Page 6 of 6
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 1:08 pm
by xaoshaen
vonkaar wrote:xaoshaen wrote:Which is entirely irrelevant to Vonk's argument that I was refuting.
Are you fucking serious? That's some of the weakest shit CA has had since Leadaira's Christian reign of terror.
Lyion answered almost precisely as I would have.
How would it have made any difference coming from me? We are morally opposed to the death penalty - I listed some of the reasons why we feel this way.
So, essentially you're admitting that what you wrote was logically inconsistent and factually baseless? Because what Lyion wrote didn't challenge that assertation. You might as well have claimed that you were right because the sky was blue. When Lyion posted something pertinent to the point under discussion, I answered it.
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 1:17 pm
by Lyion
Show me one thing I wrote which is logically inconsistent.
Again, I was joining a PUBLIC thread where you were stating your opinion. I interjected mine.
If you wish to discourse solely with Vonk, feel free to PM him. If you wish to stay on a single tangent of tunnel visioned thoughts we'll gladly change your name to Finawin Jr.
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 1:23 pm
by Eziekial
Did we wake up on the wrong side of the mattress this morning, Dear?
Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 2:26 pm
by xaoshaen
lyion wrote:Show me one thing I wrote which is logically inconsistent.
Again, I was joining a PUBLIC thread where you were stating your opinion. I interjected mine.
If you wish to discourse solely with Vonk, feel free to PM him. If you wish to stay on a single tangent of tunnel visioned thoughts we'll gladly change your name to Finawin Jr.
xaoshaen wrote:Vonk says that the Death Penalty won't bring back victims and thus shouldn't be used. I point out that by that logic, imprisonment shouldn't be used, since it won't bring back victims either. Lyion jumps in with the corrective argument which is utterly tangential to the point at hand.
The problem isn't staying on a "single tangent of vision", it's that you tried to refute points with entirely irrelevant information. It's like I told Vonk: you might as well have used blueness of the sky as your refutation. Fascinating and all, but not applicable.