Abortion Follies: Texas style

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Ok. Please show us a hobbit to support your claim.
Click to expand...
RQAA.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
We'll ignore your position that you have claimed that if anything is argued then it is no longer a fact which would require that it no longer be a fact based on my not agreeing it is a fact. You seem to not even know what your own logic rules are, let alone follow them.
Click to expand...
If you don't think Hobbits have hairy toes, that's your choice. You can argue that all you want. I won't bother.
 
Into the Night said:
And yet you claim the 2+1=4 is valid...or at least the equivalent in logic.

True.

Already have.

Contextomy fallacy. ?(U)->(V)?(V) is an error in logic.

Redefinition fallacy. !A=(B) is an error in logic.

Void argument fallacy. !A=A is an error in logic.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.
So if someone claims 2+1=3, your correction is X+Y=Z?
If you fail to define X, Y and Z then you aren't correcting anything. Using logic symbols doesn't show how the logic was wrong if you don't define the symbols based on the statements you are attempting to correct.

Let's examine this statement by you -
Redefinition fallacy. !A=(B) is an error in logic.
Click to expand...

The real problem with your attempt is that you have not defined A or B in your logic formula. You haven't shown what I said, what I used for the wrong definition or provided us with the correct definition. As such, you haven't proven anything other than you can't provide evidence in support of your fallacy claim. Your failure to provide support would make your claim a fallacy fallacy.
But then in the previous post you posted this.
No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word. Denial of eytomology.
Click to expand...
Since no dictionary defines any word then how can any word ever be redefined? You have created a paradox here. If there is no official definition then there can never be a redefinition fallacy because it would require a definition first. Clearly you are arguing against yourself.

Psychoquackery.

I already have.

That's exactly what you should do, not run away to the kiddie pool and try to deny logic and redefine words.
Click to expand...
How can I redefine worlds that you claim are not defined in any dictionary? Please explain your logic. Maybe you can write it out with logic symbols.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If someone claims 2+1 = 4, it is simple to point out the math error and show the correct math. It is the same with logic errors. If one claims there is a logic error then they should be able to point out the error rather than simply shouting "YOU'RE WRONG." Claiming a statement is a fallacy without being able to explain why it is a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy. It is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of the statement. The fallacy fallacy is often used by weak minded people to try to pretend they are more intelligent than they are. Into the Night is a good example of this as he constantly claims fallacies but never is able to point out why the fallacy exists. Then when asked to explain the fallacy he further avoids the issue by saying "Go learn logic."
Click to expand...

Into the Night is best served as an entree on your Ignore List. He offers nothing from kneejerk pap and trollish b.s.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If someone claims 2+1 = 4, it is simple to point out the math error and show the correct math. It is the same with logic errors. If one claims there is a logic error then they should be able to point out the error rather than simply shouting "YOU'RE WRONG." Claiming a statement is a fallacy without being able to explain why it is a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy. It is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of the statement. The fallacy fallacy is often used by weak minded people to try to pretend they are more intelligent than they are. Into the Night is a good example of this as he constantly claims fallacies but never is able to point out why the fallacy exists. Then when asked to explain the fallacy he further avoids the issue by saying "Go learn logic."
Click to expand...
Excellent points.


Pro Tip: Never expect to be able to reason with people incapable of sound reason due to mental issues. Reasonable people don't have to agree on anything except facts.

A person who declares the Moon landing was faked is irrational. They are disregarding facts to proclaim an unsubstantiated claim. They cannot be reasoned with, only ignored...or poked at with a stick. :pke:
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So if someone claims 2+1=3, your correction is X+Y=Z?
If you fail to define X, Y and Z then you aren't correcting anything. Using logic symbols doesn't show how the logic was wrong if you don't define the symbols based on the statements you are attempting to correct.
Click to expand...
Contextomy fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Let's examine this statement by you -


The real problem with your attempt is that you have not defined A or B in your logic formula. You haven't shown what I said, what I used for the wrong definition or provided us with the correct definition. As such, you haven't proven anything other than you can't provide evidence in support of your fallacy claim. Your failure to provide support would make your claim a fallacy fallacy.
Click to expand...
Denial of logic. Redefinition fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
But then in the previous post you posted this.

Since no dictionary defines any word then how can any word ever be redefined?
Click to expand...
Denial of eytomology.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You have created a paradox here.
Click to expand...
No paradox. Dictionaries do not define words. People do.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If there is no official definition then there can never be a redefinition fallacy because it would require a definition first.
Click to expand...
The word is defined. You are attempting to redefine. Denial of eytomology.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Clearly you are arguing against yourself.
Click to expand...
Attempted proof by denial.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
How can I redefine worlds that you claim are not defined in any dictionary?
Click to expand...
Denial of eytomology.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Please explain your logic. Maybe you can write it out with logic symbols.
Click to expand...
RQAA. Trolling.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Excellent points.


Pro Tip: Never expect to be able to reason with people incapable of sound reason due to mental issues. Reasonable people don't have to agree on anything except facts.

A person who declares the Moon landing was faked is irrational. They are disregarding facts to proclaim an unsubstantiated claim. They cannot be reasoned with, only ignored...or poked at with a stick. :pke:
Click to expand...

Me to-ism. You are just as ignorant and illiterate as he is.
 
Into the Night said:
Contextomy fallacy.

Denial of logic. Redefinition fallacy.

Denial of eytomology.

No paradox. Dictionaries do not define words. People do.

The word is defined. You are attempting to redefine. Denial of eytomology.

Attempted proof by denial.

Denial of eytomology.

RQAA. Trolling.
Click to expand...

I am curious since words are not defined in dictionaries, where do I find the definitions?
You claimed Hobbits have hairy feet because it is written in a book, but if definitions can't be found in books then why would any truths about Hobbit feet be found in books. You are making no sense at all. (Of course, you never make sense so this is no different from normal. I am just pointing out how ridiculous your arguments are since you argue against yourself.)

If I can't rely on a dictionary for a definition then there is no actual definition and people can simply make up whatever meaning they want. Since that would be the case then there can never be a redefinition fallacy as you claim.
Etymology is how words change in meaning. If words can change meaning then how can there be a redefinition fallacy? It seems you are simply making up a fallacy that you are arguing can't exist.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I am curious since words are not defined in dictionaries, where do I find the definitions?
Etymology is how words change in meaning. If words can change meaning then how can there be a redefinition fallacy? It seems you are simply making up a fallacy that you are arguing can't exist.
Click to expand...

Etymology is not how words change in meaning.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If someone claims 2+1 = 4, it is simple to point out the math error and show the correct math. It is the same with logic errors. If one claims there is a logic error then they should be able to point out the error rather than simply shouting "YOU'RE WRONG." Claiming a statement is a fallacy without being able to explain why it is a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy. It is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of the statement. The fallacy fallacy is often used by weak minded people to try to pretend they are more intelligent than they are. Into the Night is a good example of this as he constantly claims fallacies but never is able to point out why the fallacy exists. Then when asked to explain the fallacy he further avoids the issue by saying "Go learn logic."
Click to expand...

One of the reasons why the little dope is constantly in the IA bin. You should read his "explanation" as to why there are no such things as "facts" to disprove his drivel. I swear, either he's drunk, high or has reached a new level of MAGA idiocy that would give KellyAnn Conway pause.
 
Taichiliberal said:
One of the reasons why the little dope is constantly in the IA bin. You should read his "explanation" as to why there are no such things as "facts" to disprove his drivel. I swear, either he's drunk, high or has reached a new level of MAGA idiocy that would give KellyAnn Conway pause.
Click to expand...

Bulverism. Insult fallacies. Trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top