Christianity is to blame

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
"Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Strawman plus leveling my point just to one argument, do I really have to dissect your comment to prove to everyone here why you are wrong? Your response to my arguments is mock - that's it, a mock. To that, you're using a false equivalence, saying that my actions are equivalent of his, where I have never even said anything remotely close to that when it comes to Christianity in possibly any meaning.

"Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Again, strawman, I haven't said that this "fairy tale" is objectively all true, I have only argued that you're wrong for including birth as part of that "fairy tale", even though it was documented even by the Romans, and there is no counter-evidence that would prove otherwise. For the Virgin Mary, I only argued in a sense of literacy of the Bible, for a reason, as you """didn't understand it""" to put it without being rude, just like Nietzsche's quote.

"It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority."

>Logical fallacies for thee, but not for me - your wicked mentality

No, that doesn't work like that, and again, you put it out of context and you use it as a strawman to try and prove an unprovable point. Again, let me tell you why you're wrong here, I used "fallacy fallacy", as you're using an argument, that I'm using logical fallacies, and you're using it to destroy my whole point, even though that fallacy of speak of wasn't even the core of my point, you miss the simple logic with a base, and extension to it. Take a tree, for example. You pointed out that I used logical fallacies, which in this case, is a personal attack. I admit I called you an idiot, and so, you did cut off a branch of the tree, but not the tree itself. The basic logic here is that this personal attack wasn't a base for any of my arguments, I didn't argue "you're retаrded therefore X is true", I argued "X is true because of Y and Z. Dude, you're seriously retаrded"

You know, I will even teach you the logical basics just in case you will be mistaken, take it as a good wish.

"X is true" < That is my claim, my base of the point - the core of it.
"Because Y and Z" < Those are my arguments, my second wall of the core, a tree branch, a hand from the arm - an extension.
"Dude you're seriously retаrded" < This is my insult, not even related in how accurate my points or arguments are, only a sign of my lack of respect towards you.

If you point out that "Dude you're seriously retаrded" is not a valid argument, then good job, because it wasn't meant to be in the first place, because it's not even related in how correct or wrong my point is. But if you argue "You said that I'm retаrded, therefore, your claim X, and your arguments Y and Z are wrong" then, unfortunately, you are wrong, because as I explained, you would need to destroy my point to automatically destroy all of the extensions, look at a tree, if you cut off a branch, will the whole tree fall? No. Same works here, it's really basic logic many seem to not follow.

"Appeal to authority"

Where exactly? Even is so, it is not inherently bad. Because "Appeal to Authority" depends on context, and by itself isn't wrong.

"X is true because Y said that"
Just because Y said that X is true, doesn't automatically mean that X must be true, or must be false, what matters is the arguments, the evidence. If you use someone's arguments and evidence to prove that X is true, you don't automatically lose and fail to prove it, which by itself lacks any logical coherence. Would use someone else's building plans to make a building make the building fail and crumble? No. In fact, it could even be the best building in the world based on a scenario. Would using math to prove if something could be done within a certain limit of time that was first used by someone else make your point invalid? Again, no, it would not. So saying "b-b-b-but mah appeal to authority" doesn't prove anything at all. It's just a buzzword, as it just a word that has been commonly used, and unfortunately, without even good backing, which also works against it when it comes to public relations.
Now you are just repeating yourself. I double dare you to answer at least one of my statements without mountain of unfocused demagogy right from the textbook. Just one.
no
Then don't bother me if you have no refutation, gosh.
 

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Now you are just repeating yourself. I double dare you to answer at least one of my statements without mountain of unfocused demagogy right from the textbook. Just one.
no
Then don't bother me if you have no refutation, gosh.
Bruh, are you this dumb? Do you not even understand that I did as you just say, and to that I mocked you? You're so linear and yet you demand arguments, LOL. You commit to mental gymnastics and yet you demand me not to break them down ??????
 

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Then don't bother me if you have no refutation, gosh.
Bruh, are you this dumb? Do you not even understand that I did as you just say, and to that I mocked you? You're so linear and yet you demand arguments, LOL.
Oh wow, another name calling instead of argument. Ultra combo, bud.
You do it yourself, besides, you have no arguments so far, only "logical fallacy this logical fallacy that" without even reading what I've said, all logical arguments that I make and explain them to you don't work because you just don't read you just go "lol this logic is too complex for me therefore you're wrong, ha, christcuck owned", so of course I'm gonna name call you because that is the only thing that grabs your fragile ego, prove me wrong.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
Bruh, are you this dumb? Do you not even understand that I did as you just say, and to that I mocked you? You're so linear and yet you demand arguments, LOL.
Oh wow, another name calling instead of argument. Ultra combo, bud.
You do it yourself, besides, you have no arguments so far, only "logical fallacy this logical fallacy that" without even reading what I've said, all logical arguments that I make and explain them to you don't work because you just don't read, so of course I'm gonna name call you because that is the only thing that grabs your fragile ego, prove me wrong.
You did not made arguments to my points in the first place, bro. You speaking on the language of emotions and zealously instead adressing statements itself. That is why I have nothing to say but pin point fallacies. And that is why I just highlighted two most simple cases of you missing the point instead of autisticly unpacking everything you said in some retаrded Reddit manner. Because I know for sure that one can't argue with demagogy. What is the point if you avoid giving simple answer to simple question. There is no point.

I know users like you too well. For example, at .co there is a guy with name BlkPillPress or something. He also retreat to illusion of understanding the topic by creating semantic confusion in a big chunk of text when he has no substance over what he wants to prove. In such cases, such users always begin with completely false statement and then proceed to explaining it with great detail in patronising tone to make it sound like argument when in reality it is advertising of their shallow feelings-based opinion. ITT you are doing the same thing.

That is how it works. If you really had knowledge on the topic and understanding of what I am trying to say, you could easily, for example, say that my first statement ridicule only New Testament and therefore don't really adress how Christianity as a whole truly began. And then you could say that I am biased against Christianity in particular because I am making it example of mass control while a lot of religions and ideologies of the past did the same in one way or another. Including predecessors of Christianity. And in this case you would be technically right, because OP is more of the observation for farther discussion and vitty analogy, but not scientifically proven theory. And then maybe some new arguments would be born. For example, if we should count Christianity as the most important and influential ideology for modern world in thit regard.

But you didn't do anything like that... and you perceive this conversation as clash of egoes.
 

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Oh wow, another name calling instead of argument. Ultra combo, bud.
You do it yourself, besides, you have no arguments so far, only "logical fallacy this logical fallacy that" without even reading what I've said, all logical arguments that I make and explain them to you don't work because you just don't read, so of course I'm gonna name call you because that is the only thing that grabs your fragile ego, prove me wrong.
You did not made arguments to my points in the first place, bro. You speaking on the language of emotions and zealously instead adressing statements itself. That is why I have nothing to say but pin point fallacies. And that is why I just highlighted two most simple cases of you missing the point instead of autisticly unpacking everything you said in some retаrded Reddit manner. Because I know for sure that one can't argue with demagogy. What is the point if you avoid giving simple answer to simple question. There is no point.

I know users like you too well. For example, at .co there is a guy with name BlkPillPress or something. He also retreat to illusion of understanding the topic by creating semantic confusion in a big chunk of text when he has no substance over what he wants to prove. In such cases, such users always begin with completely false statement and then proceed to explaining it with great detail in patronising tone to make it sound like argument when in reality it is advertising of their shallow feelings-based opinion. ITT you are doing the same thing.

That is how it works. If you really had knowledge on the topic and understanding of what I am trying to say, you could easily, for example, say that my first statement ridicule only New Testament and therefore don't really adress how Christianity as a whole truly began. And then you could say that I am biased against Christianity in particular because I am making it example of mass control while a lot of religions and ideologies of the past did the same in one way or another. Including predecessors of Christianity. And in this case you would be technically right, because OP is more of the observation for farther discussion and vitty analogy, but not scientifically proven theory. And then maybe some new arguments would be born. For example, if we should count Christianity as the most important and influential ideology for modern world in thit regard.

But you didn't do anything like that... and you perceive this conversation as clash of egoes.
"You did not made arguments to my points in the first place, bro."
English? Bro? Denial of arguments I have shown doesn't mean they don't exist. I have proceeded to make them, but I will not repeat myself more. I have even made a post talking about them so that you can understand, please, if you have any trouble with understanding what I'm talking about, go ahead and ask me about it, no shame, I'm free to be asked.

"You speaking on the language of emotions and zealously instead adressing statements itself."
I addressed the statements and argued against them, you use emotions yourself, that is a form of projection. Simple.

"That is why I have nothing to say but pin point fallacies."
Again, that does not prove me wrong because of my explanations above. Arguing against something that isn't related to the point does not refute the point, simple.

"And that is why I just highlighted two most simple cases of you missing the point instead of autisticly unpacking everything you said in some retаrded Reddit manner."
Perhaps you don't understand what I even mean by my words, because You accuse me of demagogy, where I have trouble finding myself where I have committed one.

"Because I know for sure that one can't argue with demagogy. What is the point if you avoid giving simple answer to simple question. There is no point."
Where do I speak of demagogy when half of my posts were about pure logical coherency? If it was, I could argue, but unfortunately, I deny that that ever happened.

Let me quote you: "Now you are just repeating yourself. I double dare you to answer at least one of my statements without mountain of unfocused demagogy right from the textbook. Just one."

You do nothing but repeat yourself, and, ironically, use emotions by yourself, "Redditor", "Bro", "No substance cuz I said so", "Cringe".
You are unfortunately contradicting some of the arguments you make. You accuse me of things you yourself do. You use an alphabet soup of words and yet you are the one to accuse me that my words are of no substance. This is not demagogy by any means unless pointing out fallacies is one, but then pick your words carefully, if you know what I mean.

"He also retreat to illusion of understanding the topic by creating semantic confusion in a big chunk of text when he has no substance over what he wants to prove. "
I'm afraid that this sentence makes no sense to me, perhaps if you could elaborate on what do you mean I could find sense in it. Other than that, it is as you yourself argue, even though it's not much of an argument, but an ad hominem, but go ahead if you already read.

"say that my first statement ridicule only New Testament and therefore don't really adress how Christianity as a whole truly began."
Do you even know what you have written in your first statement? You didn't try to ridicule only New Testament but entire Christianity itself, based on multiple arguments you have proceeded to make, [If You read, I'm sure you will quote this and say you did and understand] such as one with the Great Schism by dividing Christianity into multiple branches, which happened in 1000's. Again, you are incorrect.

"And then you could say that I am biased against Christianity in particular because I am making it example of mass control while a lot of religions and ideologies of the past did the same in one way or another."
That is not related to what I was discussing in the first place.

"But you didn't do anything like that... and you perceive this conversation as clash of egoes."
I think I myself know the best on how I see things, and with that, I must disagree with your own assumption.

"Now you are just repeating yourself. I double dare you to answer at least one of my statements without [a] mountain of unfocused demagogy right from the textbook. Just one."

In the meantime, I recommend you to instead use simpler English because you mix it with words you have trouble understanding, and also trouble to communicate. A piece of advice. No means to insult, if I did, accept my apology.

Perhaps, as you have may have noticed, we have backtracked from the original point of discussing whether or not is Christianity really to blame for what we have today, you don't need to argue against my continual, instead, I recommend that we go back to the point, instead of going to senseless semantics, as none of us will accept either of points, regardless of how wrong or right You or I am. Also, if you have any issues with what I'm talking about, and you feel that it makes no sense at all, could you perhaps elaborate when doing so, or, by the very least, ask me what it means. I'm sure this will solve further complications we seem to have, apologies if that insults you.

Now, Shall we?
 

ortharzeal

incels.net Grandmaster
"retаrded conservatives" decriminalized domestic violence in Russia. religious processions and ceremonies are a cope to a number of harmless believercels. if the cost of this is one group of people dominating over the other groups (which would happen anyway because we live in a mog-or-get-mogged world), then I'm fine with it.

imagine bitching about inequality and claiming to accept biology in the same post, then pretending to lead and even be winning some kind of argument. some people will always be in a better position than others and if there was a reliable way to make this inequality "fair", it would have been implemented. now I don't know enough, maybe what we lack is some kind of technology to do so, but if it's the source of the problem, I don't see it coming in our lifetimes.
 
Top