Replies

Your #1129: So, your backpeddling whining is just sour grapes.

Further rudeness does not help people think of you as a competent debater with logical skills of any sort.

You will recall that I offered you the opportunity, as I often do, to suggest another wording to better convey my meaning. You can also ask me to clarify the meaning of a phrase if you have not seen me use it before.

If instead you take oft-used phrases like "free will" and "grace to repent" and try to take them away from your opponent, redefining them to apply only to your agenda, as the socialists and islamists love to do with other phrases, you may think it is a good debating tactic, but it is a form of dishonesty, an obfuscation tactic, that cripples conversation instead of promoting clarity.

It lessens people's respect for you. Your choice.

Further rudeness does not help people think of you as a competent debater with logical skills of any sort. You will recall that I offered you the opportunity, as I often do, to suggest another wording to better convey my meaning. You can also ask me to clarify the meaning of a phrase if you have not seen me use it before. If instead you take oft-used phrases like "free will" and "grace to repent" and try to take them away from your opponent, redefining them to apply only to your agenda, as the socialists and islamists love to do with other phrases, you may think it is a good debating tactic, but it is a form of dishonesty, an obfuscation tactic, that cripples conversation instead of promoting clarity. It lessens people's respect for you. Your choice.

Your backpeddling away from your express words garners you nothing.

My point remains the same: The words you yourself chose in your foolish attempt to demonstrate the "dreadfulness" of my logic were in and of themselves a logical impossibility.

Your words attempting to "indict" my logic:

You are confusing miracles with grace to repent... Your logic, as I said, is dreadful.

The Logical Facts of the Case concerning the salvific miracles not performed for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom:

Generally, it is impossible that these Miracles should not be a Grace. Therefore, it is a logical impossibility to "confuse" these miracles with grace, as they were a Grace.
Specifically, these Graces, then, being effected for the purpose of provision for and provocation of Repentance, could likewise not be "confused" with graces to repentance, for they were graces to repentance.

Therefore, your petulant attempt at showing my logic to be "dreadful" was in and of itself a self-contradictory morass of pedantic definitional fraud, by the words of your own choosing. You attempted to put on airs of judgment, but only ended up looking foolish.

And I gave you fair warning you that you were blundering into a minefield of your own construction.
In the end, you still blew yourself up.

And one other thing:

Further rudeness does not help people think of you as a competent debater with logical skills of any sort.

1.) In the first place, I know my own proficiencies. I know my background, and I know my training. I do not require any endorsement from "other people" to reinforce that.

A good mathematician knows he is a good mathematician, and is able to discern between the amateurs and the skillful. I am not a good mathematician, of that I am certain; I am a good and precise logical debater, of that I am equally certain. And likewise, I am able to discern between the amateurs and the skillful.

2.) I am not seeking the approval of men anyway, so your implied threat of disfavor from the peanut gallery carries no weight with me.