Reply #241: It's an argument...

[file83]

...that's it. I'm tired of this crutch you are limping around with demanding "proof" as the only challenge you have to people's opinions. So you say that Kerry is good for 2008 - I disagree with you - but I'm not disagreeing with you because you don't have "proof" that he is the best - that would be a completely unreasonable request for me to demand from you. BECAUSE you can't prove an opinion.

I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with your opinion. You disagree with my suspicions (opinions of skeptisim on S&B) for the same reason. End of story.

Get it yet? No? Okay, let's try another angle.

You claim that Kerry is the best for President in 2008. PROVE IT. Anything you say is just an argument that supports your opinion. None what you say "proves" anything. Just as my arguments that Kerry was a member of Skull and Bones (as was Bush41 and Bush43) and won't discuss it (neither will any of them) only supports my opinion that the coincidence is just to suspicious for me to trust Kerry - it doesn't PROVE anything. That's not to say that you can't disagree with the validity of the argument - you can! But when you fall back on the crutch of requiring "proof" for an opinion, and I can't do that, - you claim that somehow "proves" I can't debate you. Preposterous.

I could make the same unreasonable request to you - PROVE IT - but just because you can't prove that Kerry is in fact the best candidate for 2008 doesn't mean that I win the argument. Get it? :shrug:

Sheesh.