19 Mar 10
1 edit
either state, honestly and openly what contribution we have made to the 'legacy of violence', or admit that in this instance we have no part with Christendom in this regard. Fess up, it wont be that hard, just a little, yes you are correct, you have fomented no violence and in this regard you are no part of Christendom, and no squirming like the last post, trying to make use of definitions and stuff, just fess up!
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is you not I that claims to have a legacy of violence. You cannot claim to "have no part with Christiandom" because you by your own definition are part of Christiandom.
either state, honestly and openly what contribution we have made to the 'legacy of violence', or admit that in this instance we have no part with Christendom in this regard.
If you would now like to change your definition to exclude yourself, then you are welcome to do so, but please restate the definition so that it is clear who you are excluding otherwise we will just have to have this conversation over and over for every Scotsman on the planet.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadan equation for you my mathematiical friend,
It is you not I that claims to have a legacy of violence. You cannot claim to "have no part with Christiandom" because you by your own definition are part of Christiandom.
If you would now like to change your definition to exclude yourself, then you are welcome to do so, but please restate the definition so that it is clear who you are excluding otherwise we will just have to have this conversation over and over for every Scotsman on the planet.
evidence = none, statement = fail
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry, but I don't understand you, even though you think you are talking in my language. Can you translate it into something more comprehensible? Or is being deliberately vague and talking nonsense the whole point of this thread?
an equation for you my mathematiical friend,
evidence = none, statement = fail
I guess we will forever be asking "Robbie's legacy of lying and talking nonsense, can he ever dismiss it?"
20 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou have produced no evidence that we have committed any acts of violence, your statements therefore that we have the same legacy of violence and are thus a part of Christendom, fails.
Sorry, but I don't understand you, even though you think you are talking in my language. Can you translate it into something more comprehensible? Or is being deliberately vague and talking nonsense the whole point of this thread?
I guess we will forever be asking "Robbie's legacy of lying and talking nonsense, can he ever dismiss it?"
If when you are doing a mathematical equation, if indeed you are a mathematician, which i highly doubt, you are given marks for showing your workings, how you came to the conclusion that you did, so even if your calculations are incorrect, the examiner can see your thought process. You have produced nothing, but mere opinion, if you have no evidence then i shall be pleased if you wasted my time no further with unsubstantiated allegations.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou want mathematical precision? That's why I wrote "No True Scotsman". That phrase alone provides the mathematical precision he needs.
you have produced no evidence that we have committed any acts of violence, your statements therefore that we have the same legacy of violence and are thus a part of Christendom, fails.
If when you are doing a mathematical equation, if indeed you are a mathematician, which i highly doubt, you are given marks for showing your workings, how you cam ...[text shortened]... dence then i shall be pleased if you wasted my time no further with unsubstantiated allegations.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is named such because of this example or something similar:
MacScotty: No Scotsman would refuse to eat haggis!
MacLogic: My friend Joe is a Scotsman, and he won't eat haggis...he's allergic to it...
MacScotty: Then Joe is not a true Scotsman!
The problem here is that "Scotsman" or "true Scotsman" is not defined. However MacScotty is willing to assert that certain people don't fit that definition. He uses the fact that he has not defined Scotsman to make his statement always true - by defining away anyone who would make it false as not being a "true" Scotsman. This is illogical.
In your case, "Christendom" is not defined, but you're willing to make claims about who is part of Christendom and who is not. Thus, the No True Scotsman fallacy, or in sillier but more specific terms, No True Christendom.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
20 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungan artist does not need to explain his work for one has recourse to artistic licence, if others such as whitey you or anyone else shall not provide their own definitions, then i am not going to be a vehicle for anyones lack of imagination.
You want mathematical precision? That's why I wrote "No True Scotsman". That phrase alone provides the mathematical precision he needs.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is named such because of this example or something similar:
MacScotty: No Scotsman would refuse to eat haggis!
MacLogic: My friend Joe is a Scotsman, and he won't eat haggis...he ue Christendom.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
Logical fallacy number two, an artist needs to provide definitions of his work -
In summary, artistic license is:
* Entirely at the artist's discretion
* Intended to be tolerated by the viewer 'willing suspension of disbelief'
* Useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps
* Used consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally or in tandem
wikipedia
🙂
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf when you are doing a mathematical equation, if indeed you are a mathematician, which i highly doubt, you are given marks for showing your workings, how you came to the conclusion that you did, so even if your calculations are incorrect, the examiner can see your thought process. You have produced nothing, but mere opinion, if you have no evidence then i shall be pleased if you wasted my time no further with unsubstantiated allegations.
you have produced no evidence that we have committed any acts of violence, your statements therefore that we have the same legacy of violence and are thus a part of Christendom, fails.
If when you are doing a mathematical equation, if indeed you are a mathematician, which i highly doubt, you are given marks for showing your workings, how you cam ...[text shortened]... dence then i shall be pleased if you wasted my time no further with unsubstantiated allegations.
an artist does not need to explain his work.
These statements don't seem consistent.
20 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungsorry i can assign artistic licence to anything and need explain nothing, convenient is it not? whitey is not an artist is he? he is a mathematician, i am the artist.
If when you are doing a mathematical equation, if indeed you are a mathematician, which i highly doubt, you are given marks for showing your workings, how you came to the conclusion that you did, so even if your calculations are incorrect, the examiner can see your thought process. You have produced nothing, but mere opinion, if you have no evidenc ...[text shortened]...
an artist does not need to explain his work.
These statements don't seem consistent.
21 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI never made any such assertion. Go through all my posts again and you will see that I have not once made any such claim.
you have produced no evidence that we have committed any acts of violence, your statements therefore that we have the same legacy of violence and are thus a part of Christendom, fails.
You yourself said you were part of Christiandom (by your definition of Christiandom and your claim to be a Scotsman).
You yourself said that Christiandom has a legacy of violence.
Therefore you yourself have essentially made the claim you are asking me to substantiate.
if indeed you are a mathematician, which i highly doubt,
I have a University degree in Mathematics. I have not pursued the subject further, and my career is as a computer programmer.
you are given marks for showing your workings, how you came to the conclusion that you did, so even if your calculations are incorrect, the examiner can see your thought process. You have produced nothing, but mere opinion, if you have no evidence then i shall be pleased if you wasted my time no further with unsubstantiated allegations.
I have not given any equations, not have I tried to solve any.
I have made some allegations, and most of them don't really need to be substantiated because they are obviously true as they are little more than pointing out what you have yourself posted in this thread.
The only allegation that is hard to substantiate is the one where I say you are lying, as I cannot easily show that you are aware that you are telling untruths - even though it is fairly obvious based on your behavior when confronted ie you refuse to address it and instead descend into obfuscation.
21 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadno evidence of violence means no part of Christendom legacy of violence.
I never made any such assertion. Go through all my posts again and you will see that I have not once made any such claim.
You yourself said you were part of Christiandom (by your definition of Christiandom and your claim to be a Scotsman).
You yourself said that Christiandom has a legacy of violence.
Therefore you yourself have essentially made the cla your behavior when confronted ie you refuse to address it and instead descend into obfuscation.
If you were a barrister in a court of law and you were asked to present your case before the magistrate as to why you believed that the co accused, lets designate him the letter A, was complicit in the crimes of the accused, lets designate him the letter B and you based your evidence on a definition of the accused (B) you would be laughed out of court. This is exactly what you have done here and it is to laugh!
21 Mar 10
Christ when dealing with the Centurion did not the condemn the man for his profession? He actually enjoyed the Centurion's faith
Matthew 8:5-
5 And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him,
6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."
7Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him."
8 But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9"For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."
10Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.
11"I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;
12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
13And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment.
I don't think Christ condoned warfare but He also did not condemn the Centurion.
Manny