Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Other Regions
Christian life in Denmark (and Scandinavia)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="philadelphos" data-source="post: 76949067" data-attributes="member: 420433"><p>"I try to avoid arguments" yet hypocritically lays down a contentious argument...</p><p></p><p><em>Reductio ad absurdum</em> is an argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an <strong>absurdity from its denial</strong>, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. Which is also a classic argumentation fallacy because it merely <em>assumes </em>that an argument is absurd, and that it can be dismissed without analysis or providing a counter-argument.</p><p></p><p>i.e. "<strong>I read Rashi's commentary (on Isaiah) this evening </strong>so Christians can be (completely) refuted over their claim(s)." IOW, it's saying Rashi is the supreme authority, which is an error and hypocrisy. I've read some of Rashi and Rambam and others, and I'm pretty sure neither wrote Tanakh.</p><p></p><p>To clarify, no argument was even made on my behalf. I said, "Kindly, I'll present here <strong>some quotes</strong> and perhaps you can tell me your interpretation, who you think these quotes refer to, and where they were written?" -- All open questions. No argument.</p><p></p><p>Did you not read those? Quote 1-7.</p><p></p><p>There are only 7 quotes. Not much. I have them in Hebrew WLC if you wish. I suggest reading those before shooting from the hip. And it's <em>sukkot</em>, there's time.</p><p></p><p><em>Shalom! Chag Sameach!</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="philadelphos, post: 76949067, member: 420433"] "I try to avoid arguments" yet hypocritically lays down a contentious argument... [I]Reductio ad absurdum[/I] is an argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an [B]absurdity from its denial[/B], thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. Which is also a classic argumentation fallacy because it merely [I]assumes [/I]that an argument is absurd, and that it can be dismissed without analysis or providing a counter-argument. i.e. "[B]I read Rashi's commentary (on Isaiah) this evening [/B]so Christians can be (completely) refuted over their claim(s)." IOW, it's saying Rashi is the supreme authority, which is an error and hypocrisy. I've read some of Rashi and Rambam and others, and I'm pretty sure neither wrote Tanakh. To clarify, no argument was even made on my behalf. I said, "Kindly, I'll present here [B]some quotes[/B] and perhaps you can tell me your interpretation, who you think these quotes refer to, and where they were written?" -- All open questions. No argument. Did you not read those? Quote 1-7. There are only 7 quotes. Not much. I have them in Hebrew WLC if you wish. I suggest reading those before shooting from the hip. And it's [I]sukkot[/I], there's time. [I]Shalom! Chag Sameach![/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Other Regions
Christian life in Denmark (and Scandinavia)
Top
Bottom