🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:s3Rpd.208953$9b.127735@edtnps84...
> In article <XnQpd.194039$df2.157648@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:xdQpd.7205$cE3.2786@clgrps12...
> >> In article <EXPpd.193960$df2.21991@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >Audodidact is the angliciszed spelling of the Greek Autodidak; to
be
> >> >> >self-taught.  No, I don't need a dictionary, and when I do, I
readily
> >use
> >> >> >one.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You quoted me and I was speaking english, therefore it's a misquote,
on
> >> >par
> >> >> with most of your lying.
> >> >>
> >> >So?  You knew the meaning, so it is semantics.
> >>
> >> It's semantics when you issue your own blather, when you misquote me
it's
> >a
> >> lie.
> >>
> >Nope.  I have not cut an ounce of text for that very reason.  Your quotes
> >are all through the thread.  In fact the only text cut, except for once
> >above because the relevance of the argument changed so I did cut, was by
> >you.  That usually means that things are being taken out of context;
another
> >fallacy my freind.
> >
>
> Well it's not a fallacy, because you DID make a mistake.  Now you have
> clarified so that's fine.
>
> (Growing up can be fun!)
>
Say again, over?  What are you babbling about?

> >> Then I guess your challenge wasn't valid after all.
> >>
> >Oh the challenge is valid enough.  I just have no intention of being the
one
> >to take the risk.  Assuming you are as clever as you think, the risk
should
> >be well worth your taking.
>
> I already explained that the risk outweighs the benefit.  You haven't
refuted
> that claim.
>
Not if you are as clever as you claim.  I suspect you know you can't meet
the challenge yourself so you would need someone else to take the risk.  You
have lead us all to believe that there is no risk at all.

>
>
> >>
> >> Why, because of magic?
> >>
> >>
> >No magic about it.  I simply never wrote ad hominem arguments in this
> >thread.  Go read them again.  If you understand the fallacy, you'll have
no
> >difficulty in finding them, but you will have grave difficulty in findong
> >one from me.
> >
>
> When you insult or belittle or discount someone's claims without refuting
them
> devoid of logical fallacy, you are engaging in ad hominem whether you want
to
> or not.  Clearly you don't want to engage in ad hominem because you
recognize
> that is an inferior position.  But you do not know how not to engage in ad
> hominem when it comes to defending indefensible claims.  You don't know
how to
> abandon your own bullshit.  You're chained to bullshit you create to puff
your
> ego.
>
I don't need to refute them if they are not supported or if they are
contradicted.  You already did that for me, so there is no need for me to
repeat the process...  Ad Hominem is a very specific set of fallacies.  Yet
again, without having to redefine them here, you are proving that you have
no idea about what you are talking about.  Now note this;  I am refuting
your claim because of what you said.  I have not resorted to insults or
name-calling as you have in past portions of the thread.  Now, because I
have called into question your knowledge, you may find that belittling.
However, as is the case with all REASONABLE debates, the object is to
discredit the position as opposed to the person; the argument is not Ad
Hominem and it is not a fallacy.  Have you got it now?


Who is teaching now?

>
> >> You believe in magic.  You are a fool.
> >>
> >No magic at all.  I can read.  So can everyone else here.  Go read the
> >thread again.  You'll have no trouble finding the circular arguments if
you
> >understand philosophy.
>
> I've read the thread enough times to determine that I haven't missed
anything.
>  If you think I've missed something, tell me what.
>
You have missed a horrendous amount.  In many of the arguments, you have
actually made the case for the existence of God.  However, that was not the
premise of the argument in the first place.  The premise was, "Is the
ascertion that there is no God based on faith?"  I reasoned it, and you did
not; end of argument.  However, you have then moved the argument to a
hockey-sock full of irrelevant arguments; also a fallacy.  However, a
circular argument is when you define something in terms of itself.  Now,
with that knowledge in hand, why not re-read the thread and look for the
instances; of which there are no less than five that I can think of without
re-reading them.  And, it is Friday night and I am not putting a lot of
intellectual effort into it tonight.  But, then again, you're not making it
hard either.