The Gospel

No, I don't think that would really be fruitful.
















Wait, you made the claim that
this is officially the most derailed thread ever
Click to expand...
What's your evidence?
Oh, and..
boyanddog.jpg
 
delphi_ote said:
For the record, this is officially the most derailed thread ever. Can we keep derailing it by talking about how totally derailed it is?
Click to expand...

Quick, somebody PM kurious_kathy and get her back here. That'll get this thread back on the rails!

:bricks:
 
Genesius said:
Quick, somebody PM kurious_kathy and get her back here. That'll get this thread back on the rails!

:bricks:
Click to expand...
NO...not until Delphi ote stops avoiding my questions.

Ote,
Where's the evidence, huh? What, are you going to claim that you just posted that now?
 
ceo_esq
No. The idea was simply that if, hypothetically, events occurred in that order, then none of the source texts is explicitly contradicted. You will note that I expressly stated that I did not personally feel it was the most natural or most likely interpretation, and I do not particularly care whether Gospel events occurred in any order or no order at all.
Click to expand...
At least you do admit that the entire basis of your premise is that the events likely occurred in this particular order.


Ossai
 
What is all this new-fangled puppydom? Sure they're cute. But they cannot overwhelm the sheer adorableness of the kitten. With they're itty bitty claws, and their darling little tails, and their chubby tummies. No, the puppy religion is simply an attempt for backsliders to validate their turning away from the path of true kitten worshiping.
 
bluess said:
What is all this new-fangled puppydom? Sure they're cute. But they cannot overwhelm the sheer adorableness of the kitten. With they're itty bitty claws, and their darling little tails, and their chubby tummies. No, the puppy religion is simply an attempt for backsliders to validate their turning away from the path of true kitten worshiping.
Click to expand...



Why do you hate America and puppies so much?
 
fowlsound said:
Why do you hate America and puppies so much?
Click to expand...

Now, now, don't let your newfangled puppydom lead you into aspostasy. Kittens were here long before the puppies. Do you deny the presence of sabertoothed kittens in our long past?

And what can be more American and democratic than the individuality of each fuzzy little purrer?
 
Ossai said:
At least you do admit that the entire basis of your premise is that the events likely occurred in this particular order.
Click to expand...

No. The theoretical solution works if the events are hypothesized to occur in a particular order, but there is absolutely no evidentiary or probabilistic assertion involved there. The likelihood, or unlikelihood, of the events actually having occurred in any particular order is of zero relevance to the exercise. Why do you interpret every correction as a confirmation, and every denial as an admission?
 
Last edited:
bluess said:
And what can be more American and democratic than the individuality of each fuzzy little purrer?
Click to expand...

Lil' waggers. WAY more patriotic. They can sniff out traitors, and communicate that back to Dog Central.

Remember, the "C" in CIA doens't really stand for "Central" it stands for "Canine"
 
delphi_ote said:
Since you apparently think this rhetorical tactic is acceptable, why do you love Hitler and molest children?
Click to expand...

Not exactly applicable here. You could probably benefit from a lesson on the finer points of fallacies of presumption. No time for that now, but it is it really not clear that each time I deny or correct Ossai's claim (for example) that I'm asserting a likelihood that Gospel events actually occurred in a certain way, his response is apparently to interpret that as an admission or confirmation?
 
Hey ceo_esq:

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of Rule 8.



Notice, I didn't use the term "idiot" or "moron."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
delphi_ote said:
When ceo does it, it's fine. Lesson learned. Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

You're being silly. This doesn't depend on the identity of the speaker. It does, however depend on the nature of the presumption (as well as the purpose for which it is being used). Your loaded complex question regarding loving Hitler and molesting children contains an assumption which does not appear, in the context of this discussion or otherwise, to have any basis or relevance whatsoever. This is obviously a very different case than my question; between my posts (for I know that I deny Ossai's assertion) and Ossai's responses (for he indicates his view that my statements to that effect are in some way concessions of such assertion), I certainly have some reasonable basis for inferring that he is interpreting my denials as admissions. He may well have some reason in mind for doing so - hence my question - but it is not immediately apparent to me what that reason might be.

To suggest that there is no genuine or relevant distinction between the question I asked Ossai and the one you asked me is silly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom