I find that people with inadequate debate skills tend to skirt the central argument when they've lost. Rather than graciously bow out and acknowledge their defeat, they will willfully disregard the central point of discussion and hammer at the margins in hopes that a thousand skirmishes will somehow outweigh a unitary defeat.

You've just described what I think about your last two replies.

And "Pot, Kettle wants a word" is not an ad hominem, its pointing out that your posited argument is guilty of that which you accused mine of.

I suppose I could have written just that, but I thought you'd understand as much.

the angry flailings of someone who knows he's lost.

You do realize you're the only one in this conversation who is attempting to "win" anything, right? And therefore, the only one who has any real fear of "losing"?

I'm just trying to have a conversation. Or, I was.

If you're trying to fight -- and I suspect you are -- you should have just let me know that, so I could go ahead, "lose", and go do something constructive and fun... like actually have an adult conversation with someone who isn't convinced that "conversation" is only about getting a good one in at every possible turn.

---

reads the rest of your post

---

...and yup, it does indeed seem to be the case. You provide an intellectually dishonest -- and that's being generous -- recap of what has occurred, followed with continued assertions that you're using "science" when you have yet to privide any sort of scientific link between "here for a long time" and "morally good cores of human beings". (Still waiting on that, by the way). Heck, you have yet to even realize that whether or not we're here due to our fundamentally "good" natures isn't even a discussion that can adequately be addressed by science...

... and all the while -- this is the funny part! -- you go ahead, accuse ME of being emotionally driven, accuse yourself of being all intellectual all day, while out of the other side of your mouth you flagrantly admit that this is a concept you're so emotionally in bed with that "there will be blood" if anyone treats it "flippantly".

Finally, you close with a string of eloquently phrased -- but still base, rude, unnecessary and utterly uncalled-for -- insults about my character, the character of my friends, and how much smaller you think my intellect is in comparison to yours.

"I know you are but what am I?", though cheap, is the most succinct way to phrase my reaction to every single complaint you've levied at me. I feel dirty even putting it out there, because of how immature it sounds, but the hypocrisy on display from your side of the discussion is unbelievably conspicuous. There's really nothing other to say; you're projecting so hard that people reading your last salvo must think they're at a drive-in movie.

And let us NOT forget, all this -- ALL THIS -- so that you can justify to yourself that it's really OK to be a liar. This is what you do with your self-admitted vast intellect: turn some internet stranger who was disagreeing with you into a whipping post to make yourself feel bigger and better about being a person of willingly dishonest character.

And you WONDER why I disagree about the fundamental "good" nature of humanity. That would be the funniest part if it weren't so goddamn sad.

---

But hey, whatever. You win, tiger. Have your internet points. I am soundly "defeated". There.

...was it as good for you as I suspect? ...did you get what you needed? ...do you need a tissue now, or perhaps a cigarette?

You threw a whole lot of punches here, but one day, I suspect you'll realize you were shadowboxing, and that maybe I'm not the one you're so desperately trying to convince.

That's what I'm hoping, anyway.