RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 5:13 pm
(This post was last modified: December 21, 2014 at 5:18 pm by Free.)
(December 21, 2014 at 5:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(December 21, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Brucer Wrote: 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.
So then when you accused me of poisoning the well right after, it was your opinion that you were wrong to do so? Interesting.
No. I didn't poison the well, at least not in regards to the original accuation from Stmbo, which was part of what you quoted.
It is not poisoning the well to observe someone who's skepticism appears to be dishonest, since it is not pre-emptive.
It is not poisoning the well when observations of anti-Christian bias pre-empt my comments regarding it.
It is not poisoning the well when observations of a hatred of religion pre-empt my comments regarding it.
If not a single post was ever made on this forum, and I was the 1st poster ever, and I said what I said about Humphreys before anything else was ever brought up, then THAT is poisoning the well.
Quote: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.
