Discussion, not Provocation

[Amarok]

The philosophers have outdone themselves to stupidity with their rule books of fallacies.

Then you clearly don't get logic . Strange for a man who blathers on about how logical his arguments for pixie dust are.

[Mystic]

The philosophers have outdone themselves to stupidity with their rule books of fallacies.

^ This demonstrates that you misunderstand logical fallacies.

They are literalist instead of seeing language as a convention and made a paradigm everything has to be directly answered. They are fools.

---

The philosophers have outdone themselves to stupidity with their rule books of fallacies.

Then you clearly don't get logic . Strange for a man who blathers on about how logical his arguments for pixie dust are.

Reasoning and logic predate this century's narrow definition of it and understanding of it. Immersed in conjecture this generation truly is.

[Mister Agenda]

If an argument is fallacious, its conclusion doesn't follow from its premise(s). It doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion isn't true, but if it is, the reason for it being true is not the fallacious reason given.

[Mystic]

If an argument is fallacious, its conclusion doesn't follow from its premise(s). It doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion isn't true, but if it is, the reason for it being true is not the fallacious reason given.

You really don't get what I am saying because you are so used being directed on how to think by people who really don't how to.

I am talking about language convention and people being literalists to it now and also limiting paradigms on appropriate ways to respond and a lot is just dumb and makes no sense.

Yes, it's their profession, but they are fools unfortunately with respect to the very thing they are supposed to reflect about and be experts at.

[pocaracas]

If an argument is fallacious, its conclusion doesn't follow from its premise(s). It doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion isn't true, but if it is, the reason for it being true is not the fallacious reason given.

You really don't get what I am saying because you are so used being directed on how to think by people who really don't how to.

I am talking about language convention and people being literalists to it now and also limiting paradigms on appropriate ways to respond and a lot is just dumb and makes no sense.

Yes, it's their profession, but they are fools unfortunately with respect to the very thing they are supposed to reflect about and be experts at.

No.... I think MA understands that you just wish to pass deepities as something that's actually meaningful, when it's mostly nonsense, loaded with unsupported assumptions.

[Shell B]

You’ll have to point me in the direction of the law you claim. Also, cite your definition of pedophilia, please.

I meant that there is no crime called pedophilia, because pedophilia is completely legal. Can't be charged for a thought crime. That's why they call it child molestation or rape rather than pedophilia.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd1.../en#/F65.4

I agree with that. It seemed you were saying the law made a distinction between child rapists who aren't pedophiles and those who are. Obviously, there is no such thing as a thought crime. Pedophiles who never commit any crimes are harmless. I still believe that committing a sexual act on a child takes a sexual attraction, no matter how deviant, and makes you a pedophile. That doesn't demonize pedophiles. That's like saying if men who rape other men are called homosexuals, it demonizes homosexuals.

[Cyberman]

If an argument is fallacious, its conclusion doesn't follow from its premise(s). It doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion isn't true, but if it is, the reason for it being true is not the fallacious reason given.

You really don't get what I am saying because you are so used being directed on how to think by people who really don't how to.

Add ad hominem and poisoning the well to the list of fallacies you don't recognise.

[Mystic]

You really don't get what I am saying because you are so used being directed on how to think by people who really don't how to.

Add ad hominem and poisoning the well to the list of fallacies you don't recognise.

Keep on conjecturing in a sea of conjecture, see where it will lead you.

[Cyberman]

Yep, ad hom. You didn't address what I said, you went for me.

[henryp]

If an argument is fallacious, its conclusion doesn't follow from its premise(s). It doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion isn't true, but if it is, the reason for it being true is not the fallacious reason given.

You really don't get what I am saying because you are so used being directed on how to think by people who really don't how to.

I am talking about language convention and people being literalists to it now and also limiting paradigms on appropriate ways to respond and a lot is just dumb and makes no sense.

Yes, it's their profession, but they are fools unfortunately with respect to the very thing they are supposed to reflect about and be experts at.

I definitely get what you are saying, and you're 100% right.  People are purposefully obstinate/obtuse/pedantic/disingenuous, and they think that's how discussion is supposed to work.  After all, it's not about an exchange of ideas, it's a game where they keep score by pretending their bullshit is worth a bunch of points even if they know it's bullshit. Politics has certainly taught us that's how it's done.  And I think it's so pervasive now, that people may not be doing it purposefully.  It's just the standard.