Stick to your guns

[DrFaroohk]

I hate it when people cite something as the basis of their argument, and then when you turn it back on them they act like it doesn't matter. I feel like if you're going to use a source, you need to stick with it even if you don't like it.

Like if you're quoting the bible to make your point - fine, but when I show you a passage that negates your point, you have to accept that too.

[HYHYBT]

Why?
......

[Boozy]

I think what he's saying is that if your source is trustworthy enough to quote from to prove a point you like, then it's trustworthy enough to negate that same point. Whether you like it or not.

I think that's pretty sound logic.

[BlaqueKatt]

yup it would be like using the first section of a history book to prove that Japan has amazing military strength then ignoring the fact later in the same book that explains part of the surrender agreement, was to disband their military.

[Hyena Dandy]

I agree with you, although I disagree with your point about the bible, as not everyone takes the bible completely literally, or accepts it as infallible. Many religions have tome after tome of additional rules, exceptions, etc. Based on the bible, perhaps, but like any religious text, the bible is just a starting point, its not the entirety of the religion.

[DrFaroohk]

Well my bible thing is like people who are against gay marriage or something, and they're main point is "Well the bible says men can't get married!" But the bible also says you're not supposed to get divorced, and you've done that three times, so obviously you don't REALLY believe in what you're telling me.

Or an authority figure who will punish you based upon a written "law", but then refuses to acknowledge said "law" or rule when it becomes inconvenient for them.

Or even a reference source, say you're using wikipedia as the main crux of your argument. Then you don't get to bitch later and say "Well wikipedia isn't accurate."