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

[dyresand]

I felt it was unwarranted, just something to do so you can say you fucked with me.

While you are of course entiitled to your feelings, you are not entitled to project them onto us. I won't apologise that you are not privy to Staff deliberations; the plain fact of the matter is that the decision was made by a consensus of Staff for reasons already stated. All Staff discussion is a matter of record. As m'colleague Esq has said, nothing of the content of your posts was altered in any way. All that happened was the two threads were concatenated (look it up) into one.

Yep no feel trains allowed here.

[Free]

Okay listen, this bias thing seems to fucking important to you that I will just concede and hand you a fucking cigar, okay?

Fuck sakes dude, get over it. This convo is boring the fuck outta me.

You're on a discussion forum. The point is to discuss. If you don't want or know how to do that, I would suggest a new hobby.

You are a little late for the party. The discussion with him alone is what is so tediously fucking boring. I have other discussions going on.

[dyresand]

You're on a discussion forum. The point is to discuss. If you don't want or know how to do that, I would suggest a new hobby.

You are a little late for the party. The discussion with him alone is what is so fucking boring. I have other discussions going on.

Spreading the word of Jeebus?

[Free]

You are a little late for the party. The discussion with him alone is what is so fucking boring. I have other discussions going on.

Spreading the word of Jeebus?

Nope, no more than anyone here spreads the word of the FSM.

[dyresand]

Spreading the word of Jeebus?

Nope, no more than anyone here spreads the word of the FSM.

But JC said spread the word of his return i mean come on don't don't disappoint JC. He knows everything he watches everyone like batman.
JC is a spiritual batman.

[rexbeccarox]

You're on a discussion forum. The point is to discuss. If you don't want or know how to do that, I would suggest a new hobby.

You are a little late for the party. The discussion with him alone is what is so tediously fucking boring. I have other discussions going on.

Excuse me. I'm not late to the party, nor am I unaware of what has been happening in this thread. Take your arrogance elsewhere.

[Elskidor]

It's going to be bad if the new guy gets banned before His_Majesty, who's been trying longer.

[dyresand]

It's going to be bad if the new guy gets banned before His_Majesty, who's been trying longer.

well i doubt HM would get banned that quickly but its like a eventual train crash. The conductor sees the warnings but keeps going at a moderate pace.
so there is a bridge conductor to ignorant to stop. People on board saying and yelling stop he ignores them, and the passengers are smart enough to jump off of it, while the conductor and the train go well..... kaboom at the bottom.

[Esquilax]

What would be more intellectually honest is you admitting that I had not poisoned the well when Stimbo said I did right HERE, in which he took a partial quote of me HERE, and which you responded to right HERE, in which you replied with "Hey look, turns out he needed a whole lot more well poison!"

Since I hadn't poisoned the well at the beginning of that conversation with Stimbo, where do you come off by lying that I am adding "more?"

How the fuck do you add "more" to nothing?

Now, let's see a little intellectual honesty from an atheist for a change, okay? Maybe then i will start trusting things you say, but until then, I simply don't.

And there we go again: someone dares to disagree with you, and so you seek to passive aggressively tarnish them and, yes, poison the well for future readers by proclaiming their disagreement is intellectually dishonest, apropos of nothing.

Although to some degree you're right; Stimbo mislabelled the original fallacy you used. "X is laughed at by Y community, therefore is wrong," is actually an unsupported argument from authority, made without a shred of evidence... possibly well poisoning in the sense that you're seeking to taint any further argument made with reference to the source in question by fiat, before it's even presented, but I don't care enough to quibble over details, especially since that seems to be your main method of argument.

But the parts I pointed out were still pure well-poison. If you want to desperately cling to the word "more" as some kind of out, then whatever, I don't need it there. My point stands well without it; the sentence was formulated that way as a sarcastic continuation of what Stimbo was saying, but it works as a stand alone position. If trading one fallacy for another, while not affecting my point at all, would make you happy, then feel free to say I was wrong, and I'll even rephrase my initial post right here:

"Looks like he needed a whole lot of well poison to wash down that argument from authority! "

Yay for you! You won a single insignificant point, while utterly failing to address your actual fallacies, plus the equivocations you chose to defend them with!

Edit: Oh, not to mention the abrupt right turn you made there, that non-sequitur "oh yeah, well, you were wrong to support Stimbo!" dodge you made when you couldn't handle the original conversation we were having, let's not forget that!

[Minimalist]

It's going to be bad if the new guy gets banned before His_Majesty, who's been trying longer.

Make it a two-fer. An AF.org first.