(January 7, 2013 at 8:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(January 7, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: AM I really being so unreasonable. ( can I even ask that question without someone analysing it for logical fallacies or wanting a definition of unreasonable ).
Yes, you are being extremely unreasonable, in that you are insisting that an argument which leverages logical fallacies be treated as though it were not invalid (or at least be spared the embarrassment of being exposed as such). That's pretty damned "unreasonable" wouldn't you say?
This.
![[Image: red_up_arrow_106.22145640_std.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=keepkansasjobs.com%2Fyahoo_site_admin%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fred_up_arrow_106.22145640_std.jpg){kind=icon}
(January 7, 2013 at 8:19 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:(January 7, 2013 at 8:13 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Not gonna lie Mark -- I have no clue what you are trying to get at.
no worries it seems no on else does ; and many that do don't want to either.
Totally biased assessment. The burden of proof rests squarely where it belongs. It has nothing to do with what I might "want." Scroll up and read Rhythms post again for any questions.
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
