Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

I would disagree. And then I could go on a long rant on how your use of a quote was an appeal to authority fallacy. But imitating him would not be productive at all.

 

[night912]

Is pointing out that all he has is babble "ridicule"? Unfortunately one cannot properly engage with this person.

Yes.

So that would means that just about anything and everything qualifies as being ridicule, that includes pointing out and listing fallacies made by others. It also includes pointing out the fool.

 

[samtonga43]

I would disagree. And then I could go on a long rant on how your use of a quote was an appeal to authority fallacy. But imitating him would not be productive at all.

You really think that to tell someone that "All you have is babble" is not ridicule?

 

[samtonga43]

So that would means that just about anything and everything qualifies as being ridicule, that includes pointing out and listing fallacies made by others. It also includes pointing out the fool.

To describe a poster's posts as 'Babble' is to ridicule.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really think that to tell someone that "All you have is babble" is not ridicule?

No, it was factual. Do you seriously think that he doesn't?

If he actually made a point then you might have a valid point. But his shtick is to only makes false accusations of logical fallacies.

 

[samtonga43]

No, it was factual. Do you seriously think that he doesn't?
If he actually made a point then you might have a valid point. But his shtick is to only makes false accusations of logical fallacies.

Yes, I seriously think he doesn't babble. But wait; maybe our definitions of 'babble' are not the same. What do you mean by 'babble'?

I also don't believe that his accusations are false.

By the way, I can think of someone else here who spends quite a bit of time makes false accusations of logical fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I seriously think he doesn't babble. But wait; maybe our definitions of 'babble' are not the same. What do you mean by 'babble'?

I also don't believe that his accusations are false.

By the way, I can think of someone else here who spends quite a bit of time makes false accusations of logical fallacies.

Then it appears that you do not understand logical fallacies or how to apply them either. You should check out his posts. It is all that he does. He refuses to enter honest discussions where he supports his claims.

And you are quite mistaken if you think that I make such false accusations. Unlike him I can defend my claims. Or were you talking about yourself?

 

[Rise]

Unfortunately we are dealing with what appears to be a one trick pony. He shows all of the signs of losing debates using logical fallacies . constantly.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot prove your claim is true that I have supposedly lost any debate with reason or evidence.

By definition you have already lost the debate by being unable to meet both your burdens of proof an burdens of rejoinder for the debate.

Any claim to the opposite of that is therefore just you engaging in the psychological act of projection; Accusing others of being guilty of what you are doing.

He still uses them himself while accusing others of using them

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot produce any reason or evidence to prove your claim is supposedly true that I have committed any logical fallacy.

Your claim is not true just because you assert it is so

and refuses to enter into a polite discussion.

Logical fallacy, tone policing.

You are unable to refute my arguments on logical grounds, because your claims are not true, so you try to hide that fact by arguing over tone.

 

[Rise]

Is pointing out that all he has is babble "ridicule"?

Yes. That is the textbook definition of an ad hominem fallacy. Because you have offered no valid counter argument and only called my arguments names instead to distract from the fact that you don't have a rebuttal.

Unfortunately one cannot properly engage with this person.

Two fatal flaws with your response:

1. You are engaging in the psychological act of projection. Accusing others of what you are doing. Because you are the only one here who, by the very definition of how a debate is properly engaged, have failed to meet your burden of proof, or rejoinder and instead engaged in ad hominem fallacies to hide that fact.
You are the textbook definition of how to not properly engage in a debate.


2. Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. You cannot give any logical reasons or evidence to demonstrate your claim that I am not properly engaging in debate.

I have given ample reasons and evidence in previous posts for why you are not properly engaging in debate by failing to meet your burdens and unrepentantly using fallacies such as ad hominem.

 

[Rise]

I would disagree.

Your opinion is not relevant to determining what is true.

I have given you specific reasons and evidence for why you are committing ad hominem fallacies.

You don't dispute those reasons and evidence by just saying you disagree.

Those conclusions stand unrefuted by you.

You stand guilty of numerous ad hominem fallacies.

But imitating him would not be productive at all.

You would not be capable of doing so if you tried. If you understood enough about how fallacies work to properly call them out then you wouldn't be committing so many in the first place.

 

[Rise]

No, it was factual. Do you seriously think that he doesn't?

You neither know what a fact is nor how a fact is established.

You need logical reasons and evidence to establish something is a fact.

Without that all you are doing is giving your opinion.

And when you merely state your opinion as a fact, without reasons or evidence, you are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.

Something is not proven to be true, thus being a fact, just because you assert it is so.

Additionally, the fact that your opinion is nothing more than name calling done to distract from the fact that you don't have a valid counter argument makes you additionally guilty of a textbook fallacy of ad hominem.

If he actually made a point then you might have a valid point.

You can't claim someone hasn't made a valid point if you can't furnish a single logically valid reason or piece of evidence to show why they supposedly didn't.

This is basic logic you are having to be instructed on right now.

To claim someone has not made a point, without reasons or evidence to prove why it doesn't constitute a valid point, is to commit the fallacy of argument by assertion or argument by dismissal.

But his shtick is to only makes false accusations of logical fallacies.

You cannot accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy without giving valid logical reasons or evidence to prove your claim is true.

Otherwise you are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
Your claim is not established to be true, ie a fact, just because you assert it is so.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true.

If you are unwilling to prove your claim is true then your claim can be dismissed for the baseless opinion that it is.

 

[Rise]

Then it appears that you do not understand logical fallacies or how to apply them either

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You have not given any reason or evidence to prove your claim is true that he supposedly doesn't understand logical fallacies or how to apply them.

It is not true just because you assert it is.
Your claim is invalid and can be dismissed as just your opinion and not a fact.

You should check out his posts. It is all that he does.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You cannot give any valid reasons or evidence to prove your claim is supposedly true that I have committed any logical fallacies much less your claim that it's supposedly "all I do".

It is not true just because you assert it is.
Your claim is invalid and can be dismissed as just your opinion and not a fact.

He refuses to enter honest discussions where he supports his claims.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You cannot give any valid reasons or evidence to prove your claim is supposedly true that I have not been honest in any way, or your other claim that I have supposedly not supported any of my claims.

It is not true just because you assert it is.
Your claim is invalid and can be dismissed as just your opinion and not a fact.

And you are quite mistaken if you think that I make such false accusations.

I just identified above six individual claims you made in this one post. Two per quote.

You have not attempted to prove any of them are true.

All you've done is asserted they are true

But your opinion doesn't make them true.

I just pointed out Unlike him I can defend my claims.

I have already factually disproven your claim that you can defend your claims.

You just made six fallacies of assertion in a single post, as I demonstrated above.

I have also identified numerous points in this thread prior to this post where you failed to meet either your burden of proof or rejoinder - and you never were able to refute that.

Other examples of previous claims you made that you have failed to defend:
1. That the source for the lion story is supposedly not reliable.
2. That the lion story is supposedly probably not true.

Your inability to defend those two original claims you made is why you started spewing forth a never-ending stream of logical fallacies, as I have pointed out in previous posts.

You aren't humble enough to admit your original claims are refuted so you keep trying to commit fallacious arguments to distract from that.

 

[Rise]

Actually, that fallacy was not committed. The mistake you made regarding the initial claim, is the reason why you think it's fallacious. The initial truth claim is the story of the lion. The story is presented as being true, therefore, evidence demonstrating that it's true, is required. Pointing out that there is no evidence to support a claim, then saying that whatever that claimed, should not be accepted to be true, is not fallacious.

You failed to understand the nature of the evidence presented and what defines evidence.

An eyewitness account is an example of evidence.

The book is written by someone offering personal testimony of the lion they owned an it's behavior.

Therefore, it is false to claim no evidence is offered.

You may not like the evidence. You might not want to accept the evidence. You might not personally be convinced by the evidence - but none of that means that no evidence has been presented.

The idea of not accepting something as true due to lack of evidence, is logical. But even if it's logical, it has no bearing on whether a claim is true or false.

Since a logical reason was given, there is basis for saying that the story is BS, especially when there's no one single meaning to "BS."

The other poster committed the genetic fallacy by trying to argue against the evidence by attacking it's source as being Christian.

He did not offer valid arguments against the evidence's sufficiency, validity, or accuracy.

Doing that would require actually looking at the book and trying to find reason to believe their story is a fabrication before you could claim the source is not reliable.

If you aren't able or willing to do that then you don't get to logically claim the source is not reliable because you have no evidence that would lead us to believe it is not reliable.

Now, he did not simply express a personal lack of being convinced on the basis of not having read the book yet to judge it for himself. If that was all he did there wouldn't be an issue here.

Instead he tried to make a positive claim, a factual claim, that the book was not reliable. A claim he made without evidence or valid logical basis.

It was a fallacy claim based on the genetic fallacy.

No it doesn't. However, if it wasn't the reason for concluding that the story is not true, the genetic fallacy was committed.

As I just pointed out, his only basis for calling the eyewitness testimony (the book) evidence unreliable was to call its source "extreme Christian".
A genetic fallacy.

Whether or not a fallacy was committed regarding statements about the source, it's irrelevant. It doesn't effect the claim as being true or false, because the "source" of the information is not evidence for the claim.

Your statement is not relevant because you are operating from the false belief that no evidence was presented.
As I pointed out above, eyewitness testimony in the form of a published book constitutes evidence by definition.

It doesn't have to meet your personal standard of being "good enough" evidence to convince you in order to qualify as being evidence in the logical sense.

At the end, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Within the context of this discussion, the story is the initial claim, therefore, the burden of proof lies on the one who made the story and/or the one who proposed that the content of the story is true. And evidence is what determines whether the story is true or not.

Opinions, logical and illogical arguments, fallacies etc, does not. With that said, the fallacious arguments given by anyone, does not necessarily mean that the conclusion of the proposition is false. And logical arguments don't necessarily mean that the conclusion is true.

Your statement about how logical debate works is true but also irrelevant because it doesn't refute anything I argued. You have a misunderstanding of what happened, as I pointed out above.

The eyewitness testimony in the book meets the burden of proof for the claim in the sense that it provides reasons and evidences to justify the claim.

The burden of rejoinder is then on the person who wants to dispute the validity or truth of that evidence to offer valid counter arguments against it

@Subduction Zone did not offer a valid counter argument against the evidence.

He claimed it was unreliable without offering any valid reasons or evidence for why it should not be regarded as reliable.

He only offered the genetic fallacy of calling the source "extreme christian".

So that would means that just about anything and everything qualifies as being ridicule, that includes pointing out and listing fallacies made by others. It also includes pointing out the fool.

You demonstrate you don't know what the defining features of an ad hominem fallacy are.

If you logically demonstrate why someone's argument is false, and don't even offer any comments of ridicule with that, that that obvious isn't an appeal to ridicule - and I don't see why you would be so confused as to think it is.

But the mere presence of ridicule is not the defining feature of a fallacy of ridicule.

If you call someone's argument ridiculous and then go on to give valid logical reasons and evidence for why you think it qualifies as ridiculous, then you aren't committing the fallacy of appeal to ridicule by definition.

The appeal to ridicule fallacy is when you ignore the argument someone made and just offer ridicule as your only response.

If you offer valid rebuttals to someone's argument and refute it, and then go on to also call them names, you wouldn't technically be guilty of an ad hominem because you aren't using name calling to avoid dealing with the arguments in question.

If, however, you don't even attempt to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer valid counter arguments to someone's arguments, but then simply respond by calling them names, then you are guilty of a textbook ad hominem fallacy.

Given that subduction zone did not in most cases attempt at all to offer any type of counter arguments to my arguments, and the few he did were shown to be fallacious and went uncorrected by him, for him to them go on to refer to my arguments as "babbling" represents a textbook fallacy of a type of ad hominem. He is trying to call the argument names in order to dismiss it without either offering a valid counter argument or even substantiating with reason or evidence why his namecalling should even be regarded as accurate.

For him to not be committing a type of ad hominem fallacy here he would need to provide valid logical reasons and evidence to not only establish his claim is true that anything I have posted supposedly qualified as "babbling", but he would also need to furnish valid counter arguments to all the arguments I made against his claims so that he is not guilty of using his personal attack as a type of red herring or avoiding the issue fallacy.

Because even a personal attack, if proven to be a true attack, would still be a fallacy of red herring because it's not relevant to refuting the arguments you are responding to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You failed to understand the nature of the evidence presented and what defines evidence.

An eyewitness account is an example of evidence.

The book is written by someone offering personal testimony of the lion they owned an it's behavior.

Therefore, it is false to claim no evidence is offered.

You may not like the evidence. You might not want to accept the evidence. You might not personally be convinced by the evidence - but none of that means that no evidence has been presented.



The other poster committed the genetic fallacy by trying to argue against the evidence by attacking it's source as being Christian.

He did not offer valid arguments against the evidence's sufficiency, validity, or accuracy.

Doing that would require actually looking at the book and trying to find reason to believe their story is a fabrication before you could claim the source is not reliable.

If you aren't able or willing to do that then you don't get to logically claim the source is not reliable because you have no evidence that would lead us to believe it is not reliable.

Now, he did not simply express a personal lack of being convinced on the basis of not having read the book yet to judge it for himself. If that was all he did there wouldn't be an issue here.

Instead he tried to make a positive claim, a factual claim, that the book was not reliable. A claim he made without evidence or valid logical basis.

It was a fallacy claim based on the genetic fallacy.



As I just pointed out, his only basis for calling the eyewitness testimony (the book) evidence unreliable was to call its source "extreme Christian".
A genetic fallacy.




Your statement is not relevant because you are operating from the false belief that no evidence was presented.
As I pointed out above, eyewitness testimony in the form of a published book constitutes evidence by definition.

It doesn't have to meet your personal standard of being "good enough" evidence to convince you in order to qualify as being evidence in the logical sense.



Your statement about how logical debate works is true but also irrelevant because it doesn't refute anything I argued. You have a misunderstanding of what happened, as I pointed out above.

The eyewitness testimony in the book meets the burden of proof for the claim in the sense that it provides reasons and evidences to justify the claim.

The burden of rejoinder is then on the person who wants to dispute the validity or truth of that evidence to offer valid counter arguments against it

@Subduction Zone did not offer a valid counter argument against the evidence.

He claimed it was unreliable without offering any valid reasons or evidence for why it should not be regarded as reliable.

He only offered the genetic fallacy of calling the source extreme christian".




You demonstrate you don't know what the defining features of an ad hominem fallacy is.

If you offer valid rebuttals to someone's argument and refute it, and then go on to also call them names, you wouldn't technically be guilty of an ad hominem because you aren't using name calling to avoid dealing with the arguments in question.

If, however, you don't even attempt to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer valid counter arguments to someone's arguments, but then simply respond by calling them names, then you are guilty of a textbook ad hominem fallacy.

Given that subduction zone did not in most cases attempt to offer valid counter arguments to my arguments, and the few he did were shown to be fallacious and went uncorrected by him, his repeated name calling against me or my arguments represents a bald ad hominem that is using attacks in lieu of having a valid counter argument.

Did I claim "no evidence"? I don't think so. I pointed out that your source was poor.
You are now employing a false narrative. In other words you are using a strawman argument. You should check and see if that is on your list of logical as guments.

Now I may have claimed it is not scientific evidence. And it isn't. Scientific evidence is well defined. And it clearly did not meet those standards. There are many different types of " evidence " out in here. Even hearsay is still evidence. It is very poor evidence. It would not be allowed in a court of law, but it can be strong enough to start a criminal investigation. Christians tend to put a lot of stock into Eyewitness Testimony. But that is actually rather weak evidence. Of all of the classifications of evidence it is the weakest allowed in a court of law.

 

[Rise]

Did I claim "no evidence"? I don't think so.

...
You are now employing a false narrative. In other words you are using a strawman argument. You should check and see if that is on your list of logical as guments

I wasn't responding to you.
The poster I was responding to thought you were arguing that there was no evidence

He was wrong. You were trying to attack the evidence but you were doing so in a fallacious way.

As such, you are wrong to claim I was saying something false.

I pointed out that your source was poor.

And I pointed out that you offered no valid logical reasons or evidence to prove your claim that the source is supposedly poor.

The only thing you offered was the genetic fallacy of calling it an "extreme christian" source.

Now I may have claimed it is not scientific evidence. And it isn't. Scientific evidence is well defined. And it clearly did not meet those standards.

No, you did not try to originally claim that it does not meet the standards of scientific evidence and upon that basis you are claiming it is not sufficiently evidenced.

You tried to claim the source wasn't reliable because it's "extreme Christian".

You said:
"I had to look into that story. It appears to be pure BS. I could not find any reliable independent sources that confirmed it. Only rather extreme Christian sources."
Are there any reliable sources for that at all?

You committed a genetic fallacy.

You gave no reason for calling the sources unreliable.

Now you are trying to walk that back and make a new argument instead now that you realize why you failed to make a valid argument in the first place.

There are many different types of " evidence " out in here. Even hearsay is still evidence. It is very poor evidence.
It would not be allowed in a court of law, but it can be strong enough to start a criminal investigation.

Christians tend to put a lot of stock into Eyewitness Testimony.
But that is actually rather weak evidence. Of all of the classifications of evidence it is the weakest allowed in a court of law.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Talking about the difference between scientific evidence and eyewitness testimony does nothing to prove your original claim that the eyewitness testimony in that book is supposedly "unreliable" (ie. accusing it of being a lie).

You cannot claim as a fact that the testimony in that book is unreliable without some evidence that would give us reason to believe that is the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't responding to you.
The poster I was responding to thought you were arguing that there was no evidence

He was wrong. You were trying to attack the evidence but you were doing so in a fallacious way.

As such, you are wrong to claim I was saying something false.



And I pointed out that you offered no valid logical reasons or evidence to prove your claim that the source is supposedly poor.

The only thing you offered was the genetic fallacy of calling it an "extreme christian" source.



No, you did not try to originally claim that it does not meet the standards of scientific evidence and upon that basis you are claiming it is not sufficiently evidenced.

You tried to claim the source wasn't reliable because it's "extreme Christian".

You said:
"I had to look into that story. It appears to be pure BS. I could not find any reliable independent sources that confirmed it. Only rather extreme Christian sources."
Are there any reliable sources for that at all?

You committed a genetic fallacy.

You gave no reason for calling the sources unreliable.

Now you are trying to walk that back and make a new argument instead now that you realize why you failed to make a valid argument in the first place.



Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Talking about the difference between scientific evidence and eyewitness testimony does nothing to prove your original claim that the eyewitness testimony in that book is supposedly "unreliable" (ie. accusing it of being a lie).

You cannot claim as a fact that the testimony in that book is unreliable without some evidence that would give us reason to believe that is the case.

.Incorrect. Try again. Would you care to have an actual discussion? We are going to need some rules since you do not seem to be able to practice proper debate.

As to your unreliable evidence, that claim was made with evidence. You probably did not understand it. It is amazing how poorly you fail using your own poor standards of logical fallacies.

If you want an actual discussion tell me. Otherwise you only invite laughter at your own self contradictions.

 

[samtonga43]

.Incorrect. Try again. Would you care to have an actual discussion? We are going to need some rules since you do not seem to be able to practice proper debate.
As to your unreliable evidence, that claim was made with evidence. You probably did not understand it. It is amazing how poorly you fail using your own poor standards of logical fallacies.
If you want an actual discussion tell me. Otherwise you only invite laughter at your own self contradictions.

Laughter? The joke's on you, SZ.
LOL! So many false assumptions! It's amazing how poorly you fail using the same tired old shtick.

Tell me, do you keep this little speech close by so that you can have it to hand to trot out when you feel threatened?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Laughter? The joke's on you, SZ.
LOL! So many false assumptions! It's amazing how poorly you fail using the same tired old shtick.

Tell me, do you keep this little speech close by so that you can have it to hand to trot out when you feel threatened?

Please, you could not name one.

 

[Rise]

.Incorrect. Try again.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You have given no reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I said is supposedly incorrect.

It is not true just because you assert it is so.

Would you care to have an actual discussion? We are going to need some rules since you do not seem to be able to practice proper debate.

...

If you want an actual discussion tell me.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You have given no reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I have said or done is consistent with not wanting to have an "actual discussion" nor your claim that anything I have said or done is supposedly not in keeping with "proper debate".

I don't know how you define "actual discussion", but clearly it does not involve you meeting the required burden of proof for your claims nor the burden of rejoinder to provide a valid counter argument when your claims are refuted.

Which means by definition you have failed to engage in "proper debate".
Your behavior shows you are not interested in a legitimate debate based on valid logic and factual evidence

Therefore, if anyone here meets the definition of not wanting to have a real discussion it would be you.

As such, you are engaging in the psychological act of projection and gaslighting to accuse others of what you are actually doing.

As to your unreliable evidence,

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion, argument by repetition, failure to meet your burden of proof, and failure to meet your burden of rejoinder.

You have given no evidence or valid reasons why the evidence should be considered "unreliable".

And since I have already pointed out that you are guilty of that fallacy of assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof, your repetition makes you guilty of both the fallacy of repetition and the failure to meet your burden of rejoinder to provide a valid counter argument to my arguments which already refuted your repeated claim.

Given your unwillingness and inability to meet your burden of rejoinder, you have conceded the debate on the grounds of being unwilling to meet the requirements by which debate takes place.

that claim was made with evidence.

It is not clear from the context of your post what claim you are referring to. You would need to clarify what you are referring to before it could be responded to.

You probably did not understand it. It is amazing how poorly you fail using your own poor standards of logical fallacies.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You cannot give any valid logical reasons or evidence to prove your claims that I supposedly don't understand any particular thing in this thread or that I have supposedly failed in any way with regards to this thread.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

Otherwise you only invite laughter at your own self contradictions.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You cannot quote anything I have posted here and give any valid reasons why it would supposedly be in contradiction with anything.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You have given no reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I said is supposedly incorrect.

It is not true just because you assert it is so.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You have given no reasons or evidence for your claim that anything I have said or done is consistent with not wanting to have an "actual discussion" nor your claim that anything I have said or done is supposedly not in keeping with "proper debate".

I don't know how you define "actual discussion", but clearly it does not involve you meeting the required burden of proof for your claims nor the burden of rejoinder to provide a valid counter argument when your claims are refuted.

Which means by definition you have failed to engage in "proper debate".
Your behavior shows you are not interested in a legitimate debate based on valid logic and factual evidence

Therefore, if anyone here meets the definition of not wanting to have a real discussion it would be you.

As such, you are engaging in the psychological act of projection and gaslighting to accuse others of what you are actually doing.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion, argument by repetition, failure to meet your burden of proof, and failure to meet your burden of rejoinder.

You have given no evidence or valid reasons why the evidence should be considered "unreliable".

And since I have already pointed out that you are guilty of that fallacy of assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof, your repetition makes you guilty of both the fallacy of repetition and the failure to meet your burden of rejoinder to provide a valid counter argument to my arguments which already refuted your repeated claim.

Given your unwillingness and inability to meet your burden of rejoinder, you have conceded the debate on the grounds of being unwilling to meet the requirements by which debate takes place.



It is not clear from the context of your post what claim you are referring to. You would need to clarify what you are referring to before it could be responded to.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You cannot give any valid logical reasons or evidence to prove your claims that I supposedly don't understand any particular thing in this thread or that I have supposedly failed in any way with regards to this thread.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You cannot quote anything I have posted here and give any valid reasons why it would supposedly be in contradiction with anything.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

Still full of fail and not knowing when and how to apply logical fallacies.