You may be right. In retrospect, he didn't actually use his opinions of me AS his argument. In fact, I don't see where he has MADE an argument. Let's try to figure this out.
The problem, I see, is that we don't know what he means by "source" here. Are you referring to the source of my argument? The source of the material on the Wiki? Is he even attacking my source? He didn't really say that the Wiki was wrong. It looks like he's calling me to site the sources of my source? Isn't that a bit absurd? If I quote a person directly, is he going to follow it up with "Yeah, but where did HE learn it?" Is it going to turn into an infinite regression? I'm using the Wiki AS my source.Originally Posted by Kuya
I see the term "parrot[ing]" as implying that I am making my argument from a state of ignorance of the subject. He seems to be saying that I'm not qualified to even make an argument. I'm afraid that's not how it works.
It occurs to me that this post is basically a more in-depth version of the first couple of lines in my previous post. Feel free to consider this a replacement of said lines if you'd like.
Also, it occurs to me that I used the term "proportional" wrong in the discussion regarding Religiosity and Intelligence. I meant to use the term "correlation" as I don't recall if the data is, in fact, proportional (inversely or directly).
XI Wiki



