Earthlings

[Mechagodzilla]

Wait 'till the kid learns where mushrooms come from.


Seriously, use logic properly:

Kirov used neither Anecdotal Evidence, nor a Complex Question.

A complex question is based on unproven claims. He made no claims at all.
Anecdotal evidence uses a highly specific case or cases to generalize events on a larger scale. He presented no such highly specific case.

You, on the other hand, have presented anecdotal evidence with your "three farms".

Also, the burden of proof is on YOU because YOU are making the CLAIMS.
You are the only person using any argument from ignorance here.
I am merely asking you to provide a valid argument, which the rules of logical thought prove you have consistently failed to do.

"yes i do [understand logic]."

Evidently not.


Also, it's a proven truism that news presented in the media is overwhelmingly negative.

 

[jverne]

Wait 'till the kid learns where mushrooms come from.


Seriously, use logic properly:

Kirov used neither Anecdotal Evidence, nor a Complex Question.

A complex question is based on unproven claims. He made no claims at all.
Anecdotal evidence uses a highly specific case or cases to generalize events on a larger scale. He presented no such highly specific case.

You, on the other hand, have presented anecdotal evidence with your "three farms".

Also, the burden of proof is on YOU because YOU are making the CLAIMS.
You are the only person using any argument from ignorance here.
I am merely asking you to provide a valid argument, which the rules of logical thought prove you have consistently failed to do.

"yes i do [understand logic]."

Evidently not.


Also, it's a proven truism that news presented in the media is overwhelmingly negative.

"1: Anecdotal Evidence:
Informal personal accounts taken as conclusive are not valid when they are unverified by other, valid information."


"would hardly be newsworthy"


"2: Complex Question:
A question is invalid if the question presupposes the validity of unproven claims."

"would it?"


you just skipped the links i posted right?!
edit: heres someething more spicy...

"In 1992, Simon Kestin of Bristol University reported to the IWC's Humane Killing Workshop (IWC 44/HKW) that 53% of young bulls killed in British slaughterhouses were improperly stunned and may have been conscious during the bleeding-out stage. A 1993 report by two other Bristol University researchers, M. Anil and J. McKinstry, looked at the slaughter of pigs in England and Wales. In the majority of slaughterhouses they found that pigs were not restrained during the stunning process, and that in part as a result, no less than 15.6% of animals had to be restunned, while 20.5% showed signs of regaining consciousness at the time of sticking (see "Stuck Pigs Still Squeal")."




and you just made a logical fallacy if you do not prove that for most media are bad news more newsworthy.
edit#2: because FOX news would just love to show how bad the situation in Iraq is?!

 

[Ludah]

You listed anecdotal evidence as a fallacy and then I stopped reading. There was no anecdotal evidence. You have no idea what you're typing out.

 

[jverne]

You listed anecdotal evidence as a fallacy and then I stopped reading. There was no anecdotal evidence. You have no idea what you're typing out.

maybe i'm just reading it wrong?!

"1: Anecdotal Evidence:
Informal personal accounts taken as conclusive are not valid when they are unverified by other, valid information."


edit:

Anecdotal
"refers to evidence based on reports of specific individual cases rather than controlled, clinical studies"

hmm...it seem to me that it fits quite nicely

 

[Ludah]

Except Kirovman never gave anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence comes from one's own personal experience (ie. a black man was mean to me today, therefore all black people are mean).

It is well established that the media loves to sensationalize negativity.

 

[sinkoman]

Lol, this thread is comedic gold.

Jverne watches the video. Proceeds to freak out like a five year old throwing a temper tantrum.

People tell him to shut up because he's just being overly sympathetic and being brainwashed by said video.

Jverne begins arguing his view.

People counter his view.

Jverne attacks with rebuttles allong the lines of "because I said so".

 

[jverne]

Except Kirovman never gave anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence comes from one's own personal experience (ie. a black man was mean to me today, therefore all black people are mean).

It is well established that the media loves to sensationalize negativity.

yep it's the same. so now prove it.

Lol, this thread is comedic gold.

Jverne watches the video. Proceeds to freak out like a five year old throwing a temper tantrum.

People tell him to shut up because he's just being overly sympathetic and being brainwashed by said video.

Jverne begins arguing his view.

People counter his view.

Jverne attacks with rebuttles allong the lines of "because I said so".

Yes they countered me with what? "you make logical fallacies, because i say so" even if i argument my claim. hmm...

i think i posted an adequate amount of documentation, and quotings from valid sites such as wiki, and web definitions.

i suggest you reconsider who is illogical here!

 

[sinkoman]

Yes they countered me with what? "you make logical fallacies, because i say so" even if i argument my claim. hmm...

i think i posted an adequate amount of documentation, and quotings from valid sites such as wiki, and web definitions.

i suggest you reconsider who is illogical here!

Oh you crack me up.

Your claims were all heavily oppinionated and apologetic.

For instance...

You don't like fur because.

It harms the animal.

And your point is...

You don't like meat because.

Of how they slaughter it.

And that changes anything because...

Hehehe. And you're the one who's suggesting i'm attacking your logic. Who's the illogical one?

 

[jverne]

Oh you crack me up.

Your claims were all heavily oppinionated and apologetic.

For instance...

You don't like fur because.

It harms the animal.

And your point is...

You don't like meat because.

Of how they slaughter it.

And that changes anything because...

Hehehe. And you're the one who's suggesting i'm attacking your logic. Who's the illogical one?

now you're going philosophical. yes it hurts the animals.

yes...they slaughter them inhumanley. but the meat tastes good nontheless. lots of them don't give a shit about legislation. so it is against the law.

see, you are talking "so what if animals are in pain, it doesn't change nothing..."
so by this standard you can close the politics forum, because everything leads to nothing.

but i'm arguing with mecha that lots of farms are using methods that inhumanely kill animals. let me put an anex...it's illegal (in most countries).

no i didn't meant you.


edit: you can debate on what is logical in my other thread.

 

[sinkoman]

see, you are talking "so what if animals are in pain, it doesn't change nothing..."
so by this standard you can close the politics forum, because everything leads to nothing.

but i'm arguing with mecha that lots of farms are using methods that inhumanely kill animals. let me put an anex...it's illegal (in most countries)./QUOTE]

I too agree, that they should wise up about how they kill the animals, but logically, they end up dead either way.

I'm just being logical.

You can't argue against fur just because "it dies just for you". Same deal with meat, right?

 

[jverne]

see, you are talking "so what if animals are in pain, it doesn't change nothing..."
so by this standard you can close the politics forum, because everything leads to nothing.

but i'm arguing with mecha that lots of farms are using methods that inhumanely kill animals. let me put an anex...it's illegal (in most countries)./QUOTE]

I too agree, that they should wise up about how they kill the animals, but logically, they end up dead either way.

I'm just being logical.

You can't argue against fur just because "it dies just for you". Same deal with meat, right?

maybe so, but that is another story, that belongs in the philosophical forum.


in context of this thread, no, but as previously mentioned that's not what we are debating here.

you are welcome to start another thread concerning this issue.

 

[Ludah]

yep it's the same. so now prove it.

No, they are not the same. And your "prove it" comment cements that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, what logical fallacies are, how logic works, what non-sequitirs are, as well as what rational thought is, how the burden of proof works, how to spell and utilize grammatically correct sentences, what a conspiracy theorist is, and numerous other things that I have either not detected yet or have slipped my mind.

 

[jverne]

No, they are not the same. And your "prove it" comment cements that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, what logical fallacies are, how logic works, what non-sequitirs are, as well as what rational thought is, how the burden of proof works, how to spell and utilize grammatically correct sentences, what a conspiracy theorist is, and numerous other things that I have either not detected yet or have slipped my mind.

haha...yes, yes of course. the burden of proof is on you who claims bad news are more newsworthy.

yes you make perfect logic, everything is in context and evidence is clearly visible.

this post of yours is just a big fallacy.

make me wonder if you really know what you're talking about!?

 

[sinkoman]

haha...yes, yes of course. the burden of proof is on you who claims bad news are more newsworthy.

yes you make perfect logic, everything is in context and evidence is clearly visible.

this post of yours is just a big fallacy.

make me wonder if you really know what you're talking about!?

Lol.

He basically said what I said, just in a not as nice package.

Yet you go out and attack him, rather than me.

This whole world is illogical gold.

 

[Ludah]

Jverne: kirovman provided anecdotal evidence!
Me: No he didn't.
Jverne: YES HE DID YOU DONT KNOW WHAT LOGIC IS
Me: (Explains the difference between anecdotal evidence and what kirovman said)
Jverne: NUH-UH, PROVE THAT THEY AREN'T THE SAME.
Me: I just did.
Jverne: WHY DO YOU SAY THE MEDIA ONLY LIKES NEGATIVE STORIES?!?!
Me: ??? What does that have to do with anything I just said?

Jverne, you are hopeless. You'll have to excuse if I don't indulge your craziness further.

 

[jverne]

Jverne: kirovman provided anecdotal evidence!
Me: No he didn't.
Jverne: YES HE DID YOU DONT KNOW WHAT LOGIC IS
Me: (Explains the difference between anecdotal evidence and what kirovman said)
Jverne: NUH-UH, PROVE THAT THEY AREN'T THE SAME.
Me: I just did.
Jverne: WHY DO YOU SAY THE MEDIA ONLY LIKES NEGATIVE STORIES?!?!
Me: ??? What does that have to do with anything I just said?

Jverne, you are hopeless. You'll have to excuse if I don't indulge your craziness further.

what the hell are you talking about?

look at my post again:

maybe i'm just reading it wrong?!

"1: Anecdotal Evidence:
Informal personal accounts taken as conclusive are not valid when they are unverified by other, valid information."


edit:

Anecdotal
"refers to evidence based on reports of specific individual cases rather than controlled, clinical studies"

hmm...it seem to me that it fits quite nicely

what part dont you understand?

Except Kirovman never gave anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence comes from one's own personal experience (ie. a black man was mean to me today, therefore all black people are mean).

maybe it was not an experience, but it is still his informal opinion that cannot be verified or valid.

edit: "CNS shows 4 bad news out of 7 total, and you say they showed more bad news than good, so all media shows bad news rather than good" any clearer now?

It is well established that the media loves to sensationalize negativity.

burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, you can't just go "everybody knows that"!

it is you and kirvoman who opened this issue about media not liking good news not me, i just reacted to a logical fallacy you posted.
so think twice befor asking "What does that have to do with anything I just said?"


and in the other thread we discussed that being logical in real life means:

Supporting your arguments with evidence and not being a twat.

i did! what you did to make your claims credible-> 0



edit: off-topic: look what you call evidence on which every further argument is based on

Jverne: kirovman provided anecdotal evidence!
Me: No he didn't.
Jverne: YES HE DID YOU DONT KNOW WHAT LOGIC IS
Me: (Explains the difference between anecdotal evidence and what kirovman said)
Jverne: NUH-UH, PROVE THAT THEY AREN'T THE SAME.
Me: I just did.
Jverne: WHY DO YOU SAY THE MEDIA ONLY LIKES NEGATIVE STORIES?!?!
Me: ??? What does that have to do with anything I just said?

Jverne, you are hopeless. You'll have to excuse if I don't indulge your craziness further.

that is so not biased and manipulated?


edit:



http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200009/07/0907133.htm

http://www.hillside.org.uk/investigations/investigations-slaughter.htm (propaganda, but it actually happened so it is valid)

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/default2.asp?idL1=1272&idL2=1865&idL3=1910 (propaganda, but it there was an investigation with results, so it is valid)

http://www.gov.hk/gia/general/200106/14/0614229.htm

 

[sinkoman]

I don't think you have the faintest clue as to what Anecdotal Evidence is :/

 

[Yuri]

I don't think he has the faintest clue as to what anything is. o_0

You really should just stop, jverne... you're making me feel bad for you.

 

[sinkoman]

I don't think he has the faintest clue as to what anything is. o_0

You really should just stop, jverne... you're making me feel bad for you.

Yeah. Here's a good example of you making yourself look like an idiot.

what you did to make your claims credible-> 0

I didn't make ANY claims :|

 

[jverne]

Yeah. Here's a good example of you making yourself look like an idiot.



I didn't make ANY claims :|

dude if you would read above the quote you'd see that it wasn't meant for you. i quoted the conclusion that we two made, so ludah could see. it was NEVER meant for you!

"and in the other thread we discussed that being logical in real life means:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinkoman
Supporting your arguments with evidence and not being a twat."


which i did and ludah did not.

 

[sinkoman]

dude if you would read above the quote you'd see that it wasn't meant for you. i quoted the conclusion that we two made, so ludah could see. it was NEVER meant for you!

"and in the other thread we discussed that being logical in real life means:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinkoman
Supporting your arguments with evidence and not being a twat."


which i did and ludah did not.

I didn't say that.

I said that you shouldn't rely on logic, but on those things.

 

[jverne]

I didn't say that.

I said that you shouldn't rely on logic, but on those things.

ok

so what if you rely on those things, what can you be considered?

 

[sinkoman]

ok

so what if you rely on those things, what can you be considered?

WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING???

 

[jverne]

WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING???

this is a question i'm asking.
directly it has nothing to do with it.
i'm asking you because i made a mistake.