Number8

1.1K posts

Number8

Number8

@ChangedTack

Searching for the answer to the question.

가입일 Ocak 2017
0 팔로잉4 팔로워
Lilith
Lilith@Lilith_Atheist·
Morning, everyone😊
Lilith tweet media
English
155
210
1.3K
23.7K
Axeman
Axeman@TheAxemander·
But it's not whether somebody is acting like a "hypocrite" that is the matter, it is *what* that entails. If that means that a smoker is wrong about smoking being bad for health, then you're *leveraging* it to entail something it does not imply. A "fallacy" is not a magical incantation, it works within the common sense cases of what we can construe from what: In the Boy who Cries Wolf, the point of the story actually hinges on the time that a known liar tells the truth. That he's lied about a wolf frequently can not determine whether or not a wolf is there.
English
1
0
0
5
Axeman
Axeman@TheAxemander·
I aim always at illustrating and learning (for me). Berk actually said I'm wasting their time. Case #1 "hypocrite" is a reasonably consistent statement (if not, the atheists have a lot ahead of them). Extension: "P is a hypocrite" is reasonable if there is such a state and we assume identifiability of that state. But if that statement can't be said about anybody, then we lose any basis for case #1. We may be wrong about individual cases, but the potential that "P is a hypocrite" is a reasonable characterization about some non-zero group flows naturally from the determinability of case #1. Since the bulk of a tu quoque "argument" is done by characterizing some state of hypocrisy, and we couldn't say anything resembling such a fallacy, then we could never instantiate the existence of hypocrites. Thus lose all bases of characterizing someone else as an instance of that class of behavior.
English
1
0
0
6
Dr Berk
Dr Berk@oohglobbits5·
@TheAxemander @Thedon9994 @erichovind "But, analytically, we have this fallacy: Argumentum ad Populum (or "Appeal to the Popular") where we might commit this every time we recount our traceable path to a common opinion." That doesn't apply to me here, and I have only one conclusion as to why you would mention it.
English
2
0
0
10
Dr Berk
Dr Berk@oohglobbits5·
@TheAxemander @Thedon9994 @erichovind I think you're taking offence that I've already concluded that you're a time-wasting ignorant egotistical dishonest hateful piece-of-shít Christian with nothing of value to offer whatsoever, but your unwillingness to accept that (see ego & dishonest parts) is not my fault.
Dr Berk tweet media
English
2
0
0
9
Dr. Abby Johnson
Dr. Abby Johnson@AbbyJohnson·
There is no pro-abortion doctrine in the Bible. Christianity is a strictly pro-life faith.
English
143
413
3.5K
100.6K
Berk
Berk@oohglobbits2·
@deadquiche @SFT_Ministries @ravenhawk_ @wendelltalks Nah. He lied about me boasting - I was simply giving some background info for context. Donny isn't important enough to mention. Funny though how eager they are to look at bios for ammunition instead of just proving their claims.
English
1
0
1
25
Number8
Number8@ChangedTack·
Looks like a bright morning. A little windy but much better than yesterday.
English
0
0
0
4
Sy Garte
Sy Garte@sygarte·
So the block feature is going to be loosened. Blocked people will now see one's posts, but not engage. If this site goes any further with removing blocking, I am gone. I only block those who directly insult me. Total = more than 500.
English
19
2
61
4.4K
Bobby B
Bobby B@BobbyB850·
@ChangedTack @ooohglobbits @WKellingto74452 @GospelEchoUSA @AbbyJohnson Behavioral patterns are absolutely recognizable in people’s writing. Asking someone to seek help is coming from the advice of a qualified clinician. Because i can’t help him via Twitter. This was covered, by me. Stop being whiny and dishonest about every detail
English
1
0
0
7