{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/18/2016 9:26:49 PM
8
And also more plausible than you ever having a decent argument.
English
-
It is somewhat a valid argument.
-
Batman has more comic books about him than Julius Caesar, therefor it's more plausible that Batman exists than Julius Caesar.
-
You're missing the point. He's saying that just because someone wrote a book doesn't make it fact, referring to some Christians using the Bible as evidence of God.
-
Save for the fact that it's [i]supposed[/i] to be a Historical document. Tolkien never claimed that Middle-Earth existed, and it was not the basis of a religion. In this regard it was utterly flawed, as LOTR was intended to be fiction, whereas the Bible was not. Both were written by men, of course, but coming up with a pointless logical fallacy won't prove anything.
-
Then why reply? Oh wait, because you feel like it's a valid argument.
-
You mistake derision and contempt for some sort of vague admittance of the validation of your argument.
-
If you truly felt that my argument was invalid, you wouldn't have said anything. However, you feeling it necessary to shoot down a valid point with whatever you can. There's no counter argument to my point, thus you state that it is an invalid point even when you have nothing proving your side. Typical.
-
Your argument is a logical fallacy. There are more books about the X-Men then there are about Vlad the Impaler, according to your logic that makes them more likely to have existed.
