All living things have souls, some more complex than others, like comparing a fern to a cow. Humans have rational souls.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
Borderline rule 1 violations
Again with this...
Am I to remind you that rule 1 states - "Attack the argument, not the person."?
Observe my comment - "Nothing of what you said defend your argument."
The real depth of this argument is someone, who posts too long information posts, but can't defend it themselves. It's a tactic that tries to exhaust an opponent. Notice that the other person cannot defend their claim once, and I expose him about this.
Please let me know how is this in any violation of rule 1.
If you're focusing on the "reading" part, check the comment before that:
I said "I would advise on proofs that you can defend, not a post that you can't defend. It's a no-brainer. If you have an argument, put it forward, if you can. If you can't, don't bother."
Then the other one said "[Still asks for proof despite it already being provided]"
Has this other person really read my previous reply? What do you think is the cause of this?
I just caught a glimpse of the reply I got - "Thank you for admitting you cannot read, illiterate." I reply every comment as they appear in my notifications, so I will be replying this person in detail again...
I want to obey the rules in here, but I find it difficult as they might be so fluid that would make it impossible not to go over them. More information in the rules, or even from your comment will be very helpful. What am I to do with your current statement "Borderline rule 1 violations"?
Where is the line? What should I do not to cross it? Rule 1 is not very explicit about it... Do you want to help me to correct my approach, or outright ban me for any violation? I'm puzzled currently on this.