Immanuel Can wrote:<i like making things out of context on a forum so my argument appears more compelling>
RE: Immanuel Can
Vitruvius wrote:I hate how you leave your argument in full, reduce mine to one line - often missing the salient point, and then bang on afterward, again at great length. Further, you stick a label on my argument then attack the label. If Moral Developmentalism were my argument; I'd say so. My argument is based in evolution; not moral development of the individual - but evolutionary pre-disposition
And, therein lies the cunning of an Evangelist fox.
Not so honest are they...after all is said and done?
According to IC, God doesn't care about manipulation, it's not a commandment not to do so...one might then say it is even ETHICAL, so long as one is spreading the word of "GOD".
Immanuel Can wrote:These are not my words. I have no idea where you fished them up from. I never wrote them.
And had I written it, I'd at least have gotten the grammar right, and written "taking" instead of "making."
"Making" is grammatically correct. I am talking about your point of view - NOT "taking" as is typically expected.
(err should I include a stupid rolling the eyes emoti too?)