I no longer play these games crash.
Ok. Let's see you use your vaunted symbolic logic to prove it.
You claim your logic is sound. I challenged it. Since you mentioned that you have practice in symb log I asked you to diagram your argument so that it could be seen that your argument hangs together logically.
I'm not sure why you said "vaunted" when you were the one hyping your skills. If you don't wish to prove the coherence of your argument using skills you claim to possess, I am not about to do anything, as I don't have to.
That's what a discussion is - the use of language to defend and attack positions.
I have already agreed the rhetoric is a tool for expressing an argument. What I have suggested is that a reliance on the tools of rhetoric at the expense of applying logic consistently (particularly to one's own position) is not worthwhile and sophistry.
That's an argumentum ad hominem, but that's really your stock in trade, now isn't it?
No. I have already shown that the nature of your argument assumes that others are wrong in theirs. That is one of the problems with your position. And that assumption, if contrasted with evidence (which I have given) is wrong. That is another problem.
I didn't even imply that I was the arbiter. This is just more ad hom from you.
When you say that Jazzns must change to fit your definitional scheme because your confusion is justified over Jazzns nonconfusion, you are inherently declaring that you are the arbiter of correct terminology.
If I felt that harm would result, or negativity directed towards my person that I did not want to experience, I would lie. Immature?
I already agreed that lying to avoid harm or the threat of harm was not immature. The statement that you quoted was not trying to reverse that position. It was showing you why the analogy you used was not pertinent to what we were discussing.
That's why the YOURSELF was in caps. I went on to agree that lies to avoid people getting hurt (which was your example) was also not immature.
The original situation in which I mentioned immaturity is if you heard a bunch of people discussing Americans being like X, you'd say you were Canadian. Unless there was threat of violence, or some hassle you'd encounter which would be detrimental, that would be immature. I stand by my opinion. It's subjective so you don't have to agree.
Well, your assertion about subunits not speaking for the whole is unsupported, because your example was false. In the example you gave, subunits are considered by the whole to be speaking for the whole.
I already gave you an example and I moved on to analogy. Your mistake was then to treat my analogy as a real example in all possible situations, which is what I said I was not discussing. Thus you refuted my analogy only by extending it beyond the limits that were set into the analogy and so you commited a logical fallacy.
Really.
What's more I went on to show how your own extension actually hurt your own position. I notice you did not even bother to deal with that.
But this is pointless, I was using an analogy to help you understand evidence already provided to you. I am not going to get sidetracked trying to defend an analogy. Go back to the evidence and the real thing.
Subunits of Xianity may not speak for the whole of Xianity regarding most topics. The few topics they are likely to agree on were right there in the link, and are extremely limited and vague, such that some specific focus on any can split subunits apart into whole disagreement.
The Wiki article is very clear on this reality and repeats it. Perhaps you should alter the Wiki page explaining how most Xians must bow redefine themselves because a small fraction of fundies are what you and some other people believe all Xians to be. I'd be interested to see how long that lasts.
Once again you've proved over and over that, beyond ad hominem and continuous distortion, you have only the most tenuous of arguments to offer. And quite frankly, it's boring to endlessly correct and correct you.
Well at least you didn't say "we". You have clearly made mistakes understanding my position, which is why some here have been called distortions of your position. And what can I say about your proved over and over charge? By whom?
I do imagine it is boring. It must be excruciating having to invent the next line of logic to save a failed argument, when (likely) you know it can be countered by showing its inconsistency.
To this date you have not dealt with the evidence that I provided to you on that subject. You said "fine", claimed you were changing focus of your argument, but then implicitly held on to your original position in order to support your new argument.
you might want to think about taking a break.
Nah. I'm not even feely pissed off. Though I am fine with dropping this subthread. If you feel you have provided your argument and its obvious that you are right, I am feeling fine with my position. We can let readers decide for themselves.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
