Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I think we all deserve that shitpost for entertaining previous shitposts.

RR is finally at that point in the debate where he's forced to deploy his scorch-the-earth strategy (as rhythm nicely described it once): "How do you really know anything about anything unless you've observed it directly?"

This is essentially a total abandonment of the argument itself; an attempt to delegitimize the subject as a whole in fact, in a desperate attempt to save face. Better to just blow that rabbit hole to smithereens rather than admit you've been chased down, and have no where left to go, right RR?

And if you remember, you were forced to resort to this same embarrassing tactic in The Real Religion thread when, in regards to scientific evidence versus eye-witness testimony, you desperately declared: "How do you KNOW scientists study the safety of medications, for example? Did you WATCH them perform the research?"

Pathetic, and robotic, and dishonest to your core. That's my impression, anyway.

(November 7, 2016 at 10:00 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR is finally at that point in the debate where he's forced to deploy his scorch-the-earth strategy (as rhythm nicely described it once):  "How do you really know anything about anything unless you've observed it directly?"  

This is essentially a total abandonment of the argument itself; an attempt to delegitimize the subject as a whole in fact, in a desperate attempt to save face.  Better to just blow that rabbit hole to smithereens rather than admit you've been chased down, and have no where left to go, right RR?  

And if you remember, you were forced to resort to this same embarrassing tactic in The Real Religion thread when, in regards to scientific evidence versus eye-witness testimony, you desperately declared:  "How do you KNOW scientists study the safety of medications, for example?  Did you WATCH them perform the research?"  

Pathetic, and robotic, and dishonest to your core.  That's my impression, anyway.

Are we at the point where you try to attack and discredit me, without adding anything about the discussion.     Would you like to amend the principle in question?  How about it is not evidence, if we don't like the conclusion?   Or you can tell me how I am mis-applying the principle?   Or better yet, justify these some of the special rules being put forth.

I was thinking there's one kind of testimony that might be valid-- one where a liar or faker couldn't know the truth, and is asked blindly to describe something.

(November 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 7, 2016 at 10:00 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR is finally at that point in the debate where he's forced to deploy his scorch-the-earth strategy (as rhythm nicely described it once):  "How do you really know anything about anything unless you've observed it directly?"  

This is essentially a total abandonment of the argument itself; an attempt to delegitimize the subject as a whole in fact, in a desperate attempt to save face.  Better to just blow that rabbit hole to smithereens rather than admit you've been chased down, and have no where left to go, right RR?  

And if you remember, you were forced to resort to this same embarrassing tactic in The Real Religion thread when, in regards to scientific evidence versus eye-witness testimony, you desperately declared:  "How do you KNOW scientists study the safety of medications, for example?  Did you WATCH them perform the research?"  

Pathetic, and robotic, and dishonest to your core.  That's my impression, anyway.

Are we at the point where you try to attack and discredit me, without adding anything about the discussion.     Would you like to amend the principle in question?  How about it is not evidence, if we don't like the conclusion?   Or you can tell me how I am mis-applying the principle?   Or better yet, justify these some of the special rules being put forth.

I don't need to discredit you.  You do a fine job of that all by yourself.   We have already discussed this topic in a different thread as I mentioned above, and it devolved into exactly the same place this one has arrived at now.  Why would I torture myself further when it's clear you aren't willing to follow the logic where it leads you?  Nah.  I'm happy to just 'pop-corn' along this one, and add commentary when I feel like it.  But if you want my opinion, you could try giving Mr. Agenda an intellectually honest response, for starters.

(November 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Are we at the point where you try to attack and discredit me, without adding anything about the discussion.     Would you like to amend the principle in question?  How about it is not evidence, if we don't like the conclusion?   Or you can tell me how I am mis-applying the principle?   Or better yet, justify these some of the special rules being put forth.

You're being shitty.

(November 8, 2016 at 12:09 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Are we at the point where you try to attack and discredit me, without adding anything about the discussion.     Would you like to amend the principle in question?  How about it is not evidence, if we don't like the conclusion?   Or you can tell me how I am mis-applying the principle?   Or better yet, justify these some of the special rules being put forth.

You're being shitty.

No, I'm being shitty.  But in my defense, I sincerely believe he deserves it, lol.

RR, you're being stupid, is the point. Cops exist. Guns exist. Cops shoot people sometimes. How do I know these things are facts? Because I wake up every day, leave my house, and interact with the physical world around me. I mean...the fact you even asked such an assanine question in the first place; that someone should have to explain to you the difference between a claim that police offers exist versus a claim that a human being came back from the dead after three days, completely exposes how dishonest you are being.

It's either dishonesty, or it's the simple fact that you're happy to follow logic and reason along any road it leads you, until you spot that giant cross blocking your path. Easier to just veer left or right into the dark, uncharted forest of irrationality than face that road block head on, right?

Try as you might, you cannot rationally level the playing field here as far as claims go.

(November 8, 2016 at 8:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR, you're being stupid, is the point.  Cops exist.  Guns exist.  Cops shoot people sometimes.  How do I know these things are facts?  Because I wake up every day, leave my house, and interact with the physical world around me.  I mean...the fact you even asked such an assanine question in the first place; that someone should have to explain to you the difference between a claim that police offers exist versus a claim that a human being came back from the dead after three days, completely exposes how dishonest you are being.  

It's either dishonesty, or it's the simple fact that you're happy to follow logic and reason along any road it leads you, until you spot that giant cross blocking your path.  Easier to just veer left or right into the dark, uncharted forest of irrationality than face that road block head on, right?

I never said, that cops nor firearms do not exist.  However the point is, that testimony either is or is not evidence. Perhaps you are confused, because I'm not discussing Christianity or any specific claims regarding religion. Only principles about testimony as evidence. Does that change your stance on testimony as evidence?

(November 8, 2016 at 8:58 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 8:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR, you're being stupid, is the point.  Cops exist.  Guns exist.  Cops shoot people sometimes.  How do I know these things are facts?  Because I wake up every day, leave my house, and interact with the physical world around me.  I mean...the fact you even asked such an assanine question in the first place; that someone should have to explain to you the difference between a claim that police offers exist versus a claim that a human being came back from the dead after three days, completely exposes how dishonest you are being.  

It's either dishonesty, or it's the simple fact that you're happy to follow logic and reason along any road it leads you, until you spot that giant cross blocking your path.  Easier to just veer left or right into the dark, uncharted forest of irrationality than face that road block head on, right?

I never said, that cops nor firearms do not exist.  However the point is, that testimony either is or is not evidence. Perhaps you are confused, because I'm not discussing Christianity or any specific claims regarding religion. Only principles about testimony as evidence. Does that change your stance on testimony as evidence?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that testimony cannot ever be considered evidence, RR. The point was, testimony ALONE, especially in the cases of claims that defy what we know about science and reality, is insufficient. Supporting evidence should be required to accept the claim. If you want to be a rational person, that is.