First, he takes up an arrogant, smug tone (as usual) and actually takes a stand against me, instead of just insulting like a cranky woman.

<perfidious: <boring pontificator....<GSM> has infamously admitted that torturing a baby for fun isn't objectively wrong, it's just distasteful....>

Not true, but facts have never interfered with your otherworldly ability to create lies out of whole cloth, same as the president whom you worship.>

Not true he says. Creating lies out of whole cloth, he says.

I said in <ohio's> chess forum, speaking to <tabanus> mainly, that <GSM> had the balls to admit the implications of his worldview and said, infamously, that torturing babies for fun isn't objectively wrong, it's just distasteful.

<Perfy>, chump sucker #1 that he is, calls me out on it. He calls my bluff.

Then, it was PIE IN THE FACE TIME!!!

<Gregor Samsa Mendel: I don't think torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, just distasteful.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #187806)

It is not idle boasting when you say you've won all the OMV debates.>

<TGA>, thank you for this comment. That is the whole purpose of my debates. It's to let the objective observer see for themselves the power of theistic arguments. I realize that I will never have a debate where I present winning arguments and bust all of my opponents fallacious arguments one after another, demonstrably, and have the opponent say, "Well, I guess you're right <big pawn>, you win this one". It's not going to happen because people's pride gets in the way in a debate, but the observer hasn't invested any pride into it, so they are free to think critically, without undue bias, and benefit accordingly.

One has to understand the lib-atheist in order to debate them correctly. One may get the mistaken impression from my debates that atheists are helpless little playthings that I abuse and dominate and feel bad for them, but this is not the case. If you see them arguing with anyone else, say on FB or YouTube, their arrogance is unbearable. When they have a weak opponent, they explode with pomposity. Their smugness is palpable. Their unmitigated insolence reaches the sky and there is no limit nor mercy. This is how they would treat me if they could embarrass me in a debate, make no mistake about it, but I don't let that happen. I bully the bullies.

Thank you for the welcome back.

Hi <Sugardom>, nice to see you here. The sheriff is back in town and the libs are going to be put in their places. I am already bulldozing the rogoff page. I am cutting the libs down like a lawn mower cuts grass.

Hi Keyser, I will rebrand my forum one way or another and try to use it to foster high level debate.

A man has a barn. Every now and then, he has to repair the barn by taking down some old planks of wood and replacing them with new pieces. He discards the old pieces in a pile on the other side of his yard. Gradually, over the years, he ends up replacing each and every piece of wood, one at a time and each time he replaced some wood, he took the old wood and threw it in the pile.

In the case of the bicycle, you're simply dismantling then putting back together the bike, but in the case of the barn, it is being repaired gradually over years, with the old timber reused for construction elsewhere.

The location matters? Let's rule that out with an example.

Say I take my bicycle apart, put all the pieces in the back of my truck, travel my friend's house up the road and put my bike back together, it's no longer the same bike because I put it together elsewhere?

People move their barns when they want to. Besides, carrying a bike in the truck disassembled isn't how bicycles were meant to move.

The rebuilt barn was constructed from old timber.

The examples are not comparable.>

Now that we've eliminated moving as an objection we can move on to time.

If I took my weight bench apart and assembled it 20 years later, it's the same bench.

The barn has not been reassembled.

The barn has not been reassembled. >

So far I've refuted the objection of location and time.

Now your objection is that I'm equating reassembling with reconstructing, but that's not the issue. The issue is the essence of the object, not the verb used to describe how it is put together.

Now let's imagine the you know this barn and you come to this guy's house, not having realized what exactly had happened. You see the barn that you've always seen, and then you see this other barn that obviously has newer wood. You would look at the one made from the old wood and say, "that's the original barn"

Now if you say, "The barn is moved", that doesn't matter because you can move a barn. But for the heck of it, let's just say that we moved the barns around. Let's say we took the barn made from the old wood and put it where the new barn is, and we move the new barn to where the other barn is now.

So now when you come over to visit, you see the barn made from the old wood sitting in the spot it's always been.