(August 28, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:(August 28, 2013 at 11:04 pm)bladevalant546 Wrote: That is what you stated, so to defend my case.
Your Objection: You are attacking the position of relevance. Before I move on, what is the premise you are trying to compare to. In order for parties to have relevance there has to be a defining element that both those parties are pertaining too.
Irrelevant to your post, Blade, but to Catfish, why are you putting "judgement" in quotations as if to correct the PROPER spelling of the word, "judgment?" It's judgment. Not judgement. ...You philistine.
Also "your" spelling is devolving again. Seems to happens when people put the screws to your logic (forgive me, logic, for using you in such a betrayal of your very definition). Calm down bro, breathe, I know the idea of "crybabies" smacking you around in a discussion about your cherry-picked beliefs is hard to stomach for you, but you'll get through it. Stop crying so much at your computer.
Let's not even get into how what you said is a non-sequitur [something you're very good at constantly whipping out I've noticed]...actually, let's.
How is the case irrelevant? How does the judgement being for an eon make the case irrelevant? And what does that even mean?
Seriously if you're gonna refute something, you should probably give a reason and provide some tenability to your case instead of just sneezing non-sequiturs everywhere and expecting people to follow your schizophrenic trains of half-thought.
You know, it may take you a month or two, but you'll probably realise eventually how wrong you are about so many things...
Non-sequitur? I think you need to learn the definition of that term...
