Religion

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)

25. Yes it should, but that would require that you and others

Reply to NeoGreen (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 28, 2019, 01:17 PM

Mar 2019

acknowledge your mistake.

Intent is critical.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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