This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty

Sharpur's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by Sharpur

Comment 60 by This Is Not A Meme :


I also called dibs on True Scot one minute before you!

It's easier to type faster when you miss a lot of words out. Easier still if you don't stop to think.

Your misconceptions of Catholicism are so quaint, I bet you are went through Confirmation. Do yourself a favor, study the Infallibility clause before ever speaking of it again (unless of course are Catholic, for reasons stated in my last post), because you sound as foolish as a person misusing a word they have not looked up.

Ad hominem. Strawman. Argument by assertion. ad hominem.

Quite trying to make sense of The Church by comparing it to other hierarchical. It's a freakin' atavism, an artifact of the Dark Ages, not a corporation or military. People disagree with the Pope all the time. Mother Theresa would talk shit about him all the time. History is full of people disagreeing with the Pope, having outright conflicts and they weren't excommunicated. You have no idea what you are talking about, and are essentially just making stuff up, or repeating things you've heard without doing any research.

Argument by assertion. Ad hominem. You do realise that telling me (over and over) what you assume I don't know is not a valid form of argument don't you?

Comment 61 by This Is Not A Meme :

Comment 59 by Sharpur :

I've wondered in the past how Prof Dawkins puts up with hearing the same old arguments over and over. Courtier's Reply fallacy

He's not disqualified from speaking on a matter, but it can explain errors.

Another example of this is when philosophers attempt to speak on science, mad errors occur.

He is making a bold claim, and they can't all be gems. I'm on his team, and he made an error. When someone makes great accomplishment, they can be destroyed by sycophants who always praise and defend him.

Is that another ad hominem for me, or is it for all to share?

By the way, none of your critiques of my thoughts made any sense. They were too general, like you were having a canned conversation with someone else. " just don't get it" is a cliche. You honed in on it and thought I was making an argument I wasn't. You identified an icon and didn't see the rest. When speaking of evolution if you don't understand basic science, you just don't get it. When speaking of race relations in America if you haven't studied the Civil Rights movement, you just don't get it.

Ad hominem. Yes "you just don't get it" is, a cliche. One that you used, not me. It's the short form of the Courtier's Reply. Don't worry, I never thought that you were making an argument.

I'm not interested in trying to win a conversation. If you actually write to what I've written, I'd love to respond/argue, but if you are just going to do a stale flamewar routine where you box another person's statements into known bromides, that's pathetically boring and a waste of internets.

No, I'm not going to do that. I'm even less interested in your 'known bromides' than you are, as I thought I'd made plain much earlier.

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:00:31 UTC | #946472