03-09-2009, 09:02 PM
Paul,
I just told you that I wasn't arguing for/against, but merely trying to critically accept conclusions. Are you listening?
What makes them credible? Is there a list of standards by which a post is evaluated, such as in a scientific study of tapeworms, or is "credible" something that adds to your agenda, the spread of Aramaic primacy? Is it bad to be dissenting here? Would you rather me praise you and your friends for whatever they discover, asking questions obsequiously, assuming they know what they're talking about? I think you would.
And what exactly have you done with my post?
The unstated idea is "inductive reasoning is outlawed because whatever Paul and his friends say is proof, thus one must reasoning deductively because they have established laws, not higher degrees of probability."
I would also demand credentials from a physician before prescribing an drug, although I don't possess his expertise. This doesn't make sense. Besides, who here REALLY has the appropriate credentials to spread Aramaic primacy? You're a computer programmer who speaks, writes, and reads Syriac fluently. But that doesn't make you an expert any more than me being an expert of Victorian poetry.
You're assuming that it's dependable evidence in question and I'm too sniffnecked to acknowledge it. Where are you getting this? And I did address the evidence. Because my questions couldn't be answered, then I couldn't accept it as dependable.
I had entire posts and you attacked two or three lines in isolation.
Andrew, then, displays one of these characteristics.
As sometimes necessary before accepting a conclusion
Now you know the hearts of men? You KNOW that I'm pretending to "really seek the truth?" C'mon, Paul. You're clearly emotional right now. You're defending Andrew because he's of your faith and cause, inspite of your logic. It's incredible how biased you are. Have you ever explored anything other than what was taught to you? Ever had the courage to question your values and beliefs?
As for Andrew, he attacked me personally, saying I'm not "literate enough." I furnished the proof. Are you going to delete his posts or are the rules bended for a select few?
Quote:We have over the years experienced this phenomenon quite often: some know-it-all (who doesn't) comes along, and employs some (or all) of the following classic trademarks:
I just told you that I wasn't arguing for/against, but merely trying to critically accept conclusions. Are you listening?
Quote:#2) They snipe at all credible posts.
What makes them credible? Is there a list of standards by which a post is evaluated, such as in a scientific study of tapeworms, or is "credible" something that adds to your agenda, the spread of Aramaic primacy? Is it bad to be dissenting here? Would you rather me praise you and your friends for whatever they discover, asking questions obsequiously, assuming they know what they're talking about? I think you would.
Quote:#3) They find the most innocuous part of the post to attack and forget the rest.
And what exactly have you done with my post?
Quote: #4) IMPORTANT: the following words must be used as frequently as feasible; "likely" and "possible".
The unstated idea is "inductive reasoning is outlawed because whatever Paul and his friends say is proof, thus one must reasoning deductively because they have established laws, not higher degrees of probability."
Quote:#5) They demand credentials, although they don't have any.
I would also demand credentials from a physician before prescribing an drug, although I don't possess his expertise. This doesn't make sense. Besides, who here REALLY has the appropriate credentials to spread Aramaic primacy? You're a computer programmer who speaks, writes, and reads Syriac fluently. But that doesn't make you an expert any more than me being an expert of Victorian poetry.
Quote:#6) They never address the evidence, nor do they offer any of their own.
You're assuming that it's dependable evidence in question and I'm too sniffnecked to acknowledge it. Where are you getting this? And I did address the evidence. Because my questions couldn't be answered, then I couldn't accept it as dependable.
Quote:#7) If they have to respond to a fact or two, then they acknowledge them and move on to something else as quick as possible.
I had entire posts and you attacked two or three lines in isolation.
Quote:#8) They attack the person.
Andrew, then, displays one of these characteristics.
Quote:#9) They play the role of Devil's Advocate.
As sometimes necessary before accepting a conclusion
Quote:#10) Last but not least, they pretend they are really trying to seek the truth.
Now you know the hearts of men? You KNOW that I'm pretending to "really seek the truth?" C'mon, Paul. You're clearly emotional right now. You're defending Andrew because he's of your faith and cause, inspite of your logic. It's incredible how biased you are. Have you ever explored anything other than what was taught to you? Ever had the courage to question your values and beliefs?
As for Andrew, he attacked me personally, saying I'm not "literate enough." I furnished the proof. Are you going to delete his posts or are the rules bended for a select few?