11-29-2018, 03:08 PM
(11-29-2018, 01:44 PM)Dill Wrote: You are being asked to accept claims based primarily upon a claimant's personal authority.
The truth of the claims is held to be "obvious" by the claimant.
If the argument is so flimsy, please feel free to attempt to poke holes in it.
Quote:So if you challenge the claim by asking for further proof, or even ask for further specification to secure the inference, then it is clear there must be some fault in your understanding. So your flaws are then part of the discussion.
Again, refute the points being made.
Quote:"Intelligence" is a subtheme as well. Posters who agree with the claimant have it. Those who question, don't. That is the test, not logically consistent, evidence based argument. Questions and counter-arguments are simply referred to that room over there with "obvious" on the door.
No, plenty of people I disagree with have it. I frequently disagree with Bell, Bmore, Benton, Zona and many others. I only seem to have this issue with a very select few.
Quote:The easy way around this is to accept the claims without challenging them. That is really what you are being asked to do.
Oh hey, btw, the thing you stated you've never seen happen, it happened in this thread. See, I didn't even have to try.
