By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - the fallacy thread NOW HIRING! fallacy mods!

happydolphin on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
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.

When did I say I won? Reading problems today?

I said that I was correct in beating a dead horse with you in the "Why I hate debating religion" thread, nothing odd here. You and others were saying it was useless, and you were wrong.

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. He had his, and he was missing another.

Horse = almost beat.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 20 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
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.

When did I say I won? Reading problems today?

I said that I was correct in beating a dead horse with you in the "Why I hate debating religion" thread, nothing odd here. You and others were saying it was useless, and you were wrong.

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. He had his, and he was missing another.

Horse = almost beat.

"I won" "I was correct" is the exact same thing. 

I was saying what is useless? I think you are delusional.

It is nonsense. His premise was not faulty, and you misrepresented it to make it appear faulty. He need another logical substantiation in order to draw his conclusion, not another premise. lmfao.

Dunning-Kruger effect at work again.



happydolphin on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
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.

When did I say I won? Reading problems today?

I said that I was correct in beating a dead horse with you in the "Why I hate debating religion" thread, nothing odd here. You and others were saying it was useless, and you were wrong.

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. He had his, and he was missing another.

Horse = almost beat.

"I won" "I was correct" is the exact same thing. 

I was saying what is useless? I think you are delusional.

It is nonsense. His premise was not faulty, and you misrepresented it to make it appear faulty. He need another logical substantiation in order to draw his conclusion, not another premise. lmfao.

Dunning-Kruger effect at work again.

I didn't say his premise was faulty, I said his logic was based on a missing premise. Reading is good for you.

As for being delusional, I don't think it's nice to call others that. 1 Ad hominem for you ;)

Anyways, here was your initial response to my criticism of your claim that observation precludes existence:

dsgrue3 said:
happydolphin said:
Tell me. You believe in evolution right? The moment we became capable of science as the human species, is that the moment everything came into existence?

 

Evolution is a fact. No "belief" involved. What a ludicrous statement, and the only reason I will address it is because of a lack of tasks at work and this will kill time. Indeed, before each iteration of evolution, a certain species did not exist. Surely that is the response you wanted and not some ridiculous response to lend any credence to your fundamentally ignorant viewpoint of existence. 

On the off chance that you are suggesting that prior to human nature nothing existed, OF COURSE IT FUCKING EXISTED, just because WE weren't around to observe it, the rest of the god damn animal kingdom was. Jesus, wake the hell up and stop making INANE arguments.

User was banned for this post - Kantor

 

Oh, wait, you called it an INANE argument... of course.

And later, much later, that my point was beyond pedanticism. To me, it's pretty much the same as saying I'm beating a dead horse:

dsgrue3 said:
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

Again, you seem to think observation implies sight. It doesn't. We can't see gravity, but we know it to exist. We can't see certain gases because they are not visible. 

Observation implies evidence, it certainly isn't confined to merely sight.

Well, we know the atom to exist and it does in fact encompass everything. This has been proven beyond any doubt as we have verified its existence through calculation and scientific study. The same cannot be said for your argument of God.

It's an untestable hypothesis and thus is not valid. This is why non-existence is impossible to prove. So asking a non-theist to do so is blatantly ignorant. 

I am not (yet) looking to invalidate the existence of God. At this point of the dialogue, I just want to demonstrate that the lack of observation does not disprove existence. For instance, prior to the existence of sentient, observing beings, everything that needed to exist to generate living beings was existent. The lack of observation didn't stop sentient creatures from coming into being.

(Note: This logic does not work for a creation deist since in general a creative deity is all-knowing. However in such a case the belief that observation alone proves existence wouldn't really be needed.)

This is beyond pedantism. Observation isn't predicated upon capability. We defined it as humans. The term existence didn't exist until we existed and defined it. That's like attempting to apply laws of science before the Universe came to be. 

I hope you understand the difference. 

From an objective third party intelligent being, indeed these such things existed (given the known physics definition for existence). 

@"Dunning-Kruger effect at work again." This is ad hominem, though I legitimately believe it is at work in you. I could demonstrate it if you like.



theprof00 on 20 December 2012

what generalization?
Do humans not have gay populations?
all animals have gay populations.
humans have gay populations as well.
we are animals...after all.



happydolphin on 20 December 2012
theprof00 said:
what generalization?
Do humans not have gay populations?
all animals have gay populations.
humans have gay populations as well.
we are animals...after all.

You weren't asking if humans have gay populations. It was clear from your logic that you were trying to infer that since all animals other than humans have gay populations, that it was natural for humans to have gay populations.

Special pleading.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 20 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
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.

When did I say I won? Reading problems today?

I said that I was correct in beating a dead horse with you in the "Why I hate debating religion" thread, nothing odd here. You and others were saying it was useless, and you were wrong.

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. He had his, and he was missing another.

Horse = almost beat.

"I won" "I was correct" is the exact same thing. 

I was saying what is useless? I think you are delusional.

It is nonsense. His premise was not faulty, and you misrepresented it to make it appear faulty. He need another logical substantiation in order to draw his conclusion, not another premise. lmfao.

Dunning-Kruger effect at work again.

I didn't say his premise was faulty, I said his logic was based on a missing premise. Reading is good for you.

As for being delusional, I don't think it's nice to call others that. 1 Ad hominem for you ;)

Anyways, here was your initial response to my criticism of your claim that observation precludes existence:

***OFF TOPIC STUFF*** 

 


Can't recall your previous statement? Here, I'll show you:

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise.

The premise wasn't missing anything. You don't seem to understand logic at all.

Premise

Substsantiating claims

Deductions

Conclusion

You don't make multiple premises. 

As to the off topic item, I proved that you were incorrect as per my definition of existence. Clearly, you have selective memory.



happydolphin on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:

Can't recall your previous statement? Here, I'll show you:

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise.

The premise wasn't missing anything. You don't seem to understand logic at all.

Premise

Substsantiating claims

Deductions

Conclusion

You don't make multiple premises. 

As to the off topic item, I proved that you were incorrect as per my definition of existence. Clearly, you have selective memory.

"a", not "the" missing premise.

You are incorrect and wrong here:

Premises are statements of (assumed) fact which are supposed to set forth the reasons and/or evidence for believing a claim. The claim, in turn, is the conclusion: what you finish with at the end of an argument. When an argument is simple, you may just have a couple of premises and a conclusion:

 

1. Doctors earn a lot of money. (premise)

2. I want to earn a lot of money. (premise)

3. I should become a doctor. (conclusion)

Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/argument.htm

^From an atheist site thank you very much.

You were simply wrong in the other thread, but wow my mind is blown that you think you were correct in the end.

I was saying that your definition of existence was false, and I proved myself right by challenging your definition. Period.



dsgrue3 on 20 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

Can't recall your previous statement? Here, I'll show you:

As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise.

The premise wasn't missing anything. You don't seem to understand logic at all.

Premise

Substsantiating claims

Deductions

Conclusion

You don't make multiple premises. 

As to the off topic item, I proved that you were incorrect as per my definition of existence. Clearly, you have selective memory.

"a", not "the" missing premise.

Can't read?

You don't make multiple premises. 





happydolphin on 20 December 2012

dsgrue3 said:

Can't read?

You don't make multiple premises. 

You're wrong and check my edit.

You are wrong, were wrong, and always will be... WRONG.



theprof00 on 20 December 2012
happydolphin said:
theprof00 said:
what generalization?
Do humans not have gay populations?
all animals have gay populations.
humans have gay populations as well.
we are animals...after all.

You weren't asking if humans have pulations. It was clear from your logic that you were trying to infer that since all animals other than humans have gay populations, that it was natural for humans to have gay populations.

Special pleading.


what spevial pleadinh? how am i moving the goalposts?

i was saying that humans having gay populations was natural. It is a fact that we have gay populations, and that all animals have gay population. I only mis-explained it later when i was sayimg humans are animals and animals are gay. You're right though, my first premise was different , it changed when i was trying to explain to you logically how it makes sense and ended up with a conclusion that didn't follow from the premise, but here you are a victim of fallacy fallacy, because it does actually follow that it is natural for humans to be gay since it is proven that all animals(includong humans) ahave gay populations. that was my original point, as you seem to agree.

You just chose to ignore this. 

"just because something was argued incorrectly fdoesn't mean it is wrong"