You responded in typical leftist fashion, by attacking my ability to read and think.
Ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non of leftists everywhere.
Ad hominem is not fallacious nor inappropriate when:
quote:
questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
See Wiki
And since you have shown obvious deficits in both reading comprehension and critical thinking during this discussion then your questionable personal conduct, character and motives are not just fair game but legitimate points of discussion.
Leftists always, always pretend to be enlightened, intellectual, smart, scientific, and all things moral, good, and brilliant.
First, I am not a leftist except in
your mind. But then everyone who doesn't agree with your fantacies you label as a "leftist" as if this is a bad thing. This goes, again, to your lack of critical thinking skills.
Second, this cannot be said to be
pretense when, compared to you ultra right-wing nutjobs, it is, in fact, true. I especially identify with the "brilliant" part.
This is the definition of "plausible" at
http://www.dictionary.com:
having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.
Nowhere does the word "proof" appear.
Plausibility is clearly a matter of perspective, a matter of how the subject "appears" to the observer in question.
Precisely.
From what we know, there is no reason, no credibility, to believe some sky rock could turn water into blood. It is not plausible.
And since we know how photosynthesis works, there is sufficient reason, credibility, in the natural fabrication of a hard, solid material, from a gas and a liquid. This is more than just plausible, it is fact.
This is what Ringo was attempting to convey to your deficient intellect.
That you have neither the knowledge nor the intellectual capacity to understand the differences between photosynthesis and sky rocks is a legitimate observation to be made in context of this discussion.
That you and so many of your pals here must engage relentlessly in jejune ad hominem attacks speaks volumes about your true scientific and intellectual acumen.
They are not jejune when the deficiencies cited are legitimately displayed, and are integral, to the poor conduct of your discussion.
It is not a positive message either.
Quite negative to be sure, and well deserved.