[Yaakov ben Avraham]

You can't really boil unclean harvest without destroying it back in the Bronze Age, because you haven't got the technology to build anything to cook it in. How are you going to do that?

Again, its not an ad hominem when it is true.

[Ghost of V]

You can't really boil unclean harvest without destroying it back in the Bronze Age, because you haven't got the technology to build anything to cook it in. How are you going to do that?

Again, its not an ad hominem when it is true.

Are you telling me that they didn't have rudimentary bowls or pots to boil the harvest in?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I expect they did, but to keep it at boiling temperature for 3/4 of a day? I think that would probably burn whatever they had beyond recognition. They didn't have the steel or the iron that we have. Bronze isn't a strong metal, you know that as well as I do. Yes, they might have been able to use it, but would they have? Metal had to be used for far more valuable things. Likes swords and shit.

[Rama Set]

You can't really boil unclean harvest without destroying it back in the Bronze Age, because you haven't got the technology to build anything to cook it in. How are you going to do that?

I was thinking of a pot.

Again, its not an ad hominem when it is true.

If you want to ignore my points that's cool but just to see my words once more:  An ad hominem is not a fallacy because it is true or false. It is a fallacy because the intelligence of a person has nothing to do with the truth of their claims.

Here is a handy way to think about it: as soon as you stop dealing with what has been posted, but instead deal with your opinion of who posted it, you argument is shit.

[Rama Set]

I expect they did, but to keep it at boiling temperature for 3/4 of a day? I think that would probably burn whatever they had beyond recognition. They didn't have the steel or the iron that we have. Bronze isn't a strong metal, you know that as well as I do. Yes, they might have been able to use it, but would they have? Metal had to be used for far more valuable things. Likes swords and shit.

Cool so you know nothing about pasteurization. Minimal pasteurization is achieved by raising some thing to 72C for 15 seconds. I hope you did not take my fictional bible passage as literal truth! 

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

You can't really boil unclean harvest without destroying it back in the Bronze Age, because you haven't got the technology to build anything to cook it in. How are you going to do that?

I was thinking of a pot.

How is pasteurisation carried out today. I was under the impression that only a few things can be pasteurised, mostly liquids, rather than solid food, and that it was done on flat surfaces, rather than in any kind of pot. I think that maintaining any kind of technological know-how needed to do it would have been impossible before it was in fact invented in the 18th Century.

Again, its not an ad hominem when it is true.

If you want to ignore my points that's cool but just to see my words once more:  An ad hominem is not a fallacy because it is true or false. It is a fallacy because the intelligence of a person has nothing to do with the truth of their claims.

Here is a handy way to think about it: as soon as you stop dealing with what has been posted, but instead deal with your opinion of who posted it, you argument is shit.

You can't really deal with someone's arguments when they are so illogical that they do not admit of dealing with them. A person's intelligence, or the lack thereof, speaks to their abilities to make an argument, and is therefore relevant. Now, if I said you were fat, or ugly, or fucked up, or if I questioned your ancestry, or recommended you do socially unacceptable things with your mother, or insulted the size of your private parts, then you would have a point. Because none of those things have a bearing on your ability to post an argument. But your intelligence does indeed have a bearing on that ability.

I expect they did, but to keep it at boiling temperature for 3/4 of a day? I think that would probably burn whatever they had beyond recognition. They didn't have the steel or the iron that we have. Bronze isn't a strong metal, you know that as well as I do. Yes, they might have been able to use it, but would they have? Metal had to be used for far more valuable things. Likes swords and shit.

Cool so you know nothing about pasteurization. Minimal pasteurization is achieved by raising some thing to 72C for 15 seconds. I hope you did not take my fictional bible passage as literal truth! 

Obviously, I know that your so-called quote is not in the Bible, which I have read, and you obviously have not. But MINIMAL pasteurisation. What does that mean exactly? In order to make something safe to eat or drink, how pasteurised does it need to be? I am not so sure a campfire would do it.

[Rushy]

How would G-d give ideas on pasteurisation to a Bronze Age people that didn't have a way to heat things to a temperature for long enough that would succeed in pasteurising something?

Ha ha, what? People in the bronze age had the ability to melt bronze metal but couldn't boil milk?

[Ghost of V]

You're a fucking idiot, Yaakov.

*edited for profanity

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, you can melt metal. Why not boil milk. i am sure you can. But can it be kept safe for how long? That is a VERY interesting question. And I admit, one I can't answer. OF course you can pasteurise. But they couldn't refrigerate. So what good would it have done?

[Ghost of V]

But they couldn't refrigerate. So what good would it have done?

Yes they could.

You're an idiot.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Britain is a lot colder than Israel. You really aren't that bright.

[Ghost of V]

Britain is a lot colder than Israel. You really aren't that bright.

You're an idiot.

[Rama Set]

You can't really deal with someone's arguments when they are so illogical that they do not admit of dealing with them.

Something that has not really occurred in the posts of the people you are insulting. Regardless, if that is your stance you just point out the illogical portion and leave the Ad Hominem out of it. 

A person's intelligence, or the lack thereof, speaks to their abilities to make an argument, and is therefore relevant.

You say people are stupid on the mere basis that they are atheist. This is a subjective opinion unsupported by fact and therefore irrelevant.

Now, if I said you were fat, or ugly, or fucked up, or if I questioned your ancestry, or recommended you do socially unacceptable things with your mother, or insulted the size of your private parts, then you would have a point. Because none of those things have a bearing on your ability to post an argument. But your intelligence does indeed have a bearing on that ability.

Someone's ability to form an argument is irrelevant. Only the argument itself is relevant. Get it yet?

Although pasteurization might not be as useful as it is today surely it is much more useful than spitting to disinfect a wound?

[Rama Set]

You really aren't that bright.

Again, editorial with no bearing on the argument. Lrn2adhominem inb4yaakovdoesntgetlememe

[Blanko]

Alright, this is getting out of hand again. Yaakov can take another break to cool off. Vauxy, as accurate as your Yaakov impression is, it's still against the rules.

[Ghost of V]

Alright, this is getting out of hand again. Yaakov can take another break to cool off. Vauxy, as accurate as your Yaakov impression is, it's still against the rules.

Understood.

[Jonah ben Amittai]

Probably going to get banned again, but I just wanted to say, that was a little unfair. No one gets banned but me, even though their insults were far worse, not just personal, but downright anti-Semitic in many cases. I would be happy to stop insulting on both sides. It doesn't contribute to a discussion at all. But what do you expect me to do? Sit and take it?

[Jonah ben Amittai]

I won't argue that pasteurisation would have been as helpful then as it is today, IF it had been followed by refrigeration, but in Israel, that did not exist, to my knowledge. My opinion of the atheist will go unspoken for the present. Lets concentrate on the discussion, shall we? Just as I hope your opinion of the believer will go unspoken, agreed? I refer to our opinion of each other's intelligence based on our state of believing or not believing.

[beardo]

Probably going to get banned again, but I just wanted to say, that was a little unfair. No one gets banned but me, even though their insults were far worse, not just personal, but downright anti-Semitic in many cases. I would be happy to stop insulting on both sides. It doesn't contribute to a discussion at all. But what do you expect me to do? Sit and take it?

Too bad there's no rule against anti-semitism.

[Blanko]

Vauxy was the only one insulting you, and I assume he only did that because you started it. I'll remind you again that anti-Semitism is not against the rules. If it was, then we'd have to extend the same courtesy to other ethnic groups as well, and you'd be permabanned by now for your consistently anti-Islamic commentary.