Should JohnRocker be perma banned from Rage?

[Stung]

"You aren't a qualified authority on evaluating the veracity of my statements. I am. Therefore your evaluation is persuasively irrational and irrelevent. Anything else?"

Again, you have not proven you were practicing your logic skills on John Rocker, which means I still stand by my prior statement about it being illogical to argue with the irrational. Heresay cannot be disproven, so nobody is a qualified authority to evaluate whether your statements are true. Your word against mine, if you will. This led to my 'opinionated conclusion' of my last thread, because by you resorting to things that cannot be proven, particularly something that seemed so ridiculous (I am practicing so I improve at logic), I formed an opinion that you were making it up.

Logic is not always black and white. Sure, something is either right or wrong, and if this was math, that would indeed be the case. But your case against me is built on your own opinion, and opinion is subjected to many different views of what is right. Some things you say to others are based on facts, which is logical, and some things you say (like the practicing example) cannot be proven because it is your word. In the latter, nobody is qualifed to argue, so by calling me an idiot by questioning 'your word' as a logical argument, you have indeed shown me your ignorance.

And indeed I am now being illogical, because I have continued to argue with your pig-headedness. I guess that makes me pig headed and 'an idiot' too.

Sure it is either right or wrong? wow, so if i use the words black or white im wrong suddenly? Comical.

A belief or opinion that is not made into an argument is just that, a statement of belief. So I believe you're an idiot; what's your concern with this? You shouldn't be, it's irrelevant. Same reason I ignore JR's "stung is pathetic" bullshit

Consider the fact that I'm 'testifying' that I am doing this as a means of practice, and state my motivations for doing so. Also consider that I would be much more capable of understanding my intent than you, since uh, I know what I intend, and you can only provide conjecture, and don't meet any qualifications that make your conjecture probable. What justifies any concerns that you have about me possibly being false? You don't even state why. You just say False. You supply no counterevidence that calls into question the veracity of the testimony.

Think of a lawyer doing this. "He is lying. This wasn't his intent. I rest my case.") With that in mind, my testimony is indeed reduced to a true or false value, but who should one be persuaded to believe more? The individual more likely to understand the intent, and providing logical evidence of his motivations that justify the intent, or someone simply saying it's false?

Persuasion is the issue, and persuasive rationalization involving fallacies can be, imagine this, PERSUASIVE. Rational considerations such as authority should be taken into consideration, even in testimony. I met persuasive rationalization requirements as far as I'm concerned, and thus, rest my case. I never said you were being illogical or anything in the prior post, just that you provide no evidence of why you believe in the false value of my evidence, and aren't a qualified authority to do so really. Why do you think they call experts or witnesses to testify instead of some random jackoff? It's persuasive.

Imagine that. I threw you a curveball and didn't involve proofs, and you didn't even catch on.