Was that an insult, Kady? Perhaps you should examine your own writing for similar things, then.
Right back at you. Every post you generated was loaded with passive-aggressive insults inferring that “all reasonable people” would agree with your views. Perhaps you ought to look up a few of your commonly used devices.
appeal to authority - Google Search
argumentum ad verecundiam. (also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, appeal to unqualified…
You used this one a couple of times too:
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam ), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance…
And, for the record, a close review of the thread shows that the first “snark” in the exchange came from HERE (Snark in boldface):
ME: Well, that’s a rather minority position as philosophies go. As much as I like Rand, I am not as firmly a Randian as you seem to be.
YOU: If ascribing political philosophies to me that I don’t hold makes you comfortable, go ahead. But if that’s the entirety of your “moral” argument, it’s of as poor a quality as the rest.
But, the breakdown in the discussion was previous to that, when you completely missed THIS (my first response to you):
ME: In none of the above is actual religious belief or faith implied or required. It is simply an acknowledgement that structured religion, imparts to the student a moral framework and tools for solving moral dilemmas; and it imparts that framework to anyone, be they theist, atheist, agnostic.
You’ll note that this line of reasoning is the basis for Pascal’s Wager.
And then several exchanges later, you clearly admitted that you missed the entire point:
YOU: Here I was, thinking that you’re arguing a viewpoint that presumes and requires the existence of a deity as a source of morality — which is, of course, unsupportable as long as you can’t prove the existence of such a deity — and you were… um, not arguing, nor supporting such a viewpoint?
So, basically, I told you straight up that my key point did NOT require any religious belief or faith, but like the proverbial bull in the china shop, you just kept your head down and kept running, thinking that I was (to quote you) “arguing a viewpoint that presumes and requires the existence of a deity as a source of morality”, which I wasn’t.
Then, of course, you blame the confusion on me. :-(
Enough of this shit, Ben. If you can’t be troubled to actually READ what a person is saying, you’re just wasting people’s time, and your own intellect, I might add.
Have a nice life.