<p>
You might want to get your nose checked. Your accusation essentially stated that I used the wrong connotation of the term “agnostic”. If that was true, only I would be capable of understanding how I used the term. That being the case, all I needed to shut down your allegation would be to show that one other individual had comprehended how I used the term. Case in point: Oneguy21. I happen to have three other individual examples, but his post most extensively demonstrated how I used an alternative connotation of the word “agnostic”. I only mentioned Oneguy21 in my defense, the later observation that you were the only one who failed to understand my connotation was to demonstrate something else entirely.</p>
<p>The disappointing fact that you, and you alone, had failed to comprehend my intended usage of the term was not a counter to your accusation, rather it was simply to show you how oblivious you are. I even made a point to distinguish this observation from the previous counter-argument by beginning a second paragraph.</p>
<p>
It’s a natural assumption to make given how vehemently you’ve defended the idea of incompletely quoting someone.</p>
<p>Once again:
- If someone reads the statement literally, the addition of “doesn’t exist” alters the intent of the individual attempting to “prove” a deity’s existence or lack thereof.
- Without “doesn’t exist”, the entire statement is false. It is hypothetically possible to prove a deity exists through manifestation and some consider the debate over a god’s existence an entirely empirical question.
- Just quote the entire clause next time, it’ll cost you a half-a-second more. Unless you are physically incapable of dragging your mouse an additional centimeter to the right, the only two reasons you could have for not quoting my entire statement are laziness and/or deliberate distortion.</p>
<p>Pay particular attention to number 3 as it most clearly defines the stupidity of incompletely quoting another person’s assertions. If you are not yet aware of it, we are using computers that allow us to be more thorough in a shorter amount of time.</p>
<p>
Are you dense? If you bothered to refer to my argument addressing Oneguy21, you would have noticed it is meant to concurrently address your “defense” of the straw man attack allegation. You claimed that I had incorrectly applied the term agnostic. If that was true, then no one else would have been able to comprehend my usage of the term. That formed the basis of your current defense of the straw man attack allegation as you finally conceded the contents of post #7 contained an ad hominem or at least I’m assuming you are given that you failed to address it directly this time. You naively believe that if you don’t understand a word’s connotation (and pay close attention to that word as you seem unfamiliar with it), the word is being used incorrectly.</p>
<p>
Yes, actually you do. I’ll concede if you give me one legitimate reason why it makes sense to not correct typos. I hope you’re aware that “Annoying other people” is not a legitimate reason. </p>
<p>Nice use of “lol” by the way. You started this discussion sounding like a college-level individual but have now reverted to the AIM-speak of a 13-year-old or a 40-year-old man trying to stay contemporary.</p>
<p>
When did I use your grammatical errors or typos to defend myself from an accusation? Are you referring to:
- When you incompletely quoted me and attempted to use an incomplete thought to accuse me of misusing the term “agnostic”?
- When I pointed out you spelled “embarrassing” wrong to parody your profuse use of calling me an idiot?
As far as number 2 goes, which I believe you’re going to attack by saying parody is the same as a defense in this case, I even labeled it “For example” and had a preceding argument.</p>
<p>
I’m sorry, what do you mean? I believe your accusation was simply “you compared me to a stubborn religious person”. The purpose of the comic’s script remains the same, though the subject does not. I am not comparing you to a “stubborn religious person” so you’d be well advised to expunge yourself of such false notions. If you think you’re still being compared to a “stubborn religious person”, then you’re allowing your stereotypes of the religious infringe upon your ability to make a fair judgment. The person being described in the comic does not only apply to “believers”, you just happen to be obsessed with whacking the straw man.</p>
<p>
I’m quite capable of understanding sarcasm. The quote I was addressing was the accusation that I was comparing you to a “stubborn religious person”, an accusation devoid of sarcasm. Now you’re saying you were being sarcastic despite the fact that you clearly took the accusation seriously when you attempted to defend it in two subsequent posts.</p>
<p>A simple solution would be to not use sarcasm at all. You’re evading rational debate by focusing on personal attacks as the purpose of sarcasm is to insult another person’s intelligence. All you’ve accomplished are some failed attempts to make yourself look smarter (which is unfortunate because the actual content of the debate shows otherwise) while failing to make an actual argument. Sarcasm can be a useful tool, but when your entire argument is riddled with it, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? </p>
<p>
Luckily, I know that any assertion stating you’re doing even a remotely good job is sarcastic. That would be ridiculous.</p>