DOC's Proof of Christianity Through Irrelavent Fact Attrition

[six7s]

So then, you agree with Ducky

Quite probably

that discussing actual historical events is dishonest quote mining[/url]

However... that is NOT what Ducky implied, and either you know it or you are an even bigger liar and even more stupid than I thought you were

That would mean every history professor in the world is a dishonest quote miner

Maybe... through the distorted lenses through which you view the world

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2731631#post2731631

Rather than post a link, why not quote what Ducky said?

When you are trying to apply a practice in history to the practices today, and you leave out historical, and legal precedent, you are dishonestly quote mining. Especially when your source document contradicts your premises itself, with more facts about what you are trying to convey. But hey, way to ignore my last post regarding legal precedence and legal challenging of unconstitutional practices.

See... you really are stupid to think/hope that you can fool anyone on this forum - other than yourself and associated loons

 

[joobz]

So then, you agree with Ducky, that discussing actual historical events is dishonest quote mining.

That wasn't Ducky's point. Ducky clearly said that ignoring the context (a rather consistent tactic that you use), using historical events is quote mining.

When you are trying to apply a practice in history to the practices today, and you leave out historical, and legal precedent, you are dishonestly quote mining. Especially when your source document contradicts your premises itself, with more facts about what you are trying to convey. But hey, way to ignore my last post regarding legal precedence and legal challenging of unconstitutional practices.

This was Ducky's point and you ignored it.

That would mean every history professor in the world is a dishonest quote miner.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2731631#post2731631

No. See above.

ETA: Seems Six7s beat me to it. DOC, did you notice how two seperate people found the exact same error in your argument?

 

[DOC]

Ooh! Can I play?

You can lie to some of the people some of the time

However, as joobz pointed out, "the internet is easily sourceable"

• The Viking Leif Ericson was a Christian Evangelist

• The Troubling Beliefs of an "Influential" Atheist

Just two of 22 threads started by you that clearly indicate that you are not only a pathological liar but also stupid beyond belief

Ok, you listed 2 of my threads, so what. What specific points in those threads are you talking about?

 

[Hokulele]

So then, you agree with Ducky, that my discussing actual historical events was dishonest quote mining.

Yep, I agree with Ducky that your discussions are dishonest, or incompetent, quote mining. History professors generally know how to research.

And regarding your reponse to my post to which I linked, anyone with half a brain can find your response, as well as the responses to your response.

 

[DOC]

That wasn't Ducky's point. Ducky clearly said that ignoring the context (a rather consistent tactic that you use), using historical events is quote mining.


This was Ducky's point and you ignored it.



No. See above.

You and Ducky don't like the History that occurred in this country for 70 years by the US Government so you try to tell me I'm dishonest to bring it up.

I disagree with both of you. It is "never" dishonest to talk about US history.

 

[joobz]

And regarding your reponse to my post to which I linked, anyone with half a brain can find your response, as well as the responses to your response.

This is the part I find most bizarre. It makes me wonder what his motives are.

It is like when he said

"DOC believes Native Americans are better off because of christian europeans"

This implies "all" Native Americans are better off which I never said or believe so your statement is false.

He had to assume the word "all" in my statement for him to attempt to refute it. It is clear from context what I exactly meant and he even provided back up explanations which went to strengthen my point that DOC does believe Native Americans are better off because of christian europeans.

 

[joobz]

Using yours and Ducky logic it would be inappropriate to talk about slavery because it has been shown to be unconstitutional today. You and Ducky don't like the History that occurred in this country for 70 years by the US Government so you try to tell me I'm dishonest to bring it up.

I can't even begin to guess how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Hokulele]

Using yours and Ducky logic it would be inappropriate to talk about slavery because it has been shown to be unconstitutional today. You and Ducky don't like the History that occurred in this country for 70 years by the US Government so you try to tell me I'm dishonest to bring it up.

No, it would be like claiming that slavery is fine today due to the fact that there is nothing condemning it in the Preamble.

Way to demonstrate those mad reading comprehension skillz.

 

[X]

Hilarious.
Confronted evidence of his quote mining and misrepresentation, DOC defends himself by continuing to do the things he's been called on.

 

[six7s]

Ok, you listed 2 of my threads, so what. What specific points in those threads are you talking about?

Don't be obtuse DOC

The Viking Leif Ericson was a Christian Evangelist:

• The thread title is patently WRONG! and you know it:
  • you are a liar

The Troubling Beliefs of an "Influential" Atheist:

• You began by quote mining Singer out of context simply to create yet another thread that promotes your deluded worldview:
  • you are a liar

• You erroneously ascribed his thoughts and views as beliefs and thought/hope no-one on a sceptics forum would notice:
  • you are stupid

 

[DOC]

No, it would be like claiming that slavery is fine today due to the fact that there is nothing condemning it in the Preamble.

Giving money to the Catholic Church by the US Gov't was fine too in the 1800's because there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented it.

 

[DOC]

Hilarious.
Confronted evidence of his quote mining and misrepresentation, DOC defends himself by continuing to do the things he's been called on.

Another Generality post with no specific explanation. Lazy Skepticism

 

[DOC]

Don't be obtuse DOC

The Viking Leif Ericson was a Christian Evangelist:

• The thread title is patently WRONG! and you know it:
  • you are a liar

Where is it wrong, be specific.

 

[joobz]

Where is it wrong, be specific.

The title is wrong. that's specific.

 

[six7s]

Another Generality post with no specific explanation. Lazy Skepticism

Seems pretty specific to me:

Specification of current topic:

Confronted evidence of his quote mining and misrepresentation

Specification of the protagonist:

DOC

Specification of stupidity:

defends himself by continuing to do the things he's been called on.

Yep... pretty specific... and completely accurate

 

[Hokulele]

Giving money to the Catholic Church by the US Gov't was fine too in the 1800's because there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented it.

In all of the 1800's? Does the date 1880 ring any bells? No? Have you already forgotten the point being made by Ducky? Yes?

 

[joobz]

Giving money to the Catholic Church by the US Gov't was fine too in the 1800's because there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented it.

How does this address Hokulele's point?

She clearly said:

No, it would be like claiming that slavery is fine today due to the fact that there is nothing condemning it in the Preamble.

Your comment is a non-sequitor as it has no bearing on her analogy.

 

[six7s]

This is easier (and way more fun than) stealing candy from a baby

 

[DOC]

The title is wrong. that's specific.

Why is it wrong please be specific. I'm overdosing on all the generalities thrown my way.

 

[DOC]

This is easier (and way more fun than) stealing candy from a baby

Another generality that any troll who never read one word of my 22 threads could state.