The way Deeje and I each argue bears some examination at this juncture. I argue the information, even when I brand her "liar." I do so in the context of evidence. She quote mine. She doesn't even deny it, useless as that would be. That is a form of lying, so, she is a liar. She'd like to pawn that off on me as, "Constantly calling people a liar betrays a lack of confidence on your part. If you have to put others down to elevate yourself, you know what that means......attack means you have no defense."
The fact that you needed to write this speaks volumes, Sapiens......are you afraid that people will see the value of my arguments and finally determine that evolution is an unsubstantiated fraud?
Are you assuming that all intelligent people must agree with what you believe? That is certainly the inference....but definitely not the case.
Please note that I do not constantly call people liars, I call those who have bald-faced lied right here, in front of "God and everyone," liars.
Maybe not in real life, but you seem to use the phrase a lot here....why does someone have to be lying just because they don't accept science's story? There are no real facts, just supposition...so why not just say so?
I note that she does not deny the appellation nor does she make any defense of her dishonest practices. But then she turns about and tries the snide ad hominem against me, claiming that I have a "lack of confidence," that I, "put others down to elevate myself," and that "attack means I have no defense."
Wow....you mean your ego is bruised? I thought it was too big for that.
I am just an uneducated nobody...remember?
Now, even if those accusations were true, none save the last have anything what-so-ever to do with the argument. They are logical fallacies. Wiki notes that: "ad hominen attacks, in some cases, can be non fallacious however: if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument, rather than known facts; pointing out that the person has previously lied is not fallacious." I point out that, to a degree, the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument.
Expressing a belief is not lying. Backing up beliefs with logical reasoning is not lying. Presenting pictorial evidence in support of those beliefs is not lying. Which is why your arguments often appear to be personal attacks. It does nothing for your position....it just makes you look like an arrogant jerk.....I know that you are not, but if frustration about the arguments leads you there, perhaps a different approach might be better?
Her argument that "attack means you have no defense" could be relevant, were it not so banal. Remember Clausewitz? Remember the Offensive Principal of War: "a good offense is the best defense." This view is mirrored by George Washington who wrote in 1799: "… offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only (in some cases) means of defense"; Mao Zedong who opined that "the only real defense is active defense"; and that this very principle is paralleled in the writings of Machiavellii,Sun Tzu, and many others.
The very fact that you have to appeal to such sources betrays the fact that you actually believe them. Isn't that called justification? Attack is not the best defense in an argument. Good reasoning ability trumps bullying tactics any day. Its what Jesus used. It goes into the mind but is processed by the heart....the heart is where motivation comes from. We humans are not just walking pieces of meat. We are so much more than that...the product of a much higher power, with vastly superior intellect.....you just haven't made his acquaintance yet.
