Welcome to Gaia! ::

I agree with you, Fushigi. And I think that that is what makes His sacrifice so much more meaningful and why it has the power it does.

I've already agreed with you that my original wording was misconstruing. I don't know what else you want from me. You know what I meant now, so why continue arguing it?

I reread what you said. I understand what your complaint was. But because it was a misunderstanding and because you now know what the proposition is I would suggest that we discontinue this point as it really has nowhere else to go.


You are right. That's why I included the disclaimer that you didn't read. I used the positive for simplicity's sake.


I am reading what you're writing. I understand what you're saying, though quite frankly at this point it seems like you have nothing about the argument to object to other than wording, which is culturally subjective.



A being who sins and does not sin is an oxymoron. Please show me why this is not true in the context of my argument.

The problem is you "agreed" but disagreed at the same time. From a post of yours, in which you say your original wording could be confusing.



Here you said the original wording could be confusing, but then used the exact same logical fallacy. Your "definition" says a perfect being is a being who does not sin. This is in the form of A -> B, not A = B. The difference is extremely simple. Take the statement, "A square is a rectangle." It uses the same form as you did. Now then, we can agree a square is a rectangle. However, a rectangle is not (necessarily) a square. Here are two statements. The first is true, the second is not.

A square is a rectangle (A -> B).
A rectangle is a square (B -> A).

In the same way, you have repeatedly stated your definition as, "A perfect being is a being who does not sin" (A -> B). You never stated as a definition, "A being who does not sin is a perfect being" (B -> A). Due to this, you defined "A being who does not sin" as a category of (In Venn diagram, a circle within) perfect being. This does not exclude the possibility of another category of perfect being existing. Another example of the fallacy will hopefully make it clearer:

Birds lay eggs (A -> B).
Animals that lay eggs are birds (A -> B).

The reason this issue continued was we never actually agreed to what you meant. You "agreed," but then repeated the logical fallacy. Clearly this is not an actual agreement. Hopefully the issue is (finally) clear. I see no other way to explain it to you, so if it is not clear we are stuck. In that case, there is no point in continuing.



That would be the most convoluted use of "oxymoron" I have heard in quite a while, but it would also be immaterial. The reason your use of "oxymoron" is invalid lies in your comment, "We can't logically have oxymorons." The phrase "jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron, and there is nothing wrong with it. We can logically have an oxymoron.

For the moment, I am going to not respond to you any further. As it happens, I saw the post you deleted and it offended me a little. Moreover, the attitude you showed in it gives me the strong impression your motives for participating in this discussion are far different than mine. Indeed, the accusation you made against me seems fairly accurate as a description of you.

This is not the case. For the entire first page of the topic you relied upon (and defended) the logical fallacy. You then stated:



Here you agreed "[Your] original wording was misconstruing." You "agreed" to this, but it was never the issue. You changed the issue, then "agreed" to the new one.

We have not agreed. You say your wording was unclear. I say it is logically unsound.



I feel I should point out there have been no ad hominem attacks in this discussion. However, I have no issue with stopping this "conversation." It has accomplished nothing, and I see no reason to believe it will accomplish anything.

Thank you. xp

'nough said.

1.) Not my definition, dictionary.reference.com is where it came from.

2.)They say essentially the same thing. Instead of answering the argument one attacks their opponant's character and then uses that as evidence that their opponant's argument is wrong.

2b.)While your definition is admittedly more thorough than the one I posted, you also pasted it in a single block, making it dificult to separate stages of the fallacy, also, you went for the most 'wordy' definition you could find. Longer does not mean better. The end part would have sufficed.

Please don't nitpick with me over this. It has nothing to do with the topic and only causes headaches all around.



I agree with your definition, I never said that an insult implied an ad hominem. I was trying to restrain pointless argument between you and Lethkhar, so I added in the first definition that could reasonably convey my point.



Nor to mine. I never said that there had been, only pointed out what I believed Lethkhar was referring to. Information all around, you see.



No, I didn't see the original post. The very fact that it was deleted so quickly should imply that the poster thought better of what he had said and rescinded it. I did see your response, however, and that seemed downright petty.

While not ad hominem, as was implied, it could be read that way from a shift in perspective. From certain points of view, you were using an unnecessary retort to undermine your opponent.

Guys, quit it. Get back on topic before I have to lock this thread too.