It would be highly irrational to think that PETA suddenly supported eating meat when veganism is part of their core platform. It would be highly irrational to think that the DI suddenly supports methodological science when a theistic form of discovery is part of their core platform.
That is a conclusion, and your ad hominem reasoning proceeded from your own conclusion
It is a conclusion derived from the Discovery Institute's clear statements opposing "materialistic science" a.k.a., the science that is taught in schools. An organization that is opposed to something cannot be honestly trying to make it better, only trying to destroy and replace it. It's all in the Wedge Document.
It’s a form of antagonism
Isn't calling all debate "ad hominem" and accusing me of creating a "vicious circular reasoning pattern" even when accompanied by clear evidence and argument a form of antagonism in itself? Isn't being obtuse in positing that the PETA would support the eating of meat antagonism?
All I have been presenting is logical argument and evidence. I expect such in return on an ecumenical thread instead of off-hand dismissal. So far the only difference I have seen between you and a creationist on a regular crevo thread is that this hasn't devolved into harsh personal attacks yet.
I expected more, which is why I posted here.
It would be highly irrational to think that PETA suddenly supported eating meat when veganism is part of their core platform.
***But since I don’t know what their core platform is, I don’t necessarily KNOW that. You wrote that I knew it. I know, I know, it’s a bit of teasing fun at your expense, but the example is pretty lame to begin with.
It would be highly irrational to think that the DI suddenly supports methodological science when a theistic form of discovery is part of their core platform.
***I don’t know what DI’s core platform is either. So if I were you and I wanted to introduce it as evidence in ecumenical debates, I’d post it to the religion moderator and get it cleared as an established fact. It would probably save all of us a bundle of time.
It is a conclusion
***Then, very simply, you don’t deny that it’s a conclusion.
derived from the Discovery Institute’s clear statements opposing “materialistic science” a.k.a., the science that is taught in schools. An organization that is opposed to something cannot be honestly trying to make it better, only trying to destroy and replace it. It’s all in the Wedge Document.
***Again if I were you, I’d post the wedge document and have the RM look it over to see if it’s considered inflammatory.
Isn’t calling all debate “ad hominem” and accusing me of creating a “vicious circular reasoning pattern” even when accompanied by clear evidence and argument a form of antagonism in itself?
***No, because you admitted that your reasoning was based upon a conclusion that you drew. Your “clear” reasoning pattern is based on invalid assumptions and classic fallacies.
Isn’t being obtuse in positing that the PETA would support the eating of meat antagonism?
***No. In an earlier thread, someone took me to task because I didn’t know that the KKK used the term “grand wizard” or something like that, so you can see I don’t care what terms the KKK uses nor what PETA’s platform is. However, calling my preferred level of awareness “obtuse” is probably antagonistic. I think I’m going to like these ecumenical threads.
All I have been presenting is logical argument and evidence.
***And your logic has been shredded due to your use of some classic fallacies.
I expect such in return on an ecumenical thread instead of off-hand dismissal. So far the only difference I have seen between you and a creationist on a regular crevo thread is that this hasn’t devolved into harsh personal attacks yet.
***And it won’t devolve. The reasoning process is still what counts here.
I expected more, which is why I posted here.
***I’m glad you did post here.