Posted on 03/18/2009 5:17:08 PM PDT by BooBoo1000
were you a Bootcamp Sarg???ha.
This person needs help in finding the right forum. LOl!
See substitutional rhetoric for a clue as to what the "it" is...
>>as usual, you are quite full of it...
We have spoken before? I don’t remember it...
>>See substitutional rhetoric for a clue as to what the “it” is...
From that article:
“Since I don’t know of a name for this particular sophism or rhetorical device, I have to make one up. I will call it substitutional rhetoric. “
Not much point in going further. Amateurs shouldn’t dabble in forensics.
>>This person needs help in finding the right forum. LOl!
I think The Smoky Backroom is all fulled up! :)
No, when a viewer clicks on everything, they also get the Religion Forum too. The Religion Moderator will tell them how to find the current posts on focus-news.
Uh, oh, BooBoo, I don’t think Ranger JimRob is gonna like this.
>>No, when a viewer clicks on everything, they also get the Religion Forum too. The Religion Moderator will tell them how to find the current posts on focus-news.
I just do “latest posts” — don’t know what forum I am in until I get there :)
Well, yes. You posted to me, on this very thread.
Who says he's an "amatuer" dabbling in forensics? You? That's argument by ad hominem. Sorry, that doesn't fly --- since it doesn't matter if he's an "amatuer", or some sort of pro wordsmith. It is the argument itself which is being made, that matters.
He was, as you quote, speaking of sophisms & rhetorical devices, using your FSM as a prime example, which I pointed you towards here, towards refutation of the claim you made [above].
Wattsamatter? Hit too close to home for you?
>>Well, yes. You posted to me, on this very thread.
Doesn’t exactly rise to “as usual” now does it? That was the first post to you — how does that provide you some sort of historical ammo?
>>Who says he’s an “amatuer” dabbling in forensics? You? That’s argument by ad hominem. Sorry, that doesn’t fly -— since it doesn’t matter if he’s an “amatuer”, or some sort of pro wordsmith. It is the argument itself which is being made, that matters.
He isn’t vetted, that is for sure. Your appeal to authority fails on its very face.
>> He was, as you quote, speaking of sophisms & rhetorical devices, using your FSM as a prime example, which I pointed you towards here, towards refutation of the claim you made [above].
The article is cute, even funny. It is hardly valid. Nor is it incumbent on me to refute it.
>>Wattsamatter? Hit too close to home for you?
Not really. If you can’t understand the point behind FSM, that is beyond my ability to correct.
Undermining the validity of Scripture is certainly not a "validation" of Scripture.
Perhaps a study guide to the letters of John to the Seven Churches Which are in Asia might help.
I believe that it likely will not with you, but it might provoke others to take a new look at the Book of Revelation and consider that the Seven Churches of Asia were symbolic of the 2000 year historical record.
The Church of First Fruits being perhaps an allegory of the Apostolic Age, Smyrna the persecuted Church, Laodicea, Philadelphia.... and all between have their relevance.
Point being that Scripture has criticisms of the Church, including especially the New Testament Epistles to the local Churches which certainly do as well, as they were in many cases designed as instruments of correction.
The Founders of the Universal Church clearly thought enough of the Epistles to include them into the New Testament, but modern day apologists for the reckless usurping of Bible tenets included in that very same New Testament are determined to undermine its Spiritual value when it comes into conflict (which is not so infrequent) with personal beliefs and agendas.
Many posts out here are clearly designed to invalidate Scripture that was plainly supported by the early Church.
Now you're just making things up. Typical...
What authority? Where do I appeal to it? Besides, I pointed directly towards content, not authorship.
If you cannot understand the points the author was making, and how it relates to your claim, then I'll not be wasting further time here trying to point out the basic relationships, nor the associated subtleties.
I understand you're attempted claim (who are you to know what I "know", or don't?), just do not accept it, since it's a smokescreen to the more typical use of FSM.
>>My “appeal to authority” falls on it’s face?
Now you’re just making things up. Typical...<<
Typical of what?
>>What authority? Where do I appeal to it? Besides, I pointed directly towards content, not authorship.<<
If you point to an article, you implicitly vouch for the author. Else, why point us there?
>>If you cannot understand the points the author was making, and how it relates to your claim, then I’ll not be wasting further time here trying to point out the basic relationships, nor the associated subtleties.<<
Well, good. Because the author’s ranting was more cute than thoughtful. I always enjoy watching children take their first steps outside the lawn.
>>I understand you’re attempted claim (who are you to know what I “know”, or don’t?), just do not accept it, since it’s a smokescreen to the more typical use of FSM.<<
OK. If you don’t get it I can’t really help you.
Have a blessed day.
buckle up, we are going for a ride :-/
Reading threads is not mandatory; just click on the navigation bar at the right side of the window, and any post that offends you will disappear.
Huh? It's obvious [explicitly, from the above quote] that you do not know what "appeal to authority" as description of debating tactic, actually means. I never mentioned authorship, or any named "authority", quite the contrary.
So it's abvious [perhaps not to you?] that it is you whom do not understand the meanings of the very words and phrases which you employ... Or --- you are being willfully dishonest.
By you're yardstick, every single reference can be termed an appeal to authority, regardless of the information provided therein --- which would be convenient for those offering only hand-waving denials.
You continue to maintain that "I don't get it".
Why? Because I don't agree with you're attempted use? I gave some cause as to why...
It looks like here, you are appealing to you're own, "un-vetted", unqualified "authority".
Sorry son, you 'aint got much...authority.
“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt 18:18”
Nice try, doesn’t work. Care for another?
>>Huh? It’s obvious [explicitly, from the above quote] that you do not know what “appeal to authority” as description of debating tactic, actually means. I never mentioned authorship, or any named “authority”, quite the contrary.<<
Your citation, your authority.
>>So it’s abvious [perhaps not to you?] that it is you whom do not understand the meanings of the very words and phrases which you employ... Or -— you are being willfully dishonest.<<
I understand them quite well. You seem to be having some difficulty.
>>By you’re yardstick, every single reference can be termed an appeal to authority, regardless of the information provided therein -— which would be convenient for those offering only hand-waving denials.<<
Like I said, your reference, your authority. If you understood the argumentation would just make it.
>> You continue to maintain that “I don’t get it”.
Why? Because I don’t agree with you’re attempted use? I gave some cause as to why...<<
Because you don’t.
>> It looks like here, you are appealing to you’re own, “un-vetted”, unqualified “authority”.<<
I get it and you don’t. There is no reason to go nuts over it. Some people get things and some don’t. Don’t beat yourself up.
>>Sorry son, you ‘aint got much...authority.<<
Like I said, it is always entertaining to see children wander off the lawn.
But wait, I’m in the front seat... :-/
How could I have missed this delightful thread.
Thanks for the ping!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.