The article merely asserts that the concession is "terrible" without arguing against it. Asserting something is terrible is not an argument. Therefore I am forced to conclude that the author of the blog post is a complete moron.
"You need to argue that it's terrible to kill mentally-disabled orphans for fun, otherwise you're a complete moron!"
The terribleness of Dillahunty's concession is more obvious than any argument could be, and it's only slightly less obvious than your stupidity. You lack common sense and don't know anything about moral philosophy, dumbass.
Randall. I agree that the concession is self-evidently terrible. I was poking fun at Mr. Bulldog's other articles where he takes similarly horrific "concessions" and then merely asserts that they lack supporting argumentation and are thus a nonissue.
The article merely asserts that the concession is "terrible" without arguing against it. Asserting something is terrible is not an argument. Therefore I am forced to conclude that the author of the blog post is a complete moron.
"You need to argue that it's terrible to kill mentally-disabled orphans for fun, otherwise you're a complete moron!"
The terribleness of Dillahunty's concession is more obvious than any argument could be, and it's only slightly less obvious than your stupidity. You lack common sense and don't know anything about moral philosophy, dumbass.
Randall. I agree that the concession is self-evidently terrible. I was poking fun at Mr. Bulldog's other articles where he takes similarly horrific "concessions" and then merely asserts that they lack supporting argumentation and are thus a nonissue.