Creation Muesum

[Esquilax]

What are you on about now? What exactly have I taken out of context?

There were more things in the point you were responding to than just "talking animals," and contextually it was clear that the example of talking animals under consideration was the magically enabled, truly communicative kind and not literal parroted speech. Instead of addressing the actual point being made though, you honed in on the one point you thought you could win on, redefined it in a way that was clearly not intended when one takes the post in its entirety, and then pretended that you'd responded to the whole of the thing in a way that was both cogent and actually addressed what was being said.

You do this all the time. You don't respond to what people actually mean, you respond to a self servingly literal facsimile. It's like you've mistaken "technically correct," with "actually correct." You're like a teacher being asked "can I go to the bathroom?" responding with "I don't know, can you?" but instead of just correcting the grammar you're seriously acting as though you were being asked if they were physically capable of urinating. Whenever it suits you, you just suddenly lose the ability to apprehend what people actually mean and just go with what their grammar strictly states, no matter the context.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Quit acting like there's only the former.

Also I like how I'm perceived as being "smug" whenever I offer a rebuttal.

Oh, come off it. You didn't fucking offer a rebuttal, you derailed because you had nothing substantial to say but were still desperate to be right.

But I'M the smug one tho.... Rolleyes

I'm sorry, can you offer any other conclusion I could have come to when you attempt to just throw bible verses at me as though it were an actual argument?

Not that a tu coque fallacy is an actual response anyway, but I seriously find it hard to believe that an intelligent, reasonable person would think that what you posted there had any convincing qualities to it. So you're either capable of a reasonable argument but just didn't produce one, or you're incapable of a reasonable argument. Since you apparently don't want to address what I wrote back then- not that you did in your first attempt- then the question still stands: are you aware that your argument only partially succeeds even if we ignore the problems with it? Or are you unaware, and hence, an idiot?