Mark My Words - commentary on news, politics, religion, philosophy, science and social issues

Another entry in the 4GrinsNGiggles Dept/Category of my blog.

The Steps outlined in the original comments (bold) are how this person characterized my method of debate in a myspace group.

---

Xcruciating Pleasure: bold

My first reply: normal font

Xcruciating Pleasure again: blue

My reply: red

---

Step 1:Defense a horrible position with ad hominen attacks.

Ad hominem:
Man 1: 1+1=3
Man 2: You're an idiot.

Not ad hominem
Man 1: 1+1=3
Man 2: 1 + 1 =2, you idiot ,

I'm quite capable of dealing with your arguments, should you actually offer any that haven't already been addressed and also insulting you, when you deserve it.

You've never corrected me.You've never done anything aside from insult me, and then giving me a link to a rant that ranges from justifying god's child-like murderous wrath in the OT, attacking evolution, ect ect.In refuting any of my arguments, or appearing rational, you have failed.

And this would be an example of your shallow retorts. For such subjects the articles I usually reference are very much free of ranting and sarcasm. Not that such elements would mean no actual arguments existed therein, which seems to your thinking. I'm not sure what you mean by attacking evolution, I'm not a young earth creationist. I really dont see the need to reply with solid arguments to what you offer. Seriously, calling a detailed study of what actually happened with the Amelekites and Canaanites a rant is a substantive reply?

Step 2:Wait for opponent to "up the ante".

relevance? Or did you just want to show you can count past 2?

Ya great example of an ad hominen attack.

It's a good example of your lack of a funny bone. I notice you dont bother to explain the relevance. Also, if I had said therefore what you say about xyz is incorrect, that would be an ad hom. But note this, there is an exception, if one claims to be an authority and speaking from that, then addressing the person, and their qualifications is appropriate.

Step 3:Report to MODs like a little faggot whinning bitch.Repeat if nessecary.

I report TOS violations, spammers or excessive profanity which doesnt mean the occasional slip. I've recently defended lucifer when someone said he should be banned as he has modified his behaviour. What precisely are you whining about?

It's not my fault you refuse to offer substantive replies to arguments referenced or stated.

Well you decared it so it must be true!"Thus sayeth the Mark!"

And again, you dont actually engage the points made but merely offer a grade shool level retort. Are you one of those who thinks respect doesnt need to be earned?

---

That individual is supposedly 30 years old. He seems to have calmed down a bit after this and his failed attempt to get me banned from the group. However, he still refuses to consider the great deal of context regarding his claim of genocide in the Old Testament that I had referenced in another discussion with these links:

What about God's cruelty to the Midianites in Numbers 31?!

How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?

I think it's pretty clear, to anyone with an open mind, that those are not rants.

---

Filed under: 4GrinsNGiggles -- Apologetics -- Christianity -- Religion

Blogs with open posts: Jo's Cafe -- Echo9er -- Pursuing Holiness -- The Right Nation -- The Random Yak -- Blue Star Chronicles -- third world county -- Adam's Blog -- Woman Honor Thyself -- The Florida Masochist -- The Bullwinkle Blog -- Stuck On Stupid -- The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns