Hitch is dead

Just in case you were wondering, it's not actually necessary for you to prove you are a puerile dickhead in every thread.Hitch, you'll be missed. And tonight, anyone tossing a few back in his memory might consider a song in his honor as well.

Ah, there's that Christian compassion and love for one's fellow man on display yet again.

And, pray tell, what did he ever say that this refutes? Evidence to support this claim and your response would be nice.

If you were suggesting that me calling you a puerile dickhead was an ad hominem, you are of course wrong. An ad hominem would be, "You are a puerile dickhead, therefore your argument is wrong." I never said your argument was wrong, I simply pointed out that you are a puerile dickhead. This is what is called an insult, but it is not an ad hominem fallacy. In fact, since it was accurate, it wasn't a fallacy at all. Given your outstanding track record here, since you equate name calling with liberalism, I can only assume you are liberal. In fact, since your quotient of name calling to substance is magnitudes higher than mine, you must be considerably more liberal than I am. Not difficult, since I'm not a liberal. But whatever.Edited by subbie, : Tyop

Take a second look. I'd venture to guess that there's very little mocking of Jesus here, but instead the mockery is directed at certain of those who call themselves Christians.

I must say, you did an admirable job of proving you're not puerile.

As far as I can tell, the only real question left regarding Dawn is whether he understands anything he reads. Of course, since we've established to the satisfaction of everyone present that he lacks any ability to communicate effectively, this question is of academic significance alone. But it may be an interesting one nonetheless.My first observation is that several people here are responding to what Dawn is saying in a manner that suggests they've been able to suss out some kind of meaning in what he says. (Kudos to them, btw, for their Herculean efforts.) My impression has been that the vast majority of the time, the meaning that they take from what he says is at best tangentially related to the topic at hand. From a chronic inability to stay on topic, one might reasonably conclude that he lacks the capacity to understand what the topic is. That this inability extends across multiple topics in unrelated areas reinforces this conclusion.Second, it is also apparent that he's unable to understand the consequences of even the things he says. What impact this fact has on the question of his ability to understand what he reads is not clear. It could suggest simply an inability to correctly reason from premises to conclusion. Or, it could suggest generally insufficient processing skills.If the former, it's still conceivable that he could be understanding what he reads but cannot accurately reason from there. If the latter, insufficient processing skills strongly suggest an inability to understand the initial input.Thoughts?