Religion

Major Nikon

(36,904 posts)

65. When one definition doesn't work for you, there's always others you can try to twist in your favor

Fri Mar 29, 2019, 12:32 PM

Mar 2019

Each time adding another knot to the pretzel logic employed. The idea being nobody is smart enough to realize the tactic of obfuscation is being employed. Even if they do they will never be smart enough to overcome the gaslighting.

The best part is after employing all of the cheap rhetorical tools in his bag of fallacy he wants to lecture others on the proper way to debate subjects.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Whataboutism in the discussion of religion [View all] guillaumeb Mar 2019 OP

But whatabout the Chinese government? n/t trotsky Mar 2019 #1

This is your third attempt in the past several months to try and make yourself immune to the charge. trotsky Mar 2019 #2

You demonstrate what I am saying. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #4

Don't forget... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #12

LMFAO trotsky Mar 2019 #21

... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #31

And then you go ahead and use whataboutism anyhow. MineralMan Mar 2019 #3

Make your point using the definition. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #5

You mean the definition that you altered? trotsky Mar 2019 #6

A false claim. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #7

No, you have added the word "intent." trotsky Mar 2019 #19

You are still lincorrect. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #23

You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #26

Also conveniently ignored all the examples which matched his behavior Major Nikon Mar 2019 #32

They didn't intend for the bridge to break, so everything is fine. marylandblue Mar 2019 #37

At least g-man is the one person here who understands Major Nikon Mar 2019 #48

Not reading the link? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #39

No, it's not. trotsky Mar 2019 #50

Rebuttal guillaumeb Mar 2019 #57

Quoting the same out-of-context block isn't a rebuttal, g. trotsky Mar 2019 #61

Ignoring the obvious is not refuting the facts. eom guillaumeb Mar 2019 #68

What did I ignore? trotsky Apr 2019 #71

Interesting accusation, and easily refuted. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #8

Where is the word "intent"? trotsky Mar 2019 #20

What does "in order to distract" mean? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #24

You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #27

Convenient how that works, eh? Major Nikon Mar 2019 #49

What about when Catholics accuse Protestants of blasphemy? marylandblue Mar 2019 #38

Exactly. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #40

Theists do that all the time. marylandblue Mar 2019 #41

Where is the word "intent"? trotsky Mar 2019 #51

Yeah, whatabout that intent and repetition? Major Nikon Mar 2019 #54

Isn't it nice he just outright admits his agenda? trotsky Mar 2019 #60

At least there's loads of entertainment value Major Nikon Mar 2019 #63

There's some entertainment value Mariana Mar 2019 #66

Queue the GIF!... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #9

So you too misunderstand the term? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #11

Not in the least... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #14

So what do you say about the definition, and the link? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #15

It explains your mode of discourse perfectly... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #16

Your response explains the need for my post. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #18

Your OP should be preserved and pinned as a Public Service Announcement... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #22

Yes it should, but that would require that you and others guillaumeb Mar 2019 #25

What is your intent, when you use this mode of fallacy? NeoGreen Mar 2019 #28

Perhaps this will help. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #42

Done. marylandblue Mar 2019 #36

Fantastic sentence on that page: trotsky Mar 2019 #52

When one definition doesn't work for you, there's always others you can try to twist in your favor Major Nikon Mar 2019 #65

Literally... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #17

You are missing the essential point: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #44

So what did you *intend* to do in this thread by bringing up China? trotsky Mar 2019 #29

He already explained that. He is showing that intolerance is universal. marylandblue Mar 2019 #35

I'm not bound by your definition, Monsieur B. MineralMan Mar 2019 #10

So you will make up your own definition? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #13

Why not? You get to. trotsky Mar 2019 #30

tu quoque in evidence. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #58

I'm asking why you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #62

No, I will synthesize a definition, based on multiple sources MineralMan Mar 2019 #53

Whataboutism guillaumeb Mar 2019 #59

Yes, but why keep posting that so often? MineralMan Mar 2019 #64

Because a few here apparently do not understand that. eom guillaumeb Mar 2019 #69

... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #33

Logical fallacies are never dependent on the ability to mind read. marylandblue Mar 2019 #34

This might help: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #43

This might help. marylandblue Mar 2019 #45

Diversion. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #46

"We can infer intent even if it is not explicitly stated" marylandblue Mar 2019 #47

There's no need to infer what has been explicitly stated Major Nikon Mar 2019 #55

Misunderstanding 101 guillaumeb Mar 2019 #56

Yes, and you expressed your intent as proven by the referenced post of yours. trotsky Mar 2019 #67

I understand that you truly believe that. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #70

I believe that because it's your own words. trotsky Apr 2019 #72