Originally Posted by Miburo
So now you're saying actual formal logic is bullshit? Might as well say math is bullshit while you're at it.
Attacks against your philosophy are ad hominens.
Counter-arguments are attacks.
∴ Counter-arguments against your philosophy are ad hominens.
This is a valid proof created using deductive reasoning. The wikipedia entry on deductive reasoning explains it very well, and I'm sure there are plenty of other sites I could direct you to should you want something other than wikipedia.
bullshit If I had said all attacks are counter-arguments it would be completely valid logic, since I said the reverse, it is not.
If I say all policemen are gun carriers, does that mean that all gun-carriers are policemen?
Not at all, the same principle applies here.
If I say: gun carriers are a threat to my safety - that is a viewpoint that is easily comprehensible, and I could find reputable sources to back it up.
If someone combined the previous two statements to make the statement: policeman are a threat to my safety ;that sounds a little ludicrous, and it would be hard to find reputable sources.
It's not an accurate representation of what I ACTUALLY stated, so is bullshit logic.
If you were taking some instance of counter-arguments and using attacks to replace it that would be reasonable since you would be replacing a specific term with a general term - that is still accurate. Replacing a general term with a specific term could invalidate the validity of the statement, and I am saying that is exactly what your bullshit logic is doing here.
As a matter of fact I would use this as a great example of how logic could be used to prove anything. It's perfectly logical, and is perfectly inaccurate.
We've entertained your attempts to weasel your way out of shit enough. I'm going to keep on you until you post the links. Let's see some credible evidence that backs your shit up already.
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.
Notice how in the definition of discussion, it doesn't mention a damn thing about arguments? There is no valid counter-argument to no argument.
I have told you that I don't have debates I have discussions.
I have entertained your weaselly attempts to get me to cop to some shit that never applied to begin with (which I told you from the start) for long enough, I am now adding you to my (mental I guess) ignore list as well for failure to even begin to attempt to approach the same starting point as me.
They're not mutually exclusive. Post the links, unless of course you can't.
Edit: Pretty sure neither 'the law' nor 'the 12 step program' would accept the philosophy of "I'm always right" as a religion. In fact, I think that would go over terribly at an AA meeting. "How dare you assault my character by suggesting I have a problem that I need to admit to!" Post the links.
My philosophy was much more in-depth than that, that was merely one facet of something that led to the discussion of my philosophy, again just proof that you refuse to acknowledge my starting point:
True wisdom begins with knowing that we know nothing. We become wiser still when we acknowledge that the things we do know can only change.
Since every man is fallible, the only thing a man can ever state with certainty is his own opinion. etc etc.
Not going to feed it all to you just so you can troll down my faith some more.