real life wrote:I've not denied that parados' remark is elitist.
This is a perfect example of your inability to carry on a logical conversation, either from ignorance or dishonesty. Very likely, it is a product of both.
I have not said that Parados' remark was elitist. In fact, i've been arguing all along that a reference to "uninformed" is value neutral, and has no elitist character, and that you twisted what he said by substituting "ignorant masses" precisely because you wish to make him sound elitist, when there was no elitist character in his original remark.
Quote:However, you have not been able to defend your lame statement that his accusation of 'intending to mislead' is to be considered 'value-neutral'.
I have nothing to defend, since i did not at any time make any such statement. You are such a pathetic liar. At no time did i state or imply that Parados accusing you of intending to mislead were value neutral. In fact, it is an accusation against you, and one with which i agree.
As i have consistently pointed out, you twisted "uniformed," which is value neutral (and that is what i have been saying all along) to "ignorant masses," because you intend to deceive about this as you do about everything else.
Quote:Go on, defend his comment and yours.
I have nothing to defend. What i said was patently evident. However, you continue to lie about, and i intend to point out your lies each time you indulge in them.
Quote:Don't just focus on one word and claim it to be 'value-neutral'.
Did your imaginary friend god die and leave you in charge. I have every right to, and intend to continue to point out that uninformed is value neutral, but that substituting "ignorant masses" for uniformed is a willfull act of deceit.
Quote:The word was used in a sentence.
Don't snip one word away from the context and pretend that the rest of the comment doesn't exist.
You're really piss poor at this kind of thing. When i challenged your lie, you were the one who quoted Parados, after "snipping" off the word uninformed--very likely because, as dense as you are, you saw your position was indefensible.
Quote:You said the 'comment' was 'value-neutral'. The comment wasn't only a single word.
No, but it was only a single word which you chose to distort, which is typical of you. And when i replied, you were the one who attempted to change the record by quoting Parados, and leaving off the word "uninformed."
What a goddamned liar you are . . . and here's another example of how you always practice deceit. I did not "try" to substitute "unnatural" or "non-natural" for supernatural. You have no basis upon which to insist upon "supernatural." You only want to insist upon supernatural because you want to imply your boy god has something to do with it.
So, in sum, we so far have absolutely no proof for creationism.
We do have, though, abundant proof, overwhelming proof, that "real life" is a liar, who will stoop to the very depths of idiocy to attempt to defend his feeble claims, regardless of the subject.
By the way,
argument ad hominem only refers to a case in which i substitute personal remarks for an argument. I clearly lay out may case for your stupidity, for your idiocy and for your lies. Then i tell you that you are a . . .
Liar
Moron
. . . so, you see, that's not
argumentum ad hominem . . . it's just icing on the cake.
