Book of Abraham Scroll Length

[_jskains]

This is why discussions here are impossible. There is zero maturity, respect, or integrity.

May I suggest The Celestial Forum? It'll save you the trouble of creating your own board.

The reason I don't post is because there is no integrity here.

You don't post?

Every time I try to say something, it is drowned out by attacks, mockery, and rhetoric, and I struggle to get heard above the noise.

You aren't heard?

Sorry Shades, but the problem too is your moderation. You support people threatening other's families, but then ban people over revealing the threat. I'd rather compete and get intelligent dialogue void of your board's ugliness.

JMS

[_jskains]

I will say that a lot of your contributions are neither well thought out nor artfully expressed.

See? Exactly the poor attitude I would expect.

JMS

[_Chap]

If jskains is sincere about having a substantive argument to make, he can try it in Celestial. I promise not to come up there and poke fun at him if he does.

But anyone who can respond to the gentle, peaceloving and scholarly Chris Smith the way he did a few posts ago is probably not to be taken seriously.

Boy is that a logical fallacy.

JMS

Since you ask, no it isn't.

This is an example of a logical fallacy:

All cows are mammals.
Human beings are mammals.
Therefore all human beings are cows.

'Logical fallacy' is not just a classy way of referring to a statement you disagree with. It refers to a structural flaw in an argument. Can you show a structural flaw in an argument in my post?

[_Sophocles]

I will say that a lot of your contributions are neither well thought out nor artfully expressed.

See? Exactly the poor attitude I would expect.

And, true to my characterization above, you have sifted through the substance and honed in on the one line that allows you to take offense, giving you an excuse not to engage.

[_jskains]

And, true to my characterization above, you have sifted through the substance and honed in on the one line that allows you to take offense, giving you an excuse not to engage.

And true to my characterization of the board, you fail to take responsibility for the insult and perhaps consider your own flaw in having to include such a thing and causing the dialouge to derail.

JMS

[_Sophocles]

And, true to my characterization above, you have sifted through the substance and honed in on the one line that allows you to take offense, giving you an excuse not to engage.

And true to my characterization of the board, you fail to take responsibility for the insult and perhaps consider your own flaw in having to include such a thing and causing the dialouge to derail.

You're right, Josh. I shouldn't have insulted you. By including that line, I am responsible for derailing what otherwise promised to be a fruitful dialogue.

I have deleted that line from my previous post, and offer my apologies. I hope that you now feel free to respond to what remains in a meaningful way.

[_jskains]

'Logical fallacy' is not just a classy way of referring to a statement you disagree with. It refers to a structural flaw in an argument. Can you show a structural flaw in an argument in my post?

Absolutely. Your statement that because of my response to Chris, I can not be taken seriously, by definition is flawed logically. Just because you disagree with my response to Chris does not have any relationship to how seriously, I as a person, should be taken.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

JMS

[_Chap]

'Logical fallacy' is not just a classy way of referring to a statement you disagree with. It refers to a structural flaw in an argument. Can you show a structural flaw in an argument in my post?

Absolutely. Your statement that because of my response to Chris, I can not be taken seriously, by definition is flawed logically. Just because you disagree with my response to Chris does not have any relationship to how seriously, I as a person, should be taken.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

JMS

If the issue under discussion was one independent of human judgement, such as arithmetical calculations, you would be quite right that it would be misleading to suggest that your views on such matters were to be discounted on the mere grounds that I disagreed with you about some matter of opinion.

But if the issue is how posters on this board are to be judged - then I am quite happy to state as my considered view that anyone who evaluates the work of Chris Smith in the dismissive and contemptuous fashion you do is not a person on whose judgements of other posters I would place much weight.

The argument goes like this, you see:

Anyone who views Chris Smith's work with contempt has demonstrated a low ability to evaluate the intelligence and sincerity of posters.
Jskains has viewed Chris Smith's work with contempt.
Therefore jskains has demonstrated a low ability to evaluate the intelligence and sincerity of posters.

The logic is flawless. Your problem is with the truth value of the premises.

[_jskains]

Anyone who views Chris Smith's work with contempt has demonstrated a low ability to evaluate the intelligence and sincerity of posters.
Jskains has viewed Chris Smith's work with contempt.
Therefore jskains has demonstrated a low ability to evaluate the intelligence and sincerity of posters.

The logic is flawless. Your problem is with the truth value of the premises.

That is even deeper of a flawed argument. You've made it worse.

Now your into:

Joshua Likes Ice Cream.
Strawberry is a flavor of Ice Cream.
There for Joshua must like Strawberry Ice Cream.

Sad.

JMS

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't think I've ever seen you even honestly attempt to engage in serious dialogue, Jskains. It's just like Sophocles has said: you tend to zero in on posts that allow you to avoid the issue and to take offense. Either that, or your posts turn into circular potifications ("What would it be like if I was prophet of the LDS Church?"), or reflections on your own views.

CaliforniaKid has given you a terrific opening here, and you've ignored it. My bet is that you haven't even read his article. Either that, or you didn't understand it. C'est la vie, Monsieur Potato-head. Your Yukon-Gold-eqsue dome seems incapable of absorbing and/or grappling with this sort of thing.