What is it with you and logical fallacies? Do you deny the validity of logic, do you think the fallacies that you continually use are not actually fallacious, or do you think that those fallacies do not apply to your posts?
I think the problem with some here is they believe that logic is limited to physical, naturalistic concepts and therefore formulaic in a scientific way. I happen to believe that logic reaches beyond this blinkered understanding. For instance (and I've used this example before), I've often challenged people to explain 'love', and the most common response is that it has to do with chemical reactions in the brain. Logically, that doesn't make sense, because chemical reactions don't 'just' happen - there has to be some sort of catalyst or action that initiates the reaction: in other words, the chemical reactions in the brain are symptoms or markers of something else. To extend the example, love isn't a drippy, soft, fuzzy emotion as many like to believe it is: it can be soft and tender, but equally it can be hard and painful.
In the first case, you would be denying reason and hence declaring yourself to be unreasonable. In the second two, you would be able to back up your position using logic, and yet you never even try...
Clearly, you are short on logic yourself, so until you show that you've overcome that shortcoming, I won't be taking any lessons in logic from you.
