real life wrote: Set's lame attempt to focus on one word and thus deem the entire statement 'value-neutral' does not in fact make an accusation 'value-neutral'.
You're wondering why it's so dry in your parts, still, and are blaming Setanta for his dirty lies concerning precipitation.
So dishonest. You have a choice right, now "real life": you can try thinking about what you're doing, how I've explained that it's wrong, and admit to it and stop, or you can continue embarassing yourself. This isn't a threat or a grand proclamation, it's an empathetic suggestion
real life wrote: Set began backpedaling furiously when called on his nonsense, as he usually does.
I saw no evidence for that. In fact I saw him call you a liar multiple times for repeatedly ignoring his explanations and pretending they didn't exist, repeatedly demanding that he explain that dry weather in your area (hint: I'm using that metaphor still).
Could this be another case of dishonesty, or do you really think he's backpedaled? If so, quoting him should be easy.
real life wrote: Set stated that the comment, not just the word , was 'value-neutral'.
And when you smelled a technical victory you latched on and held to it, no matter how many times clarification was offered. That isn't just dishonest, it reeks of desperation.
real life wrote: Defend him all you wish. Tossing accusations of 'liar' does not in fact make one a liar.
That is correct. Actions that include lying, particularly in earnest make one a liar. Demanding that someone who has clarified that they were only talking about the rain outside their windows explain your dry spell and refusing to acknowledge the correction is dishonest.
See, there are two options one can take in an instance like yours: your response should show that you are either 1) lying, 2) astoundingly incompetent, or 3) a bit of both.
I see no other option, as this case is not at all hard to figure out. You started with bastardizing something parados had said to imply elitism, Setanta called you on it, you took the general interpretation of his rebuke, he clarified, and then the last two items repeated 10 times until we're here and everyone can recognize your bad faith. Either that or in those '10' times you repeatedly made an honest attempt figure out Setanta's actual simple point and failed, which would make you supremely incompetent.
real life wrote: Give it up, Shira.
I don't think I will.
real life wrote: Science requires evidence, my friend.
Read. For. Comprehension. Seriously, now, you are only leaving me with those same two options again: dishonesty or incompetence. I explicitly said that I know where parados may have gotten the impression that you think the supernatural and the unknown are equivalent. Keep that in mind now, as I quote one of the most relevant parts of my citation: " isn't it basically a supernatural explanation of the origin of the universe? (It certainly cannot be a 'scientific ' explanation, can it?)"
That's the first thing you said after listing those three qualities, two of which would fall under the idea of 'the unknown'. That's the entire point: you referenced that list as showing it to be supernatural. Collect your prize, yes it really was that easy.
In case you still aren't getting it, my point was never that scientific pursuits do not require evidence. I'll hold you to remembering that, too.
real life wrote: You have no evidence that a 'singularity' preceding BB actually ever existed.
None whatsoever.
It's not science. It's faith, Shira.
None of that has to do with your implication of what is 'supernatural', so I will take it as yet another sign of bad faith. I've already responded to this nonsense you're listing before, go and read 20-ish pages back.
If you are indeed Christian, as I'm quite certain you must be, you should consider the nature of bearing false witness before acting acting in this way.
Since you skipped over two (or so) of my responses to you in order to make this half-assed reply, I will repost them:
Shirakawasuna wrote:real life wrote: Shira,
I didn't simply use the word, I've repeatedly explained what I meant by it, and more than once I have cited the specific dictionary definition which correlates.
Yes, you have (for now we'll ignore the fact that you misapplied it). Yet you still equivocate. Now try to imagine how that can possibly be the case. Have you even looked up the word 'equivocate' yet? It's a fallacy.
real life wrote:
If you cannot or will not read or understand that, it is not my concern.
I clearly understand it, which you would know if you actually read what I said to you and tried to remember it.
real life wrote: You can toss ridiculous accusations all day, however all one must do is read thru the thread in context to see how foolish you appear in doing so.
The accusations aren't ridiculous, they're very easily demonstrated. I'm sorry that you don't know how to apply the identification of the fallacy to the current situation, though. I've made it stupidly clear when I point out all the times you use your uncommon (and misapplied) definition to insinuate that someone is being unscientific when considering singularities.
Shirakawasuna wrote:Here you go, "real life", parados nicely explained it for you: " You are being deceptive in first redefining a word one way. Then using the word in a different meaning you try to sucker people in. And if anyone agrees with the second meaning you will revert to the first meaning as if that was what you meant all along."
That's a form of equivocation, buddy.
neologist: here's some attention, I know you want it very badly. Aren't I a nice guy?
