Originally posted by @romans1009No. I'm saying that it isn't true that, as you said that when people "...drive a car (they have faith another driver won’t strike their car,)" (You said.) If you were right, people wouldn't wear seat-belts. But people wear seat-belts.
You think a seatbelt negates the consequences of a head-on collision or driver’s-side collision at more than a modest speed?
Do you like understanding the fallacies that people commit when arguing?
Originally posted by @apathistYou’re confusing complete and total faith with near complete and total faith - you’re confusing 99.3 percent with 100 percent.
No. I'm saying that it isn't true that, as you said that when people "...drive a car (they have faith another driver won’t strike their car,)" [b](You said.) If you were right, people wouldn't wear seat-belts. But people wear seat-belts.
Do you like understanding the fallacies that people commit when arguing?[/b]
But feel free to spend the next five hours (or five days) arguing about that 0.7 percent.
Sick!
Originally posted by @secondsonHe that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous,
To be like God.
Both of them alike are an abomination to Jehovah. (Proverbs 17:15 ASV)
Originally posted by @romans1009So to answer my question you are NOT interested in knowing about the logical fallacies people commit when arguing. Well, it shows.
You’re confusing complete and total faith with near complete and total faith - you’re confusing 99.3 percent with 100 percent.
But feel free to spend the next five hours (or five days) arguing about that 0.7 percent.
Sick!
Originally posted by @romans1009So you don't know how to recognize logical fallacies, and are proud of that ignorance.
Yeah, thinking I’m not interested in knowing that is a safe assumption.