Freethought & Rationalism Archive

livius drusus · 08-01-2003, 02:02 PM

I assume we cross-posted, Amaranth, but in my reply to Sophie I declared an end to the Hooked on IIDB Rules instructional which applies to all participants, not just her.

I'll give the topic one last chance, King Rat. Any further devolution will result in its closure.

Doctor X · 08-01-2003, 02:05 PM

Reviewing the verbage, it is clear that the individual, unhappy with the choices has descended into the gutter with Lies,Hypocrisy, and Cowardice.

I merely recognize the behavior and identify it as such. If individuals dislike being so recognized they would do well to change their behavior.

Now, that having been done, I will note, again, that to render the mistaken claim that by receiving alleviation a child "is no longer an individual" is irrelevant to the argument.

We are to believe that by receiving an end to suffering . . . somehow the child is diminished? Perchance the individual would spare the moment to ask one and see what their concern is with "losing their individuality."

Of course we are given no evidence for this. We need to "take her word for it." That it contradicts reality should not disuade us, apparently.

Then we have further meandering that the only "rational" answer is Non-Extence and Irrelevance. The individual had the right to those choices, but she needs more before she can hope to convince anyone else.

Finding that "too dark altogether," she then attempt to claim that the reality of the case is insufficient.

As advised previously, a responsible review of the cases would correct that misapprehension. <insult deleted - liv> She will try to find, some way, some how, to "blame the victim" for her plight.

As if this removes responsibility for her deity!

What a dark world she lives in where children "deserve" such prolonged and severe suffering.

Fortunately, no one else has to wallow in her world of Lies,Hypocrisy, and Cowardice.

--J.D.

sophie · 08-01-2003, 02:05 PM

Amaranth :

Quote:

What argument? Your response was lower than trash. It attempting to discredit use of formal identification of logical fallacies on a forum that is cenetered around logical debate, and where such identification is standard, not exception. The other part of your argument, what little bit of it could actually be called argument, was merely more ipse dixit nonsense. Your arguments simply fail to account for the fact that you must not only declare the arguments incorrect, but show them to be such. Thus, your argumentum ad naseum has become a point of ridicule.

Sorry to insist on English terms. This seems like a declaration more than anything else I have rationally encountered. I showed some points to be incorrect, but you were unable to grasp my finer points, if I ciould supplant this I would.

Quote:

Thus, your argumentum ad naseum has become a point of ridicule

Thanks for the heave ho.

Quote:

what little bit of it could actually be called argument, was merely more ipse dixit nonsense.

What exactly were the points, Can you recall them? By name?

Quote:

Any other ways I can assist you?

Perhaps in a few years I may call upon you to debate a good point or 2.

livius drusus · 08-01-2003, 02:10 PM

I see. In other words, there is no chance this thread will ever become anything more than an exchange of barbs under the guise of a discussion.

If there is any topic worth revisiting, I suggest you start a new thread untainted by 8 pages of sniping. This one is locked.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator - GRD

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

08-01-2003, 02:02 PM	#191
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	I assume we cross-posted, Amaranth, but in my reply to Sophie I declared an end to the Hooked on IIDB Rules instructional which applies to all participants, not just her. I'll give the topic one last chance, King Rat. Any further devolution will result in its closure.

08-01-2003, 02:05 PM	#192
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Reviewing the verbage, it is clear that the individual, unhappy with the choices has descended into the gutter with Lies,Hypocrisy, and Cowardice. I merely recognize the behavior and identify it as such. If individuals dislike being so recognized they would do well to change their behavior. Now, that having been done, I will note, again, that to render the mistaken claim that by receiving alleviation a child "is no longer an individual" is irrelevant to the argument. We are to believe that by receiving an end to suffering . . . somehow the child is diminished? Perchance the individual would spare the moment to ask one and see what their concern is with "losing their individuality." Of course we are given no evidence for this. We need to "take her word for it." That it contradicts reality should not disuade us, apparently. Then we have further meandering that the only "rational" answer is Non-Extence and Irrelevance. The individual had the right to those choices, but she needs more before she can hope to convince anyone else. Finding that "too dark altogether," she then attempt to claim that the reality of the case is insufficient. As advised previously, a responsible review of the cases would correct that misapprehension. <insult deleted - liv> She will try to find, some way, some how, to "blame the victim" for her plight. As if this removes responsibility for her deity! What a dark world she lives in where children "deserve" such prolonged and severe suffering. Fortunately, no one else has to wallow in her world of Lies,Hypocrisy, and Cowardice. --J.D.

08-01-2003, 02:10 PM	#194
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	I see. In other words, there is no chance this thread will ever become anything more than an exchange of barbs under the guise of a discussion. If there is any topic worth revisiting, I suggest you start a new thread untainted by 8 pages of sniping. This one is locked. Thank you, livius drusus Moderator - GRD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.