Hatred of Christianity!

[Averroes]

you kept denying you ever talked about it

it's interesting: I travel to work via the subway in ny, at off hours, late at night. There are often poeple there, unwashed and talking to themselves, living a lonely existance sleeping in the mass transit system.

Trying to talk to them would have been more productive than talking to you.

Its you who've been dismissed. I simply understand i don't get far talking to children.

ouch!

 

[Quagmire]

I simply understand I don't get far talking to children.

Because of the court order you mean?

(just guessing here)

 

[not nom]

weak troll started out weak and ended weak.

You kept denying you ever talked about it

(just avoiding any and all of your BS being called hahaha)

 

[crystalonyx]

It certainly feels more insulting and attacking when your affiliation is the thing being criticized. And in the West, Christianity sure is attacked more than other religions.

I see it as this: the dominant or majority party/class/religion gets criticized the most, whatever that class or religion may be. It's the most visible and the most influential, and it's the easiest target, as long as you're in an area where you're allowed to freely express your opinions on the establishment.

Add a few other components to that - diametrically opposed views between some beliefs, a dubious history as an institution, and a religious text which is debated, and attacks are par for the course.

Actually, atheism is attacked far more that Christianity, since the latter is the predominant religion in the U.S. A politician that claims to be atheist has literally signed his political death warrant.

 

[fallingblood]

weak troll started out weak and ended weak.



(just avoiding any and all of your BS being called hahaha)

Yet you and Heathen Hammer continue to actually avoid the material that has been put down. You lasted much longer than Heathen Hammer (who seemed to give up actually debating quite some time ago, and ignore the actual arguments), but both of you have just stopped actually addressing any arguments. I would say that is ending weak.

 

[not nom]

Yet you and Heathen Hammer continue to actually avoid the material that has been put down.

you mean like when quagmire brought up nordic stuff and the holocaust, then said "who even talked about that", then ignored my quoting him has "misconstrued evidence" and kept distracting hahaha? whatevs dude. the moment I'm being trolled and lied to, I focus on that, yeah. and then I get bored.

if you want to seriously talk to me, don't back up a petty troll. if you do, I simply don't want to talk with you either. it's super simple and I'm done here, that's all. I just had to laugh when quagmire posted that. I'll keep it to myself the next time.

You lasted much longer than Heathen Hammer (who seemed to give up actually debating quite some time ago, and ignore the actual arguments), but both of you have just stopped actually addressing any arguments. I would say that is ending weak.

I'm done addressing strawmen and trolling, yeah. you have your conclusion, I have mine.

 

[not nom]

here's the problem with judaism, christianity and islam, they're all prototypes of fascism. that individuals are a.) not aware of that and b.) don't act it out, doesn't change what they are on paper.

the only ACTUAL question is, is that god a benevolent ruler and the original designer - or an impostor, a hijacker of creation.

and I have that beef with god/scripture, not with joe schmoe. but those who actually revel in it (that the führer is by definition right, and will lead them into paradise - that IS a constant with all sorts of messianic leaders, stalin, mao, hitler, and thinking god, or jesusgod, will throw all enemies into hell), with that I have that beef as well. but not because they are guilty by association, but because they're guilty of the negative I associate with the above three religions (and prolly others I am not really aware of).

that's all I have to say on the topic, anything else I didn't answer I just concede or something. I simply can't be arsed anymore.

 

[McBell]

here's the problem with judaism, christianity and islam, they're all prototypes of fascism. that individuals are a.) not aware of that and b.) don't act it out, doesn't change what they are on paper.

the only ACTUAL question is, is that god a benevolent ruler and the original designer - or an impostor, a hijacker of creation.

and I have that beef with god/scripture, not with joe schmoe. but those who actually revel in it (that the führer is by definition right, and will lead them into paradise - that IS a constant with all sorts of messianic leaders, stalin, mao, hitler, and thinking god, or jesusgod, will throw all enemies into hell), with that I have that beef as well. but not because they are guilty by association, but because they're guilty of the negative I associate with the above three religions (and prolly others I am not really aware of).

that's all I have to say on the topic, anything else I didn't answer I just concede or something. I simply can't be arsed anymore.

Your false dichotomy is comical, but hardly productive for honest discussion.

 

[not nom]

Your false dichotomy is comical, but hardly productive for honest discussion.

false dichotomy between what and what?

 

[McBell]

false dichotomy between what and what?

Your claim of "the only actual question" is one.

The question "is that god a benevolent ruler and the original designer - or an impostor, a hijacker of creation" is another one.

 

[not nom]

Your claim of "the only actual question" is one.

well, I guess it depends on how you read that, and what one means by fascism. it clearly can't mean what mussolini invented in the 20st century, I'm kinda going by the alleged source of the word: binding many together to make one. in that sense, monotheism is fascist. that is "without question". feel free to raise one.

so then (for me) the (only actual) question is - because "is that fascist" is not an actual question, it's answered with "yes" - , would that be good or bad. because I don't necessarily impute what human fascists do, to a god that created the universe.

The question "is that god a benevolent ruler and the original designer - or an impostor, a hijacker of creation" is another one.

oh really? if someone claims they are the creator, but aren't, how are they not an impostor? if they want to exercise power by claiming to be the rightful original owner of everything that ever existed, how would that not be hijacking?

but of course, there is also the option of a malevolent rightful ruler, I left that option out, fine. because I personally don't spend many thoughts on it.

thanks for not adding anything to the conversation other than trying to smear me as dishonest though, it's all real droll :yes:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yet you and Heathen Hammer continue to actually avoid the material that has been put down. You lasted much longer than Heathen Hammer (who seemed to give up actually debating quite some time ago, and ignore the actual arguments), but both of you have just stopped actually addressing any arguments. I would say that is ending weak.

On a number of occasions I must point out that you asserted evidence for your positions and provided absolutely none, despite a number of calls for them. I wouldn't talk about this, were I you. It's rather hypocritical.

I 'gave up' because speaking with certain individuals here is a waste of my time. Much as you appear to be gloating, that isn't the same as being defeated. But it will decrease my contributions in some respect, and for that you are probably happy.

 

[fallingblood]

On a number of occasions I must point out that you asserted evidence for your positions and provided absolutely none, despite a number of calls for them. I wouldn't talk about this, were I you. It's rather hypocritical.

I 'gave up' because speaking with certain individuals here is a waste of my time. Much as you appear to be gloating, that isn't the same as being defeated. But it will decrease my contributions in some respect, and for that you are probably happy.

I would be happy if you continued the actual discussion instead of dismissing it and finding a lame excuse to blame others for you backing out.

 

[fallingblood]

here's the problem with judaism, christianity and islam, they're all prototypes of fascism. that individuals are a.) not aware of that and b.) don't act it out, doesn't change what they are on paper.

You are being very misleading here. You use the definition of fascism as: binding many together to make one. Now that really is not the most common definition, and not the one the most people would think of when you say the word fascism. So it is very misleading.

But, if it simply means binding many together to make one, wouldn't nearly any government be that? Yes. So how is it bad? RF could even be said to be that. Especially if we broaden it as you have. So you call these religions fascist as if that is a bad thing, yet you use a definition that really wouldn't suggest that it is bad.

the only ACTUAL question is, is that god a benevolent ruler and the original designer - or an impostor, a hijacker of creation.

I guess that is the only actual question if you don't really understand those religions, or the people who follow those religions. Really though, you're using an either or fallacy. There are more options than you are giving.

and I have that beef with god/scripture, not with joe schmoe. but those who actually revel in it (that the führer is by definition right, and will lead them into paradise - that IS a constant with all sorts of messianic leaders, stalin, mao, hitler, and thinking god, or jesusgod, will throw all enemies into hell), with that I have that beef as well. but not because they are guilty by association, but because they're guilty of the negative I associate with the above three religions (and prolly others I am not really aware of).

And now you go back to the negative definition of fascism. I find it hard to believe that the definition you gave is the one you actually were using. Because by what you are saying right here, it doesn't look like it. That and you clearly have no idea what a messianic leader is, because Stalin, Mao, and Hitler do not fit. Unless you widen the term so far that it really have no meaning.

More so, God/scripture does not necessarily that all enemies will be thrown into hell. This is just an example of you not really understanding these religions.

 

[not nom]

I would be happy if you continued the actual discussion instead of dismissing it and finding a lame excuse to blame others for you backing out.

what discussion? norse mythology, and norse history, doesn't contain mass murder. christian theology does. that was the point. did anyone actually refute that? no. instead a lot of distracting and bloating it all up took place.

I guess we could squabble endlessly of how history is worldly powers that just use religion, and I agree to that actually, though I obviously do see it as an enabler. but lore and scripture are what they are, so the original comparison, between considering someone who believes in norse mythology as guilty by association with the holocaust and slavery, as the same as someone doing that with a christian, was never anything but a fallacy, and whenever that was pointed out, that was ignored, and finally called a lie, which of course was a lie in itself but hey.

not that "guilt by association" isn't a fallacy to begin with. the topic is about that, but also called "hatred of christianity", and when someone sloppily whips out holocaust and slavery, one kinda ought to look at christianity, too. after all, it was in europe before (those forms of) racism, no? that's why I even mentioned it. that's why I got so tired so quickly of talking about how I think "all christians" are this or that.
I'm sorry you have such a hard time understanding that, but when someone, after spending a LOT of posts dancing about, says "who even brought that up", and you tell them they did, and they ignore that a few more times, then call that fabricated evidence -- and I get called dishonest haha?! and someone like you just moans on the sidelines that we DARE to resent that instead of addressing your precious points?

would you talk to such people for prolonged periods of time unless absolutely necessary? no you wouldn't, that's why you disagree with my assessment without any argument to it, and keep moaning. take all your points and declare victory, I certainly couldn't care less really. you act as if we're not allowed to talk anymore, unless we address you. holy crap, that's needy.

you think your points matter so much we're looking for excuses? I can only speak for myself, they don't matter enough to override being done with this joke of a thread. THAT I find much more interesting to point out, the dishonesty and hipocrisy, and the weak ******* tactics, than responding to strawmen because some people can't distinct between themselves as a person and the religious concepts I'm criticizing.

 

[not nom]

You are being very misleading here. You use the definition of fascism as: binding many together to make one. Now that really is not the most common definition, and not the one the most people would think of when you say the word fascism. So it is very misleading.

so? it's not like people can't ask, or that it might not be possibly to get from the context and what it is applied to, and what is mentioned before and after that word.

you know how I mean it, but you would rather just berate me.I'm not being misleading, that's what it boils down to me. and I don't speak for "most people here", I speak for myself. you know, as if I wasn't a fascist or something ^^

if others are prejudiced, or don't think much, they are mislead. but not by me.

But, if it simply means binding many together to make one, wouldn't nearly any government be that? Yes.

no. you misunderstand. one head, many limbs. a government consists of individiduals. fascism doesn't. wether the authority is just one person or a party like in chine is not the issue. but there is ONE source of authority and control, pervading all aspects of life, and the hierarchy goes *strictly* into one direction. that goes for a lot of things, but not "nearly any government".

but it's not like you want to actually address my points, you're just sophisting around. I do get that ^^

So how is it bad? RF could even be said to be that. Especially if we broaden it as you have. So you call these religions fascist as if that is a bad thing, yet you use a definition that really wouldn't suggest that it is bad.
I guess that is the only actual question if you don't really understand those religions, or the people who follow those religions. Really though, you're using an either or fallacy. There are more options than you are giving.

blah blah blah. you assume, and then pat yourself on the back. you see, now I remember why I lost interest dealing with that again. it's not just because of quagmire, it's you.

And now you go back to the negative definition of fascism.

LOL!!! YOU MAKE **** UP, and instead of realizing you assumed incorrectly, in you talking to yourself, asking rhetorical questions with me answering them -- you say *I* am changing back.

I find it hard to believe that the definition you gave is the one you actually were using.

you talk to yourself, and then moan when I don't respond to legitimize more of that?

Because by what you are saying right here, it doesn't look like it. That and you clearly have no idea what a messianic leader is, because Stalin, Mao, and Hitler do not fit. Unless you widen the term so far that it really have no meaning.

what? they thought they were messiahs, they followed them fanatically. that certainly applies to hitler. the nazis would flat out not happened that way without hitler. grown (NSDAP) men basically wrote love poems to him as early as in the 1920's, how he is the hope for germany and whatnot. everything he did was good. and when signs for the opposite appeared, people tried really, really hard to not see them.

that's what I meant with "messianic". I think someone who is actually trying to follow should be able to grasp that. you're just playing word games as if that constitutes an argument.

More so, God/scripture does not necessarily that all enemies will be thrown into hell.

so? did I say it necessarily does? nope.

are you denying there are a lot of people preaching and believing exactly that? seriously? if not, what's your point? just AGAIN this whole "but not ALL are X"? do you even have any other cheap tactics?

This is just an example of you not really understanding these religions.

you mean, you saying I claimed something which I never claimed as you stated it? sure ^^ sophistry, it's endless fun!

you talk about the religions I wasn't talking about, to not even have to deal with what I was talking about.

this is just another example of you just grasping for straws to discredit me as person. I don't need any more... you wonder why I stopped responding lol. your understanding of a religion doesn't undo the understanding others have, I think you need to get over the whole "but I'm a christian too" thing. if you're not meant, you're not meant, and can run along. well, only you can't for whatever twisted reason.

 

[England my lionheart]

Why do so many people want to point the finger at Christianity for the evil done in its name instead of pointing the finger at the human heart? Pointing the finger at Christians is the same as pointing the finger at scientists saying look how evil science is pushing these drugs that can destroy lives on every T.V. comercial that pops up.
Hey Got a sniffle? try Snif away!
Side effects include headaches,nashau,depression,liver disease,flat tires on car,dog runs away,wars and rumors of wars.........etc.
science is evil and slowly murdering people through chemical processes all in the name of the almighty dollar!
Can't point the finger at science for the evil in mans heart.
Those who are full of evil and hatred ,greed will spread it by anymeans necessary and they will use the Bible,science,or any other means necessary to justify themselves.
Its not the institution of Christianity that is evil just like its not science or medicine that is evil.Pharmaceutical companies used mans faith in science(and in doctors with dumb commercials) as a means to push there selfish agendas for profits.
I don't blame scientists or consider them evil even from all of the horror and devestation that has been done through its creations.
Attacking the establishment of Christianity for the evil that man has in his heart is the same as attacking science and medicine for the evil being done in its name.
Christianity is one of the most strongest love based religions I know of and is why it is always pesecuted and in the state of resistance against hatred!

IMO its not that easy to identify Christianity as a single movement,like Islam and Judaism it means different things to different people with the only two constants for Xtians being Jesus and God as some do not accept the Trinity or Mary as the Mum of God.

The evil that has been done in Christianitys name,or rather what we regard Christianity to be responsible for in history and in my own case hold some Christian denominations responsible for the misery in Africa and other parts of the world today is carried out by people with their interpretation of what Christianity is as in the case of Catholicism with the Holy See or Islam and the Ummah that seem to me to be nothing more than big Real Estate deals made a long time ago which is just my opinion of course.











My 99 pence worth

 

[fallingblood]

what discussion? norse mythology, and norse history, doesn't contain mass murder. christian theology does. that was the point. did anyone actually refute that? no. instead a lot of distracting and bloating it all up took place.

Norse history and mythology really weren't being discussed. At least not by me. And from what I could see, they were only briefly brought up. Now, does Norse history contain mass murder? You would be lying if you said no. That or you simply have no grasp of history.

Christian theology also doesn't contain mass murder. Christian theology, or at least the vast majority of it, teaches not to murder. Yes, Christian history does contain mass murder; however, that does not equate with Christian theology. Not everything that a Christian does falls under Christian theology. So yes, the point has been refuted, over and over again.

would you talk to such people for prolonged periods of time unless absolutely necessary? no you wouldn't, that's why you disagree with my assessment without any argument to it, and keep moaning. take all your points and declare victory, I certainly couldn't care less really. you act as if we're not allowed to talk anymore, unless we address you. holy crap, that's needy.

Then why not stop? Stop posting? It seems to be quite a simple solution instead of spending page after page whining and complaining about how people are doing things wrong. I mean, you have just complained about problems you've seen, while ignoring the actual points that have been made. Just rant after rant. And basically, this post of yours was nothing different, and I assume your next one will be the same. So why not just stop posting if you have such a problem with what your opponents are doing?

And I never said you couldn't talk anymore, or that you even had to address what I said. However, just ranting and complaining, while not addressing the actual issue of the thread, simply is pointless. Why not make another thread to air your grievances? Why not do that instead of derailing a thread with rants and complaints?

you think your points matter so much we're looking for excuses? I can only speak for myself, they don't matter enough to override being done with this joke of a thread. THAT I find much more interesting to point out, the dishonesty and hipocrisy, and the weak ******* tactics, than responding to strawmen because some people can't distinct between themselves as a person and the religious concepts I'm criticizing.

I don't think my points matter so much that you're looking for excuses. As I have stated before, I simply don't think you have an argument, and are trying to hide that. So instead of making an argument, you complain, make excuses, and dismiss for asinine reasons (such as labeling everything a strawman, even though I'm beginning to think you don't know that that means). Point in case, this exact thread, which you've have now spent ranting and complaining about things that really don't address any points that are being made.

 

[fallingblood]

so? it's not like people can't ask, or that it might not be possibly to get from the context and what it is applied to, and what is mentioned before and after that word.

Words have meanings. When you say something like fascism, without setting up a context that would make people assume you are using a meaning other than the common meaning, one assumes you're using the word as nearly everyone else does.

You didn't define the word in a unique form. Instead, you later also mention Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, which makes one assume you are speaking about fascism in a negative context, and in regards to how the word is usually used. This is contrary to the definition you later give. So yes, it is misleading.

you know how I mean it, but you would rather just berate me.I'm not being misleading, that's what it boils down to me. and I don't speak for "most people here", I speak for myself. you know, as if I wasn't a fascist or something ^^

I only know how you mean it because of a later post that really doesn't seem to agree with your first. Yes, you are being misleading, and in the context of your first post, you do not give any clue that you are using the term fascist in any other way other than how it is usually used. Now, you're just making a weak excuse, and I think it is just to make up for the fact that you used a poor choice of words, or you can't actually defend your initial argument.

But here is a little bit of background on the word fascism: The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

So yes, calling these religions fascism is misleading, and the definition you provided simply does not hold up in a historical background.

if others are prejudiced, or don't think much, they are mislead. but not by me.

I'm not saying you are misleading anyone, as I doubt you can convince many that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are fascists religions. I'm just saying that what you said is misleading.

no. you misunderstand. one head, many limbs. a government consists of individiduals. fascism doesn't. wether the authority is just one person or a party like in chine is not the issue. but there is ONE source of authority and control, pervading all aspects of life, and the hierarchy goes *strictly* into one direction. that goes for a lot of things, but not "nearly any government".

So now you are using a different definition of fascism than the one you provided in your second post. So fascism doesn't mean, as you claimed: binding many together to make one. I understand what fascism is, I'm just pointing out that your definition does not work, as you have pointed out here. Your definition simply is useless in this regard, as it does not show what fascism is.

but it's not like you want to actually address my points, you're just sophisting around. I do get that ^^

No, I want you to address my points. My point there was that you were using a ridiculous definition for fascism. I'm glad you responded, even though you don't seem to be sticking to the definition you gave. But nice excuse anyway.

blah blah blah. you assume, and then pat yourself on the back. you see, now I remember why I lost interest dealing with that again. it's not just because of quagmire, it's you.

Another excuse. Instead of actually defending your position, you make another lame excuse. I'm not surprised though, as the argument you made really isn't defendable as it is a logical fallacy, and based on ignorance.

LOL!!! YOU MAKE **** UP, and instead of realizing you assumed incorrectly, in you talking to yourself, asking rhetorical questions with me answering them -- you say *I* am changing back.

Another excuse. You need to read what I actually said. Taking one sentence out of context really only shows your need to dismiss others, and your lack of ability to defend your position.

When you talk about fascism, and put it into the context of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, that is a negative context. Thus, one would think that you are labeling fascism in a negative way. More so, one would assume that you're using the term fascism in the manner that most people would, and not with the definition you provided: binding many together to make one.

So, instead of taking me out of context (which is just a poor way to argue), and making lame excuses, why not defend your position? Unless that is, you're position is not defendable. Which is alright, as long as you realize that.

 

[fallingblood]

and I find it hard to believe you don't bore yourself to death. you talk to yourself, and then moan when I don't respond to legitimize more of that?

So now you attack the messenger instead of the message. I understand. You can't defend your position, and instead, would rather make excuses as to why everyone else is making that impossible for you.

what? they thought they were messiahs, they followed them fanatically. that certainly applies to hitler. the nazis would flat out not happened that way without hitler. grown (NSDAP) men basically wrote love poems to him as early as in the 1920's, how he is the hope for germany and whatnot. everything he did was good. and when signs for the opposite appeared, people tried really, really hard to not see them.

People thought Stalin was a Messiah? Please show some support for that. Also, please provide a definition for Messiah that you're using. Because I really don't think you know what the term Messiah means.

I don't doubt that Hitler had a lot of fanatical support. He knew how to be a leader of Germany. But they didn't see him as a Messiah. Loving him, and following him do not make a person a Messiah. Thinking someone is the hope of a country, does not make that person a Messiah.

More so, we do have quite a few people who also rejected Hitler. There was quite a bit of fight against Hitler as well, and he was not the only leader that they had thought about. Hitler himself ran against other opponents and he had opponents throughout his career. In fact, he had quite a bit of negativity surrounding him as well. I mean, there were various assassination plots and attempts, as well as movements against him.

Really, all that you're showing is that Hitler was a beloved leader by some (and throughout history, we see that people loved their leaders, and followed them fanatically. However, that has nothing to do with being a Messiah. That has to do with being a leader).

that's what I meant with "messianic". I think someone who is actually trying to follow should be able to grasp that. you're just playing word games as if that constitutes an argument.

No, your definition of "messianic" simply is ridiculous. Obama is a messiah then. George Bush was a messiah. Really, you basically neutered the word messiah and made it basically useless. And really, that is just misleading.

Again, words have specific definitions in which people assume you're using when you use those words. If you want to change the meaning of the word, you have to provide a new definition so people know you are not using the word in the traditional sense, but in a sense that you created. That is how communication works.

I'm not using word games. I simply am aware of the definitions of the words you are using, and assume you are using the actual definition of those words, and not just one you made up.

so? did I say it necessarily does? nope.

are you denying there are a lot of people preaching and believing exactly that? seriously? if not, what's your point? just AGAIN this whole "but not ALL are X"? do you even have any other cheap tactics?

I'm not denying a lot of people preach that. But as you said, you don't have a beef with Joe Schmo, but with the scriptures. This is what you said: and I have that beef with god/scripture, not with joe schmoe. but those who actually revel in it (that the führer is by definition right, and will lead them into paradise - that IS a constant with all sorts of messianic leaders, stalin, mao, hitler, and thinking god, or jesusgod, will throw all enemies into hell)

You made the connection between scripture, and all enemies being thrown into hell. You didn't give us any reason to assume that you didn't mean that scripture/God teaches that all enemies will be thrown into hell.

And really, you can't define a religion by what just some of the members do. That is dumb. You can't define any group by what just some of the members do. If in a group, some are vegetarians, and others are not, you can't say that that group is a vegetarian group, as you are ignoring rest of that group, and thus are making an uninformed statement. That is what you're doing here.

Yes, some people who believe in God state that their enemies are going to hell. However, many also reject that idea. Many also reject the idea that those who do not believe like them are their enemies. So really, what I'm pointing out is that you're making an ignorant statement based on just what just some of the members practice. You are ignoring the other members of these religions, and in many cases, the actual religious teachings, and scripture of these religions. You're simply are making an uninformed statement.

you mean, you saying I claimed something which I never claimed as you stated it? sure ^^ sophistry, it's endless fun!

you talk about the religions I wasn't talking about, to not even have to deal with what I was talking about.

this is just another example of you just grasping for straws to discredit me as person. I don't need any more... you wonder why I stopped responding lol. your understanding of a religion doesn't undo the understanding others have, I think you need to get over the whole "but I'm a christian too" thing. if you're not meant, you're not meant, and can run along. well, only you can't for whatever twisted reason.

What are you even going on about. I was talking about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Those are the religions you called fascists. How am I not dealing with the subject? And you complain that I'm trying to discredit me, when you actually are the one complaining about how I can't run along for some twisted reason (failing to recognize that I never said that I was leaving this discussion, that I continue to try to deal with the subject matter, and I am not the one who keeps complaining and saying I'm done)?

I have no want to discredit you. You can do that yourself. My intention is to argue the points that you make, which is what I have been doing.