Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/21/06 6:02pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Choose ye this day to which thread thou shalt respond" on 09/20/06 6:34pm
>>The thread was about the "copycat" claim so I'm going
>>to stick with this.
>
>Strange... you didn't want to discuss the first page I
>offered, so I offered a second site which seemed to be
>more mainstream which offered some of the same ideas.
Well, not quite. The second page isn't much on the "copycat" hypothesis. It notes some similarities between Krishna and Jesus, but these are so superficial and general that no reasonable borrowing inference could be made (nor IIRC, does it claim one). The white supremecist's website made some far more bold (and flawed) claims.
>Once I did that, you went back and argued against the
>site that you before didn't think was worth the time.
>What changed?
When you said "I can see you can't get past the white supremacy thing and look at some of the points the author makes..." I took that as a challenge (and to be honest, almost as an insult--although I know that it probably wasn't intended to be), to which I then responded.
>I don't really have much time to discuss such things
>these days either, nor do I have the motivation. I
>thought the original site was at least interesting.
>Often, I find that something emotionally charged will
>get people writing a little more than something that
>respects all positions. Not that I enjoy writing that
>way, but when I find a site like that, it does seem to
>make people take notice and argue their point a little
>more.
>
>You chose instead to focus on what you perceived as my
>inadequacy...
>
>"Just wondering, when the top of the web page had (in
>great big letters) "MARCH OF THE TITANS - A HISTORY OF
>THE WHITE RACE" didn't that tip you off as a bit
>suspicious regarding the issue of white supremacy?"
Well, I did think this was a legitimate question. The title immediately made me suspicious, though I confess I am a bit cynical. When you replied to my question, "No... should it?" To which I replied with a follow-up question (noting that the title likened the white race to a race of powerful deities), "How did you interpret the title?" These questions were not meant as insults; I was really curious as to what your thoughts were when you read the title.
>"Put two and two together Ben." [i.e. simply add up the info of my previous paragraphs]
Note for one that I made these points before you posted the other link. Neither question/point was meant as an insult.
>In reality, I really didn't notice the title.
Ah, so that's why it didn't tip you off as suspicious, because you didn't notice the great big words at the top of the page (as opposed to e.g. interpreting the title differently). If it's any consolation, I sometimes miss big things to. Earlier this week in class we examined an old book on the alphabet, and on one page the letter "I" was missing "H" and "K" and somehow I didn't notice. ACK! :P
>Although I
>do have the ability to add two and two, I did not
>notice the bias that this web site had.
Well, here's the thing I didn't get (and still don't). You apparently assumed that this white supremacist guy was "pro-Christianity" and then became bemused as to why this author would argue that the religion is false. The "two and two" conclusion would seem to be that this author (and anyone else who attacks the veracity of Christianity in such a manner) is probably not "pro-Christianity" and that your initial assumption was simply false. Seriously, was there anything in the page that gave you the idea that this guy was "pro-Christianity"? Why did you hold on to this assumption after his attack? Is there something I missed?
--Wade A. Tisthammer
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 