I thought you said this issue was no big deal - yet you refuse to withdraw the question. I see. It's only a big deal if YOU are being asked to admit fault.
I said that the question you offered as an illustrative example at post #462, namely
"How many cancer patients became healed by your long exchange?", can be straightforwardly answered with
"None as far as I'm aware", so I don't see the point of that example. There is no reason to make a big deal of a question like that. You can simply answer the question straightforwardly and that's it.
However, when you make false accusations about loads which are nowhere to be found, that's a totally different matter. In this case, you are making unsubstantiated accusations about my questions and I'm taking the time to show how they are unsubstantiated.
But that's PRECISELY the order of your questions. How then is it a bad example?
It's a bad example (or analogy, to use a more accurate word) because the pair of questions
"Aren't long exchanges a complete waste of time? After all, how many cancer patients got healed by your long exchange?" is suggesting number of healed patients as a metric of the usefulness of a long exchange.
That's the part that is unreasonable ("number of cancer patients that were healed"). When have I suggested an unreasonable metric like that? When did I affirm that you need a metric as unreasonable as counting the number of cancer patients that got healed to measure the worthiness of a long exchange?
Your analogy is a textbook example of a strawman fallacy. At no point have I ever suggested that you need such a poor metric to evaluate long exchanges. You are reacting against a strawman your mind has created, not against the actual questions I asked.
Here's what you wrote:
"
After about 20 pages of discussion with @JAL..."
That clause has nothing to do with theology. Rather it already seems to insinuate that 20 pages is an EXCESSIVELY long discussion.
When did I use the word "EXCESSIVELY"? Again, you are strawmaning my questions.
Furthermore, isn't the statement "about 20 pages of discussion" an objective fact? I didn't count the exact number but I'm pretty sure the discussion between you and
@Guojing took easily over 18 pages at the very least. What's wrong with referencing this fact?
It's as if you were getting mad at me for referencing the objective fact that the Earth's diameter is about 12,742 km long. It's just an objective fact, bro. Relax.
Am I mistaken at this point? Possibly, but everything subsequent SEEMS to confirm that hypothesis:
"Also, has your position changed in the slightest after all the time and effort spent in this back-and-forth exchange?"
Again, insinuates an EXCESSIVELY long exchange that possibly accomplished nothing. And you know what, I'm fine with that - if it isn't prejudicial.
Again, I didn't use the word "EXCESSIVELY" in this other question either. And what's wrong about using words such as "time" and "effort"? Are you going to say that you didn't devote time and effort in order to read
@Guojing's posts and type responses of your own? Do you have magical powers that allow you to participate in extended exchanges without spending any time or effort on them?
"Ultimately, do you think long back-and-forth exchanges are worth it?"
Ok that's the THIRD confirmation of where your post was HEADED in terms of insinuations. Three strikes and you're out. Stop pretending that I'm making all this up in my head. My reaction was justified. Admittedly I'm fallible, it is theoretically possible that I COULD be mistaken, but it is a reaction warranted by what you wrote.
It's a reaction warranted by a strawman that you are projecting on my questions, not by the wording of the questions themselves. At no point have I affirmed that long exchanges are a waste of time or not worth it. I have only asked straightforward questions. And you are free to answer them straightforwardly. No need to invent a strawman and make a big deal of things that I haven't said anywhere except in your imagination.
Exactly. The best way to deal with a loaded question is NOT to answer it directly. That's my whole point. To claim that it is incumbent on the respondent to fix the matter by proposing a different metric thereby answering a VERY DIFFERENT question seems gratuitous. I see no obligation on the part of the respondent, other than to explain why it is prejudicial.
Sure, but all that is about your bad analogy, not about my questions.
Now we're getting somewhere.
1. I've grown in my ability to recognize, in posts, the signs of a hyperdispesnationalist.
2. I became motivated to research a firmer grasp of the hyper-D concepts.
3. I've discovered points of ambiguity that need further research, for example was Israel's sin, in the hyper-D view, atoned for by animal sacrifice? Or by obedience to the law as faith-plus-works?
4. Was Guojing's case effective? For example did he back me into a corner where I felt I couldn't answer his questions without fear of surfacing contradictions in my position? I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.
See? You were capable of engaging with the actual questions all this time after all, weren't you?
Interestingly, you didn't complain about my first question
"How valuable has your long exchange with @Guojing been?". I used the words
valuable (value and worth are synonyms) and
long, but this time you didn't bark, and instead were happy to answer the actual question directly, whereas phrases such as "worth it" triggered you.
Anyways, thanks for answering the questions directly.
