dartagnan wrote:The fact is JAK is spewing ignorance and singing a tune that most people on this forum don't mind hearing. Let's bash religion? Sure, sounds great to us. So they aren't inclined to research for themselves whether or not what he blabbers is true. On a forum dominated by religion-hating atheists, this is music to their ears. JAK is dangerous because he feeds that hatred with more ignorance. He helps create bigots like Schmo and others.
I see so that is where you are coming from. I appreciate you telling me. You are worried that people will be influenced by what he says and not be able to see through what you can see (according to you). So in essence JAK is a threat to your goals.
And that explains why I am practically the only person who has challenged his claims. He won't respond to me because he has no education on anything he is trying to bloviate on. He keeps reiterating his "thesis" which he stole from online bloggers, every few days in new threads, as if it hasn't been addressed already. The two of you act as a duo for the cause of disinformation. You did it last year when you tag teamed against Tarski and you're doing it again now. In both cases your credibility has been trampled on.
If someone stops responding to you and you want to engage them, ad hominems is not the way to go. Let's face it, I'm sure you are aware of this tactic in discussion and aware nothing will get accomplished if the other person is not intellectually honest and is only interested in fallacious argumentation.
Regarding the tag team...I beg to differ. It was not one person against 2. And JAK did not post fallaciously nor did I. On the other hand C.C. and I believe possibly Gad(though he might not have) resorted to ad hom in lieu of substance. What CC was essentially arguing is that by logic one can deduce a God's existence. I hate to break it to anyone but no ontological argument can create a God entity by mere assertion in words. I don't believe you understood the argument. I find it rather disingenous of you that you talk about it in other threads in another forum but you've said nothing there. It was a long thread and I wouldn't expect anyone to go through it let alone follow it. So again you indicate with this attack you are into game playing when the liklihood of anyone checking it out and following it is slim. Honest to goodness Im surprised at your lack of integrity lately. it's not that I've read many of your posts but i didn't think you resorted to this sort of game playing..it is a surprise to me.
And JAK doesn't entirely ignore me. He occassionally responds to tiny portions of my various refutations but he never addresses main arguments. So your lame cop out that he doesn't respond because he has too much integrity, won't hold water. He knows nothing of what he is talking about, which has been demonstrated on numerous threads. He'll disappear for a couple of days so he can figure out how to type up another response without any traces of plagiarism.
He rewords sentences so they cannot be searched on the web, but he has been caught once with that tactic already. He is just a typical amateur atheist who scrolls websites and borrows arguments and even steals lines from people, so he can impress gullible people like you into thinking he's "brilliant."
Let me tell you Kevin that if anyone were to post facts from an encyclopedia, the net or any other public source on a message board without citing I couldn't care less. Who gives a crap where the facts came from? Yes a teacher does from student who are given credit for their work, a journalist would who is getting paid to produce their own work. But Kevin posting on message boards is not about getting recognition and credit. So if publically available facts are put forward in a discussion..there is no credit to be had. What are all readers going to think ...wow that person is a walking encyclopedia..they know so many facts. Give me a break Kevin are you impressed with people who present facts on message boards? Is it important to you that they reword the facts in their own words? Now if it was creative material, not factual that's a different story. Someone who presents creative material as if their own is definitely commiting fraud..that is they are stealing ideas that someone else created and is not necessary meant for public consumption. And the owner of the ideas may want credit. You can't steal public facts kevin.
As far as JAK not responding to you, well I've noticed excessive ad hominems so that's how I would react and in fact that is how I've reacted and that was independent of JAK, though I appreciate you probably won't think so.
You've been taken for a ride. That's the real tragedy here.
I'm going to do what I can, with what limited time I'll have, to make sure others ear the counter argument to his claims. I'm practically the only one who is doing that, which is why you guys keep rehashing the same crap on different threads trying to avoid a head-on collision with someone who is actually interested in challenging your nonsense.
In other words what you intend to do is use fallacious argumentation, poison the well tactics in order to discredit JAK because you fear he is a threat and influencing others against your goals. Hmm...well you certainly can do that. That is how this board can be used. One person can go around harassing an individual, making sure they use every fallacious trick in the book to discredit and destroy opportunities for fruitful discussion. Over run their posts etc. Im sure it is not something JAK would ever think of doing. Someone with integrity wouldn't. But ya, I'm sure you can do it and in fact that is what you have been doing. I don't really care myself. I haven't invested much into this board. And from experience I've learned that it is not a good thing to ever invest too heavily in any message board. They are great if everyone plays fair and the goal is to discuss honestly. They are time consuming & aggravating if fallacious argumentation is the norm.
Now you're pissed because I'm simply letting people know JAK has been shown to be no more educated than coggins or chairty.
Get over it. Or don't.
No Im not pissed Kevin. I appreciate the limits of message boards. I appreciate the main value should be exchange of ideas, perhaps to learn, and that is the extent of interest and investment I have. Frankly I don't read much of the board, I don't post much. Most of the exchanges I'm not interested in.
by the way..you don't show JAK's education, JAK does. You can poison the well with repeated harassments, but that is an attempt to control what people think. You want them to form an opinion based on what you say. The evidence of JAK is not what you say it is what JAK says. The evidence of your disingenous intentions is what you reveal and say. And again that is why when you post ad homs to me I often don't reply.