Logic

[Ludah]

Jverne, there's no point in pointing out where you're being illogical because you are seemingly incapable of understanding any of it. As for showing your own words, one could just quote whole posts. But the fact is that even after lengthy dissection, you still walk away clueless. In the end, there's no point in repeatedly pointing out a squared object when you only see circles.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, there's no point in pointing out where you're being illogical because you are seemingly incapable of understanding any of it. As for showing your own words, one could just quote whole posts. But the fact is that even after lengthy dissection, you still walk away clueless. In the end, there's no point in repeatedly pointing out a squared object when you only see circles.

that is the thing...i do understand, i made my explanations. but you are still accusing me that i don't understand, so i dare you to show me where "do i see only circles instead of squares". where?


edit:

here you can disect one of my post and lets see how illogical it is.

what basket would that be?

Conspiracy theorist:

"A conspiracy theory is a theory that claims an event or series of events is the result of secret manipulations by two or more individuals or an organization, rather than the result of a single perpetrator or natural occurrence. Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of events, and proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic."

i don't think i was zeolous and illogical.

illogical:

"Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below). However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments."

so you need someone who has to decide what is logical and what not? surley it must be a third party, which you mecha are most ceartenly not.


ok, maybe i don't have the full documentation and i cannot provide exact details, maybe they could. it would be in their interest to do that. don't blame me for that. but you have even less evidence.

we sem to be constantly exchanging fallacies:

"6: Argument From Ignorance:
Claiming that lack of evidence for one scenario is instead evidence for another scenario (without additional evidence for the other scenario) invalidates the claim."

but thing is that there are 3 evidences to prove my (altough statistical somewhat weak), but you have 0 evidence to show the 99.9% uses humane methods and why they werent selected.

theres one more fact as stern previously mentioned, that the number of farms is decreasing and joining together. therfore the 3 farms might present way more than 0.1% of the population, especialy if they choose the 3 major ones. i think they even mention the reputation of the farms they visited, have to watch it again sometime.


so therefore you are more illogical this time around.

show me the circles!

please do:

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?!

one of your posts:

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.

so you know that there was no anecdotal evidence?

your answer:

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.

my answer:

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?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"show my wrong words, show where i was not using sense...why can't nobody do this!?"

Corrected for grammar:

"Show me my poor vocabulary and where I was not making sense. Why can somebody [or everybody] do this?"

Case closed.

 

[theotherguy]

Statement 1: 1 != 2

Statement 2: 2 != 2

Is the second statement illogical?
No.

But that doesn't change the fact that its wrong.
Both would follow logic, only you have to look at it with a third step
Statement 1: 1 != 2 == true

Statement 2: 2 != 2 == false

Everything is logical, its just that some things are false.
Now where you would get in trouble would be if you said

(2!=2)==true

but in that case it would still be logical by virtue of
((2!=2)==true)==false

 

[jverne]

"show my wrong words, show where i was not using sense...why can't nobody do this!?"

Corrected for grammar:

"Show me my poor vocabulary and where I was not making sense. Why can somebody [or everybody] do this?"

Case closed.

macha..you're a funny dude! because you can't find anything now, you start to criticize my vocabulary. what's next? i make long posts?

you remind me of two kids arguing. one says

"kidA: i have got a new bycycle
kidB: i don't belive you, show me!
*kidA brings the bicycle*
kidA: see!
kidB: but it has got too small wheels to be a good bicycle
kidA: no it doesn't, prove it!
kidB: it's not a good bicycle because your dad is poor"

mehca you simply are pathetic.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Don't be stupid.

You asked him merely to show an instance when you were using 'wrong words' and 'not making sense'. He did so.

 

[sinkoman]

(in response to mecha) It's like when somebody was telling me pure logic was a horrible way to look at things because it doesn't take emotion into account. The example he gave was that if my friend was crying because his parents had died, logically I would have no reason to comfort him as there is no benefit for me. But I told him he was confusing 'logic' with 'being a robot' and that logically, I would go and help him because he's my friend and because he's sad (which is a bad thing). Logic takes emotions into account. It is not their opposite.

Bingo.

That's why boolean logic is so flawed. Boolean logic is just one way or the other, it doesn't take into account outside influences, human emotion, and common sense.

Flawed being a basic statement. Logic cannot be flawed, as logic is not a tool, but merely an instance.

 

[jverne]

Don't be stupid.

You asked him merely to show an instance when you were using 'wrong words' and 'not making sense'. He did so.

worng words...grammatical mistake. maybe yes

not making sense?

where?

you mean this:

"show my wrong words, show where i was not using sense...why can't nobody do this!?"

Corrected for grammar:

"Show me my poor vocabulary and where I was not making sense. Why can somebody [or everybody] do this?"

Case closed.

this is enough evidence to invalidate my arguments (in the "Earthlings" thread)?

i do agree, my vocabulary is not immense, but does that make you invalid?

i think mecha meant (by wrong words) that i see circles instead of squares.
like seing an apple and calling it a peach!

i have made no such mistake!

 

[sinkoman]

Jverne, stop derailing your own thread.

There's an interesting conversation going on, and you're ripping it to shreds by being overly ambitious and letting your anger control your arguments.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, stop derailing your own thread.

There's an interesting conversation going on, and you're ripping it to shreds by being overly ambitious and letting your anger control your arguments.

sorry, you are right, back to discussion.





for the record: ludah was the first to derail this thread. if you wish i can show you?!

It's clear that you made this topic in response to the "Earthlings" one. Forget the focus on logic for a moment. Your arguments hold no water because you are making vast generalizations from but a few incidents. Anybody can see the massive flaws in such thinking, regardless of their familiarity with logic.

 

[Ludah]

lawl

I addressed the topic and made a relevant digression. You'll have to excuse me if I pointed out the obvious.

 

[Double_Blade]

Logical thinking, there are many kinds of logics.

Here is an educated encyclopedia to help you find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

lawl

I addressed the topic and made a relevant digression. You'll have to excuse me if I pointed out the obvious.

Heh, it's you again, Ludah. Just as I was about to post here, I find it pretty ironic that you always keep on derailing threads, and on the side note, 341 posts-all rubbish. There is need not to look all of them.

 

[sinkoman]

Logical thinking, there are many kinds of logics.

Here is an educated encyclopedia to help you find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic



Heh, it's you again, Ludah. Just as I was about to post here, I find it pretty ironic that you always keep on derailing threads, and on the side note, 341 posts-all rubbish. There is need not to look all of them.

And here comes the dog hater.

Yup, this thread has gone down the tube.

 

[Double_Blade]

And here comes the dog hater.

Yup, this thread has gone down the tube.

Hey, thanks for the description of me, I am truly the dog hater and there is nothing that can change me except of course, myself.

I agree with you, this thread took a turn for a worse just because of a Ludah here derailing the thread.

Ludah-tastic!

 

[jverne]

And here comes the dog hater.

Yup, this thread has gone down the tube.

at least something is certain...Ludah

you can still freely discuss!

 

[sinkoman]

Hey, thanks for the description of me, I am truly the dog hater and there is nothing that can change me except of course, myself.

I agree with you, this thread took a turn for a worse just because of a Ludah here derailing the thread.

Ludah-tastic!

Now your oppinions are just biased by your emotions.

It wasn't entirely ludah. Ludah made a comment, nothing wrong with that.

That comment offended some people, in the real world, that usually isn't a problem (immaturity will usually step in though).

Jverne, decided that instead of maturely handling these unsavory comments, he would directly attack Ludah in his arguments, relying on his anger to target him personally, rather than target his arguments and evidence.

That's pretty much the basis of all shout fests :/

 

[Double_Blade]

Time for True or False question!

Some people say that chess playing can increase logic, I ask you, is this True or False?

By the way, to answer your question sinkoman, I wouldn't want to argue with Ludah, but his comments is really annoying and shouted at people who disagree with him. I think that's wrong. But I will remain silent for the time being.

Anyway, how old are you, sinkoman?

 

[jverne]

Jverne, decided that instead of maturely handling these unsavory comments, he would directly attack Ludah in his arguments, relying on his anger to target him personally, rather than target his arguments and evidence.

one question. is that a claim you just made?








definition of claim:

"# an assertion that something is true or factual; "his claim that he was innocent"; "evidence contradicted the government's claims"
# assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing; "He claimed that he killed the burglar" "

 

[sinkoman]

Time for True or False question!

Some people say that chess playing can increase logic, I ask you, is this True or False?

Wtf, logic is not a mental tool. It's an objective state.

Nobody "has" logic. They can keep their arguments within its boundaries, but you can't "have" logic.

You don't tell somebody "you have no logic", you tell them "your train of logic is skewed".

one question. is that a claim you just made?

Now you're just being an asshole. Asking somebody a question and then answering it right in their face.

Either way, what difference does it make?

Anyway, how old are you, sinkoman?

Tell me what you think and i'll tell you.

EDIT: To answer your question Jverne, no, it wasn't a claim. Merely a statement.

 

[jverne]

Now you're just being an asshole. Asking somebody a question and then answering it right in their face.

Either way, what difference does it make?

so that is a claim?!


edit: hmm...i wonder what it means that sinkoman doesn't want to answer this simple question?

 

[baxter]

Ok I will go with this, even though it as been pointed out to you over and over again. You say you cannot see where you are being illogical, so I will illustrate for you.

I will claim the moon is made of cheese.
As we all know it is not but nevertheless I will claim it and go further I will reinforce my claim by the following means

I will show how the cheese factories profited from the NASA landings.
I will take a totally innocent remark from a cheese company Director and blow it out of all proportion
I will offer up financial records from cheese factories showing irregularities
I will offer up all the links I can find showing how NASA and the cheese factories are closely interlinked
I will offer up photographs of Astronauts eating cheese.
I will put forward photographs of moon rock brought back, with red arrows showing how it is cheese.
I will offer up photographs from the Apollo missions, with red arrows showing where all the cheese that NASA confiscated from the moon was stowed.
I will start to bury my original claim by offering up a massive thesis on the different types of cheeses.

When you are faced with such a claim simple logic must kick in and they have to be viewed with a rational thought process. This involves a very simple technique, which I will call the “two question method”.
Question 1. Is it possible?
The answer clearly is yes, it is possible the moon is made of cheese, and that NASA know this and are covering up for cheese manufactures. But…
Question 2. Is it plausible?
Here the answer is clearly no, because there is a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.

As you see it is total lunacy. That is because all the follow on research from my original claim is pointless. It does not matter how well researched I feel it is, it does not matter that some of it may be true. All that matters is the fact it is backing up a false claim. The original claim is fundamentally flawed and thus renders any follow on research as irrelevant.

Here is the non logicality.

You can never make something true that is not true, no matter how much you wish it to be.
Just because people offer up what they believe to be well researched, well presented thoughts, they are not relevant, because they simply are backing up a falsehood. That is unless I can prove, without any doubt that the moon really is made of cheese. This requires hard evidence, scientific fact and above all acceptance from the entire scientific and academic world. This burden of proof lies with me and not with others who will simply wish to disprove me. Nobody needs to disprove me, because I am talking lunacy, but if people did start to take me seriously and suddenly my thoughts becomes close to actually distorting the truth then people will rightly bring me down. This is not because my claims are true and I am a threat to the people who carried out this scam, but because I am spreading falsehoods and others are starting to believe me.

The bottom line is you cannot back up an illogical statement with logic in the hope that the original statement will suddenly become fact. Making claims is one thing; backings up those claims with proof are another, especially when the original claim can be reasonably dismissed as nonsense.

In summary you are being illogical by.

1 Confusing possibility with plausibility.
2 Confusing claim with reality.
3. Placing the burden of prove on the wrong shoulders.
4 Dismissing evidence
5. Dismissing facts.
6. Dismissing expert opinion.

It’s all so logical.

 

[jverne]

Ok I will go with this, even though it as been pointed out to you over and over again. You say you cannot see where you are being illogical, so I will illustrate for you.

I will claim the moon is made of cheese.
As we all know it is not but nevertheless I will claim it and go further I will reinforce my claim by the following means

I will show how the cheese factories profited from the NASA landings.
I will take a totally innocent remark from a cheese company Director and blow it out of all proportion
I will offer up financial records from cheese factories showing irregularities
I will offer up all the links I can find showing how NASA and the cheese factories are closely interlinked
I will offer up photographs of Astronauts eating cheese.
I will put forward photographs of moon rock brought back, with red arrows showing how it is cheese.
I will offer up photographs from the Apollo missions, with red arrows showing where all the cheese that NASA confiscated from the moon was stowed.
I will start and bury my original claim by offering up a massive thesis on the different types of cheeses.

When you are faced with such a claim simple logic must kick and they have to be viewed with a rational thought process. This involves a very simple technique, which I will call the “two question method”.
Question 1. Is it possible?
The answer clearly is yes, it is possible the moon is made of cheese, and that NASA know this and are covering up for cheese manufactures. But…
Question 2. Is it plausible?
Here the answer is clearly no, because there is a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.

As you see it is total lunacy. That is because all the follow on research from my original claim is pointless. It does not matter how well researched I feel it is, it does not matter that some of it may be true. All that matters is the fact it is backing up a false claim. The original claim is fundamentally flawed and thus renders any follow on research as irrelevant.

Here is the non logicality.

You can never make something true that is not true, no matter how much you wish it to be.
Just because people offer up what they believe to be well researched, well presented thoughts, they are not relevant, because they simply are backing up a falsehood. That is unless I can prove, without any doubt that the moon really is made of cheese. This requires hard evidence, scientific fact and above all acceptance from the entire scientific and academic world. This burden of proof lies with me and not with others who will simply wish to disprove me. Nobody needs to disprove me, because I am talking lunacy, but if people did start to take me seriously and suddenly my thoughts becomes close to actually distorting the truth then people will rightly bring me down. This is not because my claims are true and I am a threat to the people who carried out this scam, but because I am spreading falsehoods and others are starting to believe me.

The bottom line is you cannot back up an illogical statement with logic in the hope that the original statement will suddenly become fact. Making claims is one thing; backings up those claims with prove are another, especially when the original claim can be reasonably dismissed as nonsense.

In summary you are being illogical by.

1 Confusing possibility with plausibility.
2 Confusing claim with reality.
3. Placing the burden of prove on the wrong shoulders.
4 Dismissing evidence
5. Dismissing facts.
6. Dismissing expert opinion.

It’s all so logical.

posting illustrations just wont cut it!
i want actual examples, which nobody has yet provided.

please don't qoute books or whatever illustrations you might have!



"In summary you are being illogical by.

1 Confusing possibility with plausibility.
2 Confusing claim with reality.
3. Placing the burden of prove on the wrong shoulders.
4 Dismissing evidence
5. Dismissing facts.
6. Dismissing expert opinion."

you made a claim?!

of course you cannot back up an illogical statment, so show me my illogical statments!?

 

[Ludah]

Heh, it's you again, Ludah. Just as I was about to post here, I find it pretty ironic that you always keep on derailing threads, and on the side note, 341 posts-all rubbish. There is need not to look all of them.

Shouldn't you be out staking dogs in the heart or something?

Oh wait, no. It's far better for you to persistently badger me because you're an absolute total ****ing moron. :thumbs:

And for the record, I'm not aware of any unsavory comments I made here, sans the one I just made. It's very obvious that jverne made this topic because of events in his other one, making any digression I made in my first post a relevant one. It was unanimously agreed that he was making no sense, so he figures he will not only challenge everybody for umpteen-millionth time, but also logic itself.

The most I said was that his arguments were bogus. And they are. You could point out all the logical fallacies and poor reasoning until you're blue in the face. You could smack him in the face with a book of the stuff and the best response you'd get is "WHAT??! WHAR?!?! HUH?!??! NO, YOU'RE ILLOGICAL!!!!".

 

[jverne]

Shouldn't you be out staking dogs in the heart or something?

Oh wait, no. It's far better for you to persistently badger me because you're an absolute total ****ing moron. :thumbs:

And for the record, I'm not aware of any unsavory comments I made here, sans the one I just made. It's very obvious that jverne made this topic because of events in his other one, making any digression I made in my first post a relevant one. It was unanimously agreed that he was making no sense, so he figures he will not only challenge everybody for umpteen-millionth time, but also logic itself.

The most I said was that his arguments were bogus. And they are. You can could point out all logical fallacies and poor reasoning all you want. You could smack him in the face with a book of the stuff and the best response you'd get is "WHAT??! WHAR?!?! HUH?!??! NO, YOU'RE ILLOGICAL!!!!".

hehe...you derailed the thread, you made accusations, you posted no documentation of these accusations.


you just made a few more unargumented claims!

"It's very obvious that jverne made this topic because of events in his other one, making any digression I made in my first post a relevant one."

"It was unanimously agreed that he was making no sense"

"The most I said was that his arguments were bogus. And they are."


hehe...nice Ludah, nice!



edit: and here it goes

"It's far better for you to persistently badger me because you're an absolute total ****ing moron"

why are you accusing him of being a moron?

oh and i forgot:

"Shouldn't you be out staking dogs in the heart or something?"

why is this relevant?

 

[baxter]

"In summary you are being illogical by.

1 Confusing possibility with plausibility.
2 Confusing claim with reality.
3. Placing the burden of prove on the wrong shoulders.
4 Dismissing evidence
5. Dismissing facts.
6. Dismissing expert opinion."

you made a claim?!

of course you cannot back up an illogical statment, so show me my illogical statments!?

I made an observation. You asked for opinions and got one, if you don't like it stop asking for opinions.

7. Being irrational.
8. Not making sense.
9. Being argumentive.
10 Using wishful thinking.

Edit.

Quicky using the "two question method"

Is it possible you are these? Yes
Is it plausible you are these? Yes.

 

[jverne]

I made an observation. You asked for opinions and got one, if you don't like it stop asking for opinions.

7. Being irrational.
8. Not making sense.
9. Being argumentive.
10 Using wishful thinking.

hehe...made an observation in this thread or the other?
i asked your opinion on logic (in general) not if i'm being illogical in this or the other thread!

"7. Being irrational.
8. Not making sense.
9. Being argumentive.
10 Using wishful thinking."

is this aimed at me?
because if it is i'm gonna need some proof of me actually doing that!

 

[jverne]

I made an observation. You asked for opinions and got one, if you don't like it stop asking for opinions.

7. Being irrational.
8. Not making sense.
9. Being argumentive.
10 Using wishful thinking.

edit: there is no such word as "argumentive"!

you meant:

"argumentative"

"given to or characterized by argument; "an argumentative discourse"; "argumentative to the point of being cantankerous"; "an intelligent but argumentative child""

no i'm not!


emm...double post...how did that happen?! sorry

 

[baxter]

You know something pal, you really are lost cause.

Believe what you want, I've got better things to do with my time than try and debate logic and reason with you, it is pointless.

If you believe you are coming across as rational or even sane, fine, carry on. Your rantings and ravings only serve one purpose, to illustrate you are not.

(I really should spell check before I post, my, how illogical of me)

 

[Ludah]

hehe...you derailed the thread, you made accusations, you posted no documentation of these accusations.

That is not derailing the thread. You clearly understand nothing that exists in this universe.

"It's very obvious that jverne made this topic because of events in his other one, making any digression I made in my first post a relevant one."

Yes, the timing of this topic makes it obvious. Right when you're getting all heated about logical fallacies, you decide to post a topic about it in order to twist your utter ignorance into something acceptable. You were also expecting a particular person to come in and argue with you, no doubt from a previous argument.

"btw...i'm sure "somebody" wil have lots to say" - Straight from your first post

So even if it wasn't your Earthlings topic, it's more than reasonable to think that this topic was brought about because you have your panties in a twist over some logic debate with another person. This notion of you creating this thread with pure intentions is bullshit.

"It was unanimously agreed that he was making no sense"

Yeah, pretty much. Anybody whoever made a response to you or directed a post in your direction ended up having to correct you over and over again, inquiring what the hell you were on about, and generally repeating themselves over and over again because you just never seemed to get it.

Perhaps I missed a few posts that looked at your reasoning favorably, in that lukewarm kind of way.

"The most I said was that his arguments were bogus. And they are."

There's no point showing how you're irrational any longer, because any time it happens, it flies right over your head. I'd have better luck breaking concrete with my penis than anybody would with showing convincing you of your faulty argumentation.

why are you accusing him of being a moron?

He insulted me, I insulted him back. He's been at me for a while now. He wanted to resolve things through Private Messaging, and I was open to it. Guess what. He never did such a thing.

why is this relevant?

It was directed to him. It's not relevant to this topic, but it's not like it really matters. The whole thread is a sham of debate.

 

[jverne]

That is not derailing the thread. You clearly understand nothing that exists in this universe.



Yes, the timing of this topic makes it obvious. Right when you're getting all heated about logical fallacies, you decide to post a topic about it in order to twist your utter ignorance into something acceptable. You were also expecting a particular person to come in and argue with you, no doubt from a previous argument.

"btw...i'm sure "somebody" wil have lots to say" - Straight from your first post

So even if it wasn't your Earthlings topic, it's more than reasonable to think that this topic was brought about because you have your panties in a twist over some logic debate with another person. This notion of you creating this thread with pure intentions is bullshit.



Yeah, pretty much. Anybody whoever made a response to you or directed a post in your direction ended up having to correct you over and over again, inquiring what the hell you were on about, and generally repeating themselves over and over again because you just never seemed to get it.

Perhaps I missed a few posts that looked at your reasoning favorably, in that lukewarm kind of way.



There's no point showing how you're irrational any longer, because any time it happens, it flies right over your head. I'd have better luck breaking concrete with my penis than anybody would with showing convincing you of your faulty argumentation.



He insulted me, I insulted him back. He's been at me for a while now. He wanted to resolve things through Private Messaging, and I was open to it. Guess what. He never did such a thing.



It was directed to him. It's not relevant to this topic, but it's not like it really matters. The whole thread is a sham of debate.

1. hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha

2. you can think all you want i stated clearly that it was not connected to "earthlings"
nobody was mentioned, that is not a claim, technically you have no case
even tough you THINK you have!!

3. 4 people agreed...that is a minority. and besides you don't represent a third party.
none of these people could point out where are the things they are accusing me!

4."There's no point showing how you're irrational any longer, because any time it happens, it flies right over your head. I'd have better luck breaking concrete with my penis than anybody would with showing convincing you of your faulty argumentation."

see number 3.

5. "He insulted me, I insulted him back. He's been at me for a while now. He wanted to resolve things through Private Messaging, and I was open to it. Guess what. He never did such a thing."

fair enough...i could belive you...but you cannot prove this happened, unless he admits it or you show it actually happened (quotes,...).

6. "It was directed to him. It's not relevant to this topic, but it's not like it really matters."

ok

"The whole thread is a sham of debate"

you should added (IMHO), because that is your position twowards this thread!

 

[Ludah]

Wait, you bring up the issue of relevancy, but now you want me to supply quotes regarding by relationship with Double Blade? What the hell?

And, as has been said before, it was pointed out time and time again where you were wrong. Sweet evil Jesus, just read some of the topics. Alas, it doesn't really accomplish much when the person at fault just flat-out denies such accusations repeatedly in the face of all overwhelming reasoning. An impasse of idiocy that isn't worth trying to overcome any more.

It would also help if you could take the time to make your posts far more legible, accurate in diction, and less fractured. But there's a fat chance of that happening.

Ugh... you know what? Forget it. The only thing I'm getting out of this is the mild satisfaction in berating you, unequal to the amount of annoyance you cause me. Better off putting you on ignore.

 

[jverne]

Wait, you bring up the issue of relevancy, but now you want me to supply quotes regarding by relationship with Double Blade? What the hell?

And, as has been said before, it was pointed out time and time again where you were wrong. Sweet evil Jesus, just read some of the topics. Alas, it doesn't really accomplish much when the person at fault just flat-out denies such accusations repeatedly in the face of all overwhelming reasoning. An impasse of idiocy that isn't worth trying to overcome any more.

It would also help if you could take the time to make your posts far more legible, accurate in diction, and less fractured. But there's a fat chance of that happening.

1. nope...i said i don't belive before i see some evidence.

2. if i saw no evidence, most of it were insults, illustrations, claims of me being illogic, irrational,...

3. i'll try!

 

[Double_Blade]

That is not derailing the thread. You clearly understand nothing that exists in this universe.



Yes, the timing of this topic makes it obvious. Right when you're getting all heated about logical fallacies, you decide to post a topic about it in order to twist your utter ignorance into something acceptable. You were also expecting a particular person to come in and argue with you, no doubt from a previous argument.

"btw...i'm sure "somebody" wil have lots to say" - Straight from your first post

So even if it wasn't your Earthlings topic, it's more than reasonable to think that this topic was brought about because you have your panties in a twist over some logic debate with another person. This notion of you creating this thread with pure intentions is bullshit.



Yeah, pretty much. Anybody whoever made a response to you or directed a post in your direction ended up having to correct you over and over again, inquiring what the hell you were on about, and generally repeating themselves over and over again because you just never seemed to get it.

Perhaps I missed a few posts that looked at your reasoning favorably, in that lukewarm kind of way.



There's no point showing how you're irrational any longer, because any time it happens, it flies right over your head. I'd have better luck breaking concrete with my penis than anybody would with showing convincing you of your faulty argumentation.



He insulted me, I insulted him back. He's been at me for a while now. He wanted to resolve things through Private Messaging, and I was open to it. Guess what. He never did such a thing.



It was directed to him. It's not relevant to this topic, but it's not like it really matters. The whole thread is a sham of debate.

Hey, everyone has a freedom of speech and you don't have the right to criticize each and every of our opinions. And when someone don't agrees with your comments, give it a rest, don't lash it out against them or you are just downright smarmy self-righteous dickass (Like Jintor said).

 

[KagePrototype]

Hey, everyone has a freedom of speech and you don't have the right to criticize each and every of our opinions.

/boggle

 

[15357]

Hey, everyone has a freedom of speech and you don't have the right to criticize each and every of our opinions.

Uh... freedom of speech is the right to criticise... But I agree. **** freedom of speech.

 

[Double_Blade]

Whatever ya say so....

Anyway, I had better things to do than to argue with that clown "Ludah".

Chao.

 

[15357]

Whatever ya say so....

Anyway, I had better things to do than to argue with that clown "Ludah".

Chao.

Isn't it ciao?

 

[Double_Blade]

Well, it could be pronounced as Chow too...

Anyway I leave you with what Wikipedia had said about Logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish logical from flawed arguments.

Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy. Since the mid-nineteenth century logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science. As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialist analyses of reasoning such as probably correct reasoning and arguments involving causality.

 

[jondy]

Hey, everyone has a freedom of speech and you don't have the right to criticize each and every of our opinions.

Anyway, I had better things to do than to argue with that clown "Ludah".

you're not in a position to insult people

 

[Ludah]

Double Blade, it's really simple. If you wanted to resolve some issue with me, like you said you wanted to, you'd give me a PM. I've left you alone, but you feel this urge to nip at my heels. So don't pretend I have somehow unexpectedly offended you.