(May 26, 2010 at 10:00 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Hayter like Richard Dawkins, in many cases, insists on treating people as if they were less intelligible in discussion rather than being open minded and giving people the benefit of the doubt.Ah, I'm glad to see the ad hominem attacks have continued in other parts of the forum. Of course, the rational here will understand that you use ad hominems when you either don't have a rebuttal to present, or you can't admit to being wrong.
If you want to beat me in a debate, attack the argument, not the person.
I'm perfectly open minded in discussions, but being open-minded doesn't mean accepting everything that people tell you; in fact it means the opposite. Being open-minded is being skeptical, but listening to all the points given equally.
I listened to your points; I wasn't convinced by them. In fact, I thought some of them were just plain wrong and you'd confused definitions. I corrected you on these, and you respond with attacks. I don't so much mind the attacks; they are quite humourous and they reinforce my belief that I am indeed correct in these matters. Course, I'd prefer either you to respond to my points or admit you may have been wrong, but I'm not demanding anything of you.
