Posted: May 08, 2015 11:55 pm
MS2 wrote:
I've read the above. You're an intelligent guy, so I'm very sure you knew I was using the 'shout me down' phrase metaphorically.
I wasn't, which is why I adressed both the metaphorical and literal sense.
MS2 wrote: Yet you chose to refute it on the basis it was meant it literally.
No, that's half the story.
I adressed both the literal and metaphorical possibility, because I cannot read your mind and hence be sure which was your intent.
Unlike what you've done, once again in this post.
MS2 wrote: That tells me my judgement is right and you are simply out to win debating points.
So you're convincing yourself of an initial presumption, even after I've corrected you on that, by making another presumption. This time one based on a misrepresentation of what I actually posted.
I noticed that you still haven't adressed the point in all your efforts to psycho-analyse me.
Once again I urge you to drop your failed attempts at psychology and adress what I actually post.
MS2 wrote: If I then try to 'address your points' as you request, I have to waste time defending my position to the nth degree in case I get accused of absurdities, and in turn ripping your position to shreds, etc etc. No thanks.
Translation: I cannot adresss the points being made, so I'm going to dismiss them out of hand.
If you make a claim, you cary the burden of proof, regardless of anything your interlocutor posts or in what language.
I'm not out to score points, nor do I care whether people agree with me.
I care about the facts and if people can demonstrate I'm wrong, I will recognise that and adjust my view accordingly. As I've done on this board on multiple occasions.
This tactic of accusing your intelocutor of being close-minded or being out to score points, in order to dismiss out of hand the actual content of their posts is disengenuous.
MS2 wrote:Dont worry though, I see someone else has come along who you need to put right on the absurd notion that history might not be science.
I see that you once again have not read what people actually post. igorfrankenstein was talking about hard science specifically, not science in general.