Sword: Plain sophistry!

Submitted by Moshe (Israel), Feb 7, 2007 at 09:48

Look Sword, I have the impression that you are a reasonably intelligent person. Therefore I assume that by now you must be aware not less than I am of how ridiculously absurd your bombastic statements are. Also your desperate efforts to stick to your nonsense and to prove its correctness in spite of all, only attest that establishing the truth is not really on your agenda. Spreading of your lies and twisted logic is apparently your main (perhaps only) objective. Having established all this, I wouldn't waste any more energy and time on answering your baseless and untenable arguments.

Nevertheless, your unabashed sophistry, which you are using so slyly and deliberately, may confuse and mislead some innocent, unsuspecting readers. Only for their sake I will go again through your deceptive argumentation and shed light on its falsity. And there is of course the fun and satisfaction from exposing a common scoundrel for what he is. So let's go for it:

Sword, it is not hard to see that one of your most favored tactics is to say a few correct things and then "innocently" disperse among them your falsities and deceptive arguments. Thus you quite correctly identified the absurdity of "my grandma's wheels" and you analyzed it by an impeccable logic: " I would assume that she has no wheels and therefore isn't a bus. You believe that it's possible for her to have wheels, therefore she must be a bus. The rest of us would a) have to see proof of these wheels, and b) rule out the possibility that she might be a car, motorcycle, or other form of wheeled conveyance."

Very impressive! Only you didn't notice that when you say "Therein lies your problem" you are in fact talking about yourself. Because your problem is that you are trying to ignore that when I quoted to you this adage ("Would my grandma have wheels….she would be a bus!") obviously it was meant to illustrate the absurdity of your argumentation.

But let's go further and have now a second look at your opening wisecrack: "Do we have a literacy problem here? The fundamental difference between our reasoning is that mine is based on what actually happened rather than assumptions about what might have happened, which is strictly your area of expertise." Tell me Sword, can this be true? Can you be serious? Or perhaps you are just talking to yourself?.....about yourself?........ After all we are debating your original rant that "Without the British, the Jews would have 0% of Palestine. Fact."

Can you explain us what kind of "fact" is this? When did it "actually happen"? Now you tell me, who is focusing here on assumptions about what might have (or might have not) happened? And who is having the "literacy problem here?"

Whom are you trying to fool Sword?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".