Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zodiak
...snip a lot of superflous nonsense
Now, if you do not mind, I am quite tired after deflecting two full-length counter posts full of strawman arguments, accusations of ad hominem attacks, accusation of intolerance, demands of proof in the absence of counterproof, quoting me out of context, and non-sequiturs. Please understand that this can get rather tiresome quickly and will eventually prompt me to not waste the hour and a half of time I have just wasted in the future.
I will not respond to this thread anymore in the interest of not hijacking it an letting others post their comments. To be fair, please feel free to rebut what I have here...I promise to read it and note publically where I am clearly in the wrong.
|
My whole point in the above was to show the rediculousness of trying to have meaningful discussion by using high-school debate tactics to rebut your opposition, especially when the very criticisms levelled against others can be levelled against you. I'm sure many of us here can name and recognize many logical fallacies, and those who can't could easily google them if they were interested. To attempt to pick apart another post while supposedly naming off said fallacies reeks of arrogance, and does little to encourage any meaningful debate. It's little better than picking apart the spelling and grammar of a post. And as far as I know, there is nobody here being graded on what they post, so there is no benefit gained by anyone outside of the pseudo-Socrates who feels the need to pick through posts in such a way.