> >Yes, I know like produces like. However, sometimes emotional arguments can
> >make points that rational ones can't, such as people tend to follow what
> Dawkins
> >says without really stopping to think about the meaning of what he's saying.
>
> I would like to strongly discourage this type of argument. Even if your
> misguided attempt to get people to question Dawkins assertions via
> argumentum ad hominem
> (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem)
> was partially successful, that doesn't change the fact that it was literally
> a bad argument.
Yea, right. You're just mad 'cause you got sucked in, Mr.
"Memetic Engineer". :-p
Don't try to pretend your upset just because of my personal
attack on Dawkins. I called Tad a "dumb-ass" on a posting you
responded to and you didn't raise a peep of an objection. Had
we gone the "logical discourse" route, your personal predjudice
would have colored your thinking just like it did when you were
upset. The only difference would be that this predjudice would
be hidden behind a mask of rationality, instead of out in the
open for all to see.
BTW, Tad is _not_ a dumb-ass.
> >Much of the effect of using a Dawkins quote comes from the power of his
> >personality, not from the rationality of his words.
>
> Much of the effect of using a Dawkins quote comes from his status as
> an expert in the field of evolutionary biology (and there is nothing
> wrong with that).
An expert who's arguments are self-contradicting and who's
description of evolution is sadly out of date. On the other
hand, he does have nice hair.
> >I think that point has been made on this thread and it's much more useful to
> >realize this point than to argue about this or that aspect of some theory.
> >I think this point was made _because_ I attacked Dawkins the way I did.
> >(So I guess I don't really "regret" it after all.)
> I regret getting sucked into that waste of time and effort (and believe
> me it did take a lot of time and effort). If your goal was to lose a great
> deal of credibility on this list you have succeeded admirably.
Darn. Does this mean you won't loan me money?
I've lost no respect for you David, despite the fact that
your arguments were illogical, unconvincing and off-topic.
I especially liked when, upon finding out that your
encyclopedia reference actually worked against you, you said
that the reference carried no weight. How many times in a
debate does one's opponent admit his arguments carry no
weight! Thanks for the laugh.
I wouldn't worry about it too much though. It's all part
of being caught up in a desperate, hopeless attempt to
defend a personal idol. I still think you're a smart guy.
> Yes I'm bitter, does it show? ... :-)
Not in the least. ;->
What shows is that, even though I let you have the last
word, you still want to debate.
-- David Leeper dleeper@gte.net Homo Deus http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/index.htm 1 + 1 != 2 http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/CMath.html