JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Can I can change my answer to "Both, but mostly SS"? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Can I can change my answer to "Both, but mostly SS"?As long as I still get my vote. Don't be knocking my total down. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 1.Wrong. A false dilemma is an inductive argument.I don't think you understand the difference between induction and deduction. Your argument which contained the false dilemma was a deductive argument. We already established a while ago that my deductive argument was valid and are talking about the validity of the premises now.This is a new level of absurdity. We established that the argument was valid but are talking about the validity of the premises? What the...?2.Wrong and Deliberately misleading. A blatant misrepresentation of what I am saying doesn't help your case.If there are any options other than the two you presented in your dilemma, then you are guilty of false dilemma. You yourself have now pointed out some other possibilities. 3.Irrelevant red herrings. Respond but not make easy argument would land them in the lazy class.You cannot redefine lazy to include all classes of unwillingness. Lazy is not equivalent to unwilling. If it were, we could truthfully say that the united states does not bomb china because it is lazy. 4.That's debatable. I don't think that nearly rises to the level of a false dilemma."Either someone is insane or will find all logical errors" is quite obviously a false dilemma. You seem to have false dilemma blindness. 5.False misdirection. The issue is whether you can trust their opinion in general, not whether they ever say anything true.No. You said "The opinions of insane people are by definition not reasonable" and I took issue with this definition by claiming that people we agree are insane (schizophrenics) often have reasonable opinions. 6.An extreme misunderstanding of what I am saying that casts doubt on any of your other assertions.7.Completely false, and I've explained why. Repeat "A false dilemma is an inductive argument" 100 times or until it sinks in.You do seem to think that repeating something can make it true. A false dilemma is not even an argument on its own. It only says "A or B is true" when A and B are not the exhaustive list of options. The argument we are discussing is the one presented in post #458, which is quite obviously a deductive argument. Why do you insist that it is not? Furthermore, why do you think classifying your argument as inductive somehow frees you of being wrong? You are committing the same stupid fallacy whether you argument is deductive or inductive. All you have done in arguing this distinction is show us that there is something else about logic which you do not understand. I originally thought you were reasonable but just inappropriately attached to defending your ideas. But it does seem now that you are just trolling. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Oh shit. Did SilentSnow really give up!? He never gives up. He always has the last word. Amazing. SilentSnow lost a fight. Nice going VB.I knew it was too good to be true.This is cracking me up.I can only come to the conclusion that SS isn't even smart enough to be a good Troll. Have we ever confirmed what he does for a living? I'm betting Graduate Student. SJ posted a very nice example (nutshell) of how he can't even stay consistent in the span of several minutes as he tries to Troll for a fight. He asked for an example of a statement he made that wasn't backed up by facts. Then a few words later he make a generally improvable statement that he insisted is a indeed a “true” fact and then tried to support that opinion with yet more broad statements – ultimately proving nothing. We don’t have to prove why we disagree with it, he's the one who made the statement that he can’t prove. He demonstrates possibly the worst attempt at logic that I’ve seen in this Forum since whatserhame from Wyoming was trying to debate around here. Again, hblask, VB, and others clearly understand what makes a logical argument. I honestly don’t think SS even knows the basics of logic and certainly can’t tell the difference between Opinion and Fact.I hate this post. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I knew it was too good to be true.I hate this poster.FYP. But, yeah. not a solid effort. It was an earlier reply to SS that I'd decided not to bother posting because I didn't feel like getting sucked into a silly eDick Waving Contest but for some reason decided that now would be an excellent time to post it with some revisions. And now this is turning into another rambling post with nonsense that you're also going to hate. Link to post Share on other sites
Tactical Bear 3 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 WANG SAYS:P1) Either this is a false dilemma or Silent Snow cries himself to sleep every night while anger-masturbating with his own tears.P2) This is not a false dilemma.QED: Silent Snow cries himself to sleep every night while anger-masturbating with his own tears.Well, you are wrong. There are two classes of arguments- deductive and inductive. You can be inherently, absolutely wrong about a deductive argument. Think of deductive arguments as definitionally true, like math. Inductive statements, no matter how likely, are not certain. A false dilemma is an inductive argument, which means that you have to provide evidence that what I am saying is a false dilemma. So far you have not done so, and if you're going to be so pedantic about it, then I'm certainly not going to do it for you.We agree that my argument, using your definition of deductive logic, is wicked-valid, right? So, please, point out the errors in my logic. Anyway, you guys just aren't getting each other. SS is saying this:7.Completely false, and I've explained why. Repeat "A false dilemma is an inductive argument" 100 times or until it sinks in.He's saying his arguments, while clearly retarded, are LOGICALLY VALID. A false dilemma is not a "formal" fallacy, as everyone here who is not retarded (Me, VB, maybe SS) knows. So while VB keeps saying "FALLACY!" and pointing out the myriad flaws in SS's logic, SS is ignoring them, because he is pretending, kind of, to be only concerned with whether his logic is internally valid on a microscopic scale.Luckily, VB has trapped him in so many ways this argument isn't even interesting anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Oh well, regardless SS makes some good and valid points in the political forum. It's a shame he is getting harangued over minor points of logic than the actual issues. If this was done to BG we'd be here all year pointing them out. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 If this was done to BG we'd be here all year pointing them out.Isn't that what the religion forum is for? Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 It's a shame he is getting harangued over minor points of logicThat's what happens when you claim to have unimpeachable logic. He pretty much asked for it. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 That's what happens when you claim to have unimpeachable logic. He pretty much asked for it.I've been thinking about the way he has been treated, and I think this nails it. I make just as many cocky and ridiculous posts as SS in the politics forum, but when someone calls me on my BS (*cough* Bob *cough*) I generally am willing to admit it. I'll stick by positions I think are sound, but I'll admit the difference between my opinion and facts.I like SS's spirit in coming back and the way he'll defend his positions; the arrogance of acting like he owns The One Truth is what is getting him harassed. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I've been thinking about the way he has been treated, and I think this nails it. I make just as many cocky and ridiculous posts as SS in the politics forum, but when someone calls me on my BS (*cough* Bob *cough*) I generally am willing to admit it. I'll stick by positions I think are sound, but I'll admit the difference between my opinion and facts.I like SS's spirit in coming back and the way he'll defend his positions; the arrogance of acting like he owns The One Truth is what is getting him harassed.I actually don't know much about him, and never really cared either way or bothered to post about him before this thread, as far as I remember. I just was amused and had to comment because of his ridiculous claim of iron-clad logic, especially considering the fact that it's not the case. I love when people are incapable of admitting that they might be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I actually don't know much about him, and never really cared either way or bothered to post about him before this thread, as far as I remember. I just was amused and had to comment because of his ridiculous claim of iron-clad logic, especially considering the fact that it's not the case. I love when people are incapable of admitting that they might be wrong. They're my bread and butter.... Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 1.I don't think you understand the difference between induction and deduction. Your argument which contained the false dilemma was a deductive argument. 2.This is a new level of absurdity. We established that the argument was valid but are talking about the validity of the premises? What the...?3.If there are any options other than the two you presented in your dilemma, then you are guilty of false dilemma. You yourself have now pointed out some other possibilities. 4.You cannot redefine lazy to include all classes of unwillingness. Lazy is not equivalent to unwilling. If it were, we could truthfully say that the united states does not bomb china because it is lazy. 5."Either someone is insane or will find all logical errors" is quite obviously a false dilemma. You seem to have false dilemma blindness. 6.No. You said "The opinions of insane people are by definition not reasonable" and I took issue with this definition by claiming that people we agree are insane (schizophrenics) often have reasonable opinions. 7.You do seem to think that repeating something can make it true. A false dilemma is not even an argument on its own. It only says "A or B is true" when A and B are not the exhaustive list of options. The argument we are discussing is the one presented in post #458, which is quite obviously a deductive argument. Why do you insist that it is not? 8.Furthermore, why do you think classifying your argument as inductive somehow frees you of being wrong? You are committing the same stupid fallacy whether you argument is deductive or inductive. All you have done in arguing this distinction is show us that there is something else about logic which you do not understand. I originally thought you were reasonable but just inappropriately attached to defending your ideas. But it does seem now that you are just trolling.1.It is completely irrelevant where the supposed false dilemma is. You have failed to reasonably demonstrate that I have committed a false dilemma. You have also failed to demonstrate that I originally made a deductive error. You have also failed to show that I changed the meaning of the argument when I rewrote it. It's as simple as that. 2.You are showing a complete ignorance of logic here. I guess I assumed incorrectly that you might have some idea what you were talking about. It is well known that there is a sharp distinction between the internal validity of an argument and its external validity. A deductive argument can be valid but false if the premises are false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument3.This is just getting embarrassing now. You spectacularly misread that paragraph. It is beyond obvious that I am presenting those as false hypotheticals. 4.I am not even coming close to redefining it that way. I am saying that in this specific case where the action is extremely easy to do, with no incentive not to do it then it can reasonably be interpreted as lazy. 5.Once again you manage to completely misrepresent what I am saying. You are laughably bad at this logic thing. It is pretty clear that in the context of our argument we have been defining insanity as the ability to detect their own logical errors. In this context, calling someone insane due to their inability to find an extremely easy error is quite reasonable. In fact, it is almost definitionally true.6.So basically you're agreeing that you did yet another false misdirection. It should have been obvious I wasn't talking about schizophrenics. 7.A false dilemma can be an independent argument. Period. No. We are quite obviously discussing one of the premises in post 458, and that premise is quite obviously not a deductive argument. 8.Ok. Take a logic class. Now. It is quite obvious that if you did take one that you failed it. The standards used to prove deductive and inductive arguments are entirely different.You have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you don't believe me, then show this thread to the smartest person you know(that has taken a logic class) and ask them their opinion of it. If after that there is something you still disagree with then I'll try to clarify. But further discussion at this point is a waste of time due to your ignorance. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I actually don't know much about him, and never really cared either way or bothered to post about him before this thread, as far as I remember. I just was amused and had to comment because of his ridiculous claim of iron-clad logic, especially considering the fact that it's not the case. I love when people are incapable of admitting that they might be wrong.At no point have I ever claimed that my logic was unimpeachable or iron-clad. I even went out of my way to find errors that others couldn't and admit I was wrong in that instance. Statements I've made in this thread- No one has correctly pointed out a logical or factual error in one of my posts. Several times I admitted that I could possibly be wrong. I identified a small error that I made and admitted I was wrong about that- no one else pointed out the error though, making the first statement still correct. "It's possible that I have made some small errors sometimes- although you guys have done an extraordinarily poor job of pointing them out.""I've never claimed that I've never made any logical errors. I challenged people to find any significant logical or factual error in one of my posts and still no one has done this. I've correctly stated that I am much more logical than average. ""I don't accept any of you as experts on logic, especially since nearly all of you are unwilling to logically critique my argument. VB was the only one(TB was basically just hand-waving), and I've explained in detail why I think he is wrong. Maybe you can find a logic professor or something and see what they think." So, I guess it's time to search through my posts to find that non-existent post claiming infallibility- or admit that you are an ignorant, misrepresenting douche-bag. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 We agree that my argument, using your definition of deductive logic, is wicked-valid, right? So, please, point out the errors in my logic.I'm actually embarrassed for you that you could make such an incredibly stupid error. A valid deductive argument with false premises is false. This is possibly the first thing they teach you in logic 101. But don't worry, this error shouldn't hurt your credibility around here since the credibility formula is ( humor x agreeing with opinion), and has nothing whatsoever to do with actually being correct. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The list just got bigger: - false dilemma- begging the question- ad hominem Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 1.It is completely irrelevant where the supposed false dilemma is. You have failed to reasonably demonstrate that I have committed a false dilemma. You have also failed to demonstrate that I originally made a deductive error. You have also failed to show that I changed the meaning of the argument when I rewrote it. It's as simple as that.And I stopped reading this post here, because every single one of these sentences is incorrect. Like, the exact opposite of correct. You must be joking. You are, you're joking. I'm impressed at how far you're willing to take your trolling, but this is just too far for anyone to buy as real.At no point have I ever claimed that my logic was unimpeachable or iron-clad. I even went out of my way to find errors that others couldn't and admit I was wrong in that instance. Statements I've made in this thread- No one has correctly pointed out a logical or factual error in one of my posts.I stopped reading your post here, as it is already laughably ignorant of what's actually been going on in this thread. It would be fascinating to imagine what might be going on in your head, but once again, I no longer believe you're not just messing with us.But, maybe if you could fix those opening statements in each post, I'll go ahead and finish reading them. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Isn't that what the religion forum is for?Well, good point. Link to post Share on other sites
Tactical Bear 3 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 A valid deductive argument with false premises is false. This is possibly the first thing they teach you in logic 101.But don't worry, this error shouldn't hurt your credibility around here since the credibility formula is ( humor x agreeing with opinion), and has nothing whatsoever to do with actually being correct.The first thing they teach you in Logic 101 is the vocabulary of formal logic. And one thing they'll say is "An argument is never 'true' or 'false.' It is either 'valid' or 'invalid,' and either 'sound' or 'unsound.'" An argument is not "false." Your argument, however, is stupidly unsound, which is what I was trying to show, since the false dilemma in one of your premises makes that premise a false one, and, regardless of validity, poisons your conclusion.Just say you're wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The list just got bigger: - false dilemma- begging the question- ad hominem I think begging the question is my favorite one, so I am glad you included it. I just really love saying "Well, that begs the question..." It makes me feel smart and stuff. Oh, and things. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I think begging the question is my favorite one, so I am glad you included it. I just really love saying "Well, that begs the question..." It makes me feel smart and stuff. Oh, and things.Of course you are probably using it wrong there, so... Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Of course you are probably using it wrong there, so...Fallacious! Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fallacious!Fellatious? Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fellatious?You offering? Link to post Share on other sites
qyayqi 11 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 You offering?he really put his foot in his-- OMIGOD THAT'S NOT HIS FOOT, IT'S YOUR-- Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now