Posts by UglyTruth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Haven’t you run out of feed yet?
Are you trying to imply that I'm trolling to deflect attention from the fact that you can't explain why Blackstone contradicts the NZ state's secular description of the common law, nzlemming?
-
Because it directly answers your question.
No, it doesn't. My question was: "in what way do you think that this response of mine does not address the meaning of Steve Park’s post?"
To which you replied:
"Yes, that is what I think. Since Steve Park’s post covers your entire comeback before it even happened. 10 hours before it happened."
Yeah, so what? There's no argument of substance there.
"You cherry picked a piece of what he said, and didn’t respond to the whole answer."
Like I said before, I genrally go for the crux and don't bother with the incidentals. It's not cherry picking when there's no other relevant line of reasoning.
"He showed that your argument only works to say you’re agnostic ..."
No, he didn't show that.
"... queried whether you are, and covered the other possibly by referring to Moz’s prior post. "
Referring to another post doesn't directly address the actual meaning.
So, Ben, there's nothing there that truthfully answers the question of the way to Steve Parks did not address the meaning of his post."
Remember, Ben, your original allegation was that I "don’t engage in a meaningful way with any criticism", but apparently there isn't any meaningful criticism here for me to engage in.
I've identified what I believe to be the crux of Steve's argument. If you think that I'm avoiding the argument then it's up to you to specfically identify the true crux.
To make it perfectly clear, the crux of the issue is that it is more rational to believe that deity exists than not because evidence exists that supports such existence, but no evidence to the contrary has been shown.
-
Which I then gave a long post on.
How is that relevant?
"So what do you think that the salient point is that refutes my argument?"
I explained that.
In which post?
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to BenWilson,
Yes, that is what I think.
Yes, but the question was in what way do you think that.
Since Steve Park’s post covers your entire comeback before it even happened. 10 hours before it happened.
So what do you think that the salient point is that refutes my argument?
You cherry picked a piece of what he said, and didn’t respond to the whole answer.
Generally I go for the crux of the argument and don’t bother with the incidentals.
He showed that your argument only works to say you’re agnostic
No, he didn’t show that. What my argument does is to show that existence of deity is more probable than non-existence of deity by showing that while evidence for existence exists, no evidence of non-existence exists.
I’ve previously argued this point with Andrew Geddis and his final position (IIRC) was that the argument was of little value because it wasn’t a popular positition, which makes sense if you look at it from a civil perspective, but no sense at all from the perspective of common law.
-
-
Or just identify and discuss the fallacies in this statement
I've already addressed one misinterpretation, if you think there is a fallacy there then it is up to you to show that it exists by identifying it.
-
You don’t engage in a meaningful way with any criticism
What criticism of my position was relevant and meaningful?
-
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government
This quote superbly illustrates the civil roots of the U.N. Democracy is much more than simple majority rule.
-
It wasn’t even really of interest to him/her whether the first white belt beat them half to death in seconds.
Yeah, I'm still all butthurt from being called an asshole.
LOL
-
the modern legal system eschews explicit religious influence in the same way that parliamentary processes carry on without the direct involvement of the Queen.
Much of the religious influence is implicit, for example the doctrine of universality (aka one law for all) that was part of the discussion for the first parliamentary prayer (Catholic means universal).
This is similar to the implict reference to the values of the head of state via the oath of allegiance.