Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 12-21-2011, 08:05 PM   #150
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Originally Posted by Mal View Post
Okay, so by your own admission it's exactly the same. There is no logical reason to believe any deity exists, therefore there is no logical reason to believe you are correct. Thank you for once again saving me some work by proving yourself wrong.

Valid: sound, just, well-founded. You don't have to justify your beliefs for them to be valid, but if they are valid then they should be easily justified, and if you cannot justify them then they are not valid.

Saying something is impossible to disprove doesn't make it so. We have several times over proven you incorrect, you just can't accept it.

Osama bin Laden based his life on the philosophy that America was evil. Joseph Goebbels based his life on the philosophy that Jews were sub-human. Charles Manson based his life on the philosophy of Helter Skelter.

You are claiming that these evil beliefs are perfectly valid simply because they have become a part of the character of the evil individuals who held them.

Attacking your character is, but your beliefs are not your character.

And I apologize for leaving the internet to get stuff done, I did not realize there was some arbitrary time limit on disproving claims (especially claims that weren't proven to begin with).

You have no idea what you're talking about. Calling someone a "Jew bastard" is an ad Hominem because it is an attempt to disparage their integrity or reputation instead of properly disputing their claim. It doesn't matter how much a part of your "character" your beliefs are, nor does it matter how much your beliefs are attacked. If no attempt to stain your reputation or question your integrity is made, then no ad Hominem is committed.

Really? You mean to say that raising a logical counter-argument to someone's statement doesn't happen by chance? Preposterous.

The "base your life around" part makes no difference. A belief is a belief, no matter how much you cry when people hurt your feelings by questioning how you can believe hyper-intelligent Velociraptors are secretly manipulating the world governments.

No matter how core a belief is it is never a trait, so definition 1 does not apply. That whole "moral" thing is part of definition 3 (which I didn't say was applicable, because it isn't), you're equivocating again.

Again, no.
Every single one of those definitions may be used and it would still be abusive and circumstantial.

1. You've read his autobiography. You know what he's done, what he believes, and where he's from.

2. The guy only has one leg for christ's sake.

3. He lied about his name when they picked him up.

4. He pissed his pants when they picked him up.

5. I've heard that he is a mafia crime boss.

Just because you feel like pulling this interpretation out of your ass, that isn't stated anywhere in the definition in any way shape or form doesn't mean it means a damn thing.

If attacking someone for being a jew is something about reputation, their reputation is being attacked for their beliefs, don't try and give me some bullshit that calling someone a jew as an insult isn't belief based.

If you want to try to say they are all reputation based, well then attacks on the philosophy that I subscribe to would also be going against my reputation.

Quit insisting upon your understanding of things to disprove the definition, and keep telling me I'm being illogical in the same breath.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-21-2011 at 08:28 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)