>>17623095
>I might give you an outline of my view if you admit that you were wrong about the fallacy of equivocation.
But I wasn't wrong, it's clear you don't know how to avoid fallacies in your reasoning because you can't identify them since you didn't even know what equivocation was until you googled it like 10 seconds ago. I was correct from the outset. Nothing I've said is wrong. Even what you googled confirmed that I am indeed correct.
>I literally quoted the original point that you backpedaled from, pseud
I don't see how that quote is entirely relevant to what we were just discussing. My point is that you don't get to make up new meanings for words. Which is what you attempted to do, hence the motte and bailey i.e. your equivocation. It's funny because you're the one who backpedaled. You didn't even have a problem when I pointed out the fallacy at first, you just misunderstood what I was saying when I attempted to make a witty remark about getting educated. Only later did you try to launch some sort of attack against my objection to you because you knew you were losing.

Friend, all you need to do is admit that you're a pseud and you don't understand how to reason. It's that simple. You were wrong and I am correct.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

I don't believe in god because I don't believe in magic.