reply to post by NewWorldOver
You indeed have no idea what you are talking about if you do not understand that the third degree is the highest degree in masonry. Ask any 33rd
degree mason - we have one (or two?) on this board - degrees above the third mean nothing. I am a 32nd degree mason. And while the philosophies and
lessons of the Scottish Rite are indeed interesting and excellent lessons for all who choose to take them, they do not indicate hierarchy. You've
failed - again.
I find it interesting that you keep telling us we have no idea what we're talking about, yet completely fail to enlighten us about these "higher
degrees." Do tell.
I applaud you for attempting to learn about rhetoric and logical fallacies. Unfortunately, the irony fails no one as almost every single post
you make on this subject in fact involves a logical fallacy, while you incorrectly accuse others of fallacies but can't even name a correct one
(straw man is a fallacy, but it's not what is occurring in this thread when you use it). As someone who has had to teach undergraduates about logical
fallacies, I'm sorry to say you have no grasp on the terminology you are using.
Alas, it's time to put you in your place:
You have used the following fallacies in this thread alone -
1) Argumentum ad hominem - everyone who disagrees with you is insulted. That you must try to defame the character of people who disagree with you
supports the idea that you have invalid conclusions.
2) Argumentum ad antiquitatem - this idea for higher level compartments, of which you admit has no evidence, comes has "always existed in secret
societies." Assuming this premise is true (unlikely), you appeal to this notion of something that has "always been." This is invalid. Even if
something like this has always occurred, it does not mean it still occurs.
3) Circulus in demonstrando - the entire construction of this theory is circular in nature.
4) Dicto simpliciter - You assume other secret societies have this structure - and then assuming that masonry is a secret society, your proceed to
make astonishing generalizations without fact or proof.
5) Petitio principii - As previously mentioned, this is also one giant thread of you defending your irrational theories by using a begging the
I could go on, and on, and on.
[edit on 31-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]