Vulgarization of James Chang?
The angry British gentleman came back and started blog-stalking me by posting a comment under every comment I or someone else had made in the past few days. Lol. How very amusing. He surely has much time to spare.The really troubling part though is that I just couldn't understand his new talking-points this time at all. Weird. As someone who reads a lot, I am usually able to understand the most obscure among all statements (as anyone who's done Kant's Groundwork would be able to tell), but for some reason I just couldn't decipher his angry/nervous responses this time.
He still failed to tell me why Dawkins' arguments, however scientifically valuable they are, have no moral bearing whatsoever. That was my original point, and for whatever reason he refuses to engage in answering/rebutting it.
He then moved on claiming that I got riled up by Dawkins because of his anti-religious stances. And this is clearly a misrepresentation of my views. I got riled up not because of Dawkins' irreligiosity but because of his refusal to recognize the existence of an independent metaphysical basis for all human morality, and the bindingness of the moral law. Alas our British friend also failed to engage me on this issue.
So yeah, out of my respect for him as a human being's sake I am not going to cancel his comments. But if he keep on posting non-sequiturs I'm afraid I will have to start deleting comments. You hear me, Gert.
posted by James Chang @ 10:56 AM
2 Comments:
James,
I suggest we simply let your readers decide, shall we?
Personally, I feel you have systematically misquoted me, called me a stalker (you have spent much, much more time on this issue than I have, each time I make a comment you dedicate a entirely new post to it! That's an absolute first for me, I can assure you that), told me I "note" you're an anti-atheist (I didn't), called me angry (I'm not).
And if you further wish to completely distort our exchanges, then I'll see you at my porch. Also, delete as much as you wish. I will not comment here any further.
Take care,
Your British "stalker".
You still haven't rebutted the one real issue I had with Dawkins, have you? But since you decide not to engage in any further discussion I wouldn't force you.
Post a Comment
<< Home