Universal Design

[Iacchus]

Based on good evidence - you state foolish arguments, refuse to debate and you refuse to address points, like here, here, here or here - and even in this thread. Yes, you are a fool.

Ad hominem.

 

[BillHoyt]

Or, perhaps Billy Boy didn't start out on a the right footing here. For example these are from his first six or seven posts ... And, while there's a gap between some of the posts, because they don't all include ad hominems, I can assure you they were more than condescending enough to make up for it. I really got the impression that he thought I was stupid or something?


Ad hominem

Ad hominem

Ad hominem

Ad hominem

Ad hominem
By the way, did you notice whether I had any difficulty replying to Dancing David above?

Puh-leeze. You dance around the question with me. Then you tell Rabbi Satan you did answer me. Now you tell us you had cause not to answer because I insulted you. You simply have no response to the question, so you duck behind these contradictory and weenie claims. If you can't play with the big dogs, get back on the porch.

 

[Iacchus]

Am afraid your condescending attitude is not going to work here either.

 

[BillHoyt]

Am afraid your condescending attitude is not going to work here either.

I take your refusal to answer as an admission that you cannot answer. Your logic's fatal flaw is clear: if rules, laws, regularities or complexity imply a designer, then god gotta daddy. Your logic fails because it places you in an infinite regress. It demands a god for the universe, a god for the god, and a god for god's god, and blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof.

I challenge you now, as the existence of the JREF forum challengers all comers, to think. You have made assertions. I have challenged them. Think and respond.

Not fallacious appeals to pity. Not fallacious red herrings. Logic.

 

[Maledict]

Am afraid your condescending attitude is not going to work here either.

Ad hominems have no bearing on the factual correctness and validity of an argument - It works both ways Iacchus - address the points - in this thread and in the four other threads that I debated to you with.

 

[Iacchus]

I take your refusal to answer as an admission that you cannot answer. Your logic's fatal flaw is clear: if rules, laws, regularities or complexity imply a designer, then god gotta daddy. Your logic fails because it places you in an infinite regress. It demands a god for the universe, a god for the god, and a god for god's god, and blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof.

God gotta daddy? ... What's that supposed to mean?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof? ... What's that supposed to mean?

I challenge you now, as the existence of the JREF forum challengers all comers, to think. You have made assertions. I have challenged them. Think and respond.

Not fallacious appeals to pity. Not fallacious red herrings. Logic.

Appeals to pity? ... What's that supposed to mean?

So let me ask you something? Do you think your attempts at bullying and belittling me is going to get you anywhere? That kind of attitude speaks for itself too doesn't it? So, if you continue to throw this is kind of garbage out at me at first, what exactly is it that you want me to reply to? Or, maybe I'm supposed to pretend like it doesn't mean anything?

 

[BillHoyt]

Blah blah blah woof woof woof. Grow up.

 

[Maledict]

God gotta daddy? ... What's that supposed to mean?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof? ... What's that supposed to mean?

May be you might want to read BillHoyts posts further up first - If you haven't already (Which I really doubt you have).

Appeals to pity? ... What's that supposed to mean?

...You don't even understand what you're doing?

So let me ask you something? Do you think your attempts at bullying and belittling me is going to get you anywhere?

Do you think your attempts to dance around the points and issues are going to go unnoticed?

That kind of attitude speaks for itself too doesn't it?

Speaks for what? It has no bearing about the validity of an argument.

So, if you continue to throw this is kind of garbage out at me at first, what exactly is it that you want me to reply to?

To address our points, instead of ignoring and dancing around the issues, which you are doing now.

Or, maybe I'm supposed to pretend like it doesn't mean anything?

More like know nothing.

 

[Iacchus]

Ad hominems have no bearing on the factual correctness and validity of an argument - It works both ways Iacchus - address the points - in this thread and in the four other threads that I debated to you with.

You really don't get it do you? The most anyone can ever hope to do on this forum is state their own opinion. And you can't accuse me of not having done that. If you don't like what I have to say, find somebody else to debate with.

By the way, one thing I've found is that I have to keep repeating myself to you, and I don't particularly like that. It's too bad that I don't agree with you is what the problem is.

 

[Maledict]

You really don't get it do you? The most anyone can ever hope to do on this forum is state their own opinion. And you can't accuse me of not having done that. If you don't like what I have to say, find somebody else to debate with.

It's not about you stating your opinions - it's about you dodging the point and issues and refusing to answer them - just like you are now, with the point that I posed to you that the manner of an argument has no bearing on the factual correctness of the argument.

By the way, one thing I've found is that I have to keep repeating myself to you, and I don't particularly like that. It's too bad that I don't agree with you is what the problem is.

It's a simple problem - you not answering the points - I'm curious, are you too blind to see that you are refusing to answer the points, or are you trying to falteringly save your own skin?

 

[BillHoyt]

You really don't get it do you? The most anyone can ever hope to do on this forum is state their own opinion. And you can't accuse me of not having done that. If you don't like what I have to say, find somebody else to debate with.

I'm afraid it is you who don't get it. This forum is run by JREF, a skeptical organization. JREF is not interested in opinions about reality. It is interested in evidence. It is particularly interested in evidence for claims of the paranormal.

You have been citing many aspects of the universe as evidence of god. I have challenged that claim by pointing out the infinite regress that inheres in your reasoning.

I don't give a sot about your opinion. I want you to defend your claim here by explaining why god ain't gotta daddy.

 

[BillHoyt]

God gotta daddy.

 

[daenku32]

Hey, sounds like something which has already been "predefined" to me. The only question is, by whom? Or, are saying it's not possible to predefine what the mice will to do by constructing a maze?

The erosion on my yard was not predefined by a 'whom'.

The same nature that caused natures laws caused the erosion.

Since you don't have a clue of what in the physical world came first, how do you know something wasn't caused by a natural act?

Tell me. What was there before laws of physics? What was the very first building block of the physical world that derived everything else? I know you want to say God, but I'm looking for the missing link here. Where is the ball God set in motion that eventually caused the erosion on my yard. Sure you must know since you claim that it certainly must have been designed.

 

[Iacchus]

It's not about you stating your opinions - it's about you dodging the point and issues and refusing to answer them - just like you are now, with the point that I posed to you that the manner of an argument has no bearing on the factual correctness of the argument.

Well it could very well make a difference with somebody getting a fat lip too.

It's a simple problem - you not answering the points - I'm curious, are you too blind to see that you are refusing to answer the points, or are you trying to falteringly save your own skin?

Am I here to answer everything to your satisfaction? No. And you have no right demanding that I do.

 

[Maledict]

Well it could very well make a difference with somebody getting a fat lip too.

So you admit that it has no bearing on the factual correctness of an argument? Good - I hope you won't try to weasel out of answering points because of this excuse in the future.

Am I here to answer everything to your satisfaction? No. And you have no right demanding that I do.

You make a claim, we demand an aswer - you don't have any answer, this invalidates your claim. Simple logic, no?

 

[Iacchus]

I'm afraid it is you who don't get it. This forum is run by JREF, a skeptical organization. JREF is not interested in opinions about reality. It is interested in evidence. It is particularly interested in evidence for claims of the paranormal.

I get it just fine. This is a philosophical forum. Not the Spanish Inquisition. If they don't want people discussing philosophy here, then perhaps they shouldn't advertise it as such. Not my problem!

You have been citing many aspects of the universe as evidence of god. I have challenged that claim by pointing out the infinite regress that inheres in your reasoning.

And what were you saying about your crappy attitude here?

I don't give a sot about your opinion. I want you to defend your claim here by explaining why god ain't gotta daddy.

And when I see you stranded on the side of the road on a cold wet rainy miserable night, you can watch me drive right on by!

 

[Iacchus]

You make a claim, we demand an aswer - you don't have any answer, this invalidates your claim. Simple logic, no?

No. In some places that would be akin to rape, and you could be sent to jail for that.

 

[Maledict]

I get it just fine. This is a philosophical forum. Not the Spanish Inquisition. If they don't want people discussing philosophy here, then perhaps they shouldn't advertise it as such. Not my problem!

Then would you agree that discussion centers around, you know, actually "discussing" the points and addressing the issues?

Oh wait, you were dodging those.

And what were you saying about your crappy attitude here?

Another dodge. Answer the point.

And when I see you stranded on the side of the road on a cold wet rainy miserable night, you can watch me drive right on by!

Yet another dodge, with nothing pertaining to the topic at hand whatsoever. Why don't you defend your claim?

No.

Ah, so you admit that you won't (Or rather cannot) back up your claims?

In some places that would be akin to rape, and you could be sent to jail for that.

Ah, I see, now you are comparing me to a rapist because we demand that you answer questions to your claim? Please, explain how the analogy fit.

Yet another dodge.

 

[BillHoyt]

God gotta daddy.

This is the result of your claims. Quit dodging and deflecting and tell us why it ain't so.

 

[Iacchus]

All your badgering tells me is that you've already made up your own mind and really have no interest in what I have to say. You've already drawn your own conclusions. Why should I bother?