Yes I used it once! However I used Hitler twice, You replied directly after that post and said you had misstated in regard to her and that you did not consider yourself as a Necessitarianist, of which I have accepted. All I am saying is your writings in this thread are similar to those of a Necessitarianist, in my opinion.
Yes, you used Hitler twice, and I rebutted your argument about him twice. And no, you clearly have not accepted that I am not actually a Necessitarianist. You keep saying, "I've accepted that you don't consider yourself a Necessitarianist, but I still think your writings are similar to those of a Necessitarianist", which in effect means that you think that I actually am a Necessitarianist even though I'm saying I'm not. Is it any surprise that I'd get upset at the implication?
Everybody in the world gets labelled in some way or another we stereotype all the time I.E. When a person says he has no belief in a god we automatically call him an atheist, he however may call himself an agnostic etc.. And not like the athiest tag, but he is still a atheist isn't he. If a person wishes to sit on the fence in an argument he is give a liberal label, if he leans one way or the other he is labelled right or left wing, whether he likes it or not.
The fact that people stereotype doesn't make it right. If you stereotype someone, and they object to it, and you claim to accept that, yet you keep saying that they sure sound like what you stereotyped them as, then you sound like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. And that tends to annoy and upset people, especially when you keep doing it, as if they should understand that even though you keep saying they sound like something, you're okay with them thinking they don't sound like it.
I labelled you a Necessitarianist because of what I thought were the writings of a Necessitarianist. you say your not that's good enough for me.
Yet you keep saying that I sound like a Necessitarianist, even though you're okay with me thinking I'm not one. When someone else directs a post at me here, you're right there, chiming in about how I sure do sound like a Necessitarianist, even though I don't consider myself one and that's good enough for you. In other words, you're basically saying that I am actually one regardless of what I think in the matter, regardless of how I try to rebut it.
I call myself a humanist because that is what I am, I don't however like the atheist label I also get, because it is a negative label. But I don't whine on and on about it.
So I'm whining because I don't like the label you alone decided I deserved because I keep calling you on your repeated insinuations that I deserve that label? You said you don't like being called an atheist because you think of it as a negative label, but let me ask you, is it an inaccurate label in your opinion? An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of deities. If you don't believe in deities, the term atheist can be used to describe you, although you may not like some of the negative connotations that go along with the word.
Your not a Necessitarianist ok got that, however in my opinion you did write like one in this thread. Am I now not to have an opinion just because you don't like it. I could call you a lot worse names, but you don't seem to fit those yet.
No, you don't get it. You haven't gotten it since you first started using that term! My objection, that you don't seem to understand, is because the term does not describe me. It is wholly inaccurate, it does not describe how I think or how I argue, your opinion notwithstanding. You claim to accept that, but you clearly still think that it does describe how I think and how I argue, at least somewhat, and I object to that, especially when you aren't willing to go to the effort to defend your opinion.
Give the whining a rest it was simply my opinion as Parkplace said we both have those and we are not going to convince each other that the other is right, are we.
Even though I find it contemptible, I'm at least glad that you're being honest about being uninterested in listening to what I say and changing your mind if I can show that it's warranted. That isn't the case with me. If you could show to my satisfaction that your statement that my argument here was Necessitarianist was accurate, I would have no trouble acknowledging it. If you don't want to do that, fine, I can't force you to. But I do not consider it to be reasonable for you to then keep throwing your opinion (that I am one, or sound like one, or whatever) back in my face every time the opportunity arises. Because that's just plain rude. And for you to claim that I'm whining because I call you on it is just insulting.