| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Comments:
<0> i love condescending dictates
<1> Timur all I am sayin in simple terms don't belive what other say
<2> no, they don't COMMAND it, but they have a good SENSE and UNDERSTANDING of it.
<2> I believe what others say at times, and at other times, not.
<0> gopp, must **** going though life trusting nobody
<3> timur: trust? you mean, trust an authority?
<2> it has nothing to do with believing their views on matters political.
<4> Lupine: Soohistry essentially chooses to use logical falicies to CONVINCE rather then prove. It is based on the idea that the arguer already knows the truth and there is no point in the facts getting in the way.
<0> Yaakov, like o'reilly?
<5> is that Soohistry or Sophistry?
<1> Timur if her example is to apply "the thinking" that is shown in cl***, student also apply the thinking , and think they are right
<2> Lup: I mean, appreciating that a professor versed in logic, as a subject, probably has a reasonably good handle on it.
<6> hehe..
<6> I've caused a war on logic...
<3> Yaakov: I know that, hence, why it is so fun with schmucks like Libertine
<3> anyways, I gotta go
<7> nothing is absolute so logic fails
<7> end of discussion
<5> never heard of Soohistry interesting
<4> Linus--: Most political talk that seeks to convince is largely sophistry.
<6> Lupine: schmuck? ad hominem :P
<0> wars are illogical
<5> let me look Soohistry up
<2> gopp: right, and since there's more than one type of thinking, that may be one way, but isn't (usually) the only way. Again..what's your point? :)
<4> Dominique: That's a typo.
<2> are you speaking of a particular incident, or what
<3> Libertine: why not learn to actually prove the existance of a logical fallacy. Rather than having to rely on the appeal of authority that they exist.
<2> Linus: alas, they're all too logical.
<4> Dominique: Sophistry.
<0> wasn't Sophistry an album by Carole King? ;)
<8> baaba: Yeah. Nothing is absolute except for the fact that nothing is absolute. So it's quite evident that something is absolute. Yet it isn't.
<2> wars are symptoms of larger causes, mostly.
<8> My head hurts.
<3> Libertine: No, that was not an ad hominem. That was just a simpel insult. I made no connection between it, and the veracity of an arguement.
<6> Lupine: um; I wrote three paragraphs explaining it to you; I can not help you are unable to comprehend what I wrote.
<7> praxis9: stop worrying and drink a beer!
<6> Lupine: intelligence helps when it comes to understanding logic.
<3> Libertine: those were not a proof of your claim.
<0> Timur, no theyre not
<2> Linus: yes, they.. really are.
<3> libertine: and it is sad that you do not even realize that.
<4> Libertine: Be honest, he can understand it, and probably did--he is simply ignoring it for his current purpose.
<0> the amt of resources and human suffering that occurs over resources is not logical
<1> Linus-- presenting a arugment about being against a war even if it sound logic, but based on invalid data or facts is wrong
<2> Economic, political, ideological issues, for example.
<6> Lupine: what is sad is a man who questions the existence of concepts themselves.
<5> Linus, Carole King had Tapestry
<0> gopp, you going to heaven is illogical
<3> Yaakov: well, it is irrelevent that I understand it or not. They were not a proof of its existance.
<6> Lupine: tomorrow night do you plan to challenge the existence of verbs? :)
<0> Dominique, i KNOW!
<2> Linus: except that that competition exists, and often, it's (perceived rightly or wrongly) as a zero-sum game.
<5> oh
<0> hence the ;)
<0> the winking sarcastic eye
<4> Lupine: You are misdirecting. There was no claim that they were proofs of anything.
<0> Timur, so perceptions dictate the logic of war?
<2> hey Kali
<1> Timur that student love to use cookie cuter thinking, and miminic the apeal they have for the professor, and I see this happen " oh wow the professor is right" "bush ****s" and they they go on thinking that they correctly heard a good arugment, which is not a factual
<0> that's silly
<3> Yaakov: you missed the beginning then.
<9> hi Timur
<1> Timur my point is not to "appeal to authority
<2> Linus: sure, insofar as perceptions form things like identity, and identity and need often dictate priorities and action.
<0> perceptions of individuals or like minded small groups are faulty at best
<6> Lupine: logical fallacies exist; so long as logic exists. do you want to deny them both? or just one?
<9> Dylan is 65 -- eeeeeeeeeeekk feeling old now
<2> they may be faulty, but they exist.
<6> Lupine: just curious :)
<2> and are acted upon
<0> its not logical to base war on them however
<2> sure it is
<4> Lupine: You are the only one who has been calling definitions (which you can reasonably reject, in favor of others) "proofs". Now, if you want to argue that inductive and deductive reasoning do not exist, I think that would be very interesting.
<1> Linus-- is nor true or false, I don't nor do you unless you can prove you know how to predict that
<2> perceived threat, for example.
<0> a logical war may be possible by a vote of the people
<2> was fighting, say, the Nazis logical?
<0> it was necessary
<9> there is no such thing as a "logical war" --
<2> and logical.
<2> sure there is
<4> Logic and politics are only episodically connected.
<0> and i don't think after pearl harbor the people would have voted it down
<9> war is never logical - its a necessity at time...
<1> anways my point is liberal don't know how to argue and they break thier own rules
<8> If by "logical" we mean "in our interest," it was perfectly logical.
<6> Yaakov: if he tries to argue that reasoning doesn't exist, I'm going to get a beer.
<0> Kaliuna and i agree for once
<2> logic presumes certain ***umptions, i.e. that one may have enemies, and that other means of accomodating those enemies have failed, and the only option left is war.
<1> Lupine Kaliuna you want to see a fastfood chain in cuba
<1> http://www.therealcuba.com/Elrapido2.jpg
<2> purely logical.
<9> Linus -- good to know
<1> el rapdio
<1> is a fast food chain in cuba
<4> Libertine: It is the only recourse if he stipulates that your definitions are "unproven".
<0> its not logical when you look at the wasteful "investment" of dollars better spent elsewhere
<4> Lupine: But I love you anyway.
<1> http://www.therealcuba.com/Elrapido1.jpg
<0> and the human suffering that accommpanies
<6> gopp: a liberal doesn't know how to argue and they break their own rules? .. fallacy of logic - hasty generalization.
<1> A fast food restaurant for tourists
<2> gopp: dude. You are saying 'liberals' don't know how to argue, and you can barely construct a coherent sentence? You've got br*** ones :)
<4> Lupine: Get outta here you knucklehead!
<9> Linus - sometimes those dollars spent are well worth it -- but the human suffering -- never is
<1> Libertine wtf it fact, most liberal can't argue, thus e.g. kerry lost all the debates
<8> Linus: Why is that? You ***ume that peace is the necessary state of things, of course, but you do not take into account that peace is a result of war.
<2> I've debated with liberals, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, whatever; and some make good arguments from each, and some don't.
<0> well, mankind has "evolved" into a state of neverending warfare
<2> there's no correlation.
<0> and that just isn't logocal to me
<4> gopp: Serious question, is English your first langauge?
<1> Timur most liberal don't , some may some very few liberal
<0> we strive for peace through bloodshed
<2> Linus: well, there's always reading history
<2> gopp: then you don't know many 'liberals'.
<1> I do so
<0> Timur, do you honestly think there will EVER be peace on earth?
<1> and many don't know how to argue
<2> I'd love to watch you debate a liberal politician whose very job it is to debate and argue and convince.
<2> Linus: ever? sure.
<0> omigod
<2> Star Trek in 2300
<0> dipwad
<0> hehe
<2> maybe 2400
<1> Timur he will use empty rethoic
<1> Timur and bring him on
<1> I will debate him
<8> Only the dead have seen the end of war.
<0> gopp, you're drunk
<1> Timur given me some times to prepare and gives us a topic ahead of time "e.g. taxes'
<0> praxis9, rip
<2> gopp: again, you have br*** ones. I wonder where you get your gumption, because I don't see how you muster it.
<10> when is gopp not drunk?
<1> and I will do some research
<1> sure I will debate him
<1> I not scared
<1> heck I debated liberal polticians
<0> me tarzan
<2> gopp: you should be like.. a lot more humble for risk of m***ive embar***ment.
<1> I debate teh liberal cuban congressman bobmendez
<4> The trouble is, people unskilled in argument believe that they win every argument they have because they have no way to test success--and after all, THEY are convinced.
<2> Yaakov: well said
<0> sheesh, give it up
<9> Rebec -- hmm sounds like what we used to say about another character that used to be here - kinda miss him, but his English was a lot better
<1> Timur out in public I debated him
<2> gopp: who?
<1> Timur but I had a backing of the local young republican club
<2> oh, Mendez
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
recession stocks
3dsmax virtual ram
#winxp
#heroin
switch user winxp nothing happens
#stocks
#flash
#nhl
#gamedev
Transfer channel can't be opened
|
|
