion of ignoring flaws in his evaluation of reality, whether those flaws be unawareness, inconsistencies, or negligence.
And yes we are all flawed, including pad and including myself. The difference comes from those who try to improve on their flaws, and those who embrace and promote them to others for the sake of their own comfort.
I'm sorry if what I say is confusing to some. So I set examples that people can actively relate too. This is why I have little patience or leniency talking to people. If you choose to speak like an adult be expected to have an understanding as an adult. If you don't understand something thats over your head, don't imply. Just say please tell me in simplier terms that I can understand. I don't mind. But if I say something and you just keep going on towards left field with something (ball of light vs hydrogen/helium) I can't help but look at you in the same light as you may choose to look at others.
And maybe you are just stoned because you said to me I may have been confusing him with my angle and there was no other angle except for me citing Oly's perspective. This is the only place I see where confusion could have taking place and even if it did it bears no matter on the fact.
Well I've expressed to you in the past that you all have more patience and leniency than I have. If productive conversation seems impossible just provide information without the personal dialogue. This may be to Oly's point as he feels you are trying to convince him of something he doesn't wish to believe in. At this point just simply provide information and they can accept it or not, nothing there to argue about especially if constructive dialogue has been demostrated to be futile...
I tried sitting and just giving resourceful information to a friend and he told me it looked cartoonish/joke. He couldn't accept what I was telling him as serious and I could see him starting to tear up from anger. At that point there is nothing you can do, if they want to know more they will seek you out..
So the extent of being a hypocrite is predicated on the extremity of the situation and not the fact of. So being a hypocrite is o.k. as long as you are being a hyocrite in a minor way. You can shoe shine this all you want but being a Hypocrit is being a Hypocrit.. And it was never about his opinion of standards it was about his actions. If you ignore and dismiss information then actively take part in accepting someone else's information that can be speculated over for particular reasons especially if the exact same information was giving before. You stand judgement of being a Hypocrit. Oly said he has discussed this with his professor and was willing to listen but declined any reason to listen to Pad. He has been called a hypocrit in his actions for doing so along with other reasons. Does this not fit the bill of the exact same thing Pad has just done.
I already acknowledged the fact of him possibly missing the post. We are 3-4pages down the road and he still is missing it.
Watch how easy this is...
Pad: I'm not a hypocrit Braz, I didn't see your post or the one after.
Braz: My bad bro, no problem, sorry for calling you a hypocrit.
Actions have spoken louder than words though.
