An Agnostic Manifesto

[shagdrum]

Then why don't you show me how they do not instead of just throwing out allegations.

Put up or shut up.

I am not going to waste time going through each one. The burden of proof is still on you to logically make your case.

However I will go through the first one.

Here is what you said:

1: If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT.​

You cite these two quotes of mine from previous threads as proof:

As to the evolution thing, most of us on this forum are tired of that discussion; it has been discussed ad nausseum on here and tends to get quickly get exceedingly contentious. If you are going to focus on that, please familiarize yourself with what has come before on this forum and please don't make us retread old ground in that area.

I am simply expecting you to show consideration and decency to everyone else in not making us rehash things because you are too lazy to do some research. Unfortunately civility and decency don't seem to be your strong suits. However, excessive pride is something else entirely...​

There is nothing in those quotes to suggest that, "If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT". That is a gross exaggeration of what I said.

I was simply expecting that you not make us rehash the justification again when it has already been done on this forum. That is abundantly clear in those quotes you cite. If, after reading that previous justification there is something you want to contest, that is fine. But when we state something that is a summary of something articulated at an earlier date and you demand "proof" (and you don't accept any logical proof) that is highly presumptuous and imposing when that proof is already available.

To claim that I am implying that, "If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT" is to, in no uncertain terms, LIE in an attempt to demonize me.

I have gone out of my way to give you treat you with civility and you turn around and lie about me. Considering how rude, presumptuous and arrogant you were when you first came to this forum, I (and others) have cut you a lot of slack and you simply throw it in our faces.

If you cannot treat someone with civility and consideration they why should they treat you with any civility or consideration?

Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance

 

[FIND]

I am not going to waste time going through each one. The burden of proof is still on you to logically make your case.

I met my burden through citation. If you feel that I have not met this burden I would suggest you state why. Just for funsies though, I will edit my prior post and add a little bit more justification. Still though, you are the one making the original accusation that nothing I stated was justifiable, and now you are making an accusation that nothing I stated is backed by logic. How do you figure you have no burden of proof to meet?

However I will go through the first one.

Here is what you said:

1: If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT.​

You cite these two quotes of mine from previous threads as proof:

As to the evolution thing, most of us on this forum are tired of that discussion; it has been discussed ad nausseum on here and tends to get quickly get exceedingly contentious. If you are going to focus on that, please familiarize yourself with what has come before on this forum and please don't make us retread old ground in that area.

I am simply expecting you to show consideration and decency to everyone else in not making us rehash things because you are too lazy to do some research. Unfortunately civility and decency don't seem to be your strong suits. However, excessive pride is something else entirely...​

There is nothing in those quotes to suggest that, "If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT". That is a gross exaggeration of what I said.

Perhaps you wanted me to cite past discussion in which you said in no uncertain terms things to the effect of "we have discussed socialism repeatedly in the past and have proven it is a liberal movement" or "we have discussed Nazism/Fascism in the past and have proven it is a liberal movement" or "we have discussed CRA in the past and have proven that title II is unconstitutional"..... the list goes on and on. Do you want me to go get the quotes? You know you said them, I know you said them, I think you are just being difficult about this....

I was simply expecting that you not make us rehash the justification again when it has already been done on this forum. That is abundantly clear in those quotes you cite. If, after reading that previous justification there is something you want to contest, that is fine. But when we state something that is a summary of something articulated at an earlier date and you demand "proof" (and you don't accept any logical proof) that is highly presumptuous and imposing when that proof is already available.

If you do not feel like restating your "proof" then link to it. If you want to bring something into a discussion, it is not my responsibility to justify your claims.

To claim that I am implying that, "If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT" is to, in no uncertain terms, LIE in an attempt to demonize me.

No, it was a slight exaggeration.

I have gone out of my way to give you treat you with civility and you turn around and lie about me. Considering how rude, presumptuous and arrogant you were when you first came to this forum, I (and others) have cut you a lot of slack and you simply throw it in our faces.

If you cannot treat someone with civility and consideration they why should they treat you with any civility or consideration?

Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance

I could ask you the same, and wonder why you do not see some similarity in yourself in citing that definition. I have been going out of my way to treat you civilly, despite the fact that most of your arguments are rooted only in opinion and supported only by the opinions or writings of others who twist and distort reality, history, and semantics to their advantage. Your general practice on this forum is to engage in standard debate practices wherein you are apparently not interested in whether you are right or wrong, you are just going to attempt proof by arguing "better". This is nothing more than a bare assertion fallacy. Of course, you engage in PLENTY of ad hominem attacks, much like the one in this post, where you attack me personally to try and distract from the actual argument itself, and then, despite the fact that you and your ilk love to cite straw man so often, much of your arguments are straw men. I could go on and on, but, it doesn't really matter, because you will continue to deny deny deny and follow up with ad hominem argument, or claim to have been misrepresented, misunderstood, or lied about, as you have done in nearly every discussion I have had with you since joining this forum.

 

[fossten]

I have been going out of my way to treat you civilly

:bowrofl: Hubris, indeed. There's nobody in this forum more polite than Shag. You're out of your depth here.

Things I have learned in this forum:

FIND views any and all disagreement with his screeds as a personal attack.

 

[FIND]

:bowrofl: Hubris, indeed. There's nobody in this forum more polite than Shag. You're out of your depth here.

Things I have learned in this forum:

FIND views any and all disagreement with his screeds as a personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As far as polite.... haven't seen that yet. Perhaps he is polite as long as you agree with him, but every post I have made in disagreement are met with Ad Hominem argument once he runs out of blog posts and verbosity to counter opinions.

Now. I have provided justification for my "things I have learned in this forum" list. Quid pro quo.

 

[fossten]

I have yet to see you furnish proof of Shag using ad hominem except when you've already used it.

You are like a woman - always wanting the last word even if it's nonsense.

Here, I'll leave you some space:





















.

 

[FIND]

I have yet to see you furnish proof of Shag using ad hominem except when you've already used it.

ignoring it doesn't mean it is not there. Do you want me to quote all your responses? Would you like to ask a moderator for permission to create a thread dedicated to quoting your ad hominem responses?