Good people and bad people


Marlin1
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is the antecedent of "he"? Satan? I disagree. He most certainly was evil.

The antecedent of "he" is the "someone" that you were referring to in your example. I am not referring to Satan.

I don't think you understand what the phrase means.

Your premise - Satan believed that he was justified in seeking God's glory. Your conclusion - He became Perdition. Non sequitur, affirming the consequent to be specific.

I do believe that Satan understood that he was not justified.

Changing your premise from one statement to the next makes me question your logic.

Edited by Marlin1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you like the phrase non sequitur as much as we like the words moot and rash. Rash statement and moot point, I know.

In your example, he was never evil to begin with, nor did his being change through his evil actions.

Satan believed that he was justified in rebelling against God? Who is non sequitur now? He rebelled against justice himself, thus becoming the devil. He knew that he was not justified in God, he simply thought that he could win. Terrorists on the other hand do believe that they are justified in God.

It's precisely the point.

Your argument: If terrorists didn't believe they were justified by god then peace would ensue.

BUT

Many, if not most, terrorists DON'T believe that there're justified by god. Just like you propose would bring about peace. Peace has not ensued.

Because one CAN'T make a narrow to broad argument. Or, one can. It's just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's precisely the point.

Your argument: If terrorists didn't believe they were justified by god then peace would ensue.

BUT

Many, if not most, terrorists DON'T believe that there're justified by god. Just like you propose would bring about peace. Peace has not ensued.

Because one CAN'T make a narrow to broad argument. Or, one can. It's just wrong.

I thought you were done?

I never made that argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were done?

I never made that argument.

LOL. No. Just done believing that you might just not realize you were arguing that all rectangles are squares, because all squares are rectangles. I thought you might honestly not GET that you can't argue faulty logic / reverse logic. I had thought you were so wrapped up in your own stuff that you might just not be able to hear &/or were afraid that if the reverse logic wasn't true, that it invalidated your personal truths, or that you might be suffering.

Since that's NOT the case, and you're just being deliberately obtuse, I don't have to care that you might be actually be trying, or even more compassionately might be trying despite a neurological condition. I was rooting for an "Aha!" moment.

Now I can just say you're wrong, when you're wrong ... without worrying that you might have good intentions.

I think you like the phrase non sequitur as much as we like the words moot and rash. Rash statement and moot point, I know.

In your example, he was never evil to begin with, nor did his being change through his evil actions.

Satan believed that he was justified in rebelling against God? Who is non sequitur now? He rebelled against justice himself, thus becoming the devil. He knew that he was not justified in God, he simply thought that he could win. Terrorists on the other hand do believe that they are justified in God.

Imagine, however, if terrorist never viewed us as evil beings, and instead viewed us as lost or deceived. Perhaps the word terrorist would have never existed. Instead of sending bombs, perhaps diplomats or missionaries.

Terrorists are deceived, they are not evil. They do not believe that they are fighting Satan's battle. They believe that they are on the Lord's side. They are fighting for their God, that is what makes them so dangerous. Truly evil beings (sons of perdition) are not deceived , they know what they have denied. Truly evil beings are not fighting agains a perceived evil as terrorists are, they are fighting against good. .

Whole premise of the argument hinges on beliefs most terrorist groups do not espouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The antecedent of "he" is the "someone" that you were referring to in your example. I am not referring to Satan.

I see.

Your premise - Satan believed that he was justified in seeking God's glory. Your conclusion - He became Perdition.

You have badly misunderstood my argument. The above logic appears exactly nowhere in anything I wrote.

Non sequitur, affirming the consequent to be specific.

It appears you don't know what "affirming the consequent" means.

Changing your premise from one statement to the next makes me question your logic.

You question my logic because you have utterly misapprehended it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. No. Just done believing that you might just not realize you were arguing that all rectangles are squares, because all squares are rectangles. I thought you might honestly not GET that you can't argue faulty logic / reverse logic. I had thought you were so wrapped up in your own stuff that you might just not be able to hear &/or were afraid that if the reverse logic wasn't true, that it invalidated your personal truths, or that you might be suffering.

Since that's NOT the case, and you're just being deliberately obtuse, I don't have to care that you might be actually be trying, or even more compassionately might be trying despite a neurological condition. I was rooting for an "Aha!" moment.

Now I can just say you're wrong, when you're wrong ... without worrying that you might have good intentions.

Whole premise of the argument hinges on beliefs most terrorist groups do not espouse.

I have already agreed that I was oversimplifying terrorism.

I never made the following argument that you accused me of: "If terrorists didn't believe they were justified by god then peace would ensue." Re-read what I wrote, it's not there anywhere. You are putting words in my mouth. I am not calling rectangles squares, you are seeing square rectangles.

You like the word obtuse about as much as we like rash, moot, and non sequitur. That's quite the collection of favorite words.

If you really think that I have a neurological condition - who has the bigger problem, the guy with the neurological condition or the guy formally debating with a guy with a neurological condition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You question my logic because you have utterly misapprehended it.

If I misapprehend your logic it is only because you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You completely changed your stance to suit whatever point you were trying to make at the time. That my friend is illogical.

I can grab the direct quotes if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I misapprehend your logic it is only because you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Now, Marlin, calm down. You are calling me a liar, which is not polite (or true).

You completely changed your stance to suit whatever point you were trying to make at the time. That my friend is illogical.

No, it is lying. Which I did not do.

I can grab the direct quotes if you want.

Feel free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SquidMom

You guys are giving me the giggles. Quit it.

What is "quatsch"?

I like "squibitts", which is the sound of somehing kinda sticky being shoved across linoleum.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is "quatsch"?

It's a German word. My highschool German teacher said it a lot. I believe it means "nonsense," but i spent quite a while under the impression that it meant "cheese." Shows you how good i was at German. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share