oh and now you're misrepresening because i said "have gay populations" not "share the same behaviors."
| theprof00 said: It assumes that God's design doesn't include homosexuality. oh and yes to both cases. humans swim and fish cough, in a way. Either way, i do see that i used the incorrect term animal, when i shouldve used mammals. |
Haha, I meant to say "can fish walk", not "can humans swim". But I could ask, do humans fly?
| theprof00 said: oh and now you're misrepresening because i said "have gay populations" not "share the same behaviors." |
Now I'm doing what, sorry?
How did you get from "all [non-human] animals have gay populations" AND "humans are animals" to "humans [naturally] have gay populations", if you didn't assume that all animals were alike (in some sort).
I'm not misrepresenting since you failed to supply the missing premise. I'm proving my point, which is you assumed something. Whether my guess is exact or not, the bottom line is that that premise was missing.
happydolphin said:
Fair, you did not say that his logic was correct, but you did not say that it was incorrect, and you bashed my criticism of it. I usually equate that to considering it correct, but that was my fallacy. I guess you were just trying to point out where you thought I may have misread (though I didn't). Here, you were missing the point entirely:
You said I was using a strawman argument (which I wasn't).
|
Yes, you were.
No, it is completely based off of an uncertified and undescribed premise, which is that all species are alike.
That is not his premise. His premise is:
all animals (excepting humans for now) have gay populations.
You have misrepresented his premise. When in reality, you're advocating that his logic is faulty as it required another supporting logical statement. Huge difference.
| dsgrue3 said:
Yes, you were. No, it is completely based off of an uncertified and undescribed premise, which is that all species are alike. That is not his premise. His premise is: all animals (excepting humans for now) have gay populations. You have misrepresented his premise. When in reality, you're advocated that his logic is faulty as it required another supporting logical statement. Huge difference. |
No I did not misrepresent. I said, that in order to get to his conclusion, he was missing a premise, and that premise was something of the likes of "all species are alike". I don't know exactly what it is since I am not the one constructing the logic, but all I can say is that something is missing.
Maybe my wording was off, but I did use the preposition "an" in "an uncertified [...] premise", with the liberty to interpret it as being one of many.
happydolphin said:
No I did not misrepresent. I said, that in order to get to his conclusion, he was missing a premise, and that premise was something of the likes of "all species are alike". I don't know exactly what it is since I am not the one constructing the logic, but all I can say is that something is missing. Maybe my wording was off, but I did use the preposition "an" in "an uncertified [...] premise", with the liberty to interpret it as being one of many. |
Wow, if you can't understand simple facts like this, you've a long way to go in terms of logic. I'm tired of beating this dead horse.
| dsgrue3 said:
Wow, if you can't understand simple facts like this, you've a long way to go in terms of logic. I'm tired of beating this dead horse. |
We beat a dead horse last time and I was right. We can try beating it again.
I said "a premise", not "the premise".
dsgrue3 said:
Wow, if you can't understand simple facts like this, you've a long way to go in terms of logic. I'm tired of beating this dead horse. |
Ad hominem, attacking the strawman, appeal to authority etc.
What's happening here by the way :D ? Isn't he simply arguing against the sweeping generalization that is "all animals are alike"?
happydolphin said:
We beat a dead horse last time and I was right. We can try beating it again. I said "a premise", not "the premise". |
Utter nonsense. You said his premise was faulty, he didn't have more than one. You won what? Odd comment.
haxxiy said:
Ad hominem, attacking the strawman, appeal to authority etc. What's happening here by the way :D ? Isn't he simply arguing against the sweeping generalization that is "all animals are alike"? |
For me?
Ad hominem is the only one I employed ITT. It's my weakness.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
