I'm going to retract my metatuning post

....to you, Ozan, and to Pete from the archives.

It's not my intent to drive anyone away from public forums or shut down
conversations. I think the state of the world today is scary, and in part
because people refuse to communicate when it is most difficult to do so.

However, Ozan, I want to point out a fallacy you commonly use, which will
partly explain my rant:

Appeal to Force
(argumentum ad baculum)

Definition:
The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow
if they do not agree with the author.

Examples:

(i) You had better agree that the new company policy is the
best bet if you expect to keep your job.
(ii) NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA
then we will vote you out of office.

Proof:

Identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the
threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.

References:

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151, Copi and Cohen: 103

So I will respectfully insist that your appeals to the pain I will suffer in
this life or the next at the hands of Allah in order to convince me the truth
of Islam will next time fall on deaf ears.

I do wish to apologize for then succumbing to my anger and attacking your
character, a case of "Ad Hominem" argumentation, itself a fallacious way of
proving my point.

Please realize that others in this forum want the same level of courtesy
towards their belief/theism or _lack_ of it that you want shown towards
yours, as Johnny Reinhard pointed out in other post.

If we can agree to that, then we can keep all such conversations at a basic
level of civility, even when disagreements, political, religious, or
otherwise, fly.

Sincerely,
Aaron.

You are more prudish, fanatical and violent than you realize Aaron... you
along with those who shamelessly chimed in to a heretical lynch-mob frenzy
which made starved piranhas in a fish tank seem like domesticated pets. For
one thing, you cannot tolerate an earnest exposition of faith in God even
when euphemized and directed toward others who have never had the chance to
hear it themselves the first time. This boisterously malevolent attitude,
especially coming from so-called `civilized` partisans of Western
civilization, is shocking to say the least, and no less dangerous compared
to the obscurantist severity displayed by fundametalist zealots of diverse
religions. Moreover, your glaring insults and vituperative accusations
against my person as a modest believer in God was truly uncalled for.
Granted, I am a portentous individual with grave faults in the sight of my
Lord, but even as a sinner, I am able to avoid belligerent outbursts and
practice restraint. Nevertheless, I shall pardon and overlook your
vilipendious immaturity, and hope that I won't have to hear any more of this
blustering insolence.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
To: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...>; <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 31 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 17:21
Subject: I'm going to retract my metatuning post

>
> ....to you, Ozan, and to Pete from the archives.
>
> It's not my intent to drive anyone away from public forums or shut down
> conversations. I think the state of the world today is scary, and in part
> because people refuse to communicate when it is most difficult to do so.
>
> However, Ozan, I want to point out a fallacy you commonly use, which will
> partly explain my rant:
>
> Appeal to Force
> (argumentum ad baculum)
>
> Definition:
> The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow
> if they do not agree with the author.
>
> Examples:
>
> (i) You had better agree that the new company policy is the
> best bet if you expect to keep your job.
> (ii) NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA
> then we will vote you out of office.
>
> Proof:
>
> Identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the
> threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.
>
> References:
>
> Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151, Copi and Cohen: 103
>
>
> So I will respectfully insist that your appeals to the pain I will suffer
in
> this life or the next at the hands of Allah in order to convince me the
truth
> of Islam will next time fall on deaf ears.
>
> I do wish to apologize for then succumbing to my anger and attacking your
> character, a case of "Ad Hominem" argumentation, itself a fallacious way
of
> proving my point.
>
> Please realize that others in this forum want the same level of courtesy
> towards their belief/theism or _lack_ of it that you want shown towards
> yours, as Johnny Reinhard pointed out in other post.
>
> If we can agree to that, then we can keep all such conversations at a
basic
> level of civility, even when disagreements, political, religious, or
> otherwise, fly.
>
> Sincerely,
> Aaron.
>
>
>

Ozan you are such a comedian! we "infidels" say "to each his own" and you
"true believers" say "you will burn in hell if you dont believe what I
believe." Which of these two attitudes is "malevolent"?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>[mailto:metatuning@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Ozan Yarman
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:31 AM
>To: aaron@...
>Cc: Metatuning
>Subject: [metatuning] Re: I'm going to retract my metatuning post
>
>
>You are more prudish, fanatical and violent than you realize Aaron... you
>along with those who shamelessly chimed in to a heretical lynch-mob frenzy
>which made starved piranhas in a fish tank seem like domesticated pets. For
>one thing, you cannot tolerate an earnest exposition of faith in God even
>when euphemized and directed toward others who have never had the chance to
>hear it themselves the first time. This boisterously malevolent attitude,
>especially coming from so-called `civilized` partisans of Western
>civilization, is shocking to say the least, and no less dangerous compared
>to the obscurantist severity displayed by fundametalist zealots of diverse
>religions. Moreover, your glaring insults and vituperative accusations
>against my person as a modest believer in God was truly uncalled for.
>Granted, I am a portentous individual with grave faults in the sight of my
>Lord, but even as a sinner, I am able to avoid belligerent outbursts and
>practice restraint. Nevertheless, I shall pardon and overlook your
>vilipendious immaturity, and hope that I won't have to hear any
>more of this
>blustering insolence.
>
>Cordially,
>Ozan
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
>To: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...>;
><metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: 31 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 17:21
>Subject: I'm going to retract my metatuning post
>
>
>>
>> ....to you, Ozan, and to Pete from the archives.
>>
>> It's not my intent to drive anyone away from public forums or shut down
>> conversations. I think the state of the world today is scary, and in part
>> because people refuse to communicate when it is most difficult to do so.
>>
>> However, Ozan, I want to point out a fallacy you commonly use, which will
>> partly explain my rant:
>>
>> Appeal to Force
>> (argumentum ad baculum)
>>
>> Definition:
>> The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow
>> if they do not agree with the author.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> (i) You had better agree that the new company policy is the
>> best bet if you expect to keep your job.
>> (ii) NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA
>> then we will vote you out of office.
>>
>> Proof:
>>
>> Identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the
>> threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.
>>
>> References:
>>
>> Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151, Copi and Cohen: 103
>>
>>
>> So I will respectfully insist that your appeals to the pain I will suffer
>in
>> this life or the next at the hands of Allah in order to convince me the
>truth
>> of Islam will next time fall on deaf ears.
>>
>> I do wish to apologize for then succumbing to my anger and attacking your
>> character, a case of "Ad Hominem" argumentation, itself a fallacious way
>of
>> proving my point.
>>
>> Please realize that others in this forum want the same level of courtesy
>> towards their belief/theism or _lack_ of it that you want shown towards
>> yours, as Johnny Reinhard pointed out in other post.
>>
>> If we can agree to that, then we can keep all such conversations at a
>basic
>> level of civility, even when disagreements, political, religious, or
>> otherwise, fly.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Aaron.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
>
> Ozan you are such a comedian! we "infidels" say "to each his own"
and you
> "true believers" say "you will burn in hell if you dont believe what I
> believe." Which of these two attitudes is "malevolent"?
>

Or is it "to each his own" excoriation and derision from
callous "sophisticates"?

Heaven or hell or annihilation are "spiritual" states which one may or
may not find terrifying, IMHO. If they scare you, perhaps you are
skittish, even trigger-happy? (the big 'you', not you personally)

Wait 'til Eleggua gets his "hands" on you. Hee! He did me, by
cracky! I was careful, believe it or not, and maybe you saw what
happened.

Kraig's point, and I believe Ozan was more pointed about it, is exactly
what I was trying to get at. If this is a microcosm of the wider
world, is the carnage any wonder?

Pete

>Or is it "to each his own" excoriation and derision from
>callous "sophisticates"?

No, its "to each his own" as in "you believe in god as you see fit, or not,
I will believe in god as I see fit, or not, and I wish you well". The other
view is "The way I see God is the ONE TRUE WAY and if you dont SEE IT the
way I SEE IT you DESERVE TO SUFFER DIE AND BE PUNISHED"

If the first view is that of a "callous sophisticate" than I gladly accept
the appelation.

>Heaven or hell or annihilation are "spiritual" states which one may or
>may not find terrifying, IMHO. If they scare you, perhaps you are
>skittish, even trigger-happy? (the big 'you', not you personally)

The only hell I can imagine is being surrounded by religious
fundamentalists.

Dante

while not directly relevant to the below, i want to add that jung always pointed out that one can tell when something is 'unconscious' or suppressed by it lack of differentiation.
In this context, we should remember that just as christianity and judaism have different interpretation, often resulting in different sects, so does those who use the Koran as their guide, resulted in as many sects itself.
ambassadorbob wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> >
>>Ozan you are such a comedian! we "infidels" say "to each his own" >> >>
>and you
> >
>>"true believers" say "you will burn in hell if you dont believe what I
>>believe." Which of these two attitudes is "malevolent"?
>>
>> >>
>
>Or is it "to each his own" excoriation and derision from >callous "sophisticates"?
>
>Heaven or hell or annihilation are "spiritual" states which one may or >may not find terrifying, IMHO. If they scare you, perhaps you are >skittish, even trigger-happy? (the big 'you', not you personally)
>
>Wait 'til Eleggua gets his "hands" on you. Hee! He did me, by >cracky! I was careful, believe it or not, and maybe you saw what >happened.
>
>Kraig's point, and I believe Ozan was more pointed about it, is exactly >what I was trying to get at. If this is a microcosm of the wider >world, is the carnage any wonder?
>
>Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Ideally, there should be as many "religions" as there are people. This would
be the most creative situation.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: metatuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:metatuning@yahoogroups.com]On
>Behalf Of Kraig Grady
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:45 PM
>To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: I'm going to retract my metatuning post
>
>
>while not directly relevant to the below, i want to add that jung always
>pointed out that one can tell when something is 'unconscious' or
>suppressed by it lack of differentiation.
>In this context, we should remember that just as christianity and
>judaism have different interpretation, often resulting in different
>sects, so does those who use the Koran as their guide, resulted in as
>many sects itself.
>
>
>
>
>
>ambassadorbob wrote:
>
>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ozan you are such a comedian! we "infidels" say "to each his own"
>>>
>>>
>>and you
>>
>>
>>>"true believers" say "you will burn in hell if you dont believe what I
>>>believe." Which of these two attitudes is "malevolent"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Or is it "to each his own" excoriation and derision from
>>callous "sophisticates"?
>>
>>Heaven or hell or annihilation are "spiritual" states which one may or
>>may not find terrifying, IMHO. If they scare you, perhaps you are
>>skittish, even trigger-happy? (the big 'you', not you personally)
>>
>>Wait 'til Eleggua gets his "hands" on you. Hee! He did me, by
>>cracky! I was careful, believe it or not, and maybe you saw what
>>happened.
>>
>>Kraig's point, and I believe Ozan was more pointed about it, is exactly
>>what I was trying to get at. If this is a microcosm of the wider
>>world, is the carnage any wonder?
>>
>>Pete
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>>
>>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>>
>>To post to the list, send to
>>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>You don't have to be a member to post.
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Kraig Grady
>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>The Wandering Medicine Show
>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

my reason for refusing to enter any heaven that will take them.
considering your name, we might ..... oh i won't say it!

Dante Rosati wrote:

>
>The only hell I can imagine is being surrounded by religious
>fundamentalists.
>
>Dante
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

a great vision, not that far from Attars, the conference of the birds!

Dante Rosati wrote:

>Ideally, there should be as many "religions" as there are people. This would
>be the most creative situation.
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Dear metatuning user,

This is the metatuning spambot.

Your original message, posted below, was not able to get through our bullshit
filters.

This is to alert you that hypocritical emails are directed towards the void.
To prevent this mail from not being received, we suggest your turn on your own
bullshit filter in the future.

Thanks,
The metatuning spambot team.

-------Original message-------

On Monday 31 October 2005 10:31 am, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> You are more prudish, fanatical and violent than you realize Aaron... you
> along with those who shamelessly chimed in to a heretical lynch-mob frenzy
> which made starved piranhas in a fish tank seem like domesticated pets. For
> one thing, you cannot tolerate an earnest exposition of faith in God even
> when euphemized and directed toward others who have never had the chance to
> hear it themselves the first time. This boisterously malevolent attitude,
> especially coming from so-called `civilized` partisans of Western
> civilization, is shocking to say the least, and no less dangerous compared
> to the obscurantist severity displayed by fundametalist zealots of diverse
> religions. Moreover, your glaring insults and vituperative accusations
> against my person as a modest believer in God was truly uncalled for.
> Granted, I am a portentous individual with grave faults in the sight of my
> Lord, but even as a sinner, I am able to avoid belligerent outbursts and
> practice restraint. Nevertheless, I shall pardon and overlook your
> vilipendious immaturity, and hope that I won't have to hear any more of
> this blustering insolence.