Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
How is him asking you to back up and source your claims "deflection"? You have turned to derision and ridicule instead of debating, and when asked for clarification of your position you dub the one who asks a "megalomaniac". Anyone who posts here regularly know that OrP is nothing but a gentleman in pretty much any debate.
I don't have a doctorate in philosophy like OrP, but I'm versed enough to know he has not been unreasonable in this thread. You are not doing your position any favors.
The answer to your question has been posted numerous times over, but I'll do you the courtesy of repeating it once again: I never claimed what he is stating that I claimed, therefore what would be the point of "backing up and sourcing" such nonexistent claims? Even Original_Position understood that I never claimed that Aquinas characterized God as being beyond logic. That is why it is a
deflection: because it has nothing to do with what I was arguing. Do you understand?
No, I have not turned to derision and ridicule in the slightest: I am pointing out that my opponent has made a straw man argument. That is not something I'm going to let slip by because it is a serious violation of argumentative integrity. Instead of actually reading the conversation, you automatically regurgitated Original_Position's straw man and assumed that it was a claim that I had made. Fail. Please show me where I claimed that Aquinas defended a characterization of God as being beyond logic.
Show me. I'll wait.
In the meantime, allow me to summarize my actual position, which Original_Position has indeed
deflected from: most simplistically, the point is that because the fundamental principles of logic lack philosophical absoluteness, it is foolhardy to hold them as absolutely inviolate. Simple, right? I find this to be an incredibly straightforward concept. Explain to me where discussion of this idea requires posting "sources" about what Aquinas thought?
Please explain that to me, given that my argument does not involve Aquinas in the slightest. And then you have the gall to accuse me of "derision and ridicule"? Lovely.
I've identified Original_Position as a megalomaniac because that is exactly what he has presented himself as: instead of admitting that he has no substantive retort to my polemic, he turns to straw men and misdirection, asking me to provide sources for something I never claimed. I'm beginning to think you're a sock puppet account because your post here is borderline nonsensical: it's been made clear that, both by myself and Original_Position, that I never claimed anything about Aquinas characterizing God as being beyond logic, and now you come in with this post, out of the blue, arguing the
same damn thing that has already been settled- did you just wake up or something, dude?
Original_Position used Aquinas' hefty scholarly authority (i.e., appeal to authority fallacy) to
deflect from addressing the substance of what I was actually arguing, along with posting various snarky and passive aggressive quips to save face from his failure to address it. That is why I came down on him hard, and that is why I believe he is a megalomaniac. I am judging him based on my conversation with him here, not on what he has posted before, therefore your statement that everyone who knows Original_Position knows him to be a "gentlemen" does not comport with the evidence at hand: this individual had his argument
dissected, and then chose to
deflect with straw men, appeal to authority fallacies, and veiled ad hominem. And you're defending him? Nice.
Lastly, you make the bare assertion that Original_Position is not being "unreasonable" in this thread. So deflecting from the actual debate by appeal to authority fallacies and falsely implying that his interlocutor made claims which were never made, not to mention posting snarky passive aggressiveness, and refusing to continue the substantive discussion, is "reasonable" to you? Really? I guess I threw a monkey wrench in the whole operation here and am being painted by the OP as a persona non grata. This is how you respond, when the evidence clearly shows that I never made any kind of claim that Original_Position is stating I made, and that he still refuses to address the substantive argument? Beautiful.
Word of advice: when you're on autopilot, try not to post such silly boilerplate crap simply because you're more familiar and congenial with one of the debaters involved in the contest than the other. I don't throw around the word "megalomaniac" just for kicks and giggles: Original_Position has
deflected over and over again, attempting to save face after realizing that a fundamental component of his worldview has been violated and he has no valid response..aaaand you're defending him. Ok then.