The end of humanity is coming. The Transhumanist agenda exists.

There is a clear indication of what eugenics is.

Improving upon something means that what already existed is not desirable, The first iPhone was good yes but it is improved upon now and is undesirable.

The songs and videos are not supposed to be an insta-hypnosis. Where did I or the article say that? The music is supposed to be likeable and catchy.

First of all, I have explicitly told you that I haven't read the article in detail because: 1)the burden of proof is on you and 2)I simply didn't find the article interesting or worth reading.

All my answers were to the excerpts you have provided me with. The fact that you ask me whether I have read the article at all despite me telling you that I have no interest in doing so genuinely perplexes me.



There's a clear indication of what eugenics is but no indication of what "voluntary eugenics" is, which was my whole point.



And what do you imply by explaining to me the meaning of "improving upon"? I never said that the phrase confused me nor do I think that anywhere in my answer you can find indications that I fail to understand the meaning of this phrase.



And "likeable and catchy" doesn't translate to brainwashing or propaganda of some elitist agenda, which the article suggests.



Like I said, "fool me once - blame on you; fool me twice - blame on me", so I will not indulge you and read through that article again. As I've said before, you're making the claim that "humanity is under threat because of Transhumanism" and it is your burden to prove it.

However, I did indulge you in another way and read through the "10 Commandments of Logic" - thank you, by the way, I've been searching for something like this for quite a while. And I shall show you where you yourself have trespassed the Commandments:

3)"Hasty generalization" - by looking at the "Transhumanism Agenda" you quickly assumed that all of Transhumanism relates to it.

8)"Burden of proof reversal" - I have told you this many times, if you make the claim it is your obligation to prove it. Don't make me read through your articles.

9)"Non Sequitur" - you, and the article, have made plenty of jumps that are unsupported by logic.

I might be able to squeeze 1 or 2 more Commandments but I really don't think it's worth the time. Your claim is unsubstantial enough as it is. If you can make serious and supported claims of me trespassing those commandments - then, please, do so, I'll be more than happy to evaluate them together with you.

But to be honest, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. You bore me with your silly and unsubstantial attempts to disprove what I say by saying that my logic is wrong, when your logic is so ridiculous that it took me ages to actually figure out what was the connection between your premise and your conclusion(as I said before, there's none). And don't try to twist the last sentence into an "ad hominem" attack by me; your arguments are unsubstantial independently, and your claims that my arguments are wrong are also unsubstantial independently(at least to me, perhaps fellow TSR members can help us decide who is right here).

So, please, unless you have something good to say this time, don't bother replying or I will add you to my ignore list.

Firstly, where did I say I believed any of this? The first post stated discuss and that is exactly what I've been doing. You on the other hand have only resorted to minimal thinking and analysis and then acting superior as if you've said something worthwhile.

Still, the key points in the arguments you still have not addressed. All you can apparently do is boil down to veiled insults so you probably won't get a warning. It is ad hominem whether you'd like to admit it or not.

The only thing that is not logical here is your attempts of arguing a point.

I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of guess what Transhumanism so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism.

I did not ask you to prove my claim is false. I simply ask you to read the article that may contain proof. You cannot differentiate between the two?

Put me on your ignore list and see if I care.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Still, the key points in the arguments you still have not addressed. All you can apparently do is boil down to veiled insults so you probably won't get a warning. It is ad hominem whether you'd like to admit it or not.

The only thing that is not logical here is your attempts of arguing a point.

I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of guess what Transhumanism so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism.

I did not ask you to prove my claim is false. I simply ask you to read the article that may contain proof. You cannot differentiate between the two?

Sorry, what "key points"? You had the chance to address them to me and, in my opinion, you have failed to do so. All you have done is given me some paragraphs that hardly have any connection to what you call the "main argument".

And do show me how my arguments are ad hominem. I have only resorted to insulting you personally(and I wasn't really clandestine about it) when it wasn't related to the argument I was making. It's perhaps needless, but I'll still elaborate - ad hominem would be to state "You're argument is wrong because you're an idiot therefore you can't made valid arguments".



Evidence, please.



Pardon? I find difficulty in interpreting that sentence but if I have figured out where to put the commas correctly it should be "I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of, guess what, Transhumanism, so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism."

And, by the way, NO. The Transhumanist Agenda =/= Transhumanism. I think it's futile to try and explain this any further. Maybe read the wiki page on transhumanism or something.



Okay, you said "discuss" and I have given you my ideas why I think your claim(or the claim of the article, anyway) is wrong. You have then told me I was wrong, and you have given me the link to another article.I have glanced through the second article, found it uninteresting and have said that I have no interest in reading this article in detail and that it is your burden to prove your claims anyway, since you have made the claim that my views are wrong i.e. that "transhumanism is a threat".

So following this, you didn't "ask" me to prove that your initial claim is false, you asked me to discuss your claim. You have then stated that my claim is wrong and I have retorted by stating why your initial claim is wrong(i.e. why my claim that your claim is wrong is right). I can differentiate perfectly between the two. It seems that you can't since you have just confused them.

But regardless, by challenging my claim with your claim, you automatically challenge me to falsify your claim. That's how proper arguments work. If your claim(that my claim is wrong) is valid, then my claim becomes moot and vice versa - if my claim is valid then your claim that my claim is wrong becomes moot.

Anyway, I have read through the article more or less closely(when I was considering your arguments) and the fact that you have incoherently represented it is not a big loss, since the article is pseudo-logical rubbish anyway. If someone could validly prove that it is logical I'll give him £10. Hell, he'll probably get a Fields Medal in Mathematics since that will be a true breakthrough in Logic.

Good day to you, "kind sir"