Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 10-07-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
But then, you haven't brought in any evidence for so many of your claims, yes ?

Naaaaaawwwww, I had a long discussion with you on this thread here, where we discussed philosophy and science, Starboy, and while I provided all the substance, you eventually confessed you didn't know either philosophy or science, and you lack credentials or experience, and you couldn't back up any of your claims .

IOW, the lack of substance is not my problem, but yours, Starboy.

Seebs, here is an example of what I have been talking about. It is also an example of an ad hominem (against the person) argument. Questioning my credentials in no way falsifies my claim.

Starboy

Gurdur · 10-07-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy

Seebs, here is an example of what I have been talking about. It is also an example of an ad hominem (against the person) argument.

ROFL !
No, it isn't.
Let me make this really easy for you:

1) On the original thread I linked to, you made a large number of false statements about science and philosophy.

2) Initially, I refuted all your claims; the refutations of which you never tackled.

3) You then repeated your claims --- at whcih point I asked you about your knowledge of the areas you were pronouncing judgment upon.
IOW, did you know what you were talking about ?
I even alerted the mods at that point, and told you I was doing so, in order to not make an ad hominem; and the mods agreed it was a relevant question to ask of you, as to whether you knew what you were talking about.

Tsk, Starboy, I'm so disappointed in your not mentioning that.

Quote:

Questioning my credentials in no way falsifies my claim.

ROFL !
You keep making ridiculous claims -- and refusing to back them up !
You haven't got the necessary experience or knowledge to pronounce on philosophy --- and I have no idea why you keep on attacking it, or me; but my main point here is of course your dismal failure to provide any evidence for your claims; especially your bizarre allegation of me being a "pseudo-philosopher".

And above I also factually refuted your claims as to whether I provided substance.
Don't forget that now !

Though I'm fascinated how you appeal to Seebs: it's quite interesting.

Starboy · 10-07-2003, 12:48 PM

Gurdur, it wouldn't be so easy to expose you if you were not what I claim you to be.

Starboy

Gurdur · 10-07-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy

Gurdur, it wouldn't be so easy to expose you if you were not what I claim you to be.

Starboy

ROFL !
I see you're still sticking to those terribly vague smears; what's the problem, Starboy ? No evidence ?
LOL. The only person you've "exposed" would be yourself.

Let me give you a little bit of help; if you really want to try claiming I made an ad hominem, the people you should be appealing to are the moderators of this forum, not Seebs; you seem possibly flustered.

Now: can you actually tackle any of the main points at all ?
Like, why accuse me of being a pseudo-philosopher, when I haven't even claimed to be a philosopher ?

I mean, do you have any substance at all ? Any ? Any ?

Starboy · 10-07-2003, 12:56 PM

Gurdur, if you want to convince people you are not a pseudo-philosopher stop with the pseudo-philosophy.

Starboy

AJ113 · 10-07-2003, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
Wrong again !
It's not just my point; as Livius said, she's been making the point for 19 pages, and she has spoken --- as mod of this forum too --- about conditions here in GRD. And her view of what happens here is significantly different from yours.

Nonsense. You made your point and I replied to you. If you do not wish to reply that is your right, but paraphrasing moderators' rulings is hardly a decent response.

Gurdur · 10-07-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy

Gurdur, if you want to convince people you are not a pseudo-philosopher stop with the pseudo-philosophy.

Starboy

*yawn*
You seem to be getting desperate, Starboy.
What's the problem ? No evidence ?
Tsk tsk.

_____________

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ113

Nonsense. You made your point and I replied to you. If you do not wish to reply that is your right, but paraphrasingmodertors' rulings is hardly a decent response.

Wrong again !

You implied it was merely my point, and I replied that a moderator had made it a central point of the discussion --- as have many other posters.
QED.
It has nothing to do with "moderators' rulings".

You also made a judgment about the level of venom here in GRD.
I pointed out that livius --- a mod here who is very active in this forum --- has a completely different view than yours.
IOW, I trust her view more till you could actually show evidence otherwise. Especially since several other posters agree with her.

Faking outrage about my response does not hide the fact that I made a significant response to you, rebutting you on two points.

seebs · 10-07-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Seebs, here is an example of what I have been talking about. It is also an example of an ad hominem (against the person) argument. Questioning my credentials in no way falsifies my claim.

Indeed. However, while pointing out that a series of words was uttered by a small child who probably doesn't know what they mean doesn't invalidate the claim, it does suggest that it's probably not worth serious consideration. Probably.

livius drusus · 10-07-2003, 02:19 PM

Well. I leave for a couple of hours and find you scamps all over the place. I'd split the last page off somewhere, but frankly, it's too jumbled to fit anywhere.

Back to the actual topic please, which, I will reiterate, is a question of stereotyping and behavior, not doctrine, science, exegesis, the absurd universe or whether or not Dawkins is sexy

livius drusus · 10-07-2003, 02:37 PM

Magus, please note my comment above. You know the subject of the thread. You know what forum you are in. Respect the boundaries of this topic and refrain from response to extraneous topics no matter how tempting you may find it.

Needless to say, this goes for everybody.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator, GRD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2003, 12:48 PM	#483
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Gurdur, it wouldn't be so easy to expose you if you were not what I claim you to be. Starboy

10-07-2003, 12:56 PM	#485
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Gurdur, if you want to convince people you are not a pseudo-philosopher stop with the pseudo-philosophy. Starboy

10-07-2003, 02:19 PM	#489
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	Well. I leave for a couple of hours and find you scamps all over the place. I'd split the last page off somewhere, but frankly, it's too jumbled to fit anywhere. Back to the actual topic please, which, I will reiterate, is a question of stereotyping and behavior, not doctrine, science, exegesis, the absurd universe or whether or not Dawkins is sexy

10-07-2003, 02:37 PM	#490
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	Magus, please note my comment above. You know the subject of the thread. You know what forum you are in. Respect the boundaries of this topic and refrain from response to extraneous topics no matter how tempting you may find it. Needless to say, this goes for everybody. Thank you, livius drusus Moderator, GRD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.