Apologetics

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-26 10:53pm

The Apologist wrote:All right, since rational debate is above you all, I resign from this topic. Flame wars are not worth our time.

You're not getting off that easy.

Would someone like to explain the birds and the bees to the Apologist?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-26 10:54pm

The Apologist wrote:All right, since rational debate is above you all, I resign from this topic. Flame wars are not worth our time.

In other words:

I can't believe this idiot thinks he actually put on a logical debate, after his endless appeals to his own nonexistent authority and his defenses of circular logic. I've seen hamsters with better reasoning skills.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-12-26 10:55pm

Whack-a-loon doesn't know what a labia is! Whack-a-loon doesn't know what a labia is! Whack-a-loon doesn't know what a labia is!!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-26 10:59pm

Well, this thread has been good for one thing: the Apologist finally fucked up and admitted what he believes:

He thinks circular logic is OK.
He thinks that the physical universe is no more substantial than his personal beliefs.
He thinks it is "circular logic" to use observations as evidence in science.
He thinks you can defend the logic of an fallacious argument by simply claiming to have studied logic extensively (in short, since he claims to know a lot about logic, it is impossible for his argument to be illogical, so all of our rebuttals must be wrong even if they seem to make sense).
He is a palm-fucker who does not know what a labia is.

Should we change his title to "Fundamentalist Moron" now? It's quite clear that he's no moderate. He preaches that the physical universe is not any more real than his personal beliefs; I'd say that's close enough to the fundie mentality that it's basically equivalent.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-26 11:02pm

We have to include something about labias in his title. I mean, come on. How could we possibly not?

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-26 11:02pm

Quite a list of accomplishments for one so young.

Give him the title. Him and his labia.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-12-26 11:03pm

Hmmm... is the difference that logic can't be licked?

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-26 11:07pm

Perhaps...but one knowing as much about logic as the Apologist himself is obviously logic personified. So, I guess you could lick him. But I wouldn't recommend it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-26 11:10pm

I think I've got an explanation for all this: The Apologist is a hermaphrodite who is home-schooled. As such, he was raised by moron parents who told him that he was perfectly normal, so he's used his vaunted logic skills to conclude that all men must have labias, since he has one.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-27 07:25am

But Lord Wong is married - everything that is his wifes is his, therefore Wong does have a labia....

Ahh forget it. I'm defending a moron.

Greylock · Post by **Greylock** » 2002-12-27 12:36pm

OK I found nothing of substance to wright lately on this thread , the sixteen year old fucknut seems to completely lack the ability to back up his arguments of theories , clearly showing that he has no basis for anything that is coming out of his mouth. he just likes making up shit , or maybe these are things his mommy told him , and he believes they are true because his mommy would never lie to him , though I am curious if he still believes in Santa Clause for the exact same reasons.

Now you young little twerp the reson I stated the values A=A is because that was your argument form the beginning. Your entire argument has been based that if you say one thing enough it must be true , and clearly now when that is not acceptable you dodge backing it up and lash out at others to try and change the topic.

You seem like a small defenceless animal to me right now who feels he has been backed into a little corner and is lashing out at people around you. but in truth these words will not harm you , yup you can back away and simply not post again , thust avoiding something like this form continuing. You can hang your head in shame and continue to post here , knowing that we know what you are now. Or you could actually go back and answer what you were asked by four different people , to back up your argument with some form of evidence beyond what you have currently.

Mr Wongs education or frankly everyone eltes is not part of this debate , and I would find it laughable to state that he has errors in his logic , if you have not read his various webpages you sould they clearly depict a highly logical way of analysing topics , (as well as a good share of humor in some of it , I personally found some of it funny because it was so true , especially his rants)

and you clearly seem to think you know something about logic , well trying to prove any point without reference material to back yourself up , or any evidence to prove your own point is something which is the most illogical path to go about debating facts.

Hell I think you should get "dumbass of the year" Tag on your nick or "arrogant fundy" perhaps we should start a poll thread to vote for new tags for your nick here on Sdnet , its just a idea .

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-28 12:54am

Funny, I always thought that if you arrived to "X = X" in an equation, it didn't mean that X can be anything, only that it was impossible to figure out X from the equation.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-28 01:08am

Slartibartfast wrote:Funny, I always thought that if you arrived to "X = X" in an equation, it didn't mean that X can be anything, only that it was impossible to figure out X from the equation.

x = x is a general relationship. The variable x can be any number. You're not supposed to be able to "figure out" general relationships; you're supposed to plug numbers into them.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-12-29 11:20am

Durandal wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Funny, I always thought that if you arrived to "X = X" in an equation, it didn't mean that X can be anything, only that it was impossible to figure out X from the equation.
x = x is a general relationship. The variable x can be any number. You're not supposed to be able to "figure out" general relationships; you're supposed to plug numbers into them.

No no no, Damien. I may have missed the fireworks, but you're going at this the wrong way.

Around this Apologist fellow you can't use qualifiers like "supposed to". He'll just react like TOWNMNBS and Transcend: "WAAAH, you're trying to repress me! I will not submit to the tyranny of the majority!"

But words like "impossible" and "insane" usually seem to do the trick, and you did use those. However, the little dipshit doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of your arguments, lucid as they are. I fear tougher methods would be required to crack his shield of ignorance.

On the other hand, who would really bother?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-29 01:15pm

Good thing I was responding to Slartibartfast, rather than The Apologist, then.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-30 12:50am

I was talking about an equation that would apply to some real-life problem. If in the end you're stuck with X = X it means that you don't have enough data...

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-30 12:56am

Funny how the Apologist disappeared.

Thrashed.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-30 01:25am

The only reason he wasn't thrashed earlier was because he was taking potshots from the relative safety of his hiding spot. Once he finally admitted that he was an immature brat talking out of his ass, there wasn't much hope of winning any arguments.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » 2002-12-30 01:58am

When I first started to read this topic, I thought Apologist was actually someone intelligent playing a big joke for the simple fact tat no one could be that thick headed, stupid, and pig ignorant. As it became more clear he is just a dumbass high off his own greatness, I was stunned.

My oppinion of the world and the Human race in general has reached an all new low.