Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 12-21-2011, 10:06 PM   #158
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 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
bullshit If I had said all attacks are counter-arguments it would be completely valid logic, since I said the reverse, it is not.

If I say all policemen are gun carriers, does that mean that all gun-carriers are policemen?
Not at all, the same principle applies here.
It's not an accurate representation of what I ACTUALLY stated, so is bullshit logic.
The proof doesn't assume all attacks are counter-arguments. It is stating that counter-arguments fall under the category of attacks. Which is exactly what you stated, and what I used. Counter-arguments are attacks, are they not? Again, post the links.


Quote:
de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

dis·cus·sion (d-skshn)
n.
1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

Notice how in the definition of discussion, it doesn't mention a damn thing about arguments? There is no valid counter-argument to no argument.

I have told you that I don't have debates I have discussions.

I have entertained your weaselly attempts to get me to cop to some shit that never applied to begin with (which I told you from the start) for long enough, I am now adding you to my (mental I guess) ignore list as well for failure to even begin to attempt to approach the same starting point as me.
This isn't what I asked you to prove. This doesn't show that counter-arguments are ad hominens. What's wrong? Can't find any proof that supports that particular thing of yours?

Quote:

My philosophy was much more in-depth than that, that was merely one facet of something that led to the discussion of my philosophy, again just proof that you refuse to acknowledge my starting point:

True wisdom begins with knowing that we know nothing. We become wiser still when we acknowledge that the things we do know can only change.
Since every man is fallible, the only thing a man can ever state with certainty is his own opinion. etc etc.

Not going to feed it all to you just so you can troll down my faith some more.
Considering the fact that I've repeatedly said I don't care what your philosophy is since I'm not contesting anything you said for the reason of it being something you believe, I couldn't give less of a fuck about your philosophy. My goal was never to "troll your faith." You're not some poor victim of oppression here. Post the links.

Edit: I lol'd pretty heartily at you admitting that part was a facet of your life philosophy though. Still, links, post them.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), ask me anything (12-22-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Mal (12-22-2011), Numinous (12-22-2011)