Miburo

Of course you don't, you're an idiot. It doesn't matter if you believe in something or not. I would disagree with it regardless of whether a statement is something you believe (oh wait, something you base your life philosophy around) or not. It doesn't matter. I don't disagree with it because it's your life philosophy. I doubt it's validity or disagree with it because it's something that lacks proof or something I find disagreeable. To me, it being your life philosophy is inconsequential and coincidental. Totally irrelevant.



Okay, change wherever I said "your belief" to "your life philosophy" if it'll stop your nitpicking. There. Now you can stop avoiding the discussion. Give me a link to one of the many websites dedicated to explaining and providing examples of logical fallacies that shows exactly this: 'Counter-arguments against a statement that happens to be a basis of your life philosophy are ad hominens.' That's it. Then you win. Game over. That is all it would take to prove my comrades and I were being ignorant and you were right all along.


You would also be proving that there is nothing illogical about many things that are now considered ignorant and horrible, like racism and sexism, since any arguments against such things would qualify as counter-arguments against statements that happen to be a basis of many people's life philosophies. Making them logically fallacious. You're literally a couple of link posts away from exposing a world changing breakthrough in logic that would do bigots the world over a truly great service. You truly are a sage of enlightenment, and I'm honored to be a part of this monumental historic event.

Miburo

By Odin's beard, I just realized that this originally started because this guy was all like "I never eliminate any possibilities because I'm super mature and wise like that." And all he's been doing this entire time is bastardizing every logical concept tossed his way in order to construct a massive web of bullshit because he's only willing to actually entertain a single possibility: That his stance is the single unassailable and correct truth. His current thing is any argument against his shit is illogical by virtue of it being a counter-argument against his shit. This is crazy.

I highly doubt anyone can fake this level of dumb. He makes the shit HR posts look like Steven Hawking lectures.

almightywood

It doesn't matter AT ALL if it is relevant to you. If you are attacking my life's philosophy, WHICH I CLEARLY STATED, then you are making a personal attack on me. A personal attack on me isn't a sound argument. If we're talking about my personal philosophy, there's no such thing as a sound argument against it because anything that is one is a personal attack, unless it is something that completely disproves even the very possibility of it being valid. If it was any belief other than my personal philosophy then it wouldn't be. Simple as.






Change 'counter-arguments' back to 'attacks' and 'ad hominens' back to 'are an attack on my character', and you're talking, I'll go looking, since that's the only statement I need to prove.


In my opinion, logic can be used to justify anything so, yeah, this is pretty much already the case as far as I'm concerned.


These are called the laws of respect that everyone has the RIGHT to by virtue of being born, not the laws of logic. I was told that all of academia disputes me, well go find me an ethics book that says you can freely attack another person's beliefs. If you're going to tell me that ethics don't apply in a discussion or debate, I will tell you to go straight to hell.
Religious persecution is criticizing someone's beliefs as much as criticizing them for their beliefs.

Miburo

Yeah, yeah. Post the link.

No. You clearly said that counter-arguments are attacks. And attacks against your personal life philosophy are ad hominens. You have to prove exactly that. I won't hold my breathe.



Your opinions are purely subjective and have no objective value. If you have an 'absolute truth' that demonstrates logic can be used to justify anything (Illogical statements fall under the classification of anything, so don't see how that's possible...), then post that. But I think you're better off proving your other things first.
Post link to Laws of Respect and demonstrate how they're objective moral truths that I have to abide by. Asking me to disprove your claims is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Here is a link that explains it: Link.

Edit: Oh, and pretty sure religious persecution involves a tad bit more than just criticism. And kinda deals more with, you know, religion. So not really applicable here.

almightywood

You are putting words in my mouth with bullshit logic. My saying that all counter-arguments are attacks doesn't in any way constitute all attacks being counter-arguments. I said 'attacks' ("attacks against my philosophy, are attacks against my character"), I will not use 'counter-arguments' to provide proof of something I never once claimed. Quit being a jackass and trying to switch my words around if you want me to back them up.





I need demonstrate nothing. This has never been an argument of logic, it has always been about ethics.




The only difference in between what we are discussing here and religion is the existence of a deity. This is the philosophy I base my life around, it is spirituality, it is a religion without a god.
12 step programs, and the law would recognize it as such.

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.

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.


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.

almightywood

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.

de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
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.

dis·cus·sion (d-skshn)
n.
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.

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.

Miburo

The proof doesn't assume all attacks are counter-arguments. It is stating that counter-arguments fall under the category of attacks. Which is exactly what you stated, and what I used. Counter-arguments are attacks, are they not? Again, post the links.


This isn't what I asked you to prove. This doesn't show that counter-arguments are ad hominens. What's wrong? Can't find any proof that supports that particular thing of yours?

Considering the fact that I've repeatedly said I don't care what your philosophy is since I'm not contesting anything you said for the reason of it being something you believe, I couldn't give less of a fuck about your philosophy. My goal was never to "troll your faith." You're not some poor victim of oppression here. Post the links.

Edit: I lol'd pretty heartily at you admitting that part was a facet of your life philosophy though. Still, links, post them.

Miburo

Oh, and just for shits, I just googled "discussion definition"


Doesn't matter at all in regards to you proving that shit of yours I asked you to back up. But does demonstrate your dishonesty quite well.

Miburo

Oh, fuck yeah at this ignore list edit.

Hopefully he's a man of his word and actually ignores me.


"Yo man, can you actually prove any of the shit you're saying to be true?"
"Fuck this religious persecution! I'm going to conveniently ignore you now."

What a pussy. Oh well.


GLORIOUS VICTORY!

ACt

AW - That's fine if you want to have a disucssion; the rest of us are having a debate. You just brought a knife to a gun fight. Enjoy!

This is pretty much what I've been saying, but it was well put.

This fellow doesn't want to rule out possibilities because he considers it subtraction of knowledge. To rule out possibilities, you have to accept counter-arguments. Since his personal philosophy is actually fused into his person, to accept a counter argument, thus rule out a possibility, must be like cutting off a finger or something. It is literal subtraction. Faced with this immutability of position, the good 34 year old genius has made the only choice open to him: reject that his personal philosophy can be open to debate.

He's pretty much the pope, infalible in his own mind. He'll take any argument and debate and twist it so he doesn't have to self-immolate any philosophy to tied into his being. Such an acceptance that his views/beliefs/faiths were open to discussion, debate and, yes, even refution, would be an utter disaster which would displace his mental rock and spiral him into chaos.

How dare any of us even think that such an outcome would be in our best interest.

Oh, and his whole bullshit on this, remember, he called me flawed for not living long enough and then passed judgments on my demeanour, language and arguments against him as evidence that I was not mature, open-minded and goodness knows what else. He has judged me based on my actions which could be determined as my self-philosophy. Which means his philosophy is above reproach, but mine is shit. And, children, what do we call that?

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

almightywood

I totally will after stating that I proved you had bullshit logic in my edits.

ACt

He knows there's an actual ignore list, doesn't he?

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Miburo

I dunno, but I think I might be incapable of being ignored because I'm the embodiment of truth and justice. Or something like that. I do know that he thinks that proving that he doesn't know how formal logic works and demonstrating that he doesn't comprehend the difference between validity and soundness in regards to formal logic is equatable to demonstrating that logic is bullshit though.

Religious persecution, obviously.


And for the record, I think you're totally mature and devilishly charming.

ACt

Oh, you sweet talker, you. Really need to write that axe forging chapter - I'll make it my Christmas project.

Anyway, this thread was fun. Relentless psuedo-intellectualism truly offers more laughs than plain old stupidity. What was everyone's favourite part?

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.