Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat people think they are, say they are and what they purport to do is not the issue.
You don't think there are people even today who practice witchcraft? I myself have come across in thei rurals of my own country their pentangles in abandoned buildings. Infact I was so bold as to place a Bible tract that i had in my shirt pocket smack bang in the middle of one and weighed it down with a stone for the returning witches. Yes there are witches and those who practice the occult.
My understanding of the term 'witch' and 'witchcraft' (generally) is about people with supernatural/magical powers used for evil purposes.
Do you think there are people who actually have these powers?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWait seated.
All I want to know is whether you revealed Seitse's illness on a public forum when he had only discussed it in private.
It's a simple and civil question. You believe in civility and etiquette, so I am surprised you can't provide a straightforward answer.
05 Feb 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThen I suggest ol boy that perhaps you need to revise your understanding. Having or not having supernatural powers is not the defining criteria of witchcraft, practising the occult is. I must also point out that there is such a thing as so called 'white witches' who will take offence at the implication that they employ their arts for evil for these are more akin to pagans and nature worshippers. I doubt any of them have supernatural powers.
What people think they are, say they are and what they purport to do is not the issue.
My understanding of the term 'witch' and 'witchcraft' (generally) is about people with supernatural/magical powers used for evil purposes.
Do you think there are people who actually have these powers?
Originally posted by SeitseARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Wait seated.
argumentum e silentio
Description: Drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason.
Logical Form:
Person 1 claims X is true, then remains silent.
Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.
Example #1:
Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?
Bob: (says nothing)
Jay: I KNEW you took them!
Explanation: Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument. Bob’s silence does not mean he took the keys. Perhaps he did, or perhaps he knows who did, or perhaps he saw a tyrannosaurus eat them, or perhaps he just felt like not answering.
Example #1:
Morris: Oh youthful spirit, you have so much to learn. I know for a fact that there are multiple dimensions that beings occupy.
Clifton: How can you possibly *know* that for a fact?
Morris: (raises one eyebrow, stares deeply into the eyes of Clifton and says nothing)
Clifton: Wow. You convinced me!
Explanation: The reason this technique works so well, is because imagined reasons are often more persuasive than real reasons. If someone wants to be convinced, this technique works like a charm. However, to the critical thinker, this will not fly. Silence is not a valid substitute for reason or evidence.
Exception: Generally speaking, absence of evidence is not evidence; however, there are many cases where the reason evidence is being held back can be seen as evidence. In the above example, prompting Bob to share a reason for his silence could result in a statement from Bob that can be used as evidence.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/55-argument-from-silence
05 Feb 16
Originally posted by StartreaderThis issue stems from seitse claiming that Grampy Bobby revealed it in the General Forum after it was initially disclosed in private.
I can't understand why anyone would mock an illness or disease. That's sick.
I haven't seen it on here so I can't evaluate what happened. As I said before, Seitse, I'm so sorry you have felt mocked because of illness.
05 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. I am well aware that the term witch has many, varied meanings. Hence why I said 'generally'.
Then I suggest ol boy that perhaps you need to revise your understanding. Having or not having supernatural powers is not the defining criteria of witchcraft, practising the occult is. I must also point out that there is such a thing as so called 'white witches' who will take offence at the implication that they employ their arts for evil for these are more akin to pagans and nature worshippers. I doubt any of them have supernatural powers.
But we were talking about witchcraft in the sense of the Salem trials, where women were accused of using supernatural powers to 'possess' young girls.
If you don't believe people can have have such powers, then the evidence presented at the trials cannot have a bearing on whether they were actually witches.
Just as the fact that the thread has been deleted has no bearing on whether Grampy Bobby did what he is accused of.
Originally posted by StartreaderCan't you read between the lines? Can't you get out of your pinhole perspective and see what goes on? Are you so blinkered that you really truly cannot see Grampy Bobby's passive-spiteful-agression?
How on earth do you draw that conclusion from the fact that Grampy Bobby posted Kipling's "If"?
05 Feb 16
Originally posted by Rank outsiderHear hear.
I'm an English Literature graduate. It's what we do.
More seriously, rather like Duchess64 always intimating that he is is a woman, but not actually saying it, Grampy Bobby was refusing to answer a direct question about whether or not he had done what he was accused of by posting a poem that purports to portray him as the long-suffering innocent pa ...[text shortened]... usation. Which are the actions more commonly associated with someone who knows they are guilty.
05 Feb 16
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYes but no one has actually claimed that the absence of the thread is proof anything other than an inability for those who have raised the issue to provide evidence for their claims. You cannot expect us to go on hearsay, biased character witnesses and references to threads that do not exist.
No. I am well aware that the term witch has many, varied meanings. Hence why I said 'generally'.
But we were talking about witchcraft in the sense of the Salem trials, where women were accused of using supernatural powers to 'possess' young girls.
If you don't believe people can have have such powers, then the evidence presented at the trials c ...[text shortened]... at the thread has been deleted has no bearing on whether Grampy Bobby did what he is accused of.
05 Feb 16
Originally posted by Rank outsider (Page 8)Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
No. I am well aware that the term witch has many, varied meanings. Hence why I said 'generally'.
But we were talking about witchcraft in the sense of the Salem trials, where women were accused of using supernatural powers to 'possess' young girls.
If you don't believe people can have have such powers, then the evidence presented at the tr ...[text shortened]... t that the thread has been deleted has no bearing on whether Grampy Bobby did what he is accused of.
"Please state them with specific reference to the thread title and page number
with the [threadid]link[/threadid] and I'll reply within 24 hours.
Thanks for your interest."
05 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Bob: (says" thank you)
ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
argumentum e silentio
Description: Drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason.
Logical Form:
Person 1 claims X is true, then remains silent.
Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.
Example #1:
Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?
Bob: (s ...[text shortened]... evidence.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/55-argument-from-silence