RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:50 pm
(This post was last modified: December 21, 2014 at 4:51 pm by Free.)
(December 21, 2014 at 4:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(December 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Brucer Wrote: Here:
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Since he says that all I am doing is poisoning the well, he is attempting to pre-empt me with the intention of discrediting and ridiculing.
Couple things: one, if you're saying what I presented was "adverse information," I take it you're admitting that the word choices I bolded were obviously dishonest and would portray you in a bad light if people were reminded of them? Because... they were your words; if you knew they would only reflect poorly on you, why say them at all?
My response was directly to the person who brought up Humprehys position in the first place; Minimalist.
Poisoning the well is something that is done pre-emptively, not after the fact. Since Minimalist brought up, and linked to, the Jesus Never Existed website first, then no accusation of poisoning the well is valid.
My response was directly related to what I previously viewed on the Humphreys website, as opposed to me bringing it up and then pre-empting it's credibility.
I don't think I need to respond to the rest since it would not apply to one who did not poison the well.
