This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A simple answer to the "burden of proof" question

#151AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 11:56:10 PM
cyclonekruse posted...
AynRandySavage posted...
Well I only wanted you to concede those points. So let's talk about that.

Let's talk about your penchant for making false claims (especially in regards to others' words) and not backing them up or withdrawing them when you get called out on it.


Well, there's nothing about "false claims" in any of your criticisms here. As far as I can tell, you're just criticizing how I worded my argument. My only point is that you made the presumption that Jon saw himself making an appeal to authority and subsequently made a distinction between fallacious appeals to authority and non-fallacious appeals to authority.

I'd be more than happy to argue with you about the above being "false"
#152cyclonekrusePosted 2/28/2013 6:48:43 AM
AynRandySavage posted...
Well, there's nothing about "false claims" in any of your criticisms here. As far as I can tell, you're just criticizing how I worded my argument."

I'm criticizing your argument's wording in the same way that one criticizes someone for claiming "Water is not wet" when that person (supposedly) meant that water is wet. As stated, the person's claim is false. So, yes, the wording matters. You made a certain claim about what I said. You have yet to show that that claim is true. Instead, you are focusing on proving a different, weaker claim and saying that that's what you meant all along.

Now, quit trying to shift focus to me. Either defend your original statement or say that you worded it incorrectly.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#153AynRandySavagePosted 2/28/2013 8:20:05 AM
cyclonekruse posted...

Now, quit trying to shift focus to me. Either defend your original statement or say that you worded it incorrectly.


I think I worded it just fine, personally. I don't see why you're being so nitpicky about it.
#154ThuggernautzPosted 2/28/2013 8:41:04 AM
Maybe for the same reason that you refuse to acknowledge that on this board, and on a large portion of internet communities, atheism is defined differently than what you would think. But go ahead, continue to derail another thread with your pointless semantic objections.
#155AynRandySavagePosted 2/28/2013 8:55:27 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
Maybe for the same reason that you refuse to acknowledge that on this board, and on a large portion of internet communities, atheism is defined differently than what you would think. But go ahead, continue to derail another thread with your pointless semantic objections.


Why do you keep saying this? When have I ever denied that atheism is defined more inclusively among you guys?
#156ThuggernautzPosted 2/28/2013 9:13:26 AM
Because everytime it's even hinted at in any thread, you jump in and tell everyone 'that's not the definition that has historically been used etc. etc.' It's tiresome. We know. We don't care. We have a valid definition (according to various dictionaries) that we think fits our common characteristics and viewpoints far better, and we will likely continue to use it. You don't need to keep bringing it up every time.
#157Faust_8Posted 2/28/2013 9:14:37 AM
Historically, gay means happy.

/thread
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#158AynRandySavagePosted 2/28/2013 10:14:35 AM(edited)
Thuggernautz posted...
Because everytime it's even hinted at in any thread, you jump in and tell everyone 'that's not the definition that has historically been used etc. etc.' It's tiresome. We know. We don't care. We have a valid definition (according to various dictionaries) that we think fits our common characteristics and viewpoints far better, and we will likely continue to use it. You don't need to keep bringing it up every time.


This thread began when Jon tried to "correct" the TC on his definitions. You guys always fire the first shots, so I don't see why you all profess to disliking semantic arguments.
#159YouAreCrumbsPosted 2/28/2013 10:19:27 AM
How did C_Mat manage not to be the most obnoxious poster in a thread where he insists that there is nothing extraordinary about omnipotence?
---
joey444
We elect Obama and all the capitalists will be executed. This is a legitimate concern of mine. - OMGWTFPIE, 2011
#160AynRandySavagePosted 2/28/2013 10:26:56 AM
YouAreCrumbs posted...
How did C_Mat manage not to be the most obnoxious poster in a thread where he insists that there is nothing extraordinary about omnipotence?


Seeing opinions you disagree with as "obnoxious" is actually pretty obnoxious itself.