Islam offends me!

[Lonely]

Does it offend you, too?

[Fatihah]

Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true.

This, Fatihah, is an Argument from Ignorance.
Do you not understand that it's a logical fallacy?

And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

There's a much, much easier explanation.

Response: It's not a logical fallacy when the proof presented to disprove something is clearly bogus and the person insist on standing by it, such as your belief of cake-eating sperm. For the only logical reasoning why you would insist on such foolish logic as proof which disproves mine is because you wish not to acknowledge that my proof is true. As such, your lack of proof is proof that my evidence is true. You just wish not to acknowledge it, which is why you've reduced yourself to believing in cake-eating sperm.

[ChaosBorders]

Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true.

This, Fatihah, is an Argument from Ignorance.
Do you not understand that it's a logical fallacy?

And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

There's a much, much easier explanation.

Response: It's not a logical fallacy when the proof presented to disprove something is clearly bogus and the person insist on standing by it, such as your belief of cake-eating sperm. For the only logical reasoning why you would insist on such foolish logic as proof which disproves mine is because you wish not to acknowledge that my proof is true. As such, your lack of proof is proof that my evidence is true. You just wish not to acknowledge it, which is why you've reduced yourself to believing in cake-eating sperm.

If it's bogus-ness is so clear, why don't you articulate why your so-called proof does not perfectly fit the definition of an argument from ignorance? Here's a hint: it requires you to show evidence your premises are actually true. Which you haven't done.

[Fatihah]

Response: And we once again see more of not only your redundance hypocrisy as well, as you claim that I 've made claims with no proof yet your response above is not presented with any oroof. When we add the simple fact that you can not quote any post of mine in which I've stated that I am right because you are wrong, we can clearly see another bogus strawman attempt. Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true. Not because you have no proof, (which you try desperately to assert that I've stated) but because the proof in which you claim to have is clearly foolish. And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

Just quoted a post of yours that did it. Last sentence. You do it again. Is your grasp of the English language just so poor you do not understand that you are doing it? I mean that would be legitimate reason for your apparent inability to stop making the same fallacy. I can sympathize with being unable to argue effectively in a language not my own.

Response: And as you have demonstrated, I claimed that the person's reasoning for claiming something illogical is proof that my argument is true, not that my argument is true because they are wrong. Two different statements. Thus the hilarity is on your part, as you tried to question my comprehension of english when your own example is proof that it is you who fails to comprehend simpld basic english.

[ChaosBorders]

Response: And we once again see more of not only your redundance hypocrisy as well, as you claim that I 've made claims with no proof yet your response above is not presented with any oroof. When we add the simple fact that you can not quote any post of mine in which I've stated that I am right because you are wrong, we can clearly see another bogus strawman attempt. Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true. Not because you have no proof, (which you try desperately to assert that I've stated) but because the proof in which you claim to have is clearly foolish. And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

Just quoted a post of yours that did it. Last sentence. You do it again. Is your grasp of the English language just so poor you do not understand that you are doing it? I mean that would be legitimate reason for your apparent inability to stop making the same fallacy. I can sympathize with being unable to argue effectively in a language not my own.

Response: And as you have demonstrated, I claimed that the person's reasoning for claiming something illogical is proof that my argument is true, not that my argument is true because they are wrong. Two different statements. Thus the hilarity is on your part, as you tried to question my comprehension of english when your own example is proof that it is you who fails to comprehend simpld basic english.

The implication is that if they claim something is illogical, they are wrong. If they were not wrong, then your argument is illogical. Since you do not believe your argument to be illogical, you are in essence stating that they are wrong. By then trying to use that as proof you are right, you are basically saying 'My argument is logical because it is logical' without ever showing that it is logical or showing that the assertions it is not are inaccurate.

Also, you failed to capitalize English and misspelled simple...in the same sentence as trying to denigrate my English skills. That is ironic.

[Fatihah]

Each post has a number attached, which you conviently leave out.

Yeah, I linked you straight to the post in question.
It is taken from Post 50.

When the text is blue, it means there is a clickable link there. Try clicking it.
Now that you know that, look at what I posted earlier:

The death penalty does in fact help bring an end to such an immoral act like homosexuality

The reason is obvious.

You didn't bother to learn how to use the forum?

And yes, I agree your argument is of ignorance

Oh, right.


Did you bother reading the links I gave you as to the logical fallacies you're committing?

as you believe in cake-eating sperm.

Ad hom.

There is no ad hominem when you clearly stated it and agreed to it as proven in post 271.

Where did I explicitly state "Sperm eat cake"?
Go on, I dare you to find an instance.

Response: Had you continued to read the post within it's context, you would have seen that I never intended to prove that the death penalty prevents homosexuality, nor do I plan to now, because as the post says, it is not a law in islam, which is the religion I wish to prove. As for where did you state your belief, you already know the answer, as you quoted it above when quoting my post.

[Fatihah]

Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true.

This, Fatihah, is an Argument from Ignorance.
Do you not understand that it's a logical fallacy?

And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

There's a much, much easier explanation.

Response: It's not a logical fallacy when the proof presented to disprove something is clearly bogus and the person insist on standing by it, such as your belief of cake-eating sperm. For the only logical reasoning why you would insist on such foolish logic as proof which disproves mine is because you wish not to acknowledge that my proof is true. As such, your lack of proof is proof that my evidence is true. You just wish not to acknowledge it, which is why you've reduced yourself to believing in cake-eating sperm.

If it's bogus-ness is so clear, why don't you articulate why your so-called proof does not perfectly fit the definition of an argument from ignorance? Here's a hint: it requires you to show evidence your premises are actually true. Which you haven't done.

Response: Yet I have demonstrated the fact that my argument is not an argument of ignorance. The proof? Here's a hint: The simple fact that you can't demonstrate that it is and all proof in which you present is proof is utterly foolish.

[ChaosBorders]

Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true.

This, Fatihah, is an Argument from Ignorance.
Do you not understand that it's a logical fallacy?

And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

There's a much, much easier explanation.

Response: It's not a logical fallacy when the proof presented to disprove something is clearly bogus and the person insist on standing by it, such as your belief of cake-eating sperm. For the only logical reasoning why you would insist on such foolish logic as proof which disproves mine is because you wish not to acknowledge that my proof is true. As such, your lack of proof is proof that my evidence is true. You just wish not to acknowledge it, which is why you've reduced yourself to believing in cake-eating sperm.

If it's bogus-ness is so clear, why don't you articulate why your so-called proof does not perfectly fit the definition of an argument from ignorance? Here's a hint: it requires you to show evidence your premises are actually true. Which you haven't done.

Response: Yet I have demonstrated the fact that my argument is not an argument of ignorance. The proof? Here's a hint: The simple fact that you can't demonstrate that it is and all proof in which you present is proof is utterly foolish.

Your 'proof' that you are not making an Argument from Ignorance IS an Argument from Ignorance. The irony is almost palpable...

[Fatihah]

Response: And we once again see more of not only your redundance hypocrisy as well, as you claim that I 've made claims with no proof yet your response above is not presented with any oroof. When we add the simple fact that you can not quote any post of mine in which I've stated that I am right because you are wrong, we can clearly see another bogus strawman attempt. Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true. Not because you have no proof, (which you try desperately to assert that I've stated) but because the proof in which you claim to have is clearly foolish. And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

Just quoted a post of yours that did it. Last sentence. You do it again. Is your grasp of the English language just so poor you do not understand that you are doing it? I mean that would be legitimate reason for your apparent inability to stop making the same fallacy. I can sympathize with being unable to argue effectively in a language not my own.

Response: And as you have demonstrated, I claimed that the person's reasoning for claiming something illogical is proof that my argument is true, not that my argument is true because they are wrong. Two different statements. Thus the hilarity is on your part, as you tried to question my comprehension of english when your own example is proof that it is you who fails to comprehend simpld basic english.

The implication is that if they claim something is illogical, they are wrong. If they were not wrong, then your argument is illogical. Since you do not believe your argument to be illogical, you are in essence stating that they are wrong. By then trying to use that as proof you are right, you are basically saying 'My argument is logical because it is logical' without ever showing that it is logical or showing that the assertions it is not are inaccurate.

Also, you failed to capitalize English and misspelled simple...in the same sentence as trying to denigrate my English skills. That is ironic.

Response: Yet the proof that my argument is logical has been presented. Your denial to the fact is not my doing. Also, you failed to prove that the word "english" is to be capitalized in a discussion in which you claim that I have no proof because I never presented it. How hypocritical.

[Fatihah]

Once again, your lack of proof is evidence to the fact that my arguments are true.

This, Fatihah, is an Argument from Ignorance.
Do you not understand that it's a logical fallacy?

And the only logical reasoning why someone insists on claiming that something illogical is proof of something is because that wish not to acknowledge that that something is true.

There's a much, much easier explanation.

Response: It's not a logical fallacy when the proof presented to disprove something is clearly bogus and the person insist on standing by it, such as your belief of cake-eating sperm. For the only logical reasoning why you would insist on such foolish logic as proof which disproves mine is because you wish not to acknowledge that my proof is true. As such, your lack of proof is proof that my evidence is true. You just wish not to acknowledge it, which is why you've reduced yourself to believing in cake-eating sperm.

If it's bogus-ness is so clear, why don't you articulate why your so-called proof does not perfectly fit the definition of an argument from ignorance? Here's a hint: it requires you to show evidence your premises are actually true. Which you haven't done.

Response: Yet I have demonstrated the fact that my argument is not an argument of ignorance. The proof? Here's a hint: The simple fact that you can't demonstrate that it is and all proof in which you present is proof is utterly foolish.

Your 'proof' that you are not making an Argument from Ignorance IS an Argument from Ignorance. The irony is almost palpable...

Response: To the contrary, your proof that I'm making an argument of ignorance is an argument of ignorance? The irony as expected...

[ChaosBorders]

Response: Yet the proof that my argument is logical has been presented. Your denial to the fact is not my doing. Also, you failed to prove that the word "english" is to be capitalized in a discussion in which you claim that I have no proof because I never presented it. How hypocritical.

English must be capitalized. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/English That is just basic grammar. I assume you have access to a dictionary, given that we are online and there are thousands of them.

And really? In what post did you 'prove' your argument is logical?