rationalskepticism.org

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:By implying that my statement should also be applicable to the rule of law whereby contradictory laws are stricken from the "law book" by legislative action

Missed this the first time around. I implied no such thing.
I said nothing about contadicting laws.

So? You didn't? I didn't say you did.... What I said you implied is emphasized above.

Except that I did not such thing.
I pointed out that when you have a text that contains a rule, why would you expect such a rule to appear mutliple times.
Nothing to do with contradicting laws.

PensivePenny wrote: And yeah, you did imply THAT.

This is still a blind counterfactual assertion, no matter how many times you repeat it, even with words in all caps.
I explained exactly why I used the analogy of text of laws. You added the whole contradictions ruling each other out, thing yourself.

PensivePenny wrote: Tell, me o teacher.

While I am a teacher, I suspect this is nothing but a passive agressive remark.
Not only is that unhelpful in a rational discussion, it contravenes the FUA you signed Penny.

PensivePenny wrote:
.. does claiming I said YOU said something about contradicting laws (when I didn't) rise to the level of straw man?

Since I never said that, it's irrelevant.
All I did was point that I never said anything that would imply contradictions ruling each other out and that its therefore something you added to the conversation.
If you did so intentionally, then yes, it's a straw-man. However I assume you didn't so it's probably a misunderstanding.
Now, given that I've eplained twice exactly how I used the anology, I hope you understand.
If you do and keep insisting I implied something that cannot be found in my post, then yes, you will be staw-manning.
However, I'm hoping that you're interested in a rational discussion, rather than a vindictive one.

PensivePenny wrote: See? Your interpretation cherry picks what you want to hear,

Wrong, that's what you keep doing. You keep interpeting things that are not present in my posts or worse outright making up claims and motivations for me that I have not expressed.
Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, that this is based on one or more misunderstandings on your part and not repeated attempts to straw-man me and/or poison the well.

PensivePenny wrote:which in my observation of your posts, when it comes from a forum member with whom you are unfamiliar, you "interpret" in the most adversarial way possible.

Then your observation is severly flawed as I've not once expressed any adversiality.
I've only been skeptical of some of your arguments and responses, because they seem to lack either sound reasoning and/or a misunderstanding (deliberate or non-deliberate) of what your interlocutors post.

PensivePenny wrote: I didn't come here with an agenda or even any kind of strong claim. I just don't get your aggression on minor unimportant aspects of a thread.

Again, I haven't expressed any agression.
It would really help if you read what I actually post, rather than projecting all manner of things on me.