The Nuggin Logic Thread

[-Skeptic-]

Just bringing this to the top remind evetryone what c*cks nuggin and the dide really are.

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Closing in on 600 posts from Skippy without anything of substance.

Says the retard that claimed I deny the moon landings. Keep posting Nuggin, you're being slaughtered in this thread - pretty much every thread you enter actually. I ink you like bei shown up for the tw*t you are.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Says the retard that claimed I deny the moon landings. Keep posting Nuggin, you're being slaughtered in this thread - pretty much every thread you enter actually. I ink you like bei shown up for the tw*t you are.

You keep claiming that, however I've had people literally change their positions to my side of the debate.

Meanwhile,_NO ONE_ is siding with your ridiculous assertions about the moon landings, lizards, Egypt and your divinity.

Face it, Skippy, you've played your one and only card and it was the joker.

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep claiming that, however I've had people literally change their positions to my side of the debate.
Meanwhile,_NO ONE_ is siding with your ridiculous assertions about the moon landings, lizards, Egypt and your divinity.
Face it, Skippy, you've played your one and only card and it was the joker.

Are reminder for everyone exactly just how sh*t your logic really is: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Are reminder for everyone exactly just how sh*t your logic really is: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Sorry, Skippy, but that's a demonstration of YOUR logic, not mine.

You are the one who failed to understand the difference between something which is based on belief vs something which is based in reality.

When evaluating a belief, the BELIEF is the import criteria.

It's REALLY quite simple, so I'm not surprised you are having such a problem with it.

Here, I'll give you an example:

Christians BELIEVE that Jesus was the Messiah, therefore if I made a list of "Messiahs", I would but Jesus on that list with a couple of other people because the Christians BELIEVE he was a messiah.

The CRITERIA for "Messiah" is "Some religion claims that this person/place/thing is a messiah".

No, go on and explain how belief has anything to do with the criteria for the claims YOU made in your first post.

Oh right, you can't. Because you failed at logic. Again

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep claiming that, however I've had people literally change their positions to my side of the debate.
Meanwhile,_NO ONE_ is siding with your ridiculous assertions about the moon landings, lizards, Egypt and your divinity.
Face it, Skippy, you've played your one and only card and it was the joker.

You deny the Moon landings? I know someone who did once, we turned him into a janitor, us at the Illuminati cannot tolerate misinformation we don't approve of, lest the New World Order falls into chaos.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
You deny the Moon landings? I know someone who did once, we turned him into a janitor, us at the Illuminati cannot tolerate misinformation we don't approve of, lest the New World Order falls into chaos.

You're confused about who is in the debate and what positions they hold.

No surprise there.

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confused about who is in the debate and what positions they hold.
No surprise there.

So the Moon landings actually happened and we saw all the footage. Good, glad we can agree on something.

[nanoanomaly]

-Skeptic- wrote:

Just bringing this to the top remind evetryone what c*cks nuggin and the dide really are.

Ahem! I believe the word you were looking for is Dick. Cock is about as insulting as vagina.

[nanoanomaly]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confused about who is in the debate and what positions they hold.
No surprise there.

Not surprising considering he calls his dog a kitty.

[KittenKoder]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Not surprising considering he calls his dog a kitty.

I don't have any pets.

[nanoanomaly]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have any pets.

Then what was it you were rubbing in your vlog?

[KittenKoder]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Then what was it you were rubbing in your vlog?

Now that's a strange assertion. Where is your evidence so it can actually be address? I can't address the assertion unless you can support some evidence because without the evidence your assertion is just a lie.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So the Moon landings actually happened and we saw all the footage. Good, glad we can agree on something.

You and I agree that they happened and that we saw the footage. Skippy claims that I made them up.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that's a strange assertion. Where is your evidence so it can actually be address? I can't address the assertion unless you can support some evidence because without the evidence your assertion is just a lie.

You did not just write that.

I've been BEGGING you to present evidence in the other thread and you refuse to do so.

[Jim]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You and I agree that they happened and that we saw the footage. Skippy claims that I made them up.

The begging of a desperate buffoon

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You did not just write that.
I've been BEGGING you to present evidence in the other thread and you refuse to do so.

Evidence for what? I stated my case, gave the supporting links, and you ignored both. I cannot make you read it, you have to choose to, claiming I did not is demonstrating that you are a liar even more.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Evidence for what? I stated my case, gave the supporting links, and you ignored both. I cannot make you read it, you have to choose to, claiming I did not is demonstrating that you are a liar even more.

And again, anyone can provide any link without reading it. Here:
http://pets.webmd.com/cats/the-scoop-on-cat-p...

Does that site support my argument? How? What specific point am I linking? What argument am I making?

None of that is answered. I'm telling you than in order for you to understand my argument and see my evidence, you have to investigate an entire website and try and guess what I'm saying and then respond to it.

Then, I'll respond: "That not what I was saying, read the website".

That's not debate. That's playing games.

IF (big f'in IF) you actually READ the sites you linked, then sum up the argument you are using them for and present it like everyone else in written form for all to see.

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
And again, anyone can provide any link without reading it. Here:
http://pets.webmd.com/cats/the-scoop-on-cat-p...
Does that site support my argument? How? What specific point am I linking? What argument am I making?
None of that is answered. I'm telling you than in order for you to understand my argument and see my evidence, you have to investigate an entire website and try and guess what I'm saying and then respond to it.
Then, I'll respond: "That not what I was saying, read the website".
That's not debate. That's playing games.
IF (big f'in IF) you actually READ the sites you linked, then sum up the argument you are using them for and present it like everyone else in written form for all to see.

Now you are lying so much, do you believe yourself? I presented links that supported my argument, you failed to read them, therefore you failed to check my sources. That's your failure not mine.

Talking to you is like talking to the developmentally disabled children I use to teach for school credit, only they were smarter.

[Nuggin]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you are lying so much, do you believe yourself? I presented links that supported my argument, you failed to read them, therefore you failed to check my sources. That's your failure not mine.
Talking to you is like talking to the developmentally disabled children I use to teach for school credit, only they were smarter.

I did read your links. I presented you with specific counter arguments in the form of links of my own.

If you don't believe that my links counter your links, then you need to specifically point out what in your links you deemed important and why you deemed it so. Then you need to express why it is you don't think that ANYTHING in the two pages I linked specifically addresses your claims.

You have failed to do that.

I'm betting you didn't read either of my links closely enough.

Now, another way that this could be handled (you know, the way educated men would handle it) would be for you to SPECIFICALLY state your evidence within the forum for all to see, then we could address your points DIRECTLY without people having to guess what in your link applies and what doesn't.

But you don't want to do that, because you know that that would result in you being completely embarrassed because....

And this is key....

You are WRONG about the nature and purpose of science.