[split] Taq Vs Chippy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 10:10 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 09:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I like the part where tourette's writes things and pretends he has a point to make.

What it did was blindly repeat an error that BuckyBall made about the relationship between evidence and argument. I corrected Bucky and he accepted that he had made a mistake. Tourette's however had already committed to Bucky's error and now it isn't trying to defend an entirely absurd position. Hence the magic dog which just recognizes objects without any logical processing.

Oh, look -- ChimpyChimp, in his usual fits of self-delusion, is again misrepresenting what I say. Whhodathunkit.

That's all you ever really have to argue with, I have noticed.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 09:45 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I like the part where BrownShitStain gets his head stuck all the way up his boyfriend ChimpyChump's asshole.

Your shtick is very repetitive.

Like yours isn't. Rolleyes

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 10:48 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  There you go, dodging again. It is a HUGE problem that these "arguments" presume -- via special pleading -- the existence of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist".

No, cosmological arguments do not assume a creator, they conclude a creator.

Special pleading has nothing to do with begging the question.

Quote:The fact that I just trounced you on your lack of debating skills and your idiotic misapprehension of a well-known and basic logical fallacy speaks for itself.

These claims that you keep making of "trouncing", "beating" etc. are based on some parallel exchange that you are having in your imagination. You stated that you have a dog which recognises objects in the absence of any reasoning process, i.e. that it somehow--presumably magically--just recognizes things and now your are talking of "trouncing".

You don't understand the difference between deductive validity and begging the question.

Quote:Again: Craig specifically calls the "cosmological argument" an "argument for 'gawd's' existence".

And that god is not shown to be the Trinity by the Kalam cosmological argument. There is no reference to any specific deity in the Kalam.

Quote: And I note that even you are calling this "creator" that is asserted a "god".

Yes because that is what anyone that uses the Kalam hopes to eventually demonstrate using additional arguments. You can call the thing the Kalam works towards whatever you like, call it X if you want. The point is that it is not specific to any deity or even necessarily a deity. It is additional argumentation that makes the creator a deity and from a generic deity a specific deity.

Quote:You can bleat that all day long ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it any less of a straw man. Of course I can dumb it down for ignorant ChimpyChumps again: THE ARGUMENT IS ITSELF DISINGENUOUS.

You are disingenuous. You don't know the motive of everyone that employs a cosmological argument. You are just a fuckhead that is looking for the slimmest of pretexts just to be the vitriolic shit that you are.

Quote:And you can bleat that over and over again all you want as well. That this "creator" has this MAGICAL quality of being "without a beginning" -- as well as the ONLY thing in existence that is "without a beginning" is a concealed premise. You can't hide from that.

What is a "concealed premise"? Provide me a technical definition of it and show me how it differs from a conclusion that is logically implied by premises.

Quote:I didn't need a rebuttal.

Yes you do. Your empty declarations of victory aren't gong to convince anyone besides other retards like you.

Quote:I demonstrated that I understand Three-Card Monte well enough to know that it's a rigged game. Just like these mental-masturbation cosmological arguments you seem to like to wallow in.

Understanding something doesn't amount to "wallowing in it". You have no understanding of what you are pretending to critique. I asked you to show me which premise in Kalam begs the question and you are yet to show me. So instead of admitting you were wrong, now you are saying it has a "concealed premise".

You use the word ibid. without knowing what it means.

You pontificate about object recognition in mammals without knowing the first thing about the subject.

You conflate deductive validity with begging the question.

You also seem to think that deductive validity amounts to having a "concealed premise".

Do you understand what a deductively valid argument is? It appears to me that you don't.

Quote:You continue to flail at a straw man. The entire point of this was my pointing out that NOTlookingforanswers was and is attempting to do an end run around his/her obligation to the burden of proof.

No, you made a specific claim about how you believe object recognition works in canines. That claim was that it just happens, essentially by some sort of dog magic.

You also made a broader claim that there is such a thing as evidence that exists independently of some process of reasoning.

All of your claims are false as is your claim that the Kalam argument begs the question.

Quote:Just ask Craig what his concept of "gawd" is. WITHOUT reference to any of his bag of specious "arguments"

There is no concept of the Trinity or any other specific deity in the Kalam argument.

Quote:Identifying a "creator" with specific characteristics (including "not beginning to exist") makes it a specific deity.

No it does NOT. The label "creator that has always existed" can be applied to the Trinity, Allah, Yahweh and many more deities because it is a proper subset of their supposed traits. Humans that are 6' 5" does not identify a specific person, it identifies a category of persons.

Quote:But again you disingenuously attempt to dodge the fact that introducing a "creator" that, via special pleading, "doesn't begin to exist" is begging the question.

Special pleading is not begging the question. They are two distinct informal fallacies. If your claim is that the Kalam begs the question then demonstrate which premise assumes the conclusion.

Quote:Of course you won't admit it; you couldn't muster a shred of intellectual honesty to save your life.

You should take your own advice. Bucky admitted his error, you just blindly repeated it and now you are committed to repeating it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 11:44 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 10:56 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 10:07 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Your shtick is very repetitive.

Like yours isn't. Rolleyes

I'm not the one that compulsively posts the same set of "memes" over-and-over nor am I the one that uses the same trite insults. You are a banal joke. Since you don't learn anything you also just repeat the same old bullshit arguments that you copy and regurgitate almost verabatim--just like you did with BuckyBall's post. You gave a "Like" to BuckyBall's post even though it had a major flaw which he admitted when I pointed it out. You didn't notice his error. You "Liked" it and copied it. This is illustrative of your level of intellect. You are the equivalent of a "script kiddie".

No one gives a shit what you think. No one seeks out your reasoning and knowledge on a matter. My knowledge and reasoning is sought out.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 12:23 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
Chippy - trying to reason with him is pointless. Either he knows that he's antagonising or he doesn't and just thinks he right. Time to give it up there's nowhere to go, unless of course you just like the fight. Which is a perfectly justified reason in my eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 12:33 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 10:48 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You don't know what a fallacious Argumentum Ad Hominem is. And you smell funny.

Until I mentioned the distinction between fallacious and non-fallacious argumentum ad hominem that Walton makes in my exchange with "DocSkeptic" no-one on this forum made that distinction.

You read my response to "DocSkeptic" (I know because you responded to it in idiotic and uneducated fashion as per usual) where I explained Walton's typology to DocSkeptic. Now you are paraphrasing me and telling me that I don't understand the fallacy that you are paraphrasing me on.

Prior to my post you were another internet moron that thought argumentum ad hominem meant insult. And no, ad hominem is just a contraction of
argumentum ad hominem it does not mean insult in Latin.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 12:36 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 12:23 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Chippy - trying to reason with him is pointless. Either he knows that he's antagonising or he doesn't and just thinks he right. Time to give it up there's nowhere to go, unless of course you just like the fight. Which is a perfectly justified reason in my eyes.

True. I'm done for today. Tourette's can go eat shit as far as I'm concerned. The magic theory of canine cognition just shows what a fuckwit it is.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 12:36 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 11:33 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 10:48 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  There you go, dodging again. It is a HUGE problem that these "arguments" presume -- via special pleading -- the existence of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist".

No, cosmological arguments do not assume a creator, they conclude a creator.

They assume a creator that "doesn't begin to exist".

Quote:Special pleading has nothing to do with begging the question.

I didn't say it did. You DO know what a straw man fallacy is, right? No, you don't, because you rely on them so heavily, and that's intellectually dishonest as fuck. Oh, wait, it's YOU, and yeah, you are intellectually dishonest as fuck.

Quote:
Quote:[quote]
The fact that I just trounced you on your lack of debating skills and your idiotic misapprehension of a well-known and basic logical fallacy speaks for itself.

These claims that you keep making of "trouncing", "beating" etc. are based on some parallel exchange that you are having in your imagination.

You seem to "forget" that you errantly called my statement an Ad Hominem fallacy, and I had to school your sorry ass on what an Ad Hominem fallacy actually is. Yes, trouncing.


Quote: You stated that you have a dog which recognises objects in the absence of any reasoning process, i.e. that it somehow--presumably magically--just recognizes things and now your are talking of "trouncing".


I didn't say "in the absence of any reasoning process" at all. Nor did I say "magically". When are you going to give up this bullshit of strawmanning everything anyone here says?

Quote:You don't understand the difference between deductive validity and begging the question.

That bullshit claim is only your sad attempt to smoke-screen your willfully ignorant refusal to acknowledge that cosmological arguments are built on a badly concealed premise of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist".


Quote:
Quote:Again: Craig specifically calls the "cosmological argument" an "argument for 'gawd's' existence".

And that god is not shown to be the Trinity by the Kalam cosmological argument. There is no reference to any specific deity in the Kalam.

Tell that to Craig and every other son of a bitch who uses the Kalam to "prove" their "gawd", then.


Quote:
Quote: And I note that even you are calling this "creator" that is asserted a "god".

Yes because that is what anyone that uses the Kalam hopes to eventually demonstrate using additional arguments. You can call the thing the Kalam works towards whatever you like, call it X if you want. The point is that it is not specific to any deity or even necessarily a deity. It is additional argumentation that makes the creator a deity and from a generic deity a specific deity.

And again you are throwing out a boatload of red herrings. The Kalam is specific to a "creator" that, by special pleading, "doesn't begin to exist".


Quote:
Quote:You can bleat that all day long ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it any less of a straw man. Of course I can dumb it down for ignorant ChimpyChumps again: THE ARGUMENT IS ITSELF DISINGENUOUS.

You are disingenuous. You don't know the motive of everyone that employs a cosmological argument. You are just a fuckhead that is looking for the slimmest of pretexts just to be the vitriolic shit that you are.

And again you try in vain to misrepresent what I said, grabbing at straws. That's all you've got.

Quote:
Quote:And you can bleat that over and over again all you want as well. That this "creator" has this MAGICAL quality of being "without a beginning" -- as well as the ONLY thing in existence that is "without a beginning" is a concealed premise. You can't hide from that.

What is a "concealed premise"? Provide me a technical definition of it and show me how it differs from a conclusion that is logically implied by premises.

I have already explained that to you several times. That you choose to remain willfully ignorant is your own problem.


Quote:
Quote:I didn't need a rebuttal.

Yes you do. Your empty declarations of victory aren't gong to convince anyone besides other retards like you.

They aren't *gong? I'll take my chances.

Quote:
Quote:I demonstrated that I understand Three-Card Monte well enough to know that it's a rigged game. Just like these mental-masturbation cosmological arguments you seem to like to wallow in.

Understanding something doesn't amount to "wallowing in it".

I didn't say it did. Strawman much?

Quote: You have no understanding of what you are pretending to critique.

You keep saying that, and I keep schooling you that I do.

Quote: I asked you to show me which premise in Kalam begs the question and you are yet to show me. So instead of admitting you were wrong, now you are saying it has a "concealed premise".

And I wasn't wrong, and I have maintained that it was a concealed premise all this time. You are back to your disingenuous misrepresentations again.


Quote:You use the word ibid. without knowing what it means.

Can you get any more childish?

Quote:You pontificate about object recognition in mammals without knowing the first thing about the subject.

YOU are the one pontificating and masturbating over object recognition.

Quote:You conflate deductive validity with begging the question.

Not at all. You simply refuse to admit you are full of shit.

Quote:You also seem to think that deductive validity amounts to having a "concealed premise".

Nice try. You are throwing out yet another red herring, grabbing at straws, stubbornly refusing to concede that the Kalam and its variants presume, via special pleading, a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist".

Quote: Do you understand what a deductively valid argument is? It appears to me that you don't.

It is one in which the conclusion is logically follows from the premises.

YOU don't understand what a Straw Man fallacy is. Or you wouldn't pander so many of them. That is, if you were intellectually honest, which of course you aren't.

Quote:
Quote:You continue to flail at a straw man. The entire point of this was my pointing out that NOTlookingforanswers was and is attempting to do an end run around his/her obligation to the burden of proof.

No, you made a specific claim about how you believe object recognition works in canines. That claim was that it just happens, essentially by some sort of dog magic.

You are a fucking liar. I posted a rebuttal to NOTlookingforanswers' bullshit claims about the Kalam argument "showing" a "need for a creator", and you tried to vent your boatload of butthurt at me over it.


Quote:You also made a broader claim that there is such a thing as evidence that exists independently of some process of reasoning.

And there you go, misrepresenting what I said AGAIN. No surprise here.

Quote:All of your claims are false as is your claim that the Kalam argument begs the question.

Which is to say, they are all completely factual. Big of you to admit it. Sort of.


Quote:
Quote:Just ask Craig what his concept of "gawd" is. WITHOUT reference to any of his bag of specious "arguments"

There is no concept of the Trinity or any other specific deity in the Kalam argument.

I said nothing of a trinity. That's YOUR straw man to stuff up your ass.



Quote:
Quote:Identifying a "creator" with specific characteristics (including "not beginning to exist") makes it a specific deity.

No it does NOT.

Sure it does, no matter how much you bleat.

Quote:The label "creator that has always existed" can be applied to the Trinity, Allah, Yahweh and many more deities because it is a proper subset of their supposed traits. Humans that are 6' 5" does not identify a specific person, it identifies a category of persons.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specific

1: constituting or falling into a specifiable category



That category being "creators which do not begin to exist".

QED.

Quote:
Quote:But again you disingenuously attempt to dodge the fact that introducing a "creator" that, via special pleading, "doesn't begin to exist" is begging the question.

Special pleading is not begging the question.

I didn't say it was, numbnuts. I pointed out to you how it is BOTH begging the question AND employing a special pleading fallacy. Fuck, but you are dense.

Quote: They are two distinct informal fallacies.

Well fucking DUH. That's what I told YOU.

Quote: If your claim is that the Kalam begs the question then demonstrate which premise assumes the conclusion.

Already done, many times over. I can lead a Chimpy to water, but I can't make him pull the army of straw men out of his ass.

Quote:
Quote:Of course you won't admit it; you couldn't muster a shred of intellectual honesty to save your life.

You should take your own advice. Bucky admitted his error, you just blindly repeated it and now you are committed to repeating it.

Your delusional wishful thinking again.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 12:39 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 11:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  ...
My knowledge and reasoning is sought out.

This is true.

But it's mainly to keep you occupied and off the streets; away from small, fluffy animals and easily terrified christians.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 12:46 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 12:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 10:48 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You don't know what a fallacious Argumentum Ad Hominem is. And you smell funny.

Until I mentioned the distinction between fallacious and non-fallacious argumentum ad hominem that Walton makes in my exchange with "DocSkeptic" no-one on this forum made that distinction.

Perhaps no one VOICED that distinction -- but I doubt even that. But aren't you the fucking narcissistic megalomaniac:

Quote:You read my response to "DocSkeptic" (I know because you responded to it in idiotic and uneducated fashion as per usual) where I explained Walton's typology to DocSkeptic. Now you are paraphrasing me and telling me that I don't understand the fallacy that you are paraphrasing me on. Prior to my post you were another internet moron that thought argumentum ad hominem meant insult. And no, ad hominem is just a contraction of
argumentum ad hominem it does not mean insult in Latin.

Bullshit. Are you really so egotistical and self-deluded as to believe that no one on this forum knows anything you (CLAIM to) know without you having pointed it out to them first? Yes, you fucking are, and you just proved it. You take the fucking prize, pal.

And, even supposedly KNOWING the difference, you STILL tried to claim that I had committed an Ad Hominem fallacy. You are a fucking idiot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: