Frankly it appears you have no idea or care about dictionaries
False.
you could care less if all the dictionary had a definition other then yours
When it's wrong, sure. If YOU had an idea about dictionaries, you would understand the fact that they are not authoritative.
Your definition is so much better then every dictionary
Except, little pimple, it was not the definition that I disagreed with in this case, it was something else. The definition was not the issue at all. "Religious doctrine" was not the definition, it was an example (supposedly) given, and it was an incorrect example.
I'm sure the bible says something in there somewhere about not thinking to highly of yourself.
Your implication -- that disagreeing with dictionaries means you think highly of yourself -- makes no sense.
This being your response to what anybode can clearly is in quote below is the whole point by now...
Yes, in the quote, which shows me saying that SOME Christians do SOME good things. And you've perpetually lied about it, describing it as me saying EVERYTHING good is because of religious people.
A quote which, in no way whatsoever, demonstrated me implying that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."
You're lying.
I defy you to point to where in the quote I implied that. I certainly implied that some Christians do some good. But there's no implication beyond that... and worse, you said I explicitly STATED it, and you cannot point to it.
Psychological safet mechanisms aren't in the field of arguments at all
You didn't answer the question. Don't feel bad: you cannot answer the question without betraying the fact that you cannot provide the evidence I asked for.
you proposition of distinguishing on from the other is nonsensical.
Don't be an idiot. I provided an argument. You responded that it was NOT an argument, but, rather a safety mechanism. I simply asked how you can distinguish the one from the other. You can't do it.
To take the one example I responded directly to: you took that to mean that Paul was telling people to ignore evidence, when in that book (and all of his writings, essentially) he emphasized to people that they SHOULD examine the evidence.
That sort of obviously out-of-context interpretation you did is what we colloquially refer to as "cherry-picking."
But it's understandable you might see all of that as an attack on your "special" text.
Shrug. You obviously misinterpreted the passage by taking it out of context (and by using a bad translation, but that is not necessarily your fault).
from my point of view that's at least highly unlikely, and furthermore (if he exists) useless
"Highly unlikely" is a valid opinion, but not an objective or seriously defensible one, without a huge amount of question-begging. As to "useless," that is entirely based on the question-begging fallacy, and is therefore itself a useless claim.
you give an evidence for the non-existance of Swarog, which your faith requires
Once again you admit you know nothing about Christianity. Good job.
Now I'm ignorant of, well...pretty much everything, it seems.
No, just most of things you've discussed here.
FYI, stemming from the place I live in, it;'s quite likely I've had far more religious education than you do... (at least proportionally)
In terms of time spent, I can't say. In terms of other religions, I can't say. In terms of level of education about Christianity, there's no doubt I have had far more education in the subject than you. Either that, or you never paid attention or have forgotten it all.
... reports of child abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent buggery... just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are.... Phrases like 'predatory monster' are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups.... the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is.
No getting around that quote.
Still, is he more vile than the people actually abusing children or the institution that protects the abusers?
Nope. Good thing I am not a Catholic, as it would be very difficult for me to figure out what to do: stay with the church and try to fix it, or move on to a different sect.
Unlucky for Dawkins, however, is that most people in the world don't play the game of "not as vile as," but simply consider a vile person to be avoided, whether or not there are more vile people out there.
Attempts to use him to brand a single unified atheist movement...
As I said, "That says little, if anything, about atheism itself, of course."
you can no more do a disservice to atheism, that is "not religious," than you can do a disservice to "not small" or "not a number" or "not bowling" or "not evil."
Not true. Atheism is a philosophy (or set of philosophies), not a mere negatory statement. And philosophies can be damaged by bad arguments supporting them, just as Catholicism was damaged by the pedophile priests and the protection of them.
Not damaged in fact, of course -- just like Catholicism cannot be damaged in fact by the pedophile scandal -- but in perception, in the attempts of its advocates to win people to their side, or even to convince people of the reasonableness of the position.
People could be forgiven for not understanding much of philosophy.
But what to say about people who know what ontology is, but don't understand that atheism is itself a philosophy? Or worse, about people who take a very common phrasology and take it to mean something it doesn't? ZOMG.
And that sums you up. It doesn't really matter to you what happened, what was written...the only thing matters is what's currently inside your mind; what suits you.
Except, of course, you're lying, because I never said it, and you cannot quote me saying it.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but you keep asserting I said something I clearly never said, even after I pointed out that fact. So you come back and say I said HALF of what you accused me of (the half I already agreed I had said) but you leave out the OTHER HALF of what you accused me of (the half I have been denying I said).
So, it comes right down to it: you're lying.
You accuse me of saying "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank," but it's not true. And when I assert the fact that I didn't say it -- a fact so obviously true you don't even attempt to prove otherwise -- you twist that into me being deluded and deceptive.
I don't know why you decided to be so dishonest and malicious, but it speaks very poorly for you.
But every faith tries to do that. Every faith is "real".
Your attempt to turn this into Christianity vs. other religions is pointless. I never said anything against any other religions.
I met only a few Christians which seriously tried to examine their faith BTW
You probably don't know very many Christians, then.
They are not a cowards unable to accept that they simply believe in certain things...and that's the end of it.
I do not accept that, because it isn't true. And I am not a coward, obviously, as I am willing to lay every belief I have out on the table for examination and argument by all (especially myself).
you're trying to see more in this one thing I was trying to convey few times
No. I just didn't UNDERSTAND what you were saying.
Is what religions only claim about themselves representative of them? Or do you have to primarilly look at their actions, effects, beliefs of typical worshipper?
So you're implying that Christians are not really questioning Christianity? If so, you're wrong.
No, I try not to search for things to reinforce what I believe; it's possible I don't do that.
Your proven fallacious cherry-picking of the Bible argues that you do.
Anyway, there's hardly anything from what I "believe" which falls under things that even need any evidence to speak of
If you believe there IS NO God, then that needs a lot of evidence. And there's very little. If you simply believe God may exist, but cannot be proven or demonstrated in any way, that's different, of course. It depends on what sort of atheist you are.
Anf of course you ignore them
False. As you conflated "evidence" with "proof," you also conflate "ignore" with "understand." By your standard, you ignore most of the Bible, since you don't know most of it. Heck, you ignore most knowledge of ALL kinds.
I was with you until you seriously suggested the possibility that an actual, real God intentionally placed a revelation scroll into the ground for Josiah to find as affirmation of his program.
I didn't. I asserted, rather, that for you to exclude the possibility is fallacious. Which it is.
do you truly believe that? That such a story can be considered a rational part of an argument?
My belief is irrelevant (and I actually have none on this particular point; I've never thought much about it and I don't care how it happened). My point is that assuming it did not happen that way is irrational.
As many atheist philosophers have noted, "if God, anything." They say this to concede the notion that if you believe in God, then anything is possible, so it's silly to get bogged down in whether or not something could have happened (such as the resurrection of Christ) or was likely to have happened (that God timed the finding of the scrolls to Josiah's coming).
To say something didn't happen because it is unlikely, as a means to showing that the Bible is wrong or flawed, is irrational. It's assuming the argument: that God doesn't exist, or wouldn't have done that sort of thing.
And as to being welcomed back into the fold...back in my Sunday school days, I read in a catechism book that "of course Christ works with everyone, but especially with Catholics".
I don't know what that means and cannot comment on it. I'd have to see the exact text, in context.
I fear I am too naive: all along I've thought that the religious folks were just putting one over on us, that they really were rational, human beings, and were just engaged in a drawn-out elaborate prank. Oh wait...I see what you're doing here...:)
You're doing it again... question-begging, assuming that there's something irrational about religion. There's not.
I believe it's impossible to provide something which will satisfy you, in your current state.
No one's buying it. You simply cannot provide it. This isn't about me, except insofar as I know the Bible and philosophy better than you, so I am effective at shooting down your weak arguments.
But how nice and modest you are, a model "Christian":) Better than me obviously.
Better than you at the fundamentals of this discussion, yes. It's not about modesty or humility, it's an obvious fact based on the evidence at hand. I am not a fan of Sidney Crosby, but he's a much better hockey player than I am. This is not humility for me to say so.
Sometimes I tell people I am better than them at something, for various reasons. Often it is to encourage them to do better.
In your case, we both know I am better at this than you, and I am doing it to call you on your transparent bullshit. You're pretending that I am unwilling or incapable of seeing the evidence for what it is, as an excuse to not provide the evidence. We both know you simply cannot provide any evidence that you can actually defend against me. It's not that I am unwilling to examine it, it's that you cannot defend it.
give me a coherent explanation why you ignore 99+ % of religious texts that exist in the world
I don't ignore them.
Why your "evidence" stemming from study of only one religious text, one mythology, is not just claiming to search for evidence; just reinforcing what you want to believe.
And you don't search for things to reinforce what YOU believe? Pull the other one.
[Dawkins] never even organized any camps where parents could send their children to memorize passages from his books
Thank goodness, because Dawkins DID assert that sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity. Literally, he said that.
I consider Dawkins to be pretty damned vile.
And on top of it, he really doesn't understand philosophy, even to the point of making a simple argument. He asserts many ridiculous things he can't back up, contradicts himself all the time, and generally does a disservice to atheism.
That says little, if anything, about atheism itself, of course.
I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.
You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity.
Can you really not read simple English? I explicitly stated that I was attributing their failings to their human nature, but that it was the second part of your assertion -- "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank" -- that I was not engaging in.
Your job at this point would be to show that I ever claimed that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank." You can't do that.
Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir
What is your evidence that they do? If you were right, then we would expect to see more violence from religion than without it, but we don't see that at all. By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century.
You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.
I understand you're a tool.
And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term;p , a diabolic self deceit.
No, that's your department. You deluded yourself into thinking that everyone else thinks like you do: that because you had deluded yourself into being religious, therefore I do the same. This is obviously self-refuting, however: if I thought just like you do -- as your argument assumes -- then I would be an atheist now.
Really, stop the line with demanding arguments
No. As long as you make assertions, I will -- following the rules of logic you pretend to follow, but, in fact, disdain -- demand that you back them up.
But you're closed to them
You have no evidence of this. All you have are examples of POOR arguments you gave that I logically refuted... refuted so entirely that you didn't even attempt to rebut. You transparently pretend that because I refuted your arguments, that I am therefore closed to them.
You realize that everyone sees through that, right?
That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.
Yes, the rejoinder of the person without any arguments. We've seen it before.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly it appears you have no idea or care about dictionaries
False.
you could care less if all the dictionary had a definition other then yours
When it's wrong, sure. If YOU had an idea about dictionaries, you would understand the fact that they are not authoritative.
Your definition is so much better then every dictionary
Except, little pimple, it was not the definition that I disagreed with in this case, it was something else. The definition was not the issue at all. "Religious doctrine" was not the definition, it was an example (supposedly) given, and it was an incorrect example.
I'm sure the bible says something in there somewhere about not thinking to highly of yourself.
Your implication -- that disagreeing with dictionaries means you think highly of yourself -- makes no sense.
Nothing in particular. I was snarky with them, you returned the favor to me, and around it went.
The comparison is apt.
If you're an idiot.
you seem to claim that Slashdot discussion system lies in regards to poster names
You're a liar.
Duopoly I desribed
You didn't describe it. You merely asserted it. Stop lying.
If you would stop dismissing it
You provided no evidence, so yes, it was dismissed.
Also, since you have rather lax approach to what constitutes an evidence
You're a liar.
and disregard for arguments which you don't like
You're a liar.
this is just part of your safety mechanisms.
You're a liar.
I know you think I'm lying
And I clearly demonstrated it.
This being your response to what anybode can clearly is in quote below is the whole point by now...
Yes, in the quote, which shows me saying that SOME Christians do SOME good things. And you've perpetually lied about it, describing it as me saying EVERYTHING good is because of religious people.
You're not just lying: you're a liar.
your ad-hom attack
One good fallacy deserves another. I have no qualms about responding to intentional non sequiturs with ad hominems.
simply consider a vile person to be avoided
good idea - for those who can identify what is vile
Shrug. You saw the quote.
You're more damaged than I thought.
What you think is irrelevant; since you're a liar, what you say about what you think is even less relevant.
Until you can own up to your lies, what you say means nothing at all.
In regards to res of your post, I wonder if you really think you'll get far with "no, I'm right because I say so!"
More lies. I never said anything like that.
Is it hard work being so dishonest?
And you prove the point, thanks!
Cute. I posted the quote right there :)
A quote which, in no way whatsoever, demonstrated me implying that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."
You're lying.
I defy you to point to where in the quote I implied that. I certainly implied that some Christians do some good. But there's no implication beyond that ... and worse, you said I explicitly STATED it, and you cannot point to it.
You're lying.
Again, you fail at understanding the issue
You have failed to describe any issue.
Psychological safet mechanisms aren't in the field of arguments at all
You didn't answer the question. Don't feel bad: you cannot answer the question without betraying the fact that you cannot provide the evidence I asked for.
you proposition of distinguishing on from the other is nonsensical.
Don't be an idiot. I provided an argument. You responded that it was NOT an argument, but, rather a safety mechanism. I simply asked how you can distinguish the one from the other. You can't do it.
In no place I cherry-picked the Bible.
To take the one example I responded directly to: you took that to mean that Paul was telling people to ignore evidence, when in that book (and all of his writings, essentially) he emphasized to people that they SHOULD examine the evidence.
That sort of obviously out-of-context interpretation you did is what we colloquially refer to as "cherry-picking."
But it's understandable you might see all of that as an attack on your "special" text.
Shrug. You obviously misinterpreted the passage by taking it out of context (and by using a bad translation, but that is not necessarily your fault).
from my point of view that's at least highly unlikely, and furthermore (if he exists) useless
"Highly unlikely" is a valid opinion, but not an objective or seriously defensible one, without a huge amount of question-begging. As to "useless," that is entirely based on the question-begging fallacy, and is therefore itself a useless claim.
you give an evidence for the non-existance of Swarog, which your faith requires
Once again you admit you know nothing about Christianity. Good job.
Now I'm ignorant of, well...pretty much everything, it seems.
No, just most of things you've discussed here.
FYI, stemming from the place I live in, it;'s quite likely I've had far more religious education than you do... (at least proportionally)
In terms of time spent, I can't say. In terms of other religions, I can't say. In terms of level of education about Christianity, there's no doubt I have had far more education in the subject than you. Either that, or you never paid attention or have forgotten it all.
sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity
Interesting proposition considering that the Catholic Church does both.
I don't see how that makes it interesting, but OK.
I believe Dawkins never actually said that as such
OK. But he did say this explicitly:
No getting around that quote.
Still, is he more vile than the people actually abusing children or the institution that protects the abusers?
Nope. Good thing I am not a Catholic, as it would be very difficult for me to figure out what to do: stay with the church and try to fix it, or move on to a different sect.
Unlucky for Dawkins, however, is that most people in the world don't play the game of "not as vile as," but simply consider a vile person to be avoided, whether or not there are more vile people out there.
Attempts to use him to brand a single unified atheist movement ...
As I said, "That says little, if anything, about atheism itself, of course."
you can no more do a disservice to atheism, that is "not religious," than you can do a disservice to "not small" or "not a number" or "not bowling" or "not evil."
Not true. Atheism is a philosophy (or set of philosophies), not a mere negatory statement. And philosophies can be damaged by bad arguments supporting them, just as Catholicism was damaged by the pedophile priests and the protection of them.
Not damaged in fact, of course -- just like Catholicism cannot be damaged in fact by the pedophile scandal -- but in perception, in the attempts of its advocates to win people to their side, or even to convince people of the reasonableness of the position.
People could be forgiven for not understanding much of philosophy.
But what to say about people who know what ontology is, but don't understand that atheism is itself a philosophy? Or worse, about people who take a very common phrasology and take it to mean something it doesn't? ZOMG.
I find that people who feel the need to write a post like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way
Huh. You don't get out much.
do you really have to dismiss comparisions with other faiths and how real they claim they are?
Being completely off-topic the discussion between the two of us, by the rules of logic, yes, I do.
get random religious text
No. That is a non sequitur fallacy.
And no, that's not what I was implying there
Then I still don't understand your question, because you have not explained it well.
you accept religions for they claim to be
False.
I accept them for what they are
False.
You fail to comprehend what I wrote, that you have safety mechanisms against any argumentation.
And how do you distinguish my "safety mechanisms" from, you know, actual arguments?
You cannot, of course. You just don't like the fact that you cannot provide any decent arguments, and so you're lying to cover it up.
And that sums you up. It doesn't really matter to you what happened, what was written...the only thing matters is what's currently inside your mind; what suits you.
Except, of course, you're lying, because I never said it, and you cannot quote me saying it.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but you keep asserting I said something I clearly never said, even after I pointed out that fact. So you come back and say I said HALF of what you accused me of (the half I already agreed I had said) but you leave out the OTHER HALF of what you accused me of (the half I have been denying I said).
So, it comes right down to it: you're lying.
You accuse me of saying "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank," but it's not true. And when I assert the fact that I didn't say it -- a fact so obviously true you don't even attempt to prove otherwise -- you twist that into me being deluded and deceptive.
I don't know why you decided to be so dishonest and malicious, but it speaks very poorly for you.
But every faith tries to do that. Every faith is "real".
Your attempt to turn this into Christianity vs. other religions is pointless. I never said anything against any other religions.
I met only a few Christians which seriously tried to examine their faith BTW
You probably don't know very many Christians, then.
They are not a cowards unable to accept that they simply believe in certain things...and that's the end of it.
I do not accept that, because it isn't true. And I am not a coward, obviously, as I am willing to lay every belief I have out on the table for examination and argument by all (especially myself).
you're trying to see more in this one thing I was trying to convey few times
No. I just didn't UNDERSTAND what you were saying.
Is what religions only claim about themselves representative of them? Or do you have to primarilly look at their actions, effects, beliefs of typical worshipper?
So you're implying that Christians are not really questioning Christianity? If so, you're wrong.
No, I try not to search for things to reinforce what I believe; it's possible I don't do that.
Your proven fallacious cherry-picking of the Bible argues that you do.
Anyway, there's hardly anything from what I "believe" which falls under things that even need any evidence to speak of
If you believe there IS NO God, then that needs a lot of evidence. And there's very little. If you simply believe God may exist, but cannot be proven or demonstrated in any way, that's different, of course. It depends on what sort of atheist you are.
Anf of course you ignore them
False. As you conflated "evidence" with "proof," you also conflate "ignore" with "understand." By your standard, you ignore most of the Bible, since you don't know most of it. Heck, you ignore most knowledge of ALL kinds.
I was with you until you seriously suggested the possibility that an actual, real God intentionally placed a revelation scroll into the ground for Josiah to find as affirmation of his program.
I didn't. I asserted, rather, that for you to exclude the possibility is fallacious. Which it is.
do you truly believe that? That such a story can be considered a rational part of an argument?
My belief is irrelevant (and I actually have none on this particular point; I've never thought much about it and I don't care how it happened). My point is that assuming it did not happen that way is irrational.
As many atheist philosophers have noted, "if God, anything." They say this to concede the notion that if you believe in God, then anything is possible, so it's silly to get bogged down in whether or not something could have happened (such as the resurrection of Christ) or was likely to have happened (that God timed the finding of the scrolls to Josiah's coming).
To say something didn't happen because it is unlikely, as a means to showing that the Bible is wrong or flawed, is irrational. It's assuming the argument: that God doesn't exist, or wouldn't have done that sort of thing.
And as to being welcomed back into the fold...back in my Sunday school days, I read in a catechism book that "of course Christ works with everyone, but especially with Catholics".
I don't know what that means and cannot comment on it. I'd have to see the exact text, in context.
I fear I am too naive: all along I've thought that the religious folks were just putting one over on us, that they really were rational, human beings, and were just engaged in a drawn-out elaborate prank. Oh wait...I see what you're doing here... :)
You're doing it again ... question-begging, assuming that there's something irrational about religion. There's not.
I believe it's impossible to provide something which will satisfy you, in your current state.
No one's buying it. You simply cannot provide it. This isn't about me, except insofar as I know the Bible and philosophy better than you, so I am effective at shooting down your weak arguments.
But how nice and modest you are, a model "Christian" :) Better than me obviously.
Better than you at the fundamentals of this discussion, yes. It's not about modesty or humility, it's an obvious fact based on the evidence at hand. I am not a fan of Sidney Crosby, but he's a much better hockey player than I am. This is not humility for me to say so.
Sometimes I tell people I am better than them at something, for various reasons. Often it is to encourage them to do better.
In your case, we both know I am better at this than you, and I am doing it to call you on your transparent bullshit. You're pretending that I am unwilling or incapable of seeing the evidence for what it is, as an excuse to not provide the evidence. We both know you simply cannot provide any evidence that you can actually defend against me. It's not that I am unwilling to examine it, it's that you cannot defend it.
give me a coherent explanation why you ignore 99+ % of religious texts that exist in the world
I don't ignore them.
Why your "evidence" stemming from study of only one religious text, one mythology, is not just claiming to search for evidence; just reinforcing what you want to believe.
And you don't search for things to reinforce what YOU believe? Pull the other one.
[Dawkins] never even organized any camps where parents could send their children to memorize passages from his books
Thank goodness, because Dawkins DID assert that sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity. Literally, he said that.
I consider Dawkins to be pretty damned vile.
And on top of it, he really doesn't understand philosophy, even to the point of making a simple argument. He asserts many ridiculous things he can't back up, contradicts himself all the time, and generally does a disservice to atheism.
That says little, if anything, about atheism itself, of course.
Look, I get it, you don't see that there.
It literally isn't there.
I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.
You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity.
Can you really not read simple English? I explicitly stated that I was attributing their failings to their human nature, but that it was the second part of your assertion -- "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank" -- that I was not engaging in.
Your job at this point would be to show that I ever claimed that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank." You can't do that.
Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir
What is your evidence that they do? If you were right, then we would expect to see more violence from religion than without it, but we don't see that at all. By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century.
You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.
I understand you're a tool.
And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term ;p , a diabolic self deceit.
No, that's your department. You deluded yourself into thinking that everyone else thinks like you do: that because you had deluded yourself into being religious, therefore I do the same. This is obviously self-refuting, however: if I thought just like you do -- as your argument assumes -- then I would be an atheist now.
Really, stop the line with demanding arguments
No. As long as you make assertions, I will -- following the rules of logic you pretend to follow, but, in fact, disdain -- demand that you back them up.
But you're closed to them
You have no evidence of this. All you have are examples of POOR arguments you gave that I logically refuted ... refuted so entirely that you didn't even attempt to rebut. You transparently pretend that because I refuted your arguments, that I am therefore closed to them.
You realize that everyone sees through that, right?
That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.
Yes, the rejoinder of the person without any arguments. We've seen it before.