What's Right about "Right?"
hs to BA:
I note that the last few days you have been quoting logical fallacy errors ad nauseum
BA has been going on like this for far more than a few days, eh?
BA, if you don't actually answer the questions put to you on this thread, and many others besides, then, imho, you are no more intelligent than OBVES.
Since Bad Apostate chose to try to hijack this thread of mine I wrote six years ago, I choose to trash Bad Apostate's idiotic claims, false arguments and well, spit drooling drivel. Forthwith. I do this will the full knowledge that I am feeding a trollish person with a huge desire to get attention and basically, wasting my time for a loser.
BA (short for "Bad Arguments") stated:
:The Bible says: "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant" - 1 Corinthians 13:4
: (Note that it does NOT say "Ever", as you stated).
Ok. Fine. Since the word "ever" was not there, then God must have meant there were exceptions. Otherwise, God would have stated it like this: "Love is EVER love. Lover is EVER kind. Love is EVER not jealous. Love EVER does not brag, and love EVER is not arrogant." So you assume that is not what God meant. So since "ever" does not appear once in that verse, and by your own stupid reasoning, we must assume this: "Love is Not ever Love. Love is Not ever kind. Love is Not ever not jealous. Love Not ever does not not brag, and love Not ever is not arrogant," or to put it simply, "love is not sometimes love, it is not sometimes kind, it is sometimes jealous, it sometimes brags and it is sometimes arrogant."
Is THAT any definition of love, or is THAT a weasal definition of love that makes love meaningless or at best a moving target, dummy?
Now, name ANY example where "love" and "jealousy" are harmonious in the human experience? Just one. Please. IIt causes divorce and it causes beatings, and it causes murder. Reconcile "love" and "jealousy" in a way they are mutually inclusive.
:1- Farkel's original post that started this thread was answered, and proven false. Anyone who has reading comprehension can see this.
Where? Please present your arguments again. We would love to see where they are in this six year old thread. If you cannot do that, you are a liar, and if you don't do that you are a fraud AND a liar.
:2- Farkel's original post that started this thread is a FALSE_DILEMMA , so his argument is logically fallacious.
I'm not sure what a "false_dilemma" is but I am perfectly sure what a "false dilemma" is. A false dilemma fallacy is when one presents an argument that if a) happens then b) will surely happen, but doesn't consider the possibility that c), d)... could also happen. Given that, the premise of my thread is that God's decisions are either arbitrary or they are not. So where is c)? d)? e)? f)? My argument was either, or and allows no other possibilities.
:3- Farkel's inability to show that he can comprehend what he reads is apparent not only in his refusal to address JWD posters by their screen name,
Rubbish. I only called YOU trollypoo, trollypoo.
:but by his missing the fact that his most recent post on this thread was already answered in my last post.
Where? A response is NOT an answer, nitwit. Please show your answer. Here. Now.
: I'm not repeating myself to someone who behaves like a snotty nosed child throwing a tantrum.
Ad hominem. Talk about childish.
:Farkel's latest post in this thread demonstrates that he has the behavior and reading comprehension of a child.
Ad hominem #2. Talk about REALLY childish!
:BA- My last post on this thread. Farkel's questions have been answered as well as proven fallacious.
Nope. Responses are not answers. Just because you bloviate and pick your nose on your avatar doesn't mean you "answered" anything.
: PS- hillary_step and onacruise, get a room already.
Ad hominem #3 and a particularly vicious one at that.
:HS is so egotistical yet vapid that he doesn't get it- he proposes an Argumentum_ad_populum and thinks he's made a positive point.
Ad hominem #4 and Hillary did not plea to the rest of the people as support for his argument. You certainly couldn't use the same argumentum ad populum, either. Everyone thinks you are an idiot.
:BA- My final post on this thread, not arguing with morons.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! That's what dubs say when they have no arguments and get called on their bullshit.
: PS- You can go back in your corner now, HS, sit on your stool with your pointy cap, it suits you well.
Ad hominem #5, and this coming from a guy who says he's logical! What a piece of work!
Farkel, with Sparkle
I rather regret now that I brought back this "pure" thread. Simple logic, simple analysis.
Contrary opinions, to be sure, but the BS of BA has polluted the discussion.