your Belief

@Setanta,

You never have been able to justify many of your statements.

No doubt you'll claim some inane reason for not being able to do so.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You really are incapable of seeing the irony in arguing that you are not arguing?

1 Reply

By the way, personal slurs are the refuge of those who can't deal with debate.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The irony is that in a debate forum you should actually worry that someone is arguing...

...the other irony is where you posted 'argumentative' didn't contain arguments against anything...

...the next irony is that you are unable to see that

Just silliness.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I said "You never have been able to justify many of your statements.

No doubt you'll claim some inane reason for not being able to do so."

You notice that you haven't done so?

It's hardly a personal slur when, even here, you provide evidence of the essence of the statement.

If you would like, I'm sure I could over time, pull up many other examples.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I didn't make a statement. I offered a proposition. The proposition (which you eventually re-stated) was that one cannot say why one does not believe in god until one knows what definition of god is being offered. You've been babbling ever since.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Yes, just silliness accurately describes what you have been posting. At no time did i employ the word agumentative.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

vikorr wrote:

...the other irony is where you posted 'argumentative' didn't contain arguments against anything...

Setanta wrote:

At no time did i employ the word agumentative.

That's just semantics :
Definition of Argumentative 1given to arguing:

Setanta wrote:

Now you're just babbling, and arguing for argument's sake

Setanta wrote:

Yup . . . you just like to argue.

It's amazing that you are bothered by 'arguing for arguings sake' when you employ semantics like this.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I'm not bothered by it, you are not nearly as important as it seems you would like to portray yourself as being. Basically, you've just been silly and babbling.

I offered the proposition that one cannot say why one does not (or does, for that matter) believe in god without knowing what definition of god were being offered. You eventually said the same thing, but mostly you've just been gassing.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

By the way, that "That's just semantics" bullshit sounds like something a stoned hippy would say back in the 60s. If i were to say that you are argumentative, i would be alleging a character trait. I didn't say that. When i say that you are just arguing for argument's sake, i'm only alleging a behavior. That's not semantics.

Is English your native language?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By the way, personal slurs are the refuge of those who can't deal with debate.

The irony in the two replies is mindblowing. And the dishonesty of your last post makes your posts here, in their current state, no longer worth replying to.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

There was no dishonesty. However, it's a convenient excuse for you to run away.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Ah, I was going to edit that - misdirection is a form of dishonesty, but I think 'lacking in integrity' would have been more accurate.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Still trying to substitute personal slurs for rhetoric--i'm not surprised. I offered the proposition that one cannot say why one would not believe in a god unless one knows what definition of god is being offered. I didn't refer to you, it was not in response to anything you had posted. You decided to make an issue of it. Now you're whining and insulting. I guess that's all you've got.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I offered the proposition that one cannot say why one would not believe in a god unless one knows what definition of god is being offered.

We agree on this, and it is not a subject of debate between us. This is incredibly obvious.

You say 'I didn't refer to you' in regards to the above quote - which you of course didn't...and you say this like I am alleging such (which I'm not)...but that is not even the subject of our current conversation - which is relating to where you did refer to me.

I asked you to justify those (where you did refer to me)...you obviously can't, and resort to misdirections like the above.

That you try to avoid justifying your statements (if you read the thread, and you have, it is incredibly obvious which statements I refer to) with the above above misdirection, again shows a lack of integrity (here)

Call it a slur all you like - your posts here lack integrity, and you keep piling up the evidence.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you can be quite purposefully deceitful.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I have resorted ot no misdirection. Really, this is why i ask if English is your native language--a question you haven't answered. If i say someone is argumentative (i haven't done that), i am alleging a character fault. If i say someone is arguing for arguments sake, i'm simply describing a behavior in a certain context--i am not making any comment on that person's character. You come up with that old "it's just semantics" bullswhit. Well, duh . . . of course it's semantics, semantics deals with the meanings of words and phrases, and this is a case of such a difference in meaning. But you say "it's just semantics" (as poeple who use that phrase always do) as though there were no difference--but there is.

Now you're babbling about integrity.

All this "justify your statement" bullsh*t calls your intellectual integrity into question. You haven't even shown what statement it is that you allege that i've not justified. You're a mess--and, once again, you're arguing for argument's sake,and not because you've got a point.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You can try and redefine 'argumentative' all you like - it's accepted definition perfectly fits your statement, quoted just below, but you completely avoided that quote, and requoted the lesser statement of yours...hence the misdirection, and dishonesty.

Quote:

Yup . . . you just like to argue.

..................................

Quote:

All this "justify your statement" bullsh*t calls your intellectual integrity into question. You haven't even shown what statement it is that you allege that i've not justified.

vikorr wrote:

An interesting take, since in my last two posts :

- I agreed with your assessment regarding Agnosticism, and simply explained why I thought that way (how is agreeing and explaining a mistake argumentative, perhaps you'd like to explain?_

- I also just commented on & explained why I took multiple angles to a concept (perhaps you'd like to explain how me telling a reason for taking multiple angles is argumentative, and what it is argumentative against?)

...but, like always, you're entitled your your opinion.

You're either incredibly dishonest, or on the wacky weed at the moment.

But given you have a history of this sort of behaviour (making statements you can't back up, and then misdirecting all over the place to avoid justifying yourself) - I really shouldn't be surprised. Your lack of integrity just keeps sinking in my view.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Listen dipshit, and get it into your thick skull--i did not ever say that you were argumentative. In fact, i've made that point. That you continue to argue that is evidence either of your own dishonesty and lack of integrity, or your lack of a command of the English language. Your "multiple angles" is just havering. I said that i thought you were arguing for argument's sake, not that you are, by character, argumentative. You have said that i never justify my statements (an allegation against my character), that i lack integrity (an allegation against my character) and that i'm being dishonest. Now you're whining about a semantic distinction between arguing for argument's sake and alleging that someone is argumentative, and you are continuing to slander my character. You must be on drugs to think that i care whether or not my integrity "sinks" in your view.

Go f*ck yourself, asshole.

0 Replies

By the way, asshole, you claim that i never justify my statements, and now that i have "a history" of not doing so. You have provided zero evidence for such a claim, and can't even do it from the record of this thread. I guess, by your own criterion, that means you're dishonest and lack integrity.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I did ask if you wanted me to post previous examples. You didn't give a reply.
---------------------------------------------------

As for the rest - back to semantics again Set?

vikorr wrote:

You never have been able to justify many of your statements.

No doubt you'll claim some inane reason for not being able to do so.

You see how predictable you are - still no attempt at all to justify your statements. That prediction was based on your history of the same.

In this case the inane reason is you didn't justify your comments, is that you didn't use the specific word 'argumentative' when that is the shortened version of the quotes of what you said - which at least one of them precisely matches the definition of argumentative...and that quote follows on from the first quote of what you said...making it very clear that 'argumentative' is a very valid summary of what you were posting.

Even if you keep your issue with definitions, you certainly understand the intent of what I was asking you to justify, but your inane reason is 'I didn't use the specific word'...rather than answering the actual meaning.

You're intelligent enough that this is purposeful deceit on your part.

In any case, your evasiveness has descended into absurdity. There's little point further replying to someone who won't reply honestly.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know