(January 24, 2022 at 9:19 am)GrandizerII Wrote: I saw a thread before about how to "defeat" Darth Dawkins in a debate. Well, here's a hint: try to get him to do formal logic!Ah, you watch Tom Rabittt too
Enjoy:
Darth Dawkins is a flawed human after all!
ETA: TBF, though, he's not entirely wrong in saying such an argument does not have to be fallacious. I think the primary issue is that the argument could've been worded heaps better so that it didn't have the form of the "affirming the consequent" fallacy. For example, flip P and Q and you'll get something valid at least (or appears to be valid at first glance). And maybe reword the manifestation expression (in both premises) so that begging the question is clearly not occurring.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
