happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
| happydolphin said:
We beat a dead horse last time and I was right. We can try beating it again.
I said "a premise", not "the premise".
|
Utter nonsense. You said his premise was faulty, he didn't have more than one. You won what? Odd comment.
|
When did I say I won? Reading problems today?
I said that I was correct in beating a dead horse with you in the "Why I hate debating religion" thread, nothing odd here. You and others were saying it was useless, and you were wrong.
As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. He had his, and he was missing another.
Horse = almost beat.
|
"I won" "I was correct" is the exact same thing.
I was saying what is useless? I think you are delusional.
It is nonsense. His premise was not faulty, and you misrepresented it to make it appear faulty. He need another logical substantiation in order to draw his conclusion, not another premise. lmfao.
Dunning-Kruger effect at work again.
|
I didn't say his premise was faulty, I said his logic was based on a missing premise. Reading is good for you.
As for being delusional, I don't think it's nice to call others that. 1 Ad hominem for you ;)
Anyways, here was your initial response to my criticism of your claim that observation precludes existence:
***OFF TOPIC STUFF***
|
Can't recall your previous statement? Here, I'll show you:
As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise.
The premise wasn't missing anything. You don't seem to understand logic at all.
Premise
Substsantiating claims
Deductions
Conclusion
You don't make multiple premises.
As to the off topic item, I proved that you were incorrect as per my definition of existence. Clearly, you have selective memory.
