God, Heat, Cold and darkness?

It's not worth the time or effort to even try sifting through MJ's replies searching for an actual response behind all of the backward-ass logistically placed comments that aren't even relevant to the argument itself.

Yea. Two lines. Heaven forbid!!! You're going to get eaten by the long-winded-post monster D3V! Grow up.

You did basically the same thing, scroll up a few lines, calling the professor an idiot is the same presumption giving you have heard his side, and we've all heard your opinion on things on numerous occasions.

Incorrect. The professor is an idiot because he was not able to promulgate simple syllogisms to his students that would have entirely trashed a lot of what the second student was rambling on about. You, on the other hand, have a problem with the idea that I'm trying to convey. You've basically already made your mind up. That much is obvious when you're calling me ignorant based on something I haven't said. I can pinpoint exactly why the professor is an idiot. What he should have done that would have stripped him from his current title of idiot. And I wholeheartedly intend to friday or saturday. You, on the other hand, just have a problem with my ideology. You won't say why. You'll just say I'm ignorant, and decree by fiat that I'm wrong. Open your mind. Grow up.

I don't think you're getting my point, you are breaking this down too much, the simple fact that you are trying to turn this into an argument about an argument is idiocracy.

I'm simply pointing out the incessant hypocrisy in your statements.

The professor is an idiot because he was not able to promulgate simple syllogisms to his students that would have entirely trashed a lot of what the second student was rambling on about

I r likeing to oose big words.

Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

I r likeing to oose big words. Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

It is the quintessence of effective communication to articulate suitably succinct statements.

This thread is actually pretty entertaining.

I r likeing to oose big words. Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

That's basically my point, that and his origional point gets skewed beyond even giving a shit when he breaks down every possible aspect, of everything.

This isn't the first time either, it's basically every argument, it's basically resorting to making an essay, rather than a point.

That's basically my point, that and his origional point gets skewed beyond even giving a shit when he breaks down every possible aspect, of everything. This isn't the first time either, it's basically every argument, it's basically resorting to making an essay, rather than a point.

So you are arguing that your opponent's arguments are too effective to be considered valid arguments?

The workings of your mind are suddenly very clear.

It's an interesting read up until the end. Claiming that evil, darkness, etc, is just the absence of God? I don't think so. If anything, evil is the absence of good, darkness is the absence of light, but neither are the absence of God.

And everything we know is based on dualities. If we didn't know evil, how would we be able to know good? If we didn't know hot, we wouldn't know cold. That's pretty basic, and is partially the reason I don't believe that a christian "heaven" is possible.

I wouldn't want to live in a place where there's no evil of any sort, only good, because without having evil, you cannot enjoy good. Without war, we wouldn't enjoy peace so much.

A good example of "bad" really being partially "good" is with nazi death camp prisoners. The people who went through that and survived most likely see EVERYTHING as being good relative to what they went through. As much as it sucked, it's also quite a gift, because now they can go through anything, and enjoy even the simplest things that we take for granted. Imagine how good food looked to them after they went months on less than the body needs to survive. Imagine how great it felt for them to actually sleep in a bed, without having 5 other people crammed in with them and a shoe as a pillow.

I don't mean to make it seem like it's a GOOD thing that they went through what they did, but it does make everything else seem much, much better.

That's basically my point, that and his origional point gets skewed beyond even giving a shit when he breaks down every possible aspect, of everything. This isn't the first time either, it's basically every argument, it's basically resorting to making an essay, rather than a point.

So your point is my arguments are too precise to be taken seriously?

Edit: Nevermind, Grav beat me to it.

If you don't like them, quit being a puling bitch and don't read them. If my arguments are filled with so much damned awesomeness that you can't/won't rebuke them, ignore me. But for fucks sake, quit bitching.

So your point is my arguments are too precise to be taken seriously? Edit: Nevermind, Grav beat me to it. If you don't like them, quit being a puling bitch and don't read them. If my arguments are filled with so much damned awesomeness that you can't/won't rebuke them, ignore me. But for fucks sake, quit bitching.

You never fail to stop.

Still, you are arguing about ARGUING itself. And secondly, nobody ever has to believe anything you say, after claiming to be a young black kid, which we all know is false.

You never fail to stop. Still, you are arguing about ARGUING itself. And secondly, nobody ever has to believe anything you say, after claiming to be a young black kid, which we all know is false.

Yea....you're definitely not arguing about arguing...

You do realize that every one of my so-called "arguments about arguing" have been an on-topic reply to one of your posts? Hypocrite.

And that logic in the last sentence is infallible.

Evolution is real! Oop! He says he's black. Evolution is therefore false!

Your attempt to makes a relevant post, fail # 2,104

I r likeing to oose big words. Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

Well, the syllogism would be the basis to almost all the arguments I make regarding this thread. Perhaps I'll define it first, because it would be too damned tedious without it.