Opinion of RFayette's signatures?

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't have a problem with them; even if I did, I've seen a number of more objectionable ones here over the years that haven't caused this type of controversy.

Yeah I don't see why his sigs are so bad either. Sure they aren't good arguments and some say objectionable things but so are most signatures. I mean, does yours provide me for a rationale for why I should support Walter Jones? I wouldn't think I ought to expect one. Mine sure doesn't provide any such argument for the statement it contains.

Lastly, it is hard to argue coherently with multiple people at the same time. That is the challenge of being in a room full of people who disagree with you: you still only get the same amount of time to respond as each individual opponent has to argue. He's treaded thus far into hostile waters; I suppose the straw has finally broken the camel's back today on AAD. The environment of a school cafeteria akin to that place is not an easy environment to argue an unpopular opinion. I know I find myself typing up things on both forums and then deleting them simply because I know I won't have time to spend the next two days defending their content.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't have a problem with them; even if I did, I've seen a number of more objectionable ones here over the years that haven't caused this type of controversy.

Yeah I don't see why his sigs are so bad either. Sure they aren't good arguments and some say objectionable things but so are most signatures. I mean, does yours provide me for a rationale for why I should support Walter Jones? I wouldn't think I ought to expect one. Mine sure doesn't provide any such argument for the statement it contains.

Lastly, it is hard to argue coherently with multiple people at the same time. That is the challenge of being in a room full of people who disagree with you: you still only get the same amount of time to respond as each individual opponent has to argue. He's treaded thus far into hostile waters; I suppose the straw has finally broken the camel's back today on AAD. The environment of a school cafeteria akin to that place is not an easy environment to argue an unpopular opinion. I know I find myself typing up things on both forums and then deleting them simply because I know I won't have time to spend the next two days defending their content.

I realize he's getting more vitriol than probably warranted, but what part of my argument do you disagree with?  I'm not arguing his signature is bad because I disagree with it.

(I'm only being aggressive because it's frustrating to engage in a thoughtful conversation and then have someone go about like it never happened   Not because of his opinion...)

Oh I agree its not a persuasive argument being made in his current signature. However, I think the current one is substantially different than the one you and he had a long discussion of. The old one considered atheism a conscious and worse-than-demonic disposition to rebel against God. The current one is something like Pascal's wager (which is not the best argument to begin with) in meme form. Not the particularly persuasive, but not particularly vicious either. Whether he still considers atheism as a conscious rebellion against God, I have no idea.

He's gotten quite a bit more backlash on AAD over the last couple days (not sure if you are a member over there so you might not know) and ragequit the place. So there has been more "heated discussion" than is apparent here.