Joined: May 2006
KN provided, in "Moderation Issues", a pretty good defense, or maybe explanation, of fifthmonarchyman's behavior, pointing out that FMM does not, and indeed can not, use words according to their generally accepted definitions, and that when FMM says that all people know the Christian god exists and is the only god capable of existing, FMM really does mean it.
FMM and their position of presuppositionalism makes me want to write an original post, in light of the spike in sales of the novel "1984" since last November's American election. FMM reminds me of O'Brien, especially when that character is talking to Winston Smith in the Ministry of Love after Smith's arrest and routine torture. Smith foolishly attempts to use reason when responding to O'Brien, as if O'Brien could actually be convinced that his position is even questionable. When Patrick (sorry to pick on you again, Patrick) demands that FMM "put up or shut up", that is the equivalent of Smith demanding O'Brien defend his, or rather, The Party's, view. To FMM, Patrick is, like Smith to O'Brien, insane. (Further ETA: the same holds for keiths, who continues to point out what, to many, would be considered proper points of contention. But again, keiths is, to FMM, insane.)
I hope that makes sense. I have been doing some reading on presuppositionalism, pro and con, and I think my take is a right one. Debate is impossible since, for FMM, holding a position contrary to theirs is, by definition, irrational (ETA: and you already know that FMM's position is the correct one, you are simply stuck in - what? - a state of rebellion against what you know to be true). It's weird, but that is what presuppositionalism entails.