The whole truth
Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 22 2012,10:25) | gpuccio gives up: Quote | To all at TSZ:
Guys,
this situation is beyond any hope.
You must excuse me, but I cannot any more follow your crazy posts.
I have made very detailed point, and nobody has addressed them.
Mark, who is obviously the most honest in your lot, is completely confused now about what “circularity” even means, after having started a whole thread on the circularity of my argument, and having stated many times that my argument is circular. Mark, I appreciate your honesty, a little bit less your reasoning.
Of Keiths I really appreciate nothing. I have clearly demonstrated that his argument of circularity is bogus. He has addressed njone of my detailed arguments, and now he is patronizing me about what is empirical and what is circular. Good bye, Keiths.
Zachriel is more of a problem. I cannot really understand of he is less intelligent than I thought, or just less honest. I will leave the thing open, for the moment. I have had many satisying discussions with him, and I don’t want to ruin everything.
Joe Felsenstein, I must say with great regret, is beyond any sense.
What about Petrushka? He is not at his best, but hios way of completely changing argument in a blissful solitute is in some way appealing.
So, what I can say?
I would like to just simply ask each of you who may like to answer:
Your thread started about the supposed circularity of the dFSCI definition and procedure. I ask each of you, explicitly: after all I have said, do you still believe and affirm that my argument is circular?
I think I deserve an explicit answer to that from each of you. If you don’t give it, it’s OK, but that says much about your moral character.
If you give it, I will just ackowledge your answers. For total sincerety, however, I must say that at this point I feel like paraphrasing Dawkins: Whoever in your lot, at this point, and without having addressed any of my points, still affirms that dFSCI is a circular concept, is either stupid or dishonest.
I am sorry, but I had to say that. From my heart.
That’s all, folks. |
The crowd applauds: kf
Quote | Those over at TSZ who — as is clearly seen — are continuing to indulge such tactics, knowing that there are those who will be gulled by it, tell us all we need to know about their agenda. |
Quote | We can identify dFSCI.
We have billions of cases of known cause: design.
We have excellent inductive reason backed up by the needle in the haystack analysis to see why that is so.
That to disagree we do not see straightforward counterexamples but ever so sophistical rhetorical tactics is telling on the true balance on the merits. |
Upright Dickhead: Quote | Claiming “circularity” in these arguments basically amounts to an intellectual pacifier. It’s what you say when you have nothing of substance.
GP, you did a great job. |
gpuccio thanks his audience:
Quote | KF, Joe, Mung, UB, CentralScrutinizer, and all those who have taken part:
Thank you. |
And retreats. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....To7zKM8
Tell you what UD people. You've won. Congratulations.
Now what? What are you going to do with the now scientific (it's been "proven") dFSCI concept?
Go on, do tell.... |
gpuccio sanctimoniously barfed:
"Your thread started about the supposed circularity of the dFSCI definition and procedure. I ask each of you, explicitly: after all I have said, do you still believe and affirm that my argument is circular?
I think I deserve an explicit answer to that from each of you. If you don’t give it, it’s OK, but that says much about your moral character.
If you give it, I will just ackowledge your answers. For total sincerety, however, I must say that at this point I feel like paraphrasing Dawkins: Whoever in your lot, at this point, and without having addressed any of my points, still affirms that dFSCI is a circular concept, is either stupid or dishonest.
I am sorry, but I had to say that. From my heart."
gpukio is trying hard to be a gordo clone, with the "I am sorry, but I had to say that." game. He pretends that it bothers him to be a demanding prick and call his opponents stupid or dishonest, just like when gordo pretends to be "sad" or "sorry" while pouring out fire and brimstone on anyone who doesn't worship his every word.
And the "From my heart." crap? Yeah, his insulting accusations are from his heart, but he's "sorry"? How can he be sorry for something that is from his heart? He's pretending to be god-jesus, and he's getting his schtick straight from the bible. In the bible god-jesus is often depicted as being sad/sorry when it wreaks death and destruction or other punishing acts on those who don't kiss its tyrannical ass and even on some who do. Sad and sorry in the sense of a parent who says to their kid, 'I'm sad and sorry but I have to beat your ass with Mr Leathers. This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.'
Total sincerity? Hey pukio, if you had even the slightest concern for total sincerity you'd admit that you're a god-wannabe with no moral character who wants to rule the universe.
You and your IDiotic ilk have been getting 'explicit' answers for as long as you've been pushing your dishonest creationist/dominionist agenda (that you call "ID"). You don't want 'explicit' answers unless they are explicitly what you want to hear. You want, expect, and demand total agreement and worship. You god pushers think that you ARE god.
Oh, and it's so kind of you to offer to take a few minutes of your precious time to "just ackowledge" the "explicit answer" you expect. I'll be happy (not sorry at all) to give you an "explicit answer" that I "believe and affirm": you're a malignantly narcissistic IDiot with an ignorant, circular argument. Acknowledge that, shithead.
-------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|