TEC said- Maybe you should have read that warning before you hit submit.
Adam said- Anyway, that counter is (yet another) variation of a theme of your favorite argument, the "Tu Quoque" ("but you do it, too!) defense. Did you say that as if to prove my point that you engage in childlike reasoning at times?
TEC said- I did not use this 'tu quoque" 'but you did it too' defense. You are adding the 'too'.
TEC, you've gotta be shittin' me, right?
You've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that not only do you do not understand the basic fallacies used in contemporary logic, but you also didn't pay attention in your Junior High School literature class (never-mind bothering to take a course in Latin!) to know what 'tu' means in Latin, eg when Julius Caesar asked the question, 'Et TU, Brutus?" after someone who he thought was his friend had betrayed him and stabbed him, along with all the other Senators?
'Tu' in Latin means, 'too'.
('Et' means 'you', FWIW)
Now look at your words again which I quoted above, and you should be able to see your words are a CLASSIC example of 'tu quoque', since your statement implied I didn't take my own advice (i.e. the graphic warning to avoid talking out of one's arse), and hence you accused me of playing the "tu quoque" card.
HOWEVER, I'm not the one who's talking out of my arse.
Whether you're talking about baby teeth, living waters, or death being personified in Exodus, it's pure silly-string.
On the latest jewel about death personified in Exodus, ancient Jews had no moral problems conceiving of God's heavenly angels delivering death, after being sent to Earth as avenging angels, eg that was the role of the two angels who accompanied Jehovah to Earth to visit Abraham; they went on while leaving God to look the other way to deliver "righteous" Lot and family so the fireworks could begin, after they were ordered by God to destroy and kill the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The avenging angels causing the deaths of first-born ten of both man and beasts wasn't even an eyebrow raiser, since it was absolutely a moral cake-walk for ancient Jews.
Heck, that was the entire premise behind Satan originally, as seen in the account of Job. 'Satan' is actually a title or a job description (in Hebrew, Satan means 'accuser'), and it's NOT a pronoun or personal name; the role explains why Satan was found in Heaven, serving as a member of the Jehovah's Divine Counsel (Hebrew, Elohim, a plural word, referring to many members of the Team), since Satan WAS a member of God's Team AFTER the Fall (since Job lived AFTER Adam and Eve's fall), and Satan had to ask permission from God to authorize and approve of all of Satan's actions.
Heck, look up destroying angel sometime.
TEC said- Yes, it is also hypocrisy to judge/rebuke someone for doing something that you, yourself, do.
The "tu quoque" fallacy is used as a defense AFTER been caught red-handed, as a weak-sauce excuse attempt to justify the offense by pointing out how the other party does the same. It's an ACCUSATION of hypocrisy, or attempting to shift focus off one's self .
NOW, show me where I've been hypocritical above (i.e. where I've committed ANY tuo quoques; hint: I haven't) since otherwise, your charge of my being hypocritical fails, too.
Adam
