Surefire ways to prove God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2013, 08:00 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 07:55 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Actually, Chippy - as you can see here from your responses - you absolutely responded to this argument, using Rahn127's premise. Get your shit in a pile and learn how to debate.

Actually, no I didn't. All of my comments were made in relation to overpopulation not some hypothetical utopia and that is clear from my posts. You can see from my comments that I was puzzled by your comments.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 07:55 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Actually, Chippy - as you can see here from your responses - you absolutely responded to this argument, using Rahn127's premise. Get your shit in a pile and learn how to debate.

Look at this post #65. Why would I write this:

Why would there be no disease? Why would every country have all the goods and services that they need? If Indonesia doesn't currently have sufficient land to farm beef cattle how would it come to eventually not need to import it? You are just making stuff up in a vain attempt to salvage your idiotic argument.


if I was using Rahn127's premises?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Chippy - you started off by saying, "you can't make that argument without..."

So you were directly addressing my comments to Rahl using the parameters described. I merely stated that having no disease, no early death, no rapes, no murders, no natural disasters would be detrimental to the global economy. I am not incorrect. Pick up a book, read about economics, and then come back to me when you educated yourself. I'll wait.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:08 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 07:57 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  In terms of following "serious debate rules" Chippy is an epic fail.

When he was proven wrong, he backed out of the argument by saying he never addressed that issue. You did. several times. its in writing...just read back.


BURN

I haven't been wrong on anything.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:10 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
sorry - you said, "You can't form that conclusion in absence...." Which is a direct response to the parameters described by Rahl.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:14 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Chippy - if you are going to participate or make direct comments to someone's comment, you need to do so within the context of what they were responding to.

I made the argument that the removal of natural disasters, illness, hunger, etc., would be detrimental to the global economy. You responded why my argument was wrong (again, staying on context). When I responded, then you suddenly removed the parameters and accused me of making an idiotic argument. Of course the argument was idiotic if you removed the assumed parameters and hypotheticals. You can't switch the parameters mid debate without redefining them.

You are a serious fucktart.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:15 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 08:07 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Chippy - you started off by saying, "you can't make that argument without..."

So you were directly addressing my comments to Rahl using the parameters described.

Yes I did say that and I was not referring to what Rahn127 had posted. I made that remark in reference to your remark about ecological systems not the hypothetical utopia.

Quote:I merely stated that having no disease, no early death, no rapes, no murders, no natural disasters would be detrimental to the global economy. I am not incorrect.

I didn't say that you were incorrect about that. I made no comment about the hypothetical utopia and I have given the hypothetical utopia no thought. If I was talking about the hypothetical utopia then why would I post:

Why would there be no disease? Why would every country have all the goods and services that they need? If Indonesia doesn't currently have sufficient land to farm beef cattle how would it come to eventually not need to import it? You are just making stuff up in a vain attempt to salvage your idiotic argument.

How would overpopulation give everybody free food and shelter? Who said everyone would have everything that they need for free? Overpopulation would have the opposite effect. There would be more competition for few resources so the economic environment would be generally inflationary.

Every nation-state isn't going to magically develop the ability to produce everything they want and need because the world is overpopulated. Trade would continue for the same reasons it occurs to day.

See http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid405895

Your narrative doesn't make any sense. You need only look at post #65 to confirm that I was not making any reference to Rahn127's utopia.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 08:10 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  sorry - you said, "You can't form that conclusion in absence...." Which is a direct response to the parameters described by Rahl.

Read post #65. It is clear from that I am referring to the macroeconomics of an overpopulated society and not Rahn127's utopia. My confusion in relation to your conclusions is apparent.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 08:14 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Chippy - if you are going to participate or make direct comments to someone's comment, you need to do so within the context of what they were responding to.

Well I wasn't concerned with your broader point. I had been discussing ecological homeostasis with someone (who is an expert on the topic) a few days ago and your comment struck me as completely false and I commented. My comments in relation to overpopulation were an extension of that objection.

Quote:I made the argument that the removal of natural disasters, illness, hunger, etc., would be detrimental to the global economy. You responded why my argument was wrong (again, staying on context). When I responded, then you suddenly removed the parameters and accused me of making an idiotic argument. Of course the argument was idiotic if you removed the assumed parameters and hypotheticals. You can't switch the parameters mid debate without redefining them.

You assumed without good reason that I was engaging your argument and I wasn't. Perhaps I should have been clearer and perhaps you should have queried me.

Quote:You are a serious fucktart.

I think "fucktard" is what you are after and no I'm not. What I posted about ecology and the macroeconomics of an overpopulated society are true. I don't know wjether what your posted about the macroececonomics of the utopia are true, I honestly have given it no thought.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
again, chippy, you can't remove parameters and only address "one aspect" of my argument without clearly defining that first. Otherwise, I argue off the premise that you are responding to the post in its entirety with the preamble assumptions.

So - you didn't follow "serious debate rules" when you removed a premise without stating that. It would have been an intelligent debate had you said, "forgetting Ralh's assumptions for a moment, overpopulation alone would not preclude global trade to cease.."

Having addressed that, it is worth noting that I never once said that overpopulation would stop global trade. I said that global trade would cease if there was no more world hunger, no more disease, no more natural disasters, etc., which, it would if those parameters were granted. So you were arguing yourself. I never said overpopulation causes the trading to stop. You are a total dingleberry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: