(September 8, 2016 at 10:47 am)Crossless1 Wrote:(September 8, 2016 at 9:31 am)Drich Wrote: Who are you trying to fool?
How easy is it to simply one up a poster by googling just a little bit deeper than what is posted?
That's what you did, but that is not what I did.
I found a scientifically based theory that somewhat incorporates a religious concept. Then call people out for being intellectually dishonest when ever they only want to speak from a position of authority, of the religious component negatively, and not make themselves aware of the scientific aspects.
How is that different than what you did? I provided A and B aspects to an argument, and call out those who only speak to A for being intellectually dishonest if they refuse to acknowledge or even educate themselves on the "b" side of the argument before they speak.
You are calling me for not knowing the entomology of A and B Intellectually dishonest.
Nice try sport, but no. Maybe if you didnt get so worked up over how a word was spell-t you could take a little more time framing out how they are used, then someone like me couldn't take you to task for the intellectual dishonesty built into your fallacy of faulty comparison arguement.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...Comparison
(I know that is the sleepy emoji, but he looks smug to me/that is what I'm going for.)
Yeah, nice try yourself. Philosophy was one of my double majors back in the day. I have read each of the authors I mentioned. In fact, it didn't require a google search to see where this was going. I hadn't heard of 'Biocentrism' prior to reading your link, but I hadn't got more than a couple of paragraphs into it before I flashed on Bergson and the obvious similarities.
Oh, and entomology?
Being a 'double major' you'd think you'd be a little better at this..
Maybe I should explain what 'this' is since your education seems to be limiting your cognitive abilities.
"This" would be identifying and addressing the primary point of an argument rather than, trying to red herring yourself into a victory by concentrating on a tertiary aspect of an argument (Where I guessed you sourced information) rather than the correct application of the very same information in a logical contextual way..
Just incase that was too technical for you or any of your followers, I am calling you stupid because you cant seem to see the Forrest, because there are too many trees blocking your view. More specifically with all your 'education' you seemed to miss the point. You focused on where you got the information from (your studies) rather than my guess of google, and because of this you claimed a premature victory with your emoji. When in fact you complete skirted the primary point (outside of my etymology joke)
get it now?
