I call upon witnesses to testify to my claim that @Unenlightened has been found guilty of sophistry. Cross-examination of witnesses shall reveal whether my claim is sound or incoherent.

M'lud, I call for full disclosure of evidence to the defence, and specification of the occasion of the alleged offence.

Furthermore, I wish to object that you have found me guilty before the proceedings have begun. I reserve the right to cite your opening remarks as evidence of bias in any future appeal.

If you are stating that he has already been found guilty, then what are the witnesses being called for? For a sentencing phase? You can say that there is a pending charge and call witnesses to establish evidence of the alleged charge, but, once there is a conviction entered, the issue of guilt is no longer before the court.

I shall now proceed to the examination of your recent post history. In it, I refer attendees to these posts you have made:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/223455
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/223242

In the first linked comment, you have committed a gross overgeneralization of attributing the entire Judeo-Christian tradition of being guilty of professing a warped and distorted worldview. I find this unacceptable and appeal to anyone to argue otherwise.

In the second linked comment, I appeal to members to recognize unenlightened's post as true wisdom, even though he has self-negated it, which is unacceptable.

If you are stating that he has already been found guilty, then what are the witnesses being called for? For a sentencing phase? You can say that there is a pending charge and call witnesses to establish evidence of the alleged charge, but, once there is a conviction entered, the issue of guilt is no longer before the court. — LD Saunders

No, I am only marshalling evidence to be examined by other members. Judgement shall be reserved for very few charges if there need be such a thing even done around here, if we can't self-regulate.

Well, then I would defend the accused by first asking that the charges against the accused be amended, because presently the claim that guilt has already been decided against the accused is unduly prejudicial and violates basic due process. I would also ask for a bill of particulars as the charges now raised against the accused are rather vague and again violate basic due process as the accused cannot be sure of what needs to be defended. I would further request a disclosure of the criminal backgrounds of any witnesses against the accused, as this goes to the issue of their credibility, and possible bias, and bias is never a collateral issue.

Fine. I redact my accusation, of @unenlightened being found guilty and limit my accusation to committing sophistry.

I ask other members to consider my evidence previously resented as circumstantial or pertinent and apparent in their minds also.

I would further request a disclosure of the criminal backgrounds of any witnesses against the accused, as this goes to the issue of their credibility, and possible bias, and bias is never a collateral issue. — LD Saunders

You place an undue burden on the proceedings of this courtroom. Although I can not discern my own bias, I request a veil of ignorance to be endowed on any further testimonials. My own and others.

In the first linked comment, you have committed a gross overgeneralization of attributing the entire Judeo-Christian tradition of being guilty of professing a warped and distorted worldview. I find this unacceptable and appeal to anyone to argue otherwise. — Posty McPostface

On the contrary, it is you yourself who have overgeneralised. The Judeo-Christian tradition begins with Genesis, in which you will find an account of the fallen nature of mankind.

I meant to say that presenting humans as imperfect goods or broken goods is a strange and warped POV. — Posty McPostface

I merely point out that the tradition does in fact present humans as imperfect, and in the case of Christianity as in need of salvation. Yours is the claim, therefore, that it is 'warped and distorted.'

In the second linked comment, I appeal to members to recognize unenlightened's post as true wisdom, even though he has self-negated it, which is unacceptable. — Posty McPostface

In the second case, the nearest I get to self negation is:

I can be wrong, — unenlightened

If this is true, there is no case to answer, and if it is false, I am entirely innocent and this statement proves it.

Well, actually, the Jews don't even refer to that opening story, which was written long after many other stories were written as Genesis, and for the Jews, the people who wrote the story, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged fall of the human race. It has more to do with issues like the distinction between humans and people when it comes to ethics. That's the problem with classifying the story as Judeo-Christian ----- one typically makes sole reference to the Christian interpretation while ignoring the Jewish one, which is completely different from Christianity. One may as well call the story a Christian-Muslim one, and see how far it gets one where both the Christians and Muslims disagree on what the story means.

On the contrary, it is you yourself who have overgeneralised. The Judeo-Christian tradition begins with Genesis, in which you will find an account of the fallen nature of mankind. — unenlightened

Now, are you distorting evidence? I simply stated an opinion, and you have turned it around to facthood (in that thread) given your immense wisdom on these matters.

I merely point out that the tradition does in fact present humans as imperfect, and in the case of Christianity as in need of salvation. Yours is the claim, therefore, that it is 'warped and distorted.' — unenlightened

No, I did not say that in that thread. Your post follows mine, and my post has not been edited or distorted.

In the second case, the nearest I get to self negation is:
I can be wrong,
— unenlightened

If this is true, there is no case to answer, and if it is false, I am entirely innocent and this statement proves it. — unenlightened

Yet, you are not wrong and introduce ambiguity where there is no need for any. Why is this?

I like both of you, so I am hoping that this is all in good fun.

Guys, I presume this thread is being done in fun and with the consent of the accused? If not, let's not call specific posters out for what we might believe to be inappropriate argument in its own separate thread.

Guys, I presume this thread is being done in fun and with the consent of the accused? — Hanover

It is. I have no intention of proceedings done with ill intent or emotionally driven posting (I mean, that's the whole purpose of this thread, for heaven's sake).

Cross post. :up:

If not, let's not call specific posters out for what we might believe to be inappropriate argument in its own separate thread. — Hanover

I feel as though a separate thread is required to examine arguments made in other threads. Often, the third party analysis is required to de-emotionalize and restrain from jumping on bandwagons or straw-manning.

OK, this thread has already died.

RIP.

Yet, you are not wrong and introduce ambiguity where there is no need for any. Why is this? — Posty McPostface

I did not say I was wrong, and to do so would have been a performative contradiction. But to admit the possibility is to require of the reader and interlocutor that they think things through and not take my word as gospel, and this is the tradition of philosophy.

Well, actually, the Jews don't even refer to that opening story, which was written long after many other stories were written as Genesis, and for the Jews, the people who wrote the story, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged fall of the human race — LD Saunders

I do not presume to speak for the Jews. I speak for the tradition that Christianity derives from Judaism. Hence the term 'Judaeo-Christian'. Genesis is a document historically Jewish in origin, and the fall is central to Christian belief. There can be no saviour unless mankind stands in need of salvation.

I did not say I was wrong, and to do so would have been a performative contradiction. But to admit the possibility is to require of the reader and interlocutor that they think things through and not take my word as gospel, and this is the tradition of philosophy. — unenlightened

Understood. I stand corrected then.