Definition: an argument supported by facts that Jim wants to ignore.
>I posted a
>reputable historian that puts the lie to it.
No, you posted a reputable historian presenting his opinion and
you pretended it was fact. That is what is known as "argument from
authority" -- something else you carry around in your little bag of
tricks, I guess.
>Russell responds with incidents,
>all corrected by the very system he condemns, thus proving my point all the
>more.
Except that you have failed to prove how your system "corrected"
these incidents.
BTW, I can't help but notice that (not unsurprisingly) you have
completely misunderstood my intentions. I have taken great efforts
to avoid "condemning" your system. I have certainly criticized your
claim of moral superiority, but that is not the same as condemning
Christianity.
But then, I guess in your eyes, anybody who disagrees with you is
"condemning" Christianity.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.