Wednesday, June 3, 2015

There is comment activity...

At this location, and this location.


Robert Coble said...

Rhetorical question:

Why is it that the usual counter responses boils down to something like this:

"Your claim is refuted by my assertion of refutation (with no need for me to provide either argumentation for my counter position nor any evidence (physical or otherwise) contradicting your position AND you are so ignorant and stupid that I can't be bothered to actually address your actual argument and rebut it."

Please note: I am paraphrasing and merging various responses I have seen so far on a variety of topics on this blog. I readily concede that my characterization above is a broad generalization with exceptions. Your specific exceptions are acknowledged in advance; I'll spare you wasting time providing them explicitly. "The exception proves the rule" and all that.

I really do wish to seriously explore the issues posed on this blog. However, it is extremely frustrating to formulate an argument, only to see the same avoidance tactics used virtually every time.

"Logical tractandi sit vehementer optavit."

Stan said...

It is interesting how the Atheist and Leftist world has left behind any semblance of requiring actual logic (much less evidence) in their positions. All they have to do is say,

"I'm right, I'm always right, and so you're wrong because I'm right and the reason is just this: I'm right. And that is all the proof I need to present. It is so obvious to me that I'm right, precisely because: I'm right. Discussion is closed. Wait, What? You want me to make an argument and or provide evidence? I just did that, were you not listening? Here. BECAUSE: I am right; THEREFORE: I am right. There's your proof.

anam said...

Good day gentlemen! From my point of view and as per comments on other thread here, it is a very skewed and biased view that you have. People like me come to site like this to engage your ideas and what we get in return is mostly ridicule and charge of avoidance, when asking questions. You even have people on the thread you linked to trying to engage you, on your territory, and you still label them as ignoring or avoiding topics. Could it not be that you are the ones refusing to face your own beliefs?

Per your 2 comments above, it shows that you think that the entire group of people who think differently on some issues, the Atheist and the Left, is completely illogical. This is not a charge I heard the Atheist make on thr other hand! I think this reveals the emotional nature of your reaction to people who question your beliefs. My elders do exactly the same yet believe completely different things than you do. The utmost important point is that you are alike in the affirmative claim that you are right, by default, and others are wrong until they prove you wrong. But when we ask questions, show doubt regarding your positions, well attacks follow instead of discourse. Therefore thr above comments only confirm your skewed views and arrogance toward others. Not even acknowledged is the fact that we are all rational humans here, no one is literally mentally ill yet that's almost how you portray the Atheist!

Kind regards

Stan said...

I detect no argument, no logic, no position other than complaining, nothing other than self-pity in the above. There is nothing to respond to, since no actual point is made.

That is characteristic of the latest round of commenters: they wish to make the point that they have no point to make, no logic about anything of substance to discuss, but lots of complaining about not getting any discussion of their non-positions. That leaves them dissatisfied with the quality of hosting, and leads to more complaining - still empty rhetoric, and with nothing of the slightest substance to discuss.

Sorry guys. Just can't help you with your problems. Maybe if you made some sort of actual attempt at a position which accommodates a discussion... nah. Too much to ask. Sorry to stress you out so.

Robert Coble said...

I rest my case.

Stan said...

BTW, here are a few of their non-positions: claim a definition is placing the conclusion in the premise when in fact the premise has no mention of the conclusion; claiming that a deduction goes against science, without providing any science which supports that statement; claiming to have no intellectual responsibility for giving reasons or reasoning for rejecting an argument and/or evidence.

Each of those non-positions is a false "truth claim" (assertion claimed to be true without valid logic or evidence for support) which apparently emerges from ideology, because (being false) they cannot have emerged from logical, disciplined, deductive reasoning based in grounded, true premises.

And each of these non-positions has been used to deflect even looking at primary arguments in an honest attempt to understand, defeat and refute them; rather the process is to avoid the argument completely by asserting obviously false non-positions designed to halt the discussion. This is deviational rhetoric only, and is the logical Fallacy Red Herring, aka Ignoratio Elenchi. It's designed to stop the conversation in its tracks before the commenter is forced to admit obvious defeat. This is done by throwing in illogical roadblocks designed to bring logic to a halt so that either the discussion goes off in the weeds, or it remains in one place going in infinite circles. Thus the discussion cannot proceed toward the hazards of logical defeat for the commenter. The commenters then complain that their irrational roadblocks are not discussed in the infinite loops intended, or are not given proper recognition as "logical", despite their illogical intent.

That, of course, is irrational. So if these commenters take this analysis of their behaviors to be a personal attack, then so be it. What it actually is, is an accurate description of their behaviors, and they can proceed to apply their denialism as they wish and will.

However, under the conditions of these constant logic deviation fallacies and the denial of those fallacies by their perpetrators, there obviously is no value in spending any time trying to engage in rational discussion with them.

Whether to do so is up to other commenters here of course.

anam said...

Good day Stan, as mentioned per my own comment before, it seems that you generalized your views of Atheists and find it difficult to have conversation about the topics at hand, which was the point of that other thread actually. Per your comment here, the same thing happens, where you make claims but refuse to discuss them, and the same is projected on others, where you accuse them of not engaging. May I ask if you had some significant trauma perhaps with an Atheist?

Also regarding the comment here, you refer above the comment I made about your argument containing a conclusion and yes this is utmost reliable. You believe an agent, of the human self-aware type, created the universe, but refuse to explai why an agent of that type can even possibly be.non human, when all we know about such agent is human. Agency of that type is defined because of human, yet you want to avoid that topic, pretending your argument is what gets avoided. Why do you do this? Most honest question, not an attack... why not explain why you, and we should, believe that agency is not human?

Stan said...

Anam is a troll. Exhibits all the characteristics of a troll. Asked for explanation; got it; pretends he didn't; sticks the discussion in infinite loop.

Probably Hugo again, as a sock puppet.

Anam will be deleted.

anam said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.