Political THEORY thread (spinoff from Politics thread)

[bhu]

I said I wasn't a Christian before. Perhaps you should have noted it then. Further, just because someone looks to the Bible for morality does not require them to be a Christian. Perhaps you should take note of that as well.

   If your not a member of a Judeo Christian religion why bother looking to the Bible for morality then.  You have your own religion to look to for morality.

So either you are deliberately misleading on my response or just trolling.

  Not trolling in this instance.  I said I was determining whether or not I thought you were taking the piss yes?  You'll learn a great deal of what I say and do is to see how you react.  Eventually your reactions will sway my judgement on whether or not you're being forthright.  For example if you have no emotional attachment to the Bible such as faith you wouldn't feel the need to react emotionally and defensively to the examples I posted, but you did.

And it was a poor example, as it has nothing to do with morality, and so was quite easy to refute.
As for the Bible code being dependent on the supernatural aspects, you are simply wrong, as I demonstrated.
As for your bigoted Atheism, that seems to suggest that you are in fact trolling.

I'm an apatheist.  I do occasionally troll, but only other trolls.  Their pain sustains me. 

So your religious bigotry is fine but my faith is antagonistic because of your ignorance of it?
Uh huh.

To say I am intolerant of the religious is untrue.  I tolerate them just fine, but I don't tolerate those who use their religion as justification for harming or being malicious towards others.  Truthfully, I think of religion as a mild form of mental illness like schizophrenia.  They aren't evil, they're just out of touch with reality, which is no excuse for harming or maliciousness towards them either.

Once again, yes it does.

And let me be clear:
I am not responsible for your ignorance.
Your lack of understanding of the Bible, caused by whatever, is your lack of understanding, not mine. I cannot, and will not, be held guilty of something simply because you are completely unaware of simple principles.

I understand it just fine.  I am saying that if you believe any code of ethics, morality, or philosophy can be reduced to one sentence, then you are indeed talking out the other side of your face.  Moral or ethical codes or philosophies do not lend themselves to sound bites at all well, which is what you are attempting.

Seriously?
Really, seriously?
Okay, first, there are these people called "Jews". They believe in that part of the Bible referred to as the "Old Testament", but which they call the Tanakh. You may have seen me use that term. The "T" in Tanakh stands for "Torah", which is the first 5 books of the Tanakh, which is divided into several parts for reasons relevant to Jews.

You could have made this much less stressful on yourself by just having said "I'm Jewish" earlier.  Granted you do share an invisible sky fairy with the Christians so I'm not really sure it makes much of a difference. 

That is completely and utterly wrong.
Nietzsche despised nihilism. He was writing primarily to counter nihilism, attempting to present an alternative to them.
Nietzsche was quite dismissive of Christianity. He did not feel it led in and of itself to nihilism, though he did feel that organized Christianity had led to the corruption of values that permitted nihilism to arise and thrive.
He did not view the death of divinity as a good thing in and of itself. Indeed he described it as a horrible thing, condemning the people who had perpetrated the murder. He did regard it as useful in clearing away the decadence of Christianity, but he absolutely despised the death of real morality that it engendered.
Nietzsche himself spoke highly of Jesus, and Paul for that matter, who I have little use for. As such, accepting Judeo-Christian morality while rejecting Christianity is far from incompatible with Nietzsche. The real problem though is that you have leaped to a conclusion assuming that my statement that I looked to Smith, Nietzsche and the Bible for morality means that I embrace and endorse every single thing stated in all of them. That is a false assumption on your part, though you clearly see it as an excuse to troll.

I know he was searching for a counter to nihilism, that wasn't my point.  My point was that he had a fairly disdainful view of Christian morality, and without God you had no basis for morality.   "By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."  He was an atheist who no longer recognized God as credible.  Hence why I believed you were bullshitting.  If your knowledge of Nietzche was as you have implied, you would know how little he regarded religious morality, and therefore could not have been a both a follower of Christ and an admitted atheist.   Granted if you are Jewish you could always be a secular Jew.  If I troll by the way I do not need excuse or justification, especially since I only troll trolls.  It is possible that I have made a false assumption, but some part of me clearly believes you designed your post to deliberately cause such an assumption.  It's why I keep poking you.  Poke someone long enough and they eventually let the truth slip out.

Well that, or they ragequit, but you don't seem like the type...

I'm actually shocked that you are aware of that.

Occasionally playing the part of a fool in order to get what I want does not mean I happen to be a fool.  Eccentric maybe.

If you read Nietzsche, you can find the answer with some effort.
If you read Smith, the answer is blatantly clear.
Of course if you read the Bible very carefully you can also discover the answer within it as well, but you have to slog through digressions, much as with Nietzsche, so it can be difficult.
You might also want to learn that Judaism is not predicated on the same kind of punishment scheme as Christianity, so your obsessive focus on Christianity in trying to challenge me is a complete waste, as I do not believe it and will not be bound to defend it.

I've read all three.  The Bible is hardly a moral work, Smith has a limited mindset, and the nihilism Nietzche dreads so much isn't nearly as bad as he believes it to be.  I will agree Sheol and Gehinnom are not equatable with Christian Hell, but in my defense you could have simply admitted to being Jewish.  It's that sort of reluctance on your part that makes me believe you're deliberately trolling.

So then you are trolling.
While getting pissy and accusing me of trolling.
Uh huh.

Trolling is done purely to elicit emotional response by posting in a deliberately deceitful or provocative manner.  To troll you, I have to know something about you.  By your own admission I do not know you well enough yet,     And granted it's possible you're not a lying bastard and this is all a misunderstanding, in which case I will let you be.  Had you simply been honest from the beginning instead of trying to make people guess your intent you wouldn't find yourself in this position.  Of course it's also possible you just have the communication skills of a gazelle being devoured by lions, in which case I firmly apologize.

Hoping of course that by then I consider you worthy of engaging in such a manner.
Hint: You are making an exceptionally good case that you aren't.

  This.  This kind of condescension is why I frequently mention cognitive dissonance.  It also doesn't help fight the perception that you are indeed trolling.  No one needs your consideration or permission to debate you, especially since you go out of your way to be kind of an asshole. 

No, most of my posting has been phrased in a manner to cover as many generalities as possible as opposed to inflicting a one million word dissertation on my path to and comprehension of morality.
Or just, you know, shouting "RTFM!" and not actually answering anything.

This also hurts the perception of your character.  Your answers have been little more than "read the fucking manual", implying that anyone who has read the book should and would agree with you, which no rational human being would expect.  Ask five people to give their opinion of any book/film/etc, and you will most likely get 5 different answers once you delve into detail.  It also makes you kind of look pissy when the person who you're talking to has read the book and simply disagrees with you.  Anger at the opinions of others is not only a sign of bigotry, but of the generation of cognitive dissonance due to being presented with either information or opinion that might invalidate the internal inconsistency of one's beliefs.  Or that you are feigning anger to feed the current conversation and keep people coming back to reply. 

I've been quite forthright.

Except when you havent.

"Do you believe the Creator has a physical form that may be perceived?"
No, I do not.
However I believe the Creator may produce various manifestations that are similar enough to physical forms to be considered such for most general purposes and discussions.
"How do you reconcile conflicting statements regarding that within the Bible?"
I don't.
I didn't write it, so I don't worry about reconciling them. I might suggest it is because of human flaws in the writing, but that is just a best guess based on human nature.
More importantly, I don't consider them relevant. Loving the Creator for the infinite gifts given to me, particularly the infinite love, and loving my neighbor because it produces the greatest quality of life possible are relevant, so I focus on them and leave questions about physical forms to the ivory tower theologians. Certainly I will learn the answer after I die, and that is sufficient for me.

If you don't worry about reconciling the conflicting statements, then you are a blind fanatic desperately attempting to avoid anything that would challenge his beliefs, and not wishing to subject them to scrutiny or have them challenged.  That might mean you aren't a troll, but willful blindness isn't exactly that much better.  Then again you do believe I am a religious bigot, so a case can be made for your posting that in an attempt at provocation.  It's also hard to argue you don't believe in the supernatural if you believe in God.

Of course it requires a degree of intellectual integrity and actual competent knowledge to be able to phrase questions like that rather than play the preening troll.

 

Again, there's that condescension.  If you have no problems with cognitive dissonance, you wouldn't feel the need to post in an insulting manner.  It's also hard to claim integrity when you haven't demonstrated it yourself.  As for competency, see my earlier remark about fools.

I do not play at being a troll.  It's very rare that I do so, and only when someone has been truly obnoxious for no other reason than to be obnoxious.  A true, professional troll has absolutely no emotional investment in what he posts about.  He can't allow himself emotion, because that gives his victim a way to fight back.  If you truly don't care about the topic of discussion, you can go on pissing people off forever.  If you become emotionally involved, or make the mistake of needing others to see you as somehow important/better/cool, you flame out.  Preening would assume I take pride or congratulate myself on my efforts.  I do not.  It reminds me all too well of Nietzche's commentary on fighting monsters.   It also assumes I look to others for validation, and I am at a loss to see who could possibly applaud me for my efforts with you. 

There is of course an easy enough experiment.  If you truly think my self-worth is invested in this, or that I am trolling, you could simply deny me by never replying to me again.  A true troll wants to be fed with the frustration and anger of others, and the easiest way to injure him is simply to deny him that.  Granted it's openly facetious of me to suggest this, because we both know you don't have the emotional self-restraint to simply never speak or refer to me again.  You will, predictably, reply to this post, as to any post following it, because that is how the game is played.  "The most common lie is that which one lies to himself; lying to others is relatively an exception."  Have you considered that when I call you a liar, I may not always be referring to myself or others?

[Samwise]

If your not a member of a Judeo Christian religion why bother looking to the Bible for morality then.  You have your own religion to look to for morality.

Now you are just being stupid trying to move the goalposts so openly.

Not trolling in this instance.  I said I was determining whether or not I thought you were taking the piss yes? You'll learn a great deal of what I say and do is to see how you react. 

Which means trolling.

Eventually your reactions will sway my judgement on whether or not you're being forthright.

And apparently incapable of interacting with people without trolling.

For example if you have no emotional attachment to the Bible such as faith you wouldn't feel the need to react emotionally and defensively to the examples I posted, but you did.

Which could have been determined by just asking instead of trolling.

I'm an apatheist.  I do occasionally troll, but only other trolls.  Their pain sustains me. 

So more trolling?

To say I am intolerant of the religious is untrue.  I tolerate them just fine, but I don't tolerate those who use their religion as justification for harming or being malicious towards others.  Truthfully, I think of religion as a mild form of mental illness like schizophrenia.  They aren't evil, they're just out of touch with reality, which is no excuse for harming or maliciousness towards them either.

Unlike the amorality you wind up embracing, which can only be put down to actual malice as you've rejected it having any other motivation.

I understand it just fine.  I am saying that if you believe any code of ethics, morality, or philosophy can be reduced to one sentence, then you are indeed talking out the other side of your face.  Moral or ethical codes or philosophies do not lend themselves to sound bites at all well, which is what you are attempting.

Just because you say it does not make it correct, and in this case you are simply wrong.
The Bible can be reduced to the Golden Rule (both positive and negative forms), just as the political theory underlying the Constitution can be reduced to the single, albeit quite compound, sentence in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps your preferred ideology is so disordered as to defy such reduction, but that does not stand as evidence that all are so poorly constructed.

You could have made this much less stressful on yourself by just having said "I'm Jewish" earlier.  Granted you do share an invisible sky fairy with the Christians so I'm not really sure it makes much of a difference.

Except I'm not Jewish.
I was raised Jewish, and retain certain preferences because of that, but I've pretty much failed at being Jewish and so don't presume to assert that as my religious belief.
Once again you desire to leap to conclusions and force definitions has betrayed you.
Note: Could that be why I also didn't leap to identify myself as a political "conservative" when you asked - I knew it wouldn't matter as you'd assign me a designation based on your own prejudices anyway? Hmmm . . .

I know he was searching for a counter to nihilism, that wasn't my point.  My point was that he had a fairly disdainful view of Christian morality, and without God you had no basis for morality.

Yes, he had a fairly disdainful view of Christian morality; no he didn't say without a Theistic basis you had no basis for morality.

"By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."  He was an atheist who no longer recognized God as credible.

That's because he was asserting that Christians had killed that faith, and so were indulging in empty ritual with no meaning other than ressentiment, and so no morality, and thus . . . nothing at all.

Hence why I believed you were bullshitting.  If your knowledge of Nietzche was as you have implied, you would know how little he regarded religious morality, and therefore could not have been a both a follower of Christ and an admitted atheist. Granted if you are Jewish you could always be a secular Jew.

I'm quite aware of how disdainful he was of a particular form of "religious" morality.
I'm also quite aware of how relevant he considered being moral.
One can embrace the need for morality, even, especially!, if it is for those not sharing the same faith.

If I troll by the way I do not need excuse or justification, especially since I only troll trolls.

And yet you had no way of knowing if I am troll before you began trolling.

It is possible that I have made a false assumption, but some part of me clearly believes you designed your post to deliberately cause such an assumption.  It's why I keep poking you.  Poke someone long enough and they eventually let the truth slip out.

Another possibility:
"Political THEORY thread"
Not,
"Religious THEORY thread"
The religious element was an aside to my core political beliefs, not, what you seem to desire, something for yet another thread.

Well that, or they ragequit, but you don't seem like the type...

You finally got one right.

Occasionally playing the part of a fool in order to get what I want does not mean I happen to be a fool.  Eccentric maybe.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

I've read all three.  The Bible is hardly a moral work, Smith has a limited mindset, and the nihilism Nietzche dreads so much isn't nearly as bad as he believes it to be.  I will agree Sheol and Gehinnom are not equatable with Christian Hell, but in my defense you could have simply admitted to being Jewish.  It's that sort of reluctance on your part that makes me believe you're deliberately trolling.

But have you understood them? It seems not.
The Bible is quite a moral work when you get past the irrelevant parts, Smith wasn't trying to address everything, and Nietzsche also warned of the dangers of the collectivism, which is to say Marxism, that was growing at the time as well.

Trolling is done purely to elicit emotional response by posting in a deliberately deceitful or provocative manner.  To troll you, I have to know something about you.  By your own admission I do not know you well enough yet,   

Except you've admitted you were trolling.
And also that you "only" troll trolls, so clearly you think you know me well enough.

And granted it's possible you're not a lying bastard and this is all a misunderstanding, in which case I will let you be.

Someone is certainly lying around here. Most likely the troll.

Had you simply been honest from the beginning instead of trying to make people guess your intent you wouldn't find yourself in this position.

Had you simply asked directly . . .

Of course it's also possible you just have the communication skills of a gazelle being devoured by lions, in which case I firmly apologize.

Says the troll who doesn't troll but trolls because he cannot communicate without first trolling.

This.  This kind of condescension is why I frequently mention cognitive dissonance.  It also doesn't help fight the perception that you are indeed trolling.  No one needs your consideration or permission to debate you, especially since you go out of your way to be kind of an asshole.

But someone has to pass your trolling test before you judge them worthy of debating? 

This also hurts the perception of your character.

At this point, you have no standing to challenge perception of character.

Your answers have been little more than "read the fucking manual", implying that anyone who has read the book should and would agree with you, which no rational human being would expect.

No, they have been "Have you read the fucking manual?"
I'm routinely confronted by people who love to blather on with fifth-generation commentary they've been indoctrinated in regarding subjects like Nietzsche and the Bible (nobody has even heard of the Theory of Moral Sentiments), so I ask to know just how much I have to present to demonstrate why the random quotes they present are so completely wrong.
You know, as opposed to just trolling instead.

Ask five people to give their opinion of any book/film/etc, and you will most likely get 5 different answers once you delve into detail.

According to Jews, ask 3 scholars of the Tanakh an opinion and get 5 answers.
But I'm sure you don't understand that either.

It also makes you kind of look pissy when the person who you're talking to has read the book and simply disagrees with you.  Anger at the opinions of others is not only a sign of bigotry, but of the generation of cognitive dissonance due to being presented with either information or opinion that might invalidate the internal inconsistency of one's beliefs.  Or that you are feigning anger to feed the current conversation and keep people coming back to reply. 

You mean like you getting bent out of shape that I consider the Bible a source of morality along with Nietzsche?

Except when you havent.

You've been too busy trolling to notice.

If you don't worry about reconciling the conflicting statements, then you are a blind fanatic desperately attempting to avoid anything that would challenge his beliefs, and not wishing to subject them to scrutiny or have them challenged.  That might mean you aren't a troll, but willful blindness isn't exactly that much better.  Then again you do believe I am a religious bigot, so a case can be made for your posting that in an attempt at provocation.  It's also hard to argue you don't believe in the supernatural if you believe in God.

That would be true if I followed an established religion without any consideration or qualifications on my part.
Since I don't, since I'm capable of going beyond such simplistic binaries which are all you are capable of comprehending, then I don't have to be blind to anything.
So many assumption, so many errors.

Again, there's that condescension.  If you have no problems with cognitive dissonance, you wouldn't feel the need to post in an insulting manner.  It's also hard to claim integrity when you haven't demonstrated it yourself.  As for competency, see my earlier remark about fools.

So it is cool for you to do it but not for others to return it to you?
FYI, hypocritical whining is no more charming than trolling.

I do not play at being a troll.  It's very rare that I do so, and only when someone has been truly obnoxious for no other reason than to be obnoxious.

Too late, you've already admitted to being a troll. You cannot pretend otherwise now that you are being held accountable for it.

A true, professional troll has absolutely no emotional investment in what he posts about.  He can't allow himself emotion, because that gives his victim a way to fight back.  If you truly don't care about the topic of discussion, you can go on pissing people off forever.  If you become emotionally involved, or make the mistake of needing others to see you as somehow important/better/cool, you flame out.  Preening would assume I take pride or congratulate myself on my efforts.  I do not.  It reminds me all too well of Nietzche's commentary on fighting monsters.   It also assumes I look to others for validation, and I am at a loss to see who could possibly applaud me for my efforts with you.

 

So you aren't even a very good troll?
What an . . . intriguing . . . justification.

There is of course an easy enough experiment.  If you truly think my self-worth is invested in this, or that I am trolling, you could simply deny me by never replying to me again.

I'm not the type to ragequit, remember?

A true troll wants to be fed with the frustration and anger of others, and the easiest way to injure him is simply to deny him that.

But a troll of any sort hates to be critically injured by having his errors thrown back at him.

Granted it's openly facetious of me to suggest this, because we both know you don't have the emotional self-restraint to simply never speak or refer to me again.  You will, predictably, reply to this post, as to any post following it, because that is how the game is played.

Nice try, but see above.
It will hurt you more to make you ragequit, and you've already confessed to being bent out of shape by being treated poorly in return.

"The most common lie is that which one lies to himself; lying to others is relatively an exception."  Have you considered that when I call you a liar, I may not always be referring to myself or others?

Of course.
But seeing as you've gone out of your way to make your hypocrisy clear, it is simply too obvious that you enjoy wallowing in lying to yourself.

[bhu]

Now you are just being stupid trying to move the goalposts so openly.

I followed your example.

Which means trolling.

If I'm truly trolling my only goal is to get you to react and then prolong the conversation as long as possible.  I wouldn't actually be curious if you were trolling, nor would I limit myself to just you.  Your reactions say things about you, which is how other people learn about you.  You haven't exactly been forthright so poking you with a stick is the fallback method for finding out the truth.

And apparently incapable of interacting with people without trolling.

Only here, and only with you.  Quit being a condescending ass to other people and I'll let you be.

Which could have been determined by just asking instead of trolling.

Only if I'm willing to believe you're willing to tell the truth.

So more trolling?

The emoticon suggests I am not being entirely serious.

Unlike the amorality you wind up embracing, which can only be put down to actual malice as you've rejected it having any other motivation.

  Amorality is not malicious by design.  People can use it as an excuse to justify actions others would consider immoral, but the mere fact that they believe they need justifications reveals that they are not amoral, because if they were they would not seek validation in the beliefs of those who profess to be moral or immoral.

Just because you say it does not make it correct, and in this case you are simply wrong.
The Bible can be reduced to the Golden Rule (both positive and negative forms), just as the political theory underlying the Constitution can be reduced to the single, albeit quite compound, sentence in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps your preferred ideology is so disordered as to defy such reduction, but that does not stand as evidence that all are so poorly constructed.

  Or perhaps your faith renders you subject to cognitive dissonance.  The Bible violates the Golden Rule any number of times.  Numbers for example: 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Putting an entire people to the sword and taking the girls against their will is hardly an example of "Do unto others"

Except I'm not Jewish.
I was raised Jewish, and retain certain preferences because of that, but I've pretty much failed at being Jewish and so don't presume to assert that as my religious belief.
Once again you desire to leap to conclusions and force definitions has betrayed you.
Note: Could that be why I also didn't leap to identify myself as a political "conservative" when you asked - I knew it wouldn't matter as you'd assign me a designation based on your own prejudices anyway? Hmmm . . .

Then you have indeed been prevaricating, making you a troll at best or blind at worst.  You knew saying that you believed basing your morality on the Bible would strongly imply you were a Christian based on the links you have posted, and knew people would make the assumption, so you could then move the goalposts to Judaism, and then to saying 'well I'm not really a jew'.  If you aren't religious nothing I've said about religion should give offense, and you yourself jumped to conclusions immediately assuming I hated the religious and calling me a bigot.  You didn't need to identify yourself as politically conservative, the link you posted did that for you.  Hence the poking.  You aren't willing to be honest until someone provokes you sufficiently.

I know he was searching for a counter to nihilism, that wasn't my point.  My point was that he had a fairly disdainful view of Christian morality, and without God you had no basis for morality.

One can embrace the need for morality, even, especially!, if it is for those not sharing the same faith.

  Yet you feel the need for verbal sleight of hand.

And yet you had no way of knowing if I am troll before you began trolling.

If you weren't I could always make amends after.

Another possibility:
"Political THEORY thread"
Not,
"Religious THEORY thread"
The religious element was an aside to my core political beliefs, not, what you seem to desire, something for yet another thread.

  I don't particularly care whether you are religious or which one, other than in regard to your honesty.If you're religious, be religious without apology and don't care what others think.  Similarly if you're not religious then feel free to be that as well, but at least be up front about it.

You finally got one right.

  See there's that condescension again.  Never be condescending to a troll.  Condescension implies your feelings are hurt, which is what he wants.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

  A true, professional troll cannot have shame or regret, nor can they worry about how they are perceived.  Being liked is not the goal.  Perversely, being disliked isn't the goal either though it always happens.  Getting your opponent to respond and keep responding is the only goal.  " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. "

But have you understood them? It seems not.
The Bible is quite a moral work when you get past the irrelevant parts, Smith wasn't trying to address everything, and Nietzsche also warned of the dangers of the collectivism, which is to say Marxism, that was growing at the time as well.

Being popular does not make something right.  Because a man has insight into one instance does not imply likewise that he has insight to everything.   This is again the issue I mentioned before: cognitive dissonance.  I do understand them, I just don't agree with you one hundred percent on everything, and the dissonance will always make that unacceptable to you.  That other people disagree with you does not necessarily render them wrong, nor does it make you right.  It just means you differ in opinion about one meaningless book.  Relax.  The world will not end because someone does not walk in lockstep with you.

Except you've admitted you were trolling.
And also that you "only" troll trolls, so clearly you think you know me well enough.

  Or I could just be saying that to gauge your response.

Had you simply asked directly . . .

  I did.  You chose to fooferaw.

Says the troll who doesn't troll but trolls because he cannot communicate without first trolling.

  There are plenty of instances of my posting on the board without trolling.  Look at my posts and you will find my arguments confined solely to this thread, and only with you.

But someone has to pass your trolling test before you judge them worthy of debating? 

  No,  I've debated plenty of people without this measure.  I just saw you being a dishonest dick to other people and decided to call you on it by being mean to you.  And it's worked.  You aren't being dickish to other people in the thread besides me, which I'm okay with.  I've sparred with trolls before.

At this point, you have no standing to challenge perception of character.

Again, if one wishes to be a troll, or argue with trolls, one cannot have shame or reservation.  There is no statement, no matter how egregious that you can hesitate to make to piss off your opponent, only to piss him off again by walking it back moments later.  Which you've done nicely.  Trolls do not care about character, and those who would confront them cannot afford to care either.  Perception by others is a sacrifice you make willingly to become or confront a troll.

No, they have been "Have you read the fucking manual?"
I'm routinely confronted by people who love to blather on with fifth-generation commentary they've been indoctrinated in regarding subjects like Nietzsche and the Bible (nobody has even heard of the Theory of Moral Sentiments), so I ask to know just how much I have to present to demonstrate why the random quotes they present are so completely wrong.
You know, as opposed to just trolling instead.

  The need to tell other people they are wrong does not speak well of you.  Those people may be parroting what they've heard other says or what they were taught, but so do you.  So does everyone.  It's part of being human, and doesn't make them less than you.  Were back to cognitive dissonance again.  Also, you wouldn't bother asking me if you truly think I'm a troll because you'd presume I was lying.  Granted everyone lies, but trolls are generally presumed to be doing so at all times unless the truth hurts more. 

According to Jews, ask 3 scholars of the Tanakh an opinion and get 5 answers.
But I'm sure you don't understand that either.

  Condescension.  Cognitive Dissonance.  Troll food.  nomnomnomnomnomnom...

You mean like you getting bent out of shape that I consider the Bible a source of morality along with Nietzsche?

  You mean like feigning misunderstanding when you claim two not quite polar opposites as the basis for morality in a clear attempt to get someone to make an emotional reply? 

That would be true if I followed an established religion without any consideration or qualifications on my part.
Since I don't, since I'm capable of going beyond such simplistic binaries which are all you are capable of comprehending, then I don't have to be blind to anything.
So many assumption, so many errors.

  Condescension,  Cognitive dissonance.  That need to feel superior that makes you vulnerable to being prodded and manipulated by trolls...

So it is cool for you to do it but not for others to return it to you?
FYI, hypocritical whining is no more charming than trolling.

  You began this.  I gave you an out last post by telling you how to beat a troll knowing full well you wouldn't take it.  As for charm, trolls aren't meant to be charming, nor do they care about hypocrisy, they care about results.  Why change what works?

Too late, you've already admitted to being a troll. You cannot pretend otherwise now that you are being held accountable for it.

  I admitted to trolling trolls, but in what way am I being held accountable?  The phrase 'being held accountable' presumes I am responsible to someone that I have to answer to.  You have no authority here, therefore you are not that person.  Neither if us is being held accountable to anyone.

So you aren't even a very good troll?
What an . . . intriguing . . . justification.

  What better way to troll someone than to admit you're trolling them while you're in the process of doing it?  I do like the slyness of the justification part, and it might work if you weren't so blatantly transparent. 
 

I'm not the type to ragequit, remember?

  Ragequitting would involve you going on a profanity filled screed before leaving the forum, which is not my intention.  Even fools knwo that you don't feed the troll, and replying is the only way you feed the troll.  Silence is your one true defense, and he eventually gets bored and wanders away to find someone who will still react and post back.   If you keep replying the troll wins.  It's why you leave emotions behind when you enter this business professionally, along with ideological beliefs,  They get in the way.

But a troll of any sort hates to be critically injured by having his errors thrown back at him.

  It is difficult for a troll to make a mistake.  If you respond at all, he gets what he wants.  Remember he has no investment in the point of view he presents, nor does he care for accuracy or truth or even coherency.  His goal is to make you respond.  Trying to trip him up is a common trap, as he simply giggles while you tell him how foolish he is.  What did you think he was posting foolish things for?

It will hurt you more to make you ragequit, and you've already confessed to being bent out of shape by being treated poorly in return.

  This isn't because you've treated me poorly.  I went into this assuming you were being deliberately provocative, I assumed I'd be treated poorly so there was no reason to be upset over it.  This began because you have treated others poorly, and will continue for as long as I can distract you to prevent you from treating others poorly.  Are you really such a narcissist that you feel the need to spend eternity arguing with someone yo consider a fool?  Are you truly so fragile in your masculinity?  Wise men do not argue with fools remember?  And being seen as wise is so central to your self worth that his hardly seems worth the sacrifice.

But seeing as you've gone out of your way to make your hypocrisy clear, it is simply too obvious that you enjoy wallowing in lying to yourself.

  I had no illusions about what I would have to become to do this, nor about the possibilities involved.  You let your emotions cloud your perception.  Wise men do not think with their emotions or their pride.

[Samwise]

This isn't because you've treated me poorly.  I went into this assuming you were being deliberately provocative, I assumed I'd be treated poorly so there was no reason to be upset over it.

So you made an assumption and began trolling on the basis of it, hoping to be flamed in return, and yet you still think there is some reason to take anything you say seriously.
 

[bhu]

This isn't because you've treated me poorly.  I went into this assuming you were being deliberately provocative, I assumed I'd be treated poorly so there was no reason to be upset over it.

So you made an assumption and began trolling on the basis of it, hoping to be flamed in return, and yet you still think there is some reason to take anything you say seriously.
 

Can't help but notice you edited out this part of the quote "This began because you have treated others poorly".  I knew you were being a dick to people I just wanted to see why.  If you've treated others poorly, assuming you will do the same to me once I began speaking to you isn't unreasonable.  Also, you still replied.  If you keep replying my methods are working.

[Solo]

I have taught you well.

[Samwise]

Also, you still replied.  If you keep replying my methods are working.

You mean my noting that you were still just trolling and not actually saying?
Well, if you really want me to keep pointing that out . . .

[bhu]

Also, you still replied.  If you keep replying my methods are working.

You mean my noting that you were still just trolling and not actually saying?
Well, if you really want me to keep pointing that out . . .

A good troll freely mixes the truth with lies.  That way his opponent assumes everything he says is bullshit.  Especially when he actually is honest, which can lead to amusing times.