long winded fool

Showing the illogic of your statements shows why insults in an argument do more harm to the insulter's argument than to the arguments of the one who is insulted. They are made in an attempt to strengthen the arguments of the one who makes the insult, though they may not admit or even realize this, when in fact they undermine his or her credibility as a rational thinker.

Oolon Colluphid

Huh?

Perhaps they seem like that, to those incapable of fully following an argument...

False dichotomy . Perhaps the person taking the piss just doesn’t care -- bearing in mind that the argument is in fact made too.

Bollocks. The worst they do is potentially distract. It would only “undermine his or her credibility as a rational thinker” if insult were used instead of argument.

You still seem confused on this, because I see no examples in this thread of insult replacing logic, merely augmenting it; and though I don’t read every bit of every thread to check, as a former moderator I can assure you that mere insult is strongly frowned upon on these boards.

However, what you don’t seem to understand is, in E/C discussions, considering the sauropod shite that creationists come out with, such things are par for the course, given the mannerisms that often go with the fundamentalist mentality. If, say, someone -- ignorant, and blinded by the lies they’ve been fed, yeah? -- steams in claiming point-blank that there are no transitional fossils, I don’t see what is wrong with saying “What the hell do you think these, these, these and these are then, you ignorant pillock?!” since such actions provoke what the Greeks would call ‘righteous anger’. I am happy in that context to be the creationists’ Nemesis.

Though I’m not sure about being a goddess...

Such things may not be nice, and may distract the weak-minded from the matter at hand (fair cop). But they do not affect the validity of the counter-argument in the slightest. Since when do we have to pussyfoot around arrogant idiots?

TTFN, DT

Oolon Colluphid

True... and I told him that and linked that thread above, back on 29 January on page 3...

Cheers, DT

long winded fool

Yet I've shown just this. I have shown that it is a logical fallacy to tack a false conclusion onto a sound argument. This makes the argument unsound. Saying that I'm supposed to be strong-minded enough to ignore such false conclusions begs the question, "Why were they included in the first place if they are superfluous and detrimental to the argument unless ignored?" It is not rational to come to a false conclusion, place it in an otherwise sound argument and expect the conclusion to be ignored and the argument to be sound.

Dumbass...

Jobar

lwf:
Dumbass...

HE INSULTED US! KILL HIM! KILL HIM! BREAK HIS FINGERS!



Seriously lwf, I think we have squeezed all the juice out of this topic. If you see any posts in this forum which you feel are egregious violations of good manners, and damaging to the position of evolutionary science, please contact one of the mods, or start another thread. Meanwhile, I'm closing this one out. J.