Then don't bother me if you have no refutation, gosh.noPlayer 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.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.