PMs between Macaddicttt and RacerX

I'm tired of posting in the actual forums because I just get slammed for no reason. I just wanted to please ask you to stop attacking my character falsely. In the ethics thread, I was not out to attack anyone, merely to gain a greater understanding of atheism. Obviously I did a poor job of communicating. I would appreciate it if you would edit your latest post in the "panicking atheist" thread.

I don't (currently) believe that you had any issues with communicating what you think of atheists. You stated that you believe atheists have no ethical center and that we had to prove that this impression was wrong. When a number of us attempted to express how hurtful that stance is and how ethics has more to do with compassion and caring than any beliefs, you discarded those positions.

The only difference between two people with different beliefs is that they each think they know something different than the other. That does not effect the ethical foundations of either one, and to say that due to a lack of belief in a deity that atheists must logically have no ethics is just about the worse thing someone could say about another.

I pointed out that in a truly logical argument, the only difference between you the believer and you the atheist would be a belief in a deity. And that if you reach this harsh conclusion about people who don't believe in deities it was most likely due to the fact that you would lack ethics without that belief.

What I find truly frightening is that you displayed a lack of ethics with your beliefs. Ethics should have stopped you from casting dispersions on other groups, specially groups who generally have no issues with others. I have never attacked your beliefs, but you when out of your way to attempt to link mine with the worst people in history that you could find and to state that (until someone could prove otherwise to you) that atheists lacked ethics.

But I haven't seen you distancing yourself from your previous positions (like the "I myself am not an atheist, and therefore I have an ethical center" statement), so my description of you (though I would like it to be different) was accurate based on what you've displayed.

But if I am wrong about you (and I truly hope that I am), participation in discussions would be the best way of showing me. Abandoning the discussions does only one thing... solidifies what I already believe about you. I'm not saying that making up for those 76 post will be easy (I surely wouldn't want to), but those were your words and only you can negate them.

Okay, I understand, but I wish you could take my word for it that I don't think that atheists are terrible people or that I was purposefully attacking or being offensive. I was simply arguing a position to get others to take the counter argument. I'm not sure if I could continue discussing this if I wanted, since you already have such a prejudice against me. I really don't think anything would be accomplished, since you have this odd view of me as stunning unethical and not compassionate and prejudiced against atheists and all these other things. If you honestly want to know more about what I was actually trying to argue (and not even necessarily what I believe), just look at Kant. He was sort of going in that same direction.

I really wish you would take my word for it, that I don't hate atheists, think they're immoral, or anything that you inferred from the ethics thread. I don't believe I was spreading hate at all (it certainly wasn't my intention) and I think it unfair of you to tarnish my reputation by accusing me of something I didn't do.

I find your defensiveness in regards to our ethics discussion perplexing, honestly. You accuse me of rejecting other ethical centers. This is a charge that just confuses me. Others would give me an idea of an ethical center, and then I'd point out potential problems with using that thing as an ethical center. I merely wanted a discussion so I could further understand those ethical centers. I did not simply reject them out of hand.

So in conclusion, I am very perplexed by what happened in that discussion, but I understand that I offended people. I'm asking you to take my word for it that I had no ill intentions, so that you could perhaps not cripple my reputation in the forums, but I understand if you don't. I would love to discuss things like ethics with you, but honestly I just don't have the time and I feel like we started too much on the wrong foot for the ethics discussion to really go anywhere, so I just have to ask you to take my word for it. Thanks for reading this.

I think you would do yourself a massive favor if you started actually reading the works of Kant rather than assuming that you have any idea what he said... because you are about as far away from his ideals as you could get. I've been reading the works of Kant since before you were born. It isn't theory for me, it is a way of life.

But as you seem to not understand how you could have offended others, I suggest this... take my position on you as one stance and you can provide me with a counter argument as to why it is incorrect. This is, after all, how you attempted to apply this to others. Sure, you find the starting position (with you being "unethical and not compassionate") distressing, but wasn't that the exact same position that you were attempting to put atheists into to begin with?

Frankly, Kant tells you how an ethical system can be formed without reference to a deity (so you need to start learning what he was saying rather than just using his name, as so far you have yet to make any argument that looks anywhere near like what he has ever said on the subject). And you really need to take a course in logic. Because you seem to have no idea what this statement is actually saying...

Even in these PMs, I don't see you distancing yourself from the views you put forward. Actions speak louder than words, and you have done nothing to fix your argument (assuming that you even believe that there was anything wrong with your argument to begin with... which I doubt is the case).

The argument you put forward presumes a negative state for atheists and that they must prove the contrary. You find yourself in a negative state and are now being forced to prove the contrary. Atheists like me were offended by your argument in the same way that you are finding yourself disliking your current position.

If you knew anything about Kant you wouldn't need to be experiencing this situation yourself to have an understanding of why putting others in such a situation was unethical to begin with. I have no problem using this trap that you've made for yourself to help you learn, but I wouldn't have ever considered putting any group of people into a defensive situation as a starting point for a discussion.

And one final thought... what I think of you is really the least of your worries. I can keep you on the ropes for as long as I feel is needed to help you learn this lesson. The people you should really be worried about are those who no longer care enough to give you the time of day. I like you just fine mainly because I still believe you have the ability to be a good person in the end... there are others who don't think that highly of you.

First of all, what you say about Kant is ridiculous. I'm referring to the part where you say you've been reading him since before I was born. That doesn't not make you an expert, and it is a non sequitur. So you can just leave that sort of ad hominem argument at the door. Second, I know that Kant's ethics didn't include a deity. He thought that there should be some rationalistic way to deduce morals from our surroundings. The best he could come up with was basing morals on the one thing that separates us from the rest of the universe: reason. But this is not without problems. I don't think that anyone believes Kant's theories in whole because basing the value of a human life on reason precludes mentally handicapped people, and therefore based on Kant's philosophy, their lives would have no value. (And there are other problems, too, but this is the most obvious and overarching.)

So my point in bringing up Kant is that he tried to come up with a morality that precluded a deity, and he failed. Perhaps someone has succeeded. The point is, the only reason I brought up Kant is because his theories and struggles epitomize the difficulties (not necessarily impossibilities) of having an atheistic set of morals.

And your lecturing me on logic is completely illogical in and of itself. You say that I need to take a class on logic because I don't know what this says: "I myself am not an atheist, and therefore I have an ethical center." Okay, tell me what it says then. According to you, I said something that I didn't mean. Yet you take the statement on face value based on your interpretation and not my intentions. You refuse to get past these one-off statements and continue the conversation. Instead, you read hate into everything I say so that instead of actually having a debate, we just have to sit there and debate sentences that don't really matter all that much since you give them a meaning that I am not. I'm not going to debate with you if every time I say a sentence you have to give me a lecture about logic and what that sentence is "really saying."

And I still fail to see how my discussion in the ethics thread was unethical. If challenging someone's beliefs and asking them to explain them is unethical, then I really don't understand your system of ethics. I even tried to distance myself from the extreme position I was forced to take by putting the debate in a historical context and into other people's words so that the discussion would not devolve in to me being called hateful or unethical. I wanted to know the atheist's response to those thinkers because, honestly, I just have never seen any in my studies. I'm honestly curious to know what those responses are. But instead, I was forced to take the position myself, and I suffered exactly the fate I feared: in the minds of everyone else Macaddicttt = hates atheists, which is ridiculous.

In fact, your condescending statement "I still believe you have the ability to be a good person in the end" is much more offensive than anything I said in the ethics thread. I never said that atheists were by default immoral or unethical, yet you call me immoral and unethical without batting an eyelash. I was curious in the atheist's position on what he based his morals on. And if you want to know what the oft-quoted statement I made ("I myself am not an atheist, and therefore I have an ethical center") was supposed to me, I'll let you know: I know what my ethical center is. I don't know what an atheist's ethical center is. What do they base their morals on. Mine is based on a personal universe. Obviously the atheist does not believe in a personal universe (the very definition of atheism, in fact), so what is it based on?

And even more perplexing is your insistence that actions speak louder than words. So apparently the things I said in the thread (words) are actions, whereas the overtures of understanding and removing the stigma of hate by writing to you in private without the distractions of other posters is "just words." I think my actions have spoken clearly and so have yours. I obviously am intent on repairing my standing in the forum by kindly asking you to stop defaming my character in public based on your misunderstandings of what I've said, whereas you are intent on "teaching me a lesson." You claim that you respect me more than others, yet go out of your way to include a defaming reference to me. Again, actions speak louder that words. If you truly respected me, you would have acted on that respect. Instead you have merely said that you respect me, and defamed my character to others who have not given me the fair shakes that you are attempting to give me.

Its funny how predictable you are though. I had already guessed that if you didn't get your way that you would start throwing a temper tantrum. But maybe you are right, and maybe there really isn't a core of good in you. Your lack of caring for your fellow man shows the true nature of your ethics, and my ethics have been bore out by how I've lived my life and is already solidified in the passage of time.

First of all, calling me a child and saying I don't know what I'm talking about does not make it true. Maybe you actually want to show me where I'm mistaken. Saying, "I've been reading Kant since before you were born," does not count as refuting my claims. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Second, I don't think I'm as predictable as you think I am because I did not throw a temper tantrum. Perhaps you were expecting one, and therefore convinced yourself that my attempt to create some understanding between us was in fact the temper tantrum you wanted. Ad hominem attacks is about the worst thing you can resort to in a debate. I guess it really proves that you're not interested in debate at all. Despite the actual words you've said in terms of ethics, I'm actually beginning to doubt whether you actually have any (for the first time, mind you). Again, actions speak louder than words, and resorting to ad hominem attacks and being dismissive in the most condescending tone possible sends a pretty clear message that for all your talk of compassion, you really cannot empathize with another human being that perhaps disagrees with you, but instead are intent on attacking, despite your victim's good intentions.

You know, perhaps it's more fitting to say that it's funny how predictable you are. I should have known that you wouldn't actually respond to me in a dignified way. Perhaps I do lack the experience I sorely need to tell me that humans are not all essentially good (as I assumed they, including you, were), but in fact there are those who write condescending remarks to other people anonymously over the internet to to boost their self-esteem or achieve some other equally selfish goal.

We certainly have shown the true nature of our ethics. Your lack of caring for me (your fellow man) shows that perhaps there really isn't a core of good in you. Obviously I have some sort of core of good, considering the numerous attempts I've made to make peace between us. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about our true natures, although I doubt you'll give a word I say a second of thought. I'm betting this will be written off in your mind as another "temper tantrum" so that you won't actually have to confront the astounding way in which you have comported yourself towards me, your fellow man who has given you the benefit of the doubt on just about everything, up until now.

The rest of what you had to say I'll be happy to address when posted in the open forum... but I would care to ask you to work on your vocabulary. Beyond your over use of ad hominem in many of your posts, I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word anonymous.

Really, though, I'm sick of this bickering. And just for the record, you're still twisting my words. Despite however much information you give out on these forums, it's still pretty anonymous. I don't know you and you don't know me. Talking through PM on a forum on the internet by typing messages is about as anonymous as you can get. Sure you can tell me your name and you're no longer technically anonymous, but you still don't have to take any responsibility for whatever you say on these forums (unless you break a rule). If you have a better word, I'd like to hear it. I think my usage was in the spirit of the word.

And actually, I just thought of something. What I said about you being anonymous was even technically true when I said it. Sure, you signed your posts Dave, but that's hardly an identifier seeing as there are tons of Daves in the world. So I hate to rub it in more, but your logic is flawed even when trying to be glib. (And I'd like to preempt another attack on my diction. "Glib" probably isn't the best word, but it's the best I can come up with.)

Again, you completely miss the point of what I was saying and resort to harping on insignificant, misinterpreted points. I don't understand how you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm not being clear, but really, you should know what I'm trying to say even if I'm not the best rhetorician in the world, or at least give me some benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't matter how much information you give on this forum about your real self, you still are in your home (or work or where ever), hiding behind your computer. It's far easier for you to disregard my honest attempts at creating understanding between us and to question that I even am good at heart from behind your desk at a keyboard than to look me in the eye and say it. It's easy for you to misconstrue my words and begin some sort of psychoanalysis of my character to determine that I am without compassion or basic human decency in order to avoid any real debate when you're just happily typing away on a machine to someone whom you obviously don't understand is a real person.

Really, this is the most confusing part of your debate here. You criticize my logic, and instead of telling me its flaws or trying to point me to the "right" direction, you instead read into my words some sort of psychoanalysis so that you never have to address the words themselves at all. From the very beginning, you have shown no interest in what I have been saying, but rather have engaged in some sort of amateur psychologist exercise that tries to justify you demeaning anything and everything I say. I suggest you instead take a page from your own book and try acting out of compassion instead of arrogance and condescension.

I could give you every personal detail about myself, my first, middle, and last name, my mother's maiden name, where I went to high school, my first kiss, anything you want, yet it would not solve the problem of anonymity on the internet. No matter how much information I give you about myself, I still am no more than the words I write, I am not an actual person that you have to treat with at least some measure of respect (according to your own professed morals). So no, offering to give your name and place of birth to me does not make you better than me for shedding your anonymity. You have shed nothing. You still hiding behind a keyboard. Now if you were to give me a phone call, we'd be getting somewhere in destroying the anonymity of this discussion.

I would even say that it's possible that I have less anonymity than you on this forum. My handle here is well-known by my friends and family, and therefore what I say here actually can have an effect on my real life, my day-to-day interactions, my actual life. While I'm not suggesting that RacerX is unknown to your friends and family, I doubt that typing RacerX into Google with return your MacRumors user profile, like it does when you type in Macaddicttt. (It's the first result, actually, I just checked. And RacerX returns nothing remotely related to you. Tenth page and still nothing.)

So in conclusion, no I will not take this to the public forum because if you won't treat me with respect (according to your own professed ethics) in private, I can hardly deal with you in the public forums. The minute I state a contentious position (i.e. anything not in line with the atheistic majority in the PRSI forum), not only will I have to engage with serious debate with others, I would have to deal with your inane psychoanalysis that seeks to undermine what I'm actually saying. (The very definition of ad hominem: from the Latin "ad" -- to, towards; and "homo, hominis" -- man; which is exactly what you're doing, going not to the words, but the man behind them.) Unfortunately, the other posters on this forum will probably not realize the ridiculousness of your posts, as it did not quite hit me until I started this one-on-one chat with you. I came into this discussion with all the respect in the world. You have lost that intellectual respect, although I will still treat you with the respect you have sorely failed to give me.

I've been using the handle RacerX since you were 10, and most of my clients and friends know my handle and what forums I post in. When I do lectures in the Minneapolis area to Mac users, my introduction includes both my name and my handle. And some people actually call me RacerX IRL. Also, up until the movie Speed Racer was announced, a Google search would turn up either myself or some band.

Get a clue Kid, I don't hide anything. I'll be happy to meet you in person anytime we are near enough to meet. You pose no physical threat to me (very few people in the world actually would), so it isn't like I wouldn't say the exact same things to you in person that I would here.

Lying about respect isn't going to change anything. Besides, why would I care if you respected me if you can't give any of us a respectable version of you to begin with. There is little in the world less valuable than the respect of the unrespected.

But in the end of all this, you contacted me. So for some very strange reason (that frankly I can't understand) you value what I have to say about you. I think you really need to start worrying less about what people think of you and more about what you think of yourself. You can say or think anything you want about me... I don't really care. You are just this weeks play thing. The mouse that got to close to the cat.