Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 12-21-2011, 08:27 PM   #151
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,543
Thanks: 34,417
Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
I completely disagree.
If you had merely mentioned it in passing not having realized I was here, or stated it being unaware of my beliefs, then it would be coincidental.
But since my beliefs were the start of the discussion, bringing it up in direct opposition to my beliefs is not coincidental in any sense of the word.
Of course you don't, you're an idiot. It doesn't matter if you believe in something or not. I would disagree with it regardless of whether a statement is something you believe (oh wait, something you base your life philosophy around) or not. It doesn't matter. I don't disagree with it because it's your life philosophy. I doubt it's validity or disagree with it because it's something that lacks proof or something I find disagreeable. To me, it being your life philosophy is inconsequential and coincidental. Totally irrelevant.



Quote:
No, against any statement I hold as a belief I base my life around.

Again this isn't what I am claiming, the 'base my life around it' is the difference, and it is entirely valid. Once I base my life around it it becomes both a trait, and a moral and is applicable under definitions #1-#4 of character.



I do not claim that producing a counter-argument against a belief I just so happen to hold is abusive and circumstantial.

I do maintain that an attack on a philosophy I base my life around is indeed abusive and circumstantial by way of the definitions linked earlier to prove exactly this.
Okay, change wherever I said "your belief" to "your life philosophy" if it'll stop your nitpicking. There. Now you can stop avoiding the discussion. Give me a link to one of the many websites dedicated to explaining and providing examples of logical fallacies that shows exactly this: 'Counter-arguments against a statement that happens to be a basis of your life philosophy are ad hominens.' That's it. Then you win. Game over. That is all it would take to prove my comrades and I were being ignorant and you were right all along.


You would also be proving that there is nothing illogical about many things that are now considered ignorant and horrible, like racism and sexism, since any arguments against such things would qualify as counter-arguments against statements that happen to be a basis of many people's life philosophies. Making them logically fallacious. You're literally a couple of link posts away from exposing a world changing breakthrough in logic that would do bigots the world over a truly great service. You truly are a sage of enlightenment, and I'm honored to be a part of this monumental historic event.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Mal (12-22-2011), Numinous (12-22-2011)