reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This coming from the poster who declared the defense of holding a chief concern for ones own interest as having regards for others as base. This
coming from the poster who took a harsh, sardonic approach to my spirituality.
I wouldn't be as offended if there was at least a hint of good naturedness in your criticism of my beliefs, but no, I sense a personal ad hominem
style to your attacks. How many times now have you attacked my intelligence, my understanding of existentialism, mysticism, metaphysics, satre, Im
foolish and ignorant etc...Everyone of your posts are person directed mixed with some blatant exaggerations about my beliefs "my insidious agenda" -
as if such an accusation has any faint resemblance to what I was saying.
You're dark humored, arrogant style is in essence regnant and supercilious, while I at least have been attempting with that last few posts to actually
the topics while ignoring your belligerent tone in each and every post you write.
It is always the same with the sanctimonious. The moment someone stands up to their sanctimony and exposes the scared little man behind the curtain,
the scared little man changes his tone, stops bellowing and cries for civility.
and this annoys you?? If such a thing is happening, what is your response to it? Will it be a cessation of your morbid bellicosity, or will you
continue on in an ego-filled defiance of this creature which so irks you???
Whatever you think is happening here, it is happening all in your head. You take out of context, exaggerate, demean, and add all sorts of other
strange antics in your being 'affronted' by someone who dared to share his own opinion.
If you wanted civility, you should have tried using some when you decided to declare my philosophy and spirituality base.
That's my opinion. How else do you expect one to respond?? To respect your views and accept the difference without me saying bare that I find your
spirituality base, even though relative to what I believe that is the essential difference I feel exists? How else do you expect me to state that? Or
should I not say that???
You realize, all essentially religious people who don't hold to moral relativism, essentially regard that philosophy as intrinsically devoid of
spiritual validity, and therefore base and egotistical compared to a morally guided philosophy???
Now, having said that, I didn't attack your person. I ignored you the person, although, yes, I did mention my confusion as to how someone thinks as
you do, which I'm sure you could easily as well share in regards with my belief; I understand our differences, I respect you're moral beliefs in fact
- as you would act, since they seem to correspond to mine - but your essential reasoning and premises are different from my own, which I then
proceeded to criticize. If I feel differently from you, which I do, I am required to express how and why that is. It was never meant - and I apologize
if earlier on I may have been a bit peremptory - to incite you to respond against me as you currently are doing. I just know, I suppose
"sanctimoniously" in your sight, I wouldn't make an effort to act as you are acting, since it's not worth it, it's egotistical, and it creates
unnecessary strife where none need exist.
edit on 24-6-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)