Since you say you're a Christian, I do have some hope that we might reach common ground and find mutual respect. I am trying to respect you (maybe I'm not very good at it, so I'm sorry if you feel I'm not respecting you). I am trying to listen to you and understand you (it's hard to understand what you're getting at sometimes, and it's frustrating putting in effort to a post and getting ignored as a response). I am trying not to ignore any of your points, but actually address them (even if you feel I am not doing so). Please don't just assume I'm not, and use that as an excuse to be rude to me and insult me. That's all I ask. If you can do that then I think we can have a productive discussion and come to understand one another. But for the record, I do not believe you are a Christian just because you claim to be one. Where is your brotherly love for me? I do not see it yet, but I hope and pray that it is there. Regardless, as I have expressed that you've hurt my feelings and disrespected me, I do forgive you.
Let's address your personal issues first before we get into the actual debate.
I ignored any points I thought not worthwhile to the discussion and at no point did I think you wronged me in any way, nor vice-versa. This is an Internet discussion and you've been very respectful. I apologize if I've hurt your feelings but you're taking things a bit seriously here ^_^
You seem to be rather pained over my "lack of respect" and "brotherly love"- I'd like to say that while I apologize for any hurt feelings I also would like to point out that I've not been overtly insulting, Saying "That's a flawed argument/that's irrelevant" isn't being disrespectful, especially if you explain why. Ad hominems are, however, and you're the closest to have used any ad hominems in this discussion with your comments on my personal character. In fact, in your previous discussions with other users on my post, you have used overt ad hominems.
I find it a bit silly to judge somebody's "level" of Christianity on the basis of an Internet debate. It'd be like observing a child tell a lie and then say "He's not Christian, he lied!" when the truth is, nobody's perfect. I could point out that you're not Christian by saying that you broke the rule to "Judge not, lest ye be judged" or "He who has no sin, cast the first stone", but that would be hypocritical of me- and besides, I have absolutely no opinion of how Christian you are because I don't know a single thing about you personally. It'd amusing that you assume otherwise about me.
I could very easily say that, in the same vein, you've been disrespectful when you said "this debate's not going anywhere" because that'd mean you're brushing my arguments off as pointless. But I won't do that and I don't even feel the need to do that, because, just like my statement that your point was irrelevant, it's subjective. Just because we disagree on an opinionated matter on the nature of your argument doesn't mean that there's any disrespect involved.
And my words may sound passively malevolent at times, but that's just how I debate. I apologize if it comes off as harsh or malicious.
I don't know what game you're talking about, but if you feel I've wronged you then please forgive me and try to understand that it does not give you the right to hurt me back.
What? You've never wronged me. I'm simply saying that if you want to get nitpipcky with my theology- with witchcraft and spirits/aliens- you shouldn't criticize me for pointing out that Saul did not talk to a witch, because both cases are that of semantics. We could, again, have a very interesting debate about whether or not spirits are aliens, and we could have a very interesting discussion on your point about witchcraft but I simply chose not to. I apologize if you felt ignored.
Yes, but I did not ignore your point. I tried to address an issue, and you apparently consider that issue irrelevant while I consider it relevant. I was not complaining that you merely argued semantics, but that you did so to ignore my point. And I already tried to point that out, which you again ignored. So everything I say is going ignored, and there is no communication between us, thus we can not have a real conversation. I think you aren't even actually talking to me, you're just talking at me.
Again, I ignored any points I felt irrelevant. It's not like you had a killer justification about Jaws not being scary in your point about witchcraft. I'd been trying to say all along that knowing an explanation for Jaws would take away part of what makes the shark so scary. It doesn't need an in-world explanation (such as "witchcraft") because the story suffers for it, and that's where the completely subjective case of suspension of disbelief works wonders for me (although I know it doesn't for you, which is fine). You've brushed off my understanding of suspension of disbelief even though it was perfectly valid (I even gave you evidence from the article you were referencing). However, I don't consider that offensive or hurtful- it's just in the nature of a debate.
I think you've misunderstood the irony of this catch phrase.
Really? I don't think so. The gist of what I was trying to say (incorrect/correct as it may be), was that "you can't use semantics and then criticize me for using semantics". And yes, I understand that you were doing that to point out that I'd ignored your point.
It is relevant because you can't have a discussion with me if I stop talking to you.
I can't argue with that.
I don't consider completely ignoring everything I say a discussion. It was never on the rails in the first place. I'm trying to get the train out of the station, but soon I will give up if there's no progress.
That's your opinion, and again I'm not going to say "that's disrespectful" even if some people like yourself would consider it such.
I consider the thought-to-be-known and the unknown the exact same thing.
I think they're similar but not one and the same. Regardless, Jaws constitutes as the former, since you'd think you know how a shark acts, but then it shatters your confidence as it acts in an unpredicted fashion. For the unknown, you don't have any clue how it acts to begin with. Therefore it doesn't shatter your confidence because you don't have any to begin with.
Who's Bruce? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Bruce is the main antagonist of Jaws.
It proves that sharks can be docile. It also proves that when you know how to protect yourself and understand the behavior of sharks there is much less to fear. The real fear is not knowing what to do if a shark attacks you. If you know what to do, like wear chain-mail, then you won't be as afraid. This is what I mean by the known versus the unknown. If you don't know anything about sharks then your imagination may make up all kinds of fears. If you understand them then you fear them less. It's like firefighters running into a burning building while everyone else is running out screaming. Well, I hope you won't ignore that point. What I'm actually trying to do is disprove the existence of a shark as aggressive as the one the movie Jaws portrays, and that's why I posted multiple videos and a whole documentary. I even posted more aggressive shark attacks than anyone else.
Did I post a video of a friendly baby shark, or did I post a video that also had people wearing chainmail and surrounded by a ton of adult sharks teaching you how to make sharks docile? If you watch a video that teaches you how to deal with rabid dogs will you still be just as scared, or will you have some confidence in that situation?
I'm glad you used the analogy of firefighters because just like sharks, fire can still be incredibly dangerous regardless of how well equipped and trained you are. Firefighters get killed all the time.
Posting videos of docile sharks isn't relevant because:
A. Just because it's not on footage doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Giant squid are thought to be able to grow to 40 feet or more, but we've never had footage of one that size. Does it mean that it doesn't exist? No. It proves nothing about the existence of a creature.
To make my argument on that matter I can't simply post a bunch of videos with giant squid and say "See? They're all under 40 feet! Therefore your argument that there can be 40 feet squids is incorrect!" In reality, all my videos are completely irrelevant. The same can be said when gauging the aggressiveness of a shark because your videos are all of the typical sharks when Bruce is obviously no typical shark- both in size and in temperament.
You can't post videos of normal people going about their day to disprove the existence of serial killers, because serial killers are likely not "normal" humans.
B. Because the medium we're dealing with is fiction, the purported creature doesn't even need to exist. It simply has to be able to exist.
If I said, "There's a dude out there named Jack the Ripper who goes around stabbing people" you wouldn't say "No! That's impossible, all the people I know are very kind and compassionate and would never do such a thing!" because Jack the Ripper isn't like most people.
I know that, but that's not what I was trying to counter. What I don't believe is that sharks are just as scary as alien monsters. The belief I am unwilling to suspend for the movie Jaws, is that a great white shark will prey on humans and do this to a boat:
A great white is certainly capable of turning a small fishing boat into matchsticks and attack humans. Whether it'd willfully and aggressively do so or not is up for debate and I personally find the fact that sharks are not known to attack humans willfully makes Bruce all the scarier. It's probably the opposite for you but that's where our paths diverge. They're completely subjective opinions, nothing to argue about here.
Actually I am somewhat afraid of sharks. I'm just more afraid of the unknown.
I see your point about serial killers, and I agree. However I do feel this is a moot point, because a person can also be afraid of serial killers and the entire human race. I am afraid of the entire human race because anyone can be a serial killer, but I'm less afraid after taking Taekwondo, because now I know how to defend myself.
Bruce's exceptional temperament makes him part of the unknown.
"I am afraid of the entire human race because anyone can be a serial killer"
I'm at a lack of understanding as to how this pertains to my statement that "a person can be scared of serial killers but not the entire human race". This was to argue that even a person not scared of sharks can be scared of Bruce. I don't see how your point counterargues that.
"I'm less afraid after taking Taekwondo, because now I know how to defend myself"
Very debatable, and it'd be a fun discussion to have as irrelevant as it is. This statement actually makes your point weaker due to how debatable it is- if you had made a very inarguable statement like "I'm less afraid after carrying a gun" it'd be far more effective. But that's beside the point.
And I've already addressed a similar point with your firefighter scenario so please don't feel like I'm ignoring this by not directly arguing against it.t
The effectiveness of a killer shark is truly something to behold. My point was that Jaws is exaggerated and Alien was not exaggerated. That is why I liked Alien more, and why I think it is a scarier movie than Jaws. We will have no argument or debate if you simply say something to the effects of, "Okay, I see what you're saying." But if you disagree with me and want to make counter points to what I'm saying then I hope you won't be surprised if I attempt to defend my arguments and refute your counter points with counter points of my own. However, if you just want to criticise me and then ignore everything I say, I won't talk to you much longer.
"However, if you just want to criticise me and then ignore everything I say, I won't talk to you much longer" If I were you I'd find this very offensive since I don't feel like I've been doing that (whether I actually have or not is besides the point). But I really don't, since it's how you feel- just like how I felt one of your points was irrelevant, you have the right to feel that all I've done was criticize and ignore.
The beauty of Jaws is that because Bruce is readily within the realms of nature (a point that I've already built), he very well may not be exaggerated. We just don't know, and your videos can't disprove that.
Final question: Is The Exorcist an effective film? Many people consider it to be one of the most effective horror movies of all time, myself included, REGARDLESS of belief in demons or lack thereof. You don't need to be scared by demons to be thrilled by this film. You don't even need to believe they exist or that they'd act like that.
Similarly, you don't need to believe that a massive man-eating boat chomper exists to enjoy the film.
The Exorcist is EXTREMELY exaggerated- nobody debates that. Even if it really did happen, the film portrays the events in pure Hollywood style. And it works. It may not be realistic but it works splendidly.
And the exact same thing goes to Jaws. May or may not be able to happen, exaggeration of possibly true events, realistic effects for a possibly fictional creature, etc.
If you don't like the Exorcist then this is where we'll just have to disagree, there's a level of suspension of disbelief required to enjoy these films that you may not have.