(January 18, 2017 at 5:58 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Perhaps you should investigate valid argument structures yourself, and save everyone alot of heartache? If I tell you "you can't phrase the statement that way, it's fallacy "x" it has nothing to do with my worldview (or whether it's accurate or inaccurate, true or false), or something that I personally disagree with. That's just how the system is arranged.
No amount of bickering about my worldview will change the rules of that system. That, too, is described by the system and given a classification as a fallacy.
This is the response I expected from you. You claim to have defined, when you have not, the terms of your argument, and instead of bothering to follow through with an actual explanation, you start waving your hand toward the internet and saying "Do my work for me." Look, if you want to view the OP through the rules of formal logic, go ahead. Explain how your understanding of the rules of logic arrives at a sensible conclusion about the OP. But if you are going to say you've defined a word over and over again, the way you've always used it, and I've insistently ignored you-- get real. Your definition includes qualifiers, and you need to explain by what means you apply them, or your definition is just a fart in the wind.
For a guy with so many words to spend, you seem to have a surprising dearth of ideas of your own to put forward and support. Why don't you take a position on something other than my semantics for once, and attempt to actually support it with some original thinking? Because arguing my usage of words without actually putting forth your own is. . . wait for it. . . pretty much the definition of bickering. What color pot are you, dude? If you're not sure, ask the kettle.
