Posted: Jun 10, 2019 5:58 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thus starts your latest responses,...


Profound.

I've noted that when a substance-less post is incoming, you always start by reporting back to me what I had written, as if I wasn't aware of having done so.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... which play out to 19 pages in Word and in which you made some embarrassing arguments.


Even assuming it was the case that I had made embarrassing arguments, I'd still have thousands and millions more pages of a Word document of embarrassing responses to catch up with you.


Jayjay4547 wrote: In response to a group image of a haka war dance, demonstrating that human threats generally don’t involve showing the upper teeth, you said that the word “haka” refers to many different ceremonial displays, and then you put up pics of individual Mauri people grimacing.


Individual Mauri people 'grimacing' while doing Haka, showing their teeth, in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. So who exactly is embarrassed here? Not me because what I reported is true and accurate. And not you, because once again you're lying to my face, so you clearly have no shame at all.

And yes, that is what Haka means, and it's not a 'war dance' as I just told you. But do repeat the same errors after being shown wrong - that's what you do JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:You also embarrassingly responded to images comparing the damage done by chimps by biting humans with what a human can do by biting, by linking to other biting attacks by humans, in one of which a person bites off “half a cheek”. When chimps are able to bite off hands and even feet, let alone entire faces.


Humans can bite off hands and feet too, JJ. Or are you going to claim they cannot? I'll be happy to explain in detail if you ever want to manage to stake a claim rather than just half-doing so.

And not 'half a cheek' - also noses and ears being bitten off by humans. And let us recall that this is precisely what you were trying to claim chimpanzees could do that was different to humans.

So once again, the embarrassment should be in your court, but you apparently have no shame. You'll now try and twist the conversation even though the written record is still right there showing that you've changed your argument to try and score points.

If you ever admitted your errors JJ, things would go a lot more smoothly for you here. But you're not here for honest discourse; you're here to engage in self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Your antagonism is carrying you away here and it’s unedifying.


You are unedifiable because you presume you are always correct whatever utterance you make.

But I am not here to edify you JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Your anxiety...


Your projection is amusing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... to disagree with me about absolutely everything harms your position.


Harms my position with whom?

Exactly who are you speaking for?

Have you conducted a survey of readers to see whether or not this is the case?

Or are you really just referring to yourself?

Did I have a positive position with you to harm?

Just recently you were likening us to vicious dogs rending each other. I can only assume that the only way from there is up.



Jayjay4547 wrote:With your background you should be able to condescendingly agree about some things, with potentially devastating effect.


Condescendingly agree? :grin:

I would agree with you JJ if you wrote anything agreeable or truthful, but I'm afraid the ball is in your court there. If you continue to write things which are disagreeable or untruthful, then I am afraid I won't be able to offer you the validation you crave.


Jayjay4547 wrote:But the dialectic...


The truth of statements is grounded in how well they hove to evidence, JJ. Yours do not hove to evidence. My pointing out evidence that contradicts your statements should produce in you the desire to make more truthful statements, but of course, it doesn't - it induces you to talk about the style of presentation, the tone of discourse, the number of words used... basically every single factor that doesn't involve JJ changing his posting behavior because JJ is never wrong.


Jayjay4547 wrote: is driving you into extremity.


Extreme veracity.



Jayjay4547 wrote:And one of the things I would like to discuss is the effect of the creationist-evolutionist schism on the presentation of evolution.


Yes, I think we are all well aware of that after years of you having tried to pretend this is a controversial topic as per the Creationist play book.

Of course, in reality Creationists don't actually have a seat at the table when it comes to identifying observationally correct statements about the world around us.



Jayjay4547 wrote:And by the way, I’m not a self-aggrandizing, delusional bigot or a narcissist as you accuse of, I’m just pretty stubborn.


Self-aggrandizing = your refusal ever to acknowledge any of your errors, and your insistence that your dumb ideas are worthy even when shown wrong by evidence.

Delusional = your ad-hoc contrivance of inane and self-serving paradigms

Bigotry = your motivation for posting here and your contempt for the people of this website you choose to spend so much time haranguing.



Jayjay4547 wrote: I have some insight into why I see things differently than youse,...


No, you see things differently than me because you don't know anywhere near enough information but are instead guided by a presuppositional religious position that is not borne out by real world evidence.

Actually, you firmly lack insight into why you see things the way you do.


Jayjay4547 wrote: these have little to do with illusions about my smartness or arguing ability. They have a lot to do with the creative alchemical effect that external circumstances and relations have had on me.


Whatever the case, the outcome remains the same, and the last 5 years of this thread, the years preceding this thread, and even your engagement on the RDF forum provides a compelling weight of evidence that if you are telling what you think is the truth here above, then you are blind to your own motivations.