Self Defense: parallaxblue

Ahhh, parallaxblue.

(Edit: The day after this post, he changed his avatar to the following, hehe.)







A depressing example of what I used to be. Still, a lot can happen in 7 years, I have hope for the man yet. Despite his flailing tantrums.



They say atheism isn't a religion, and I would generally agree, except in those cases where the advocates of non-faith make no arguments of their own, where they merely adopt a position presented to them from a position of authority parrot it without analysis. This has become frighteningly easy as atheism has adopted all the same techniques of religion for propagating itself. Such as the “how to argue with a theist” type pages. Which are not designed ot be informative so much as a way to make proselytizing easier.



Now I see no point in this. I believe argument and debate are innate skills indicative of personal mental capacity. I'm biased of course, but assuming this is the case then simply borrowing someone else's argument in total, rather than merely agreeing with a point and defending it with your own logic, is just the same to me as quoting the bible (or infidels.org) and considering the matter closed.



One should strive to remain open to new and correct data, this means a degree of incredulity and skepticism yes, but it also means critical thinking, and openness to the possibility of a previous idea being false. Too often the strong atheist camp has associated an open mind with a weak one, and while I agree one should not merely be a robot ready for programming one should also not be a statue incapable of change.



Such is the case of Parallaxblue. A statue if ever I've met one. And quite ironically given the topic of our debate, debating him was exactly like debating an intelligent theist, right down to the knee jerk reaction and the door begin slammed in my face. Closed doors, closed minds.



Rather than risk a requirement for total reassessment of his belief core, or recognition of a personal fault he terminated all possibly of easy contact.



Since my previous message was erased when he invoked this termination, I don't have the comment preceding this one. My previous message was in response to the following review, which he mentions later.

The debate he mentioned is this one.



Here we have the stumbleupon equivalent of taking your ball and going home or painting rules in big sloppy letters on the side of your clubhouse to piss off the cooties infested neighbor girl. And that is why it's being posted on this page, because this type of behavior in spirit is precisely the same as speaking to a person via a review, because no response can be made.



It's the same as covering your ears and then shouting at a person like children often do. 'I'm not listening poopie head!' Some things it seems we never out grow.



In all fairness this blog is probably just as childish, perhaps the equivalent of tattling. :)

You don't have permission to message this user.

This is the message it shows at the top when someone is blocked. Generally people send a little stab and then block a person so they cant respond, a cheap and effective way of getting the last word. But in this case I have a blog post dedicated to cataloging my responses to such underhandedness.



In any case, here we go. My reply.

10:56am Who has intentionally insulted who here? I'd say that by sharing your "honest" opinion of me, you're the one who was provocative and insulting in the first place.

You misunderstand what an insult is. I simply informed you of my feelings towards you. As I said in the reply that you wiped, I find it hilarious that in order to be treated civilly by you I have to both agree with everything you say and personally like you. I didn't realize being open about how I feel was such a taboo. Similarity #834,656 with the faiths you claim to hate.



Why honest in quotes? You think I'm lying?

And completely unwarranted provocation, I might add, since I did not insult you at all during the course of our debate.

You want a cookie? Of course you didn't, a debate is about an exchange of ideas, which is why I kept my personal feelings and opinions to myself, until our debate had concluded, at which point I had a bit of respect for you and felt you deserved to know how I felt about you as a matter of courtesy. Again, how dare I. I'll remember to lie to the next atheist I debate, to preserve their delicate sensibilities.

There was no reason for you to make that comment besides your own immaturity.

We're all children right up until we die, I intend to spend my life learning and playing. What you call maturity I call stagnation. I merely thought you deserved the truth even if you are a moron in my opinion.



But I realize what you mean, you feel it was rude/inappropriate/childish to say something that I knew would not be accepted with a smile. But that's a sophist trick, by that logic anything I say in opposition to you could be painted as rude or insulting, which is very much like the concept of sin, or that idea that religion is above debate. You have no right to control what I believe or say. You also have no right to lie about what I am.



Compare what each of us did. You made it a point to exaggerate your negative perceptions of me beyond all reasonability. An insult by definition is such an exaggeration, I merely expressed a negative opinion, I did not exaggerate one whit, what I typed is literally what I believe.



I was not trying to make you look any more foolish than I believe you actually are. Conversely, you know for a fact that I don't stand there and talk to myself in the mirror as the comic would suggest, nor is our debate a trivial Internet argument blown out of proportion, as your serious business link would suggest. A concept which I brought up first I might add with the enterprise/death star reference. Thief. We were talking about the the future of human psychology and the fundamental nature of our universe, no trivial matters.



Let me guess, now that you've been soundly trounced and had your pseudo-logic shown to be the baseless faith that it is, the debate no longer counts, its not serious, it's just the Internet, it's not like you actually have to reassess things now, you weren't really trying anyway, right? Are you sure I'm the one who's emotionally under developed?



You may think your opinion is trivial deep down because you don't have a foundation grant or a lab coat, but I suffer from no such classist and self defeating perceptions. My opinions are just as valid as Plato or Dawkins. And merely because they appear on the Internet does not trivialize them. In short the Internet in many cases is indeed serious business.

All I did in that review was point out what you yourself had already done: namely that you felt it was necessary to share your personal opinion of me after our debate, even though you must have known that any normal person would feel insulted if someone called them pretentious. It was a cheap shot, meant to provoke me, and very immature of you to do so.

As above, this is not your opinion of me. It is a mischaracterization intended to ridicule. In vengeance for, and greater than, the harm you felt I caused you. You merely want to win. I merely wanted to be clear and honest. I expected you to dislike it. I did not expect you to have a tantrum over it, I expected a reply of equal honesty.

Even though we disagreed (and still do) on whether or not God exists, I had respect for you until I read your comment at the end of the blog post.

*sigh* Still trying to straw man me, boy you're bitter. I'll ignore the low blow.



Again, in order to avoid begin insulted by you I have to both agree with you and like you or have a high opinion of you. But I don't, which in your mind makes it fair game to lie about my nature. Why don't you just call me a child molester too, or claim that I rape dead dogs or something. That's the same family of action you took, but I don't think you realize it.



Again, what I said about you is what I think to be true, what you said about me, neither of us thinks to be true. You want people to laugh at me, and for me to hurt, I wanted you to perhaps recognize a personal flaw and attempt to grow past it. In effect I said 'hey, your zipper is down', and you effectively said 'screw off pompous dimwit'. You understand? I'll bet my readers do.

As for your analysis of my personality based solely on my avatar.. well what can I say? With no evidence other than my avatar, you then leap to conclusions about my personality. Such hasty and inaccurate judgment speaks for itself, and it doesn't reflect well on you at all.

I have a great deal of evidence other than your avatar, or are you admitting that none of your arguments were your own and that your blog is devoid of content? You may wish to think that all I have to go on is your photo, but that's not the case. My opinion of you is well founded, and not trivially based as yours is, on our degree of mental parity, or personal enjoyment of each other. Not to mention years of experience in the field of human observation. Your knee jerk reaction merely confirms my position. Quick to judge, slow to change.

You have lost my respect. I have nothing more to say to you, and any further messages from you are now being ignored.

Fair enough, as we agreed before you took your ball and went home, history will be the judge. I just wanted to make my position clear for the record. And although you've posted and then ignored me insuring that I cannot respond. You're welcome to respond to this at any point.