iconofid
Posts: 32
Joined: July 2009
|
| Quote (BillB @ Aug. 26 2012,10:36) | | Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2012,15:39) | | Quote (keiths @ Aug. 26 2012,01:05) | There's also a full-on tardfight between Maus and KF on the Toronto thread. Sample:
| Quote | So if I accept your plea to wordsnitchery as valid then you surely accept that it was the height of bad form and malice to attack and ban those commenters on UD that took a Dialetheist approach to contradictions. Both arguments stand together or fall together...
If your answer relies on ‘because I infer it backwards, but not in the well understood fallacy way, but in a magic way indistinguishable yet awesome’?
Then you are a Supernatural Materialist. And being of Moral Immoral character acknowledge that you have Contradicted your position on Contradiction – -but not in a contradictory manner — and will ban youself from UD by not leaving. |
No more 'big tent' for Maus. He's going the Sal route. |
His posts content have been deleted, ASFAICT.
This is why you always have and always will lose, UD, because you don't even play. Shame on Barry. I don't want to hear diddly about censorship from him, the bully. |
I happened to copy the last post from Maus, which is probably the one that invoked the impotent wrath of baz:
| Quote |
Maus August 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm
@Barry | Quote | | Your fear of the questions in the OP has been demonstrated repeatedly … |
Oh? Are you saying that an established law professional with an impressive CV and work history is so incompetent as to not understand what a “Devil’s Advocate” argument is? And that they are further so incompetent that they find the proper rejoinder is a long line of straw man and ad hominems?
We both know that you’re not such an incompetent. Which leaves one of two curiosities: 1) You know your argument is a mouth-breathing waste. 2) You’re on a Torquemada fishing expedition for the ‘faithful’.
So I’ll tell you what, Barry, since I obviously cannot answer for a personally held belief that I do not hold I’ll go ahead and answer for the one I am only allowed to hold until I answer the statements that you assert are absolutely correct and airtight.[1] And ‘hold until’ is the case as we do not dispute the LNC in this fora lest we be banned.
Which is to say I cannot answer your questions from a Christian perspective. For if I assume Christianity then the Lord has commanded, on various occasions, that children should be killed in toto. (Put aside ‘fun’ for now.) Such that if these sorts of antics are universally immoral then the Lord Himself is immoral. But He is the seat of morality and moral by definition. Which is absurd.
Therefore the killing of children, by numerous means, can only be contingently immoral. And this brings us back to ‘fun’. For it is understood that to worship the Lord, is amongst other things, to revel in His Glory and be at good cheer in carrying out His will. And since he has commanded the death of children on various occasions then it is immoral to not have a good cheer about trashing tots for the Lord. But, as you have continually asserted that your argument is airtight, then it is immoral to be moral and have a good cheer toasting toddlers.
So we cannot say that your airtight argument shows that Christianity is more or less moral than Materialism. We can only say that your airtight argument shows that Christianity is absurd. That it is self-contradictory and you have accomplished by assertion what Dawkins has spent a lifetime failing at.
But since I am not allowed by my nature, nor the rules of the road here, to disavow the LNC then I must reject the Christianity I held previously to accepting your arugment as valid. And since you’re not such an incompetent as to be a Christian and make an argument that refutes Christianity then your assertion to universal immorality must come from elsewhere.
Certainly not Materialism, since there Materialism is orthogonal to the topic. And so it must be some other religion that you follow. And since I cannot be any further a Christian then I should sorely like to know which religion it is that you practice, and which holds all the answers.
Not that you’ll answer, of course. For answering the notion — for whatever worldview you hold — would demonstrate that it was indeed an enthymeme that Begged the Question as I originally stated to you. And should your argument be simultaneously valid and invalid then you would need to have the bravery to deal with my original post or the bravery to ban yourself from your own site for rejecting the LNC you demand of others.
So I’ll just let it hang for others to let me know what a suitable replacement for my worldview should be.
[1] You have not, of course, stated this outright. But then your cowardice at addressing common rebuttal is enough to make the same intent apparent.
|
My Webpage |
I think we should give Maus POTW for that effort. I like the way he got around the "fun" bit, which Arrington had included because, of course, doing nasty things to children in general is fine in the eyes of his god.
|
]
