Replies

Ah, another argumentum ad hominem in the works, I see. I'll pass--I had more than enough of that from you in the last thread. Ping me when you have remembered how to debate properly, OP. Until then, my friend, we are best off just swapping RPG in-jokes.

Oh, good grief. At least learn the proper descriptions of the various Classical Logic Fallacies before you try them out in Debate... please.

An Argumentum ad hominem (an "Attack upon the Person") would be if I, for example, called you "a scared little Dispy heretic who's unwilling to face the realities of your own theology", and therefore claimed that nothing that you say has any value.

That would be a Logical Fallacy, of course. But I would never do such a thing.

The fact is, I am obeying the Logical forms of Analogical Reasoning exactly -- I have changed none of the Terms of the Equation, only the Variables.

And if a Given Statement would be Anti-Christian Racialist for a Christian Identity preacher to claim -- then it is equally Anti-Christian Racialist for a Dispensationalist preacher to claim (substituting only the Racial Group in question).

I have observed all normal Rules of Logic.

I call the Lawyers (Marlowe and Jude) to find one... even one Logical Error in my Analogical Equivalence (Since I have left the Terms of the Equation the same, and the exchanged Variables are each respective "Ethnic Groups", my Analogic Reasoning is without Flaw).

I made my peace gesture... the forms of Kanly have been obeyed!!

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

My friend, in the last thread, I spent as much or more word-count pointing out your personal attacks as I did responding to anything of substance. If you want to have a proper debate without the personal attacks, without the crowing, without the poisoning of the well, and without the vulgarity you demonstrated in the last thread, I'd be glad to. But your entry point into this one suggests otherwise, and I'd candidly rather debate TC--who, despite not being of your caliber, is far more civil than you've been of late--or HarleyD, who is consistantly the most civil Calvinist on this forum, as well as being incredibly articulate and challenging.

You can start by publicly apologizing for calling the Jews "God-hating" in the previous thread, and swearing to abandon such rhetoric in all future discussions--the fact that an ad hominem is not said to your opponent directly does not make it any less a personal attack.

If you're not Christian enough to repent of an obvious slander, then I have no interest in debating with you. Period. Have a nice day.

The fact is, I am obeying the Logical forms of Analogical Reasoning exactly -- I have changed none of the Terms of the Equation, only the Variables.

Balderdash. In terms of predicate calculus, neither "Israel" nor "The White Race" is a variable - they have been quantified. (In other words, they are constants.) Your argument is logically equivalent to:

7 > 23 is false.
Therefore 35 > 11 is false.

Clearly fallacious reasoning.