MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

Bullshit. You pressed me on the issue of bias, I gave you my interpretation of it in bold in relation to the general forum as to be applied here, and you CHOSE to ignore that obvious application in favor of a more nefarious interpretation in an effort to paint me in a negative light.

I demonstrated my point on the prejudicial bias issue HERE.


But HERE I gave you multiple definitions of the type of bias that is widespread on this forum, and even placed the definition I hold to in bold, making it very obvious.

But you chose to ignore that, and instead wrongfully accuse me of equivocating. You seem to fail to understand the many applications of the word bias, and instead are attempting to corner me into saying it only means what YOU understand it to mean, or what YOU are insisting my meaning as being.

I'm well aware that the word bias can be taken to mean multiple things, but I'm also well aware that the definition you opted to bold makes the initial argument about bias you made entirely nonsensical. If you're using bias just to mean "having an opinion on a given issue," as you claimed, then how on earth could you use that bias as a reason to dismiss the arguments put forward by others in this thread? You can't use "you disagree with me" as a reason to dismiss what they have to say.

I opted to think you were smarter than that, and were simply backtracking. Would you like me to reconsider, and downgrade you from dishonest to just moronic?

Bullshit again. Here you go saying I am trying to direct people in what they believe while you are trying to direct people in what I believe? That's fucking hypocritical at its best.

I'm not trying to direct people as to what you believe, I'm merely pointing out that what you said, and your reasoning for why you said it, not only don't match up, but are entirely discordant with one another.

The entire problem here is your unwavering intention to insist upon me and others who read this that your definition of bias is the only definition to be adhered to. To me, that's no different than putting words in my mouth, and also, absolutely constitutes a lack of trust in you from my position.

Read above: if you want to insist upon your definition of bias that's fine, but it does negate what you initially said.

You said it was because I didn't bring forth any "new" information, and Esquilax said it was to make the threads more "readable" (whatever the hell that means). So which is it?

Both: your thread didn't contain any new information sufficient to distinguish it from your first thread, and so the two were combined so that the entire thing could be read more easily in one place.