Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
I have no interest in trapping myself in your usual sophistic dialogues.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Again...trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic: no.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
Everything you wrote is pilpul nonsense (which you are very good, I'll admit) that does not need to be argued with, merely pointed out.
That's not how it works. "EVERYTHING U SAY IS WRONG!" is how a child may argue. An adult would point to what is wrong and why. You don't because you can't and are hoping that people won't catch up.
Very skilled pilpul
You learned a new word again?
Implying that me being well spoken and educated
Are you though? Throwing out terms like you learned them last week and have been dying to use them ever since is not exactly the marker of either.
or something only recently gained and is merely being shown off.
I'll say this, you don't sound like you have any sort of understanding of those ideas, particularly dialectic. Reminds me of the Renault anecdote by Robert Conquest.
I'll say no more to you on this. See you on the next round of BS you post.
That's what you said in your prior post, and then replied anyway. I guess you now have to make a trade-off between trying to save face and sticking to your word, eh?
Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
That's not how it works. "EVERYTHING U SAY IS WRONG!" is how a child may argue. An adult would point to what is wrong and why. You don't because you can't and are hoping that people won't catch up.
You learned a new word again?
Are you though? Throwing out terms like you learned them last week and have been dying to use them ever since is not exactly the marker of either.
I'll say this, you don't sound like you have any sort of understanding of those ideas, particularly dialectic. Reminds me of the Renault anecdote by Robert Conquest.
That's what you said in your prior post, and then replied anyway. I guess you now have to make a trade-off between trying to save face and sticking to your word, eh?