I find it funny that you're trying to say that I don't understand something when in fact the thing are you claiming I don't understand was not something I even talked about.
I find it funny that not only do you not understand the begging the question/"no true Scotsman" fallacy, but you are apparently so clueless as to be oblivious to the fact that that fallacy was the subject of the comment you quoted when you incorrectly claimed "I find it funny that you say 'you're assuming that Charles' assessment of the ploy's prospects for success could only have mirrored your own' when that's actually quite true for your theory as well."
Reading comprehension, along with logic, do not appear to be among your strong suits...whatever those may be.
You say you made an assertion and then offered evidence in support of it, but the truth is that there was no evidence offered at all.
You might want to look up the word "evidence," because you demonstrably do not understand what it means. Evidence
was manifestly offered, both in my original post and in my response to chrishomingtang. One might personally find that evidence insufficient. One might interpret that evidence differently. But one cannot claim "there was no evidence offered at all" without exposing themselves as either a rank liar or an illiterate. Which are you?
As to the previous poster you mentioned, bear in mind that I did not say anything about his points or that I agreed with his logic; therefore, trying to invalidate my arguments by refuting his argument is both futile and illogical.
Once again, your inability to grasp elementary logic manifests itself. The other poster's argument was germane to my previous response to you because you claimed, incorrectly, that I employed the same flawed reasoning as he did. As such, illuminating the stark distinction between his argumentation and my own was both facile and, far from being "illogical," logically
essential in refuting your bogus claim.
reply
share