Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
It does not take the focus off the issue at hand. The issue is Stoneking. YOU argue for, I argue against. In doing that I point out the flaws of YOUR argument. That is not a red herring. A Red herring would be ignoring how I detailed LS's doctrine and you interject "But he does not teach magic hair"...over and over you have done that.,
That is why it is not a red herring. Im countering your arguments and pointing out the reasons why you are unreasonable.
See, you started off asking what this doctrine taught, what was it about LS.
And for a week or more, over the course of 2 to 3 threads and hundreds of pages now we HAVE over and over and over told YOU what it was LS taught that we disagree with.
And rather than deal with that you quibbled over the word magic and attempted to explain why LS would resort to the occult.
Then you would ask again what was it LS taught, what does HMH teach and we'd just think you are pulling our chains since we already told you
So what happened? You finally tell us what LS teaches and THAT is what WE have said dozens of times now to you. What YOU said LS teaches is FALSE DOCTRINE.
|
Your attempts to disqualify my arguments as logical fallacies, when they are not, are red herrings. You say "obfuscation", and "red herring", or "spin" speak of your intent to debate rather that engage in dialogue. Every logical fallacy you have accused me of, you are complicit in as well. I could argue
tu quoque, and we could go round and round and not get anywhere. This is not a formal debate, there are no scores. I'm not interested in debating this for the purpose of debate. I've made points that are worthy of consideration, and you have obfuscated by accusation of logical fallacy. Evidently you aren't capable of handling the reasoning I present, therefore this dialogue is meaningless...
Threaded Mode
