“Any reasonable reader”
Sorry, but you’re not in a position to be making statements about what reasonable people would or would not do.
“understand the ad hominem aspect of accusing someone directly and personally of satanic delusion”
When people think there is no connection between constant prevarication and the work of Satan, I don’t much care for their opinions.
“First, you do understand that pretty much ALL the non-arguments described as fallacies take the form of “argument from” something.”
Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments.
“Because in the first place, it’s not information. It’s your belief.”
In that it is correct, it is information.
“Second, it is too easy to say you meant nothing by it, after the damage is done”
I never said I meant nothing by it. I meant a lot by it. I meant exactly what I said.
“And says, “I was only joking!”
Never said it; never implied it.
Now, I’m going to have to shine you on. You’re just not up to discussing issues at an intellectually adequate level.
Ad hominem again? Is this really all you have?
When people think there is no connection between constant prevarication and the work of Satan, I don’t much care for their opinions.
No doubt there is a connection. What made you think we do not associate Satan with lies? We do, because we believe in the words of Jesus, that Satan is the father of lies. If after hearing this you continue to represent that we make no such connection, you do willfully misrepresent us, and that would be true and provable prevarication, because we have told you the truth about this (and everything else). Yet you do not believe us.
Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments
Oh pfiffle. You are serious? You really think this conversation can bear such trivial, nonsensical sniping? What if "non-argument" were colloquial for "invalid argument"? Indeed, I though to say it, but determined you were too intelligent to miss the synonymous effect, and yet here you use this basketful of nothing to swing at someone who sincerely wishes to take you seriously. Triple sigh ...
Now, I’m going to have to shine you on. You’re just not up to discussing issues at an intellectually adequate level.
Indeed, for by such a device, you avoid actual engagement of ideas, and I fully understand why you wish to bypass that. (Note to reader: Please tally the substantive arguments in this entire thread and who made them, and see if I am not correct.)
My uncle was a brilliant man. He did advanced math modeling for the government, a full blown genius. Yet he was also a man of grace, and any intellect, however humble, could approach him at any level and he was glad to teach them.
This was a reflection of his deep faith in Jesus, and his modeling of the humility of Jesus, who while He dealt harshly with the self-righteous and proud, He rather gave (and still gives) grace and blessing to the humble.
So if you wish to cut me off for my intellectual inadequacies, you do what you think is right. I will still have Jesus to be my Teacher, and that is enough for me.
God bless you and yours,
SR
I know you have moved on, and that's fine, but I thought you would like to know that I researched this issue of non-argument versus invalid argument, and I now agree with you. It was a colloquialism to me, but a formal logician's perspective would necessarily be that the two are distinct, though I have read some who suggest that a non sequitur can occur as either a non-argument or an invalid argument. So the boundaries are not always pristine.
In any event, as one who claims to understand formal logic, you must also recognize it is fallacious to dismiss an argument by shifting the focus to an error of the presenter in an unrelated subject matter. It's just another form of abusive ad hominem.
So if you are ever willing to reopen discussion on the basis of substantive argument rather than an unending stream of personal attack, I would be glad to reengage. We'll leave the light on for ya.
Peace,
SR