+Rolo Beorn
Lastly... you did not see that the cambrian explosion is still debunking Evolution Theory by Natural Selection (ETBNS) - be it Darwin's or not. That Darwin Quote I gave you
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
This Quote still applies to evolution theory by natural selection - as long as naturla selection is involved. Unless you want to talk about supernatural selection hahaha... why? Because you already called the fact I used Darwin's exact words "stupid".
You did not and have not tackled my arguments even for this context of ETBNS. Seems to me like you have a better explanation for the Cambrian Explosion that is not "Intelligent Design". Please, lay down your strong arguments and stop resorting to Argumentums Ad Lapidems or Baseless/ Blanket Assertions.
+88rat88
Sometimes some arguments are so fallacious, I could write a book about them.
Greetings Spanky.
Greetings "rat". oh wow! will you look at that? It seems like what they say is true:
the apple does not fall far from the tree
I don't have to go to far to give a nickname you will be pleased with - you don't have to look far, it's already in your chosen&satisfied name - rat.
While you're educating yourself on the meaning of "troll", do yourself a favor and look up "strawman" as well, because you're using it wrong.
Here is wikipedia's take on straw man (2)
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]
The Category-Context that was advanced = Proving the Supernatural
The Category-Context that was not advanced = Biblical slavery
So for you to say
"1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is."
means that you were displaying your lack of tact to present coherent rebuttals to the context of our discussion. Using a guilt-by-association fallacy for "all my discussions" in this thread is just fallacious. We aren't even talking about the same category context anymore. That's like killing your parents because you had a dream that they wanted to kill you - totally irrelevant. Maybe you should be the one to study what a straw man actually means.
Precisely Spanky, and thanks for proving my point.
You're welcome. I was not "proving" your point. I was "quoting" you. The only point I'm proving here is your straw man. Unless of course, you are agreeing that I have proven that you have made a contextual straw man ... then good - finally ... you notice.
This is now the third time I'm pointing out to you that this statement of yours stands alone as proof that you do not understand science.
And this is now the third time I am pointing out to you that you made a straw man by jumping the gun. Did you not see
BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
when I was replying to +Rolo Beorn . If I told you that I can make your wallet disappear in your back pocket without touching you, would you say "That is a nonsensical and stupid thing to say"? Or would you rather say "I'll be patient, that burden of proof is on you, please demonstrate". And if you were patient enough to see the reply I gave +Rolo Beorn , +Rolo Beorn nor you have debunked the 4 scientific arguments I advanced about evidence for the supernatural world. You are like the guy who keeps shouting "That's nonsensical, that's stupid" while I have sucessfully stolen your wallet without touching you. Keep deceiving yourself all day long in your emotional crutch. Secondly, you never produced a counter-argument to the fact that I dichotomised your argument and my argument. This is what I said:
YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH
I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do. Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing
- Hitler can use science to justify killing jews
- Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church
- Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world
- Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit mass genocide (R2)
Do you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be used to posit?
Have I see any response to this? No - rather you appeal to me ego which I will address later. Maybe a simple - oh, I understand, you're right - I see the fallacy of my own thinking now. Thanks .... I admit intellectual honesty. Maybe a kinda response like that. But you keep commiting an avoiding the issue fallacy of the fact that the methodology of sciece (the things science is concern about) is NOT the same thing as the usefulness of science - the things science can be used for eg proving/ buttressing a point - irrespective of whether it is scientific or not. Last time I check, Lawrence Krauss tried to use science to prove that (some)thing could come from not-thing. That's like saying love could come out of not-love. A scientific impossibility and philosophical jargon, yet he tried and you atheists call it "scientific". But you call the fact I am trying to prove God can be proven scientifically nonsense? I see your bias confirmation - Double Standards.
Also, you did not object to the fact that I accurately defined you as a troll. Nice. You know that wise adage?
Silence is the best answer for a fool
Well done. But rather, you congratulated me that I am indeed getting an education, an elightenment into the proper definition of what a troll is. I believe that you now see how much of a troll you are but you are too ashamed to admit it that I have defined it and your actions accurately. That's alrihgt ... as long as you are changing... you are forgiven.
My sole reason for bringing up the slavery context was to illustrate to you that I've been a contributing participant in this thread since the beginning, and therefore not a troll. No more, no less.
Well, thanks for admitting your intentioanlity fallacy. You think appealing to your intentions rather than the objective & logical way your argument was used is a good arguement? Honest of you yes but in the objective context of logical discourse, you committed a straw man. That's like me saying for example "My sole (intention or) reason for talking to you today in all this harsh way is to make you laugh. Come on, laugh with me hahahahahahahahaha - you must be feeling very ticklish now right? hahahahahahahahahaha " - nonsense. I don't care about your intentions or sole purposes. You committed trolling in that insulting manner you responded to me and you committed a contextual straw man and it is as clear as day to any rational thinking person reading our discussion flow context.
Are all of your arguments so ridiculous and knee-jerk?
Let me answer it simply for you - No
You don't impress me nearly enough to make me bother reading the rest of your girthful verbosity.
You are mistaken, I'm not here to impress you. Now we have that misunderstanding out of the way we can make progress.
Next, this is a reverse-proof by verbosity fallacy because you are submitting to me that my argument must be false because it is too complex and verbouse to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. I'm sorry... just because I write big, does not invalidate the objective logic of my arguments. And you have not even responded to any of my argument. Hence you are appealing to ignorance with the next fallacy as follows:
Scanning it suggests that you like to stroke your ego by fancying you're some kind of grandmaster on logic and logical fallacies.
Here you show your contentment with ignorance as you do not study my arguments but you choose to "scan" through it - thereby producing a limited scope fallacy. No wonder you are always attacking straw men. You are not listening to me. You're like an intellectual baby with his intellectual fingers in his intellectual ears going lalalalalalal - i cannot hear you. And you later say
And if that delusion makes you feel good, more power to you. It pairs nicely with your god delusion.
Well... my Scanner-who-would-not-study-my-arguments-but-make-unwarranted-assumptions-about-them ... if that delusion feels good, feels more powerful, helps you sleep well at night, helps you answer all of life's toughest metaphysical questions of origin, meaning, purpose, morality and destiny - if you are enjoying all those emotional crutches --- please, feel free to used your atheistic non-existent-but-existent freewill to choose to continue in your delusion of no-God. It does not pair nicely with you but hey ... if the intellectual mud and poop is fine for your face - please, feel free to use as much as you can - just don't force others to think the way you think.
"That depends entirely on you Spanky. Are you done stroking your ego? And if so, are you ready to learn what a strawman is?"
Mr Rat. Appealling to my ego - ie, appealing to my personal incredulity - it says NOTHING about if my arguments are right or wrong. Am I really reading this? Like, how low can your logical rebuttal tact go? I too could appeal to your ego and it would not be touching our logical arguments not one bit. Whether I am a master of recognising logical fallacies does not invalidate my logic one bit. That means that you have not been reading my arguments all this time, you have been reading my ego. I'm sorry but the objectivity of my rational and logical discourse does not have anything whatsoever to do with my subjective ego. I just can't really understand you - OK OK - Calm down... let's do this better ... "respond. to. my. arguments. not. my. personality" OK? Is that clear enough for you Mr rat?
Lastly, tell me what you think about my definition of strawman - and feel free to present your own to me if you have something better to teach me.
Nope.
This is another discussion context where I was talking about the aggressive way you respond to "God bless you" even though it is meaningless and pointless to you. OK - no ... you self-identify as someone who is not affected with "God bless you". I accept that as existential evidence of you self-identity... however, your past actions spoke contrary. But if you say so. Ok - I reasonbly accept.
This is called wishful thinking, an essential component of your worldview.
Here is wikipedia's take on wishful-thinking fallacy (3).
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.[1]
So, in the "God bless you" context, you say my conclusion that "you responded to "God bless you" with such aggression AS IF this seemingly meaningless and seemingly pointless kindly gesture was actually effective in your worldview" - you said my conclusion is wishful thinking? Let us test that by the standards that make wishful thinking REALLY wishful thinking.
1. Does it please me that you believe in God? No - not necessarily
2. Did I appeal to evidence of how you aggressively insulted me for saying "God bless you"? Yes - the evidence is as clear as day in this discussion thread.
3. Do I have a rational reason to infer from the evidence that you "might" just believe in God due to the way you responded to "God bless you"? Yes - the aggressive evidence rationally points to it.
4. Is the evidence/ conclusion based in reality? Oh yeah ... all one has to do is see our past dicussions thread where I was aggresively insulted for saying God bless you.
After analysising the criterias that make wishful thinking... did I really commit a wishful thinking fallacy? no
Maybe you are the one committing a wishful-thinking fallacy in asserting that I am committing a wishful thinking fallacy by not demonstrating it with concrete arguments.
(PS: Did you see the way I rebut your argument? Maybe if you tried this once in a while, you will make sense... for now, you are just allowing my fallacy arguments against you to slide pass you freely ... you are looking more like the illogical one with so much fallacies on the side of the fidurative-debate-tennis-court - demontrate how any of my arguemnts are wrong rather than just making baseless / blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidems).
Believe it or not, not everyone who mocks you is in rebellion against your god man, or in denial about his alleged existence.
Red-herring - this is because you are attempting to distract us from the contextual-topic at hand by introducing a separate argument you believe is easier to speak about. What has this got to do with the "God bless you" context? Do you know how to make a rebuttal? Ok- I accept that as a fact ... happy Mr Rat? Good
In fact, the overwhelming majority of nonbelievers that reject your poisonous religion do so because... (are you ready for this Spanky?) IT'S BULLSHIT.
Argumentum Ad Lapidem and Red-Herring ... not once have you addressed my arguments. You just like talking anything without thinking right? Mr Rat Scanner came to that conclusion by scanning through my arguments eh? Yeah ... very logical. And thanks for speaking on behalf of every nonbeliever - seems like you are very omniscient and you know who all the non-believers are with absolute certainty - yeah ... very logical.
And people like you are just too dishonest and brainwashed to see it.
Sweeping Generalisatioin Fallacy... Mr Omniscient Rat. I am sorry but there are no "people like me". I am unique. You need to read what I said to +Rolo Beorn about what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a video:
(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58 I'm not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert you know what's gonna happen in advance.
Mr Tyson says to you "that's not how to have a conversation".
Finally, since you are not the only one to make fallacies so bad that I have to write so much about them, (yet you don't debunk a simple argument but you debunk my person - fallacious) let me end with a funny pun as I appeal to my intentionality and try to make you laugh - this is my sole purpose:
People like me are this-honest and we have a washed-brain becaue we are not blinded by a dirty brain - we can see it - that is to say, "dirty and ratty brain people, cannot see it".
hahahahahahahahaha - in my subjective opinion, I'm the funniest man in the world.
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306–308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (R2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
(R1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
Lastly... you did not see that the cambrian explosion is still debunking Evolution Theory by Natural Selection (ETBNS) - be it Darwin's or not. That Darwin Quote I gave you
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
This Quote still applies to evolution theory by natural selection - as long as naturla selection is involved. Unless you want to talk about supernatural selection hahaha... why? Because you already called the fact I used Darwin's exact words "stupid".
You did not and have not tackled my arguments even for this context of ETBNS. Seems to me like you have a better explanation for the Cambrian Explosion that is not "Intelligent Design". Please, lay down your strong arguments and stop resorting to Argumentums Ad Lapidems or Baseless/ Blanket Assertions.
+88rat88
Sometimes some arguments are so fallacious, I could write a book about them.
Greetings Spanky.
Greetings "rat". oh wow! will you look at that? It seems like what they say is true:
the apple does not fall far from the tree
I don't have to go to far to give a nickname you will be pleased with - you don't have to look far, it's already in your chosen&satisfied name - rat.
While you're educating yourself on the meaning of "troll", do yourself a favor and look up "strawman" as well, because you're using it wrong.
Here is wikipedia's take on straw man (2)
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]
The Category-Context that was advanced = Proving the Supernatural
The Category-Context that was not advanced = Biblical slavery
So for you to say
"1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is."
means that you were displaying your lack of tact to present coherent rebuttals to the context of our discussion. Using a guilt-by-association fallacy for "all my discussions" in this thread is just fallacious. We aren't even talking about the same category context anymore. That's like killing your parents because you had a dream that they wanted to kill you - totally irrelevant. Maybe you should be the one to study what a straw man actually means.
Precisely Spanky, and thanks for proving my point.
You're welcome. I was not "proving" your point. I was "quoting" you. The only point I'm proving here is your straw man. Unless of course, you are agreeing that I have proven that you have made a contextual straw man ... then good - finally ... you notice.
This is now the third time I'm pointing out to you that this statement of yours stands alone as proof that you do not understand science.
And this is now the third time I am pointing out to you that you made a straw man by jumping the gun. Did you not see
BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
when I was replying to +Rolo Beorn . If I told you that I can make your wallet disappear in your back pocket without touching you, would you say "That is a nonsensical and stupid thing to say"? Or would you rather say "I'll be patient, that burden of proof is on you, please demonstrate". And if you were patient enough to see the reply I gave +Rolo Beorn , +Rolo Beorn nor you have debunked the 4 scientific arguments I advanced about evidence for the supernatural world. You are like the guy who keeps shouting "That's nonsensical, that's stupid" while I have sucessfully stolen your wallet without touching you. Keep deceiving yourself all day long in your emotional crutch. Secondly, you never produced a counter-argument to the fact that I dichotomised your argument and my argument. This is what I said:
YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH
I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do. Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing
- Hitler can use science to justify killing jews
- Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church
- Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world
- Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit mass genocide (R2)
Do you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be used to posit?
Have I see any response to this? No - rather you appeal to me ego which I will address later. Maybe a simple - oh, I understand, you're right - I see the fallacy of my own thinking now. Thanks .... I admit intellectual honesty. Maybe a kinda response like that. But you keep commiting an avoiding the issue fallacy of the fact that the methodology of sciece (the things science is concern about) is NOT the same thing as the usefulness of science - the things science can be used for eg proving/ buttressing a point - irrespective of whether it is scientific or not. Last time I check, Lawrence Krauss tried to use science to prove that (some)thing could come from not-thing. That's like saying love could come out of not-love. A scientific impossibility and philosophical jargon, yet he tried and you atheists call it "scientific". But you call the fact I am trying to prove God can be proven scientifically nonsense? I see your bias confirmation - Double Standards.
Also, you did not object to the fact that I accurately defined you as a troll. Nice. You know that wise adage?
Silence is the best answer for a fool
Well done. But rather, you congratulated me that I am indeed getting an education, an elightenment into the proper definition of what a troll is. I believe that you now see how much of a troll you are but you are too ashamed to admit it that I have defined it and your actions accurately. That's alrihgt ... as long as you are changing... you are forgiven.
My sole reason for bringing up the slavery context was to illustrate to you that I've been a contributing participant in this thread since the beginning, and therefore not a troll. No more, no less.
Well, thanks for admitting your intentioanlity fallacy. You think appealing to your intentions rather than the objective & logical way your argument was used is a good arguement? Honest of you yes but in the objective context of logical discourse, you committed a straw man. That's like me saying for example "My sole (intention or) reason for talking to you today in all this harsh way is to make you laugh. Come on, laugh with me hahahahahahahahaha - you must be feeling very ticklish now right? hahahahahahahahahaha " - nonsense. I don't care about your intentions or sole purposes. You committed trolling in that insulting manner you responded to me and you committed a contextual straw man and it is as clear as day to any rational thinking person reading our discussion flow context.
Are all of your arguments so ridiculous and knee-jerk?
Let me answer it simply for you - No
You don't impress me nearly enough to make me bother reading the rest of your girthful verbosity.
You are mistaken, I'm not here to impress you. Now we have that misunderstanding out of the way we can make progress.
Next, this is a reverse-proof by verbosity fallacy because you are submitting to me that my argument must be false because it is too complex and verbouse to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. I'm sorry... just because I write big, does not invalidate the objective logic of my arguments. And you have not even responded to any of my argument. Hence you are appealing to ignorance with the next fallacy as follows:
Scanning it suggests that you like to stroke your ego by fancying you're some kind of grandmaster on logic and logical fallacies.
Here you show your contentment with ignorance as you do not study my arguments but you choose to "scan" through it - thereby producing a limited scope fallacy. No wonder you are always attacking straw men. You are not listening to me. You're like an intellectual baby with his intellectual fingers in his intellectual ears going lalalalalalal - i cannot hear you. And you later say
And if that delusion makes you feel good, more power to you. It pairs nicely with your god delusion.
Well... my Scanner-who-would-not-study-my-arguments-but-make-unwarranted-assumptions-about-them ... if that delusion feels good, feels more powerful, helps you sleep well at night, helps you answer all of life's toughest metaphysical questions of origin, meaning, purpose, morality and destiny - if you are enjoying all those emotional crutches --- please, feel free to used your atheistic non-existent-but-existent freewill to choose to continue in your delusion of no-God. It does not pair nicely with you but hey ... if the intellectual mud and poop is fine for your face - please, feel free to use as much as you can - just don't force others to think the way you think.
"That depends entirely on you Spanky. Are you done stroking your ego? And if so, are you ready to learn what a strawman is?"
Mr Rat. Appealling to my ego - ie, appealing to my personal incredulity - it says NOTHING about if my arguments are right or wrong. Am I really reading this? Like, how low can your logical rebuttal tact go? I too could appeal to your ego and it would not be touching our logical arguments not one bit. Whether I am a master of recognising logical fallacies does not invalidate my logic one bit. That means that you have not been reading my arguments all this time, you have been reading my ego. I'm sorry but the objectivity of my rational and logical discourse does not have anything whatsoever to do with my subjective ego. I just can't really understand you - OK OK - Calm down... let's do this better ... "respond. to. my. arguments. not. my. personality" OK? Is that clear enough for you Mr rat?
Lastly, tell me what you think about my definition of strawman - and feel free to present your own to me if you have something better to teach me.
Nope.
This is another discussion context where I was talking about the aggressive way you respond to "God bless you" even though it is meaningless and pointless to you. OK - no ... you self-identify as someone who is not affected with "God bless you". I accept that as existential evidence of you self-identity... however, your past actions spoke contrary. But if you say so. Ok - I reasonbly accept.
This is called wishful thinking, an essential component of your worldview.
Here is wikipedia's take on wishful-thinking fallacy (3).
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.[1]
So, in the "God bless you" context, you say my conclusion that "you responded to "God bless you" with such aggression AS IF this seemingly meaningless and seemingly pointless kindly gesture was actually effective in your worldview" - you said my conclusion is wishful thinking? Let us test that by the standards that make wishful thinking REALLY wishful thinking.
1. Does it please me that you believe in God? No - not necessarily
2. Did I appeal to evidence of how you aggressively insulted me for saying "God bless you"? Yes - the evidence is as clear as day in this discussion thread.
3. Do I have a rational reason to infer from the evidence that you "might" just believe in God due to the way you responded to "God bless you"? Yes - the aggressive evidence rationally points to it.
4. Is the evidence/ conclusion based in reality? Oh yeah ... all one has to do is see our past dicussions thread where I was aggresively insulted for saying God bless you.
After analysising the criterias that make wishful thinking... did I really commit a wishful thinking fallacy? no
Maybe you are the one committing a wishful-thinking fallacy in asserting that I am committing a wishful thinking fallacy by not demonstrating it with concrete arguments.
(PS: Did you see the way I rebut your argument? Maybe if you tried this once in a while, you will make sense... for now, you are just allowing my fallacy arguments against you to slide pass you freely ... you are looking more like the illogical one with so much fallacies on the side of the fidurative-debate-tennis-court - demontrate how any of my arguemnts are wrong rather than just making baseless / blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidems).
Believe it or not, not everyone who mocks you is in rebellion against your god man, or in denial about his alleged existence.
Red-herring - this is because you are attempting to distract us from the contextual-topic at hand by introducing a separate argument you believe is easier to speak about. What has this got to do with the "God bless you" context? Do you know how to make a rebuttal? Ok- I accept that as a fact ... happy Mr Rat? Good
In fact, the overwhelming majority of nonbelievers that reject your poisonous religion do so because... (are you ready for this Spanky?) IT'S BULLSHIT.
Argumentum Ad Lapidem and Red-Herring ... not once have you addressed my arguments. You just like talking anything without thinking right? Mr Rat Scanner came to that conclusion by scanning through my arguments eh? Yeah ... very logical. And thanks for speaking on behalf of every nonbeliever - seems like you are very omniscient and you know who all the non-believers are with absolute certainty - yeah ... very logical.
And people like you are just too dishonest and brainwashed to see it.
Sweeping Generalisatioin Fallacy... Mr Omniscient Rat. I am sorry but there are no "people like me". I am unique. You need to read what I said to +Rolo Beorn about what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a video:
(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58 I'm not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert you know what's gonna happen in advance.
Mr Tyson says to you "that's not how to have a conversation".
Finally, since you are not the only one to make fallacies so bad that I have to write so much about them, (yet you don't debunk a simple argument but you debunk my person - fallacious) let me end with a funny pun as I appeal to my intentionality and try to make you laugh - this is my sole purpose:
People like me are this-honest and we have a washed-brain becaue we are not blinded by a dirty brain - we can see it - that is to say, "dirty and ratty brain people, cannot see it".
hahahahahahahahaha - in my subjective opinion, I'm the funniest man in the world.
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306–308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (R2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
(R1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
No comments:
Post a Comment