3 ms·

What I read is your perception. That's fine. Mine is different. Mine is that he hates assholes who use any belief as a cudgel against other people. Atheists us

What I read is your perception. That's fine. Mine is different. Mine is that he hates assholes who use any belief as a cudgel against other people. Atheists using our lack of faith to attack the faithful are also assholes. I agree with that. Stephens intent is always comedy first and foremost. Regardless. Agnostics do indeed lack a spine and try to wiggle their way out using philosophical minutia. Case in point this discussion. You're trying to project thoughts into a comedians intent. Instead of admitting that the words themselves have truth to them.

Maursault 5y ago
> Agnostics do indeed lack a spine and try to wiggle their way out using philosophical minutia. Case in point this discussion. You're trying to project thoughts into a comedians intent. Instead of admitting that the words themselves have truth to them. Certainly, everyone is free to draw their own interpretation, but only Colbert's interpretation is accurate. Your argument will remain unconvincing so long as it is unsupported by any valid reasoning or provably true statements. By employing a false narrative to insist what any other is doing, you are committing ad hominem and straw man fallacies simultaneously. By insisting it is as you say it is without backing up claims with evidence supporting the claims, you are committing an argument from authority, which is also fallacy. Invalid argument remains unconvincing.
- invalidname 5y ago
  I'm not the one constructing evidence or claiming to know what's in his mind. You're the one busy with that strawman. I pasted his quote and mentioned my interpretation of it. You're the one doing the whole "what he thinks" shtick. Which I repeatedly said is redundant.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    > I'm not the one constructing evidence or claiming to know what's in his mind. False. This is precisely what you have done, and the evidence is plainly seen in your comments. > You're the one busy with that strawman. This statement is in fact an example of ad hominem fallacy and straw man fallacy. > You're the one doing the whole "what he thinks" shtick. Again, this is both ad hominem and straw man. I have supported my position with Colbert's known disposition and his very own words. > Which I repeatedly said is redundant. This is a new and separate claim, which, because of the content of the claim and the lack of actually previously claiming such, the statement is currently false.
    - invalidname 5y ago
      First reply to you: "His intentions though are irrelevant." Yet you persist to cherry pick...
      - Maursault 5y ago
        I think I see, when you say you "repeatedly said was redundant," what you meant was you mentioned something once. Thanks, I was a little confused there because the words you use actually mean something else... but your intent matters more than the semantics.

Maursault 5y ago

> Agnostics do indeed lack a spine and try to wiggle their way out using philosophical minutia. Case in point this discussion. You're trying to project thoughts into a comedians intent. Instead of admitting that the words themselves have truth to them. Certainly, everyone is free to draw their own interpretation, but only Colbert's interpretation is accurate. Your argument will remain unconvincing so long as it is unsupported by any valid reasoning or provably true statements. By employing a false narrative to insist what any other is doing, you are committing ad hominem and straw man fallacies simultaneously. By insisting it is as you say it is without backing up claims with evidence supporting the claims, you are committing an argument from authority, which is also fallacy. Invalid argument remains unconvincing.

invalidname 5y ago
I'm not the one constructing evidence or claiming to know what's in his mind. You're the one busy with that strawman. I pasted his quote and mentioned my interpretation of it. You're the one doing the whole "what he thinks" shtick. Which I repeatedly said is redundant.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > I'm not the one constructing evidence or claiming to know what's in his mind. False. This is precisely what you have done, and the evidence is plainly seen in your comments. > You're the one busy with that strawman. This statement is in fact an example of ad hominem fallacy and straw man fallacy. > You're the one doing the whole "what he thinks" shtick. Again, this is both ad hominem and straw man. I have supported my position with Colbert's known disposition and his very own words. > Which I repeatedly said is redundant. This is a new and separate claim, which, because of the content of the claim and the lack of actually previously claiming such, the statement is currently false.
  - invalidname 5y ago
    First reply to you: "His intentions though are irrelevant." Yet you persist to cherry pick...
    - Maursault 5y ago
      I think I see, when you say you "repeatedly said was redundant," what you meant was you mentioned something once. Thanks, I was a little confused there because the words you use actually mean something else... but your intent matters more than the semantics.