Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 167 of 302 (254208)
10-23-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by nwr
10-23-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
This is simply the latest, most dishonest nonsense in a series of nonsense posts from you.
We're done on this subject. If your argument relies on drawing a distinction between "meaning" and "definition", then you've already lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by nwr, posted 10-23-2005 12:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nwr, posted 10-23-2005 1:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 302 (254957)
10-26-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Silent H
10-24-2005 7:07 AM


More inconsistency and ad hom from Holmes
But you havn't reached a logical conclusion.
Ok. Let's see you use your vaunted symbolic logic to prove it.
After all, you've been doing the exact same thing you're busy criticizing me for - using rhetoric to defend your position. And of course you would. That's what a discussion is - the use of language to defend and attack positions.
That is I am interested in discussion where both parties move toward logically consistent conclusions by examining both parties' positions regarding logic and evidence.
Already examined. You don't get to proceed on a basis that I'm an idiot, or that I don't know how to think rationally, simply because we arrived at two different conclusions. That's an argumentum ad hominem, but that's really your stock in trade, now isn't it?
One of your weak areas appears to be insisting that you are the arbiter of correct terminology that all most comply with.
I didn't even imply that I was the arbiter. This is just more ad hom from you. I told you how I recieved your statement, and since it was to me that your remarks were directed, my reception was relevant. Absolutely nothing in my post even implied that I was speaking for any person but myself.
Lying about YOURSELF when it means nothing really is a bit immature.
Now you're simply misrepresenting me. I already detailed the precise situation in which I would lie; it's absolutely a distortion to describe that situation as "meaning nothing."
If it truly meant nothing, I would not lie. If I felt that harm would result, or negativity directed towards my person that I did not want to experience, I would lie. Immature? Hardly. Chock that one on the pile with the rest of your way-off-the-mark insults directed at my person.
The analogy stands. I was only discussing differences and limits of what a subunit says within a larger unit.
Could you give an example of that? Since your point is currently unsupported? Since the example you gave doesn't support what you said it supports?
Let me explain how it works. And I'll try to use your symbolic logic.
If I advance a contention that "If A, then B", and to support it I give an example where A resulted in B, we would consider the position supported. (Ignoring the fact that we're committing the fallacy of generalization, of course.)
But if you prove that my example was wrong, or factually incorrect, then you've eliminated my evidence, and an unsupported assertion is on the table.
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. Unsupported assertion on the table.
Look, Holmes, we're done. 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. Until you're willing to grapple with arguments honestly and with the detatchment mandated by the forum guidelines, you might want to think about taking a break.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Silent H, posted 10-24-2005 7:07 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2005 6:41 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 209 of 302 (255162)
10-27-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Silent H
10-27-2005 6:41 AM


Re: More inconsistency and ad hom from Holmes
I no longer play these games crash.
All you do is play games, Holmes. I can't remember the last time that you engaged any of my arguments seriously.
You claim your logic is sound. I challenged it.
So let's see the logic behind your challenge.
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.
More distortion from you. This was not the context of my remark. This was:
"Quite", to me, suggests "total". "To the extreme." "To the maximum possible."
One of your weak areas appears to be insisting that you are the arbiter of correct terminology that all most comply with.
I'm sorry? Nothing there implies I was arbitrating to you how to define your words, and certainly Jazzns wasn't even mentioned in these remarks.
The distortion is endless with you, Holmes. How dishonest can you be?
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.
More distortion. That was not the original situation.
What's the deal, Holmes? Do you think you can get away with this stuff? Like we're all too stupid or lazy to go back and look?
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.
I didn't extend the analogy in the slightest. I simply pointed out that the analogy was a false statement.
Again, the distortion. It's like you can't keep track of what's going on, here.
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.
Fine. Anything is much more interesting than endlessly correcting your next round of distortions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2005 6:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2005 6:24 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 212 of 302 (255201)
10-27-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Silent H
10-27-2005 6:24 PM


Re: More inconsistency and ad hom from Holmes
I had asked if you identify yourself as being an American.
In a situation that might have negative consequences. That was the situation.
We both agree that, in that situation, absolute truthfulness may not be best. Seriously, Holmes, what's your problem? Why do you have to distort my position when we already agree? Just to have something to argue with? It's pathetic.
You go ahead and link and quote that that was not how it started.
Love to. Here's my first answer to the question "Would you identify as an American?" from post 41:
Crashfrog writes:
Well, I don't have a choice about referring to myself as a US citizen. That's a factual statement about my legal citizenship.
Titles like "pro-democracy" and "Christian" are entirely voluntary, however, and it's because of the exact influence to which you refer that I would think long and hard about applying them to myself; I would realize that to do so means that, in some minds at least, I'm associating myself with the likes of Bush or Pat Robertson.
In other words, the labels I apply to myself have consequences, and I would consider those consequences before I used those labels. Moving on, to post 63, where I answer this question of yours:
Holmes writes:
That citizenship is voluntary. What's more that has nothing to do with identifying yourself as US. Do you feel american and would you say to others you are an american? If someone said you must support Bush and the Iraq War because you are an American, would you say they are mistaken because you can be American and not a Bush supporter?
Crashfrog writes:
I'd probably say that I was Canadian, in fact.
Thus, making it absolutely clear that, if identifying as an American would associate me with policies or actions that others would find so objectionable that there would be negative consequences, I would choose to identify differently. I go on to clarify in post 80:
crashfrog writes:
No, it doesn't make you pro-Bush to be pro-American. But here's the thing. Just as it's unreasonable for Jazzn to make an a priori expectation that outsiders to his religion have detailed knowledge about every little doctrinal split between himself and Robertson, I wouldn't expect a foreign citizen to understand the political split between Bush and myself. Thus, since I do not want to associate myself with the policies of Bush, I would not identify as an American.
Now, I then employed the other side of that reasoning in post 134:
crashfrog writes:
Some of his beliefs do reflect mine, simply because we share certain voluntary group identifiers. For instance, Robertson chooses to call himself an American, and so do I. Thus there's something about that group identity that appeals to both of us.
an instance where I did refer to myself as "American", because I was making an argument where I did, to a limited extent, want to associate myself with Pat Robertson. But you completely distorted my position in your very next post:
Holmes writes:
Earlier you said you considered yourself Canadian. Well I guess that was nothing.
and I corrected your distortion in the next post:
crashfrog writes:
I've never claimed to consider myself Canadian. I said that I might lie about it in certain circumstances.
i.e., circumstances where, because of the negative consequences of such an association, I would not want my audience to associate me with the policies of Bush or other American figures.
It's not hard to understand, Holmes. My reasoning has been clear throughout, for over 100 posts. All you've done is simply repeat your gross distortions.
I used the analogy of a military dept officer speaking for their department. While other members of the military may be part of the same heirarchy it is completely true that due to their structure the officer cannot be speaking for the other branches.
And, yet, that's not how the armed forces look at it. The conduct and speech of one soldier, no matter how far down the totem pole, reflects not only on himself, his unit, or his branch, but of the entire US armed services, and indeed, the United States itself. As I told you.
Your example is wrong. Flat-out wrong. It doesn't support the claim you brought it out to support. And to conceal that fact, you've leveled spurious charges of "logical fallacy."
No, Holmes. The fallacy is using a bad example, and then being so embarassed about it that you tried to turn the fault around onto me. Can't you take responsibility for anything?
To defend your position you extended the analogy by discussing a totally different issue, which was military officers engaged in political speech.
Totally different issue? Your example was of officers speaking. My rebuttal was of officers speaking. It's completely the same issue. Do you get it, yet?
Well I wish some of those anythings were accurately reading my posts, dealing with the evidence provided to you, and analyzing your own position.
Already done. It's easy, after all, when none of your posts have evidence, argument, or anything but your endless stream of personal attacks and ludicrous distortions. You're an embarassment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2005 6:24 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Silent H, posted 10-28-2005 4:52 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 302 (255289)
10-28-2005 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Silent H
10-28-2005 4:52 AM


Ad Holms-inem
I have no idea why you have continued this argument.
To battle one more of your endless, groundless ad hominems. Immature, you called me. Or did you forget?
If those situations included the possibility that your life would be threatened because you support Bush, or would result in some other SERIOUS consequence, then it would not be immature.
Oh? So now you're the arbiter of how serious a consequence it has to be before I'm allowed to make decisions about how I identify myself? I didn't realize that I needed your permission for so many things.
How on Earth did I live before you were there to hold my hand and make these decisions for me?
It was a jab crash.
quote:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
If you're having a little trouble with the forum guidelines, maybe you'd like to take a break?
It was inappropriate to do what you did.
Ah. And your admitted ad hominem, sarcasm, distortions, and outright falsehoods are the height of propriety?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Silent H, posted 10-28-2005 4:52 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Silent H, posted 10-28-2005 11:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 224 of 302 (255423)
10-28-2005 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Buzsaw
10-28-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
Over the years I and others have documented fulfilled prophecies which remain unrefuted, yet you keep on making these false claims that there's no evidence whatsoever of any.
Not to go all Rashomon, here, but the way I remember it is, you've never been able to present a "Biblical prophecy" that wasn't:
Self-fulfilling
"Prophecied" after fulfillment
Retrodacted to fit a "fulfillment" clearly not specified in the original text
Moreover, you've never had an argument against unfulfilled Biblical prophecy that wasn't circular - i.e. "no prophecy in the Bible can be unfulfilled, because if it was, it's not a prophecy."
Just about anybody can make reasonable predictions; and just about any situation can be spun to fit a sufficiently vague "prophecy." If you're right, and the Bible is accurately and supernaturally predicting the future, then you should be able to meet a pretty high bar of evidence, and you never, ever have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2005 9:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 255 of 302 (255874)
10-31-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Silent H
10-31-2005 10:52 AM


Re: Why Faith left?
I fear the ignorant intolerant liberals, about as much as I fear the ignorant intolerant conservatives.
So, I guess the libertarians are intolerant of everybody? I hate people like that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Silent H, posted 10-31-2005 10:52 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Silent H, posted 11-01-2005 4:12 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024