Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Logic

Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 7:35:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

The Fool: Should a fool feel foolish to be fooled? or feel fooled by a logic of fools? Heres a foolish rule, from the foolish of fools, for its foolish to fool the fooled!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:42:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 7:35:55 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

The Fool: Should a fool feel foolish to be fooled? or feel fooled by a logic of fools? Heres a foolish rule, from the foolish of fools, for its foolish to fool the fooled!!

A fool would probably not feel foolish to be fooled and probably not fooled by a logic of fools.
But it's impossible not to fool the fooled.

Also, after reading those sentences, the word "fool" doesn't seem like a word anymore.

Fool... foool.... fool....... foooooool.... fool
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:42:16 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/18/2012 7:35:55 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

The Fool: Should a fool feel foolish to be fooled? or feel fooled by a logic of fools? Heres a foolish rule, from the foolish of fools, for its foolish to fool the fooled!!

A fool would probably not feel foolish to be fooled and probably not fooled by a logic of fools.
But it's impossible not to fool the fooled.

Also, after reading those sentences, the word "fool" doesn't seem like a word anymore.

Fool... foool.... fool....... foooooool.... fool

The Fool: It is foolish to fool the fooled, for fools foolislhy fool them unfooled. Its a fools foolish claim, for fooling fools of fool fame, for Foolery fools fools foolishness into shame. For fun foolish fables, fooled fool fools get labeled, fools fool fooshly get fool into name.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 6:07:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

Arguments can be illogical if they are invalid. However, a "false conclusion" argument is always valid, and always wrong.

So we have changed the word "illogical" to mean wrong.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 10:53:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 6:07:46 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

Arguments can be illogical if they are invalid. However, a "false conclusion" argument is always valid, and always wrong.

So we have changed the word "illogical" to mean wrong.

Huh? You mean a "false conclusion" argument is always INvalid, and always wrong?

Actually, I changed the word 'invalid' to mean 'illogical' because I saw a dispute on DDO in which this was the argument: "Who is to say what argument is illogical?" By a person who was upset that Christians arguments are consistently ripped apart and deemed as such. Also by talking to inferno- but that's another story.

If we'd like to change it to seriousness:

My earnest questions:
So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is?
Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not?

Are people's feelings and personal convictions, no matter how misguided and/or invalid, really worth more than the truth? And if so, when? Why? How?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 2:15:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

People are resistent to logic, because it forces accountability upon them. It is easier to deny logic than to accept the responsibility it imposes on them. This is why people will call morality subjective, although they expect to interact through it without explaining it to everyone they meet.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 2:40:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 2:15:05 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

People are resistent to logic, because it forces accountability upon them. It is easier to deny logic than to accept the responsibility it imposes on them. This is why people will call morality subjective, although they expect to interact through it without explaining it to everyone they meet.

What do you mean by the bolded part?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 2:44:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 2:40:20 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/19/2012 2:15:05 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

People are resistent to logic, because it forces accountability upon them. It is easier to deny logic than to accept the responsibility it imposes on them. This is why people will call morality subjective, although they expect to interact through it without explaining it to everyone they meet.

What do you mean by the bolded part?

We can converse and morally act within the parameters of a conversation without explaining our views of a proper conversation with one another. Such conventions are accepted as true naturally, inherently, and objectively.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 3:02:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 2:44:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/19/2012 2:40:20 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/19/2012 2:15:05 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/12/2012 2:24:59 PM, Oryus wrote:
Generally speaking, there is this thing called, "logic" which has rules and common mistakes, among other things. Maybe you've heard of it. I don't know. Anyway, it gives us a way to look at an argument and (ideally) objectively judge whether the argument makes sense and is true.

If you can show that you followed the rules and avoided common mistakes (otherwise known as fallacies), you have created a logical argument.

So, my question is this- where do people get off thinking that you can't call someone else's argument illogical when it clearly is? Why do people think it is polite to just concede that something is logical when it is clearly not? Is this due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'logic' or is it a fear of some kind- or something else?

Also, how funny is it when you are arguing with someone, you have proven that their argument is illogical, and they continue, with bold and hilarious persistence, to call you names? Seriously, I want this on a funniness scale of 1 to 10. 10 being- paralyzed and can't breathe because you are laughing so hard. 1 being- you'd type "lol" but you actually didn't even smile- that kind of funny.

Discuss.

People are resistent to logic, because it forces accountability upon them. It is easier to deny logic than to accept the responsibility it imposes on them. This is why people will call morality subjective, although they expect to interact through it without explaining it to everyone they meet.

What do you mean by the bolded part?

We can converse and morally act within the parameters of a conversation without explaining our views of a proper conversation with one another. Such conventions are accepted as true naturally, inherently, and objectively.

So, basically, we're capable of acting as if there is an objective reality, in some sense or another, even though there may not be, so why try to disrupt convention by sussing it all out?

If I understand you correctly, I think you have a knack for softening the blow. I would just say these people are lazy. I'm sure everyone is guilty of it to a certain degree in different arenas. And obviously it wouldn't be practical to talk about things in depth at all times. It's difficult to constantly have everything you believe in scrutinized.

BUT- given that we are all here on this website, I would think that scrutiny is not only what everyone would expect- but hope for as well.

If you are attempting to scrutinize someone's beliefs in good faith, I would consider that a favor. You are attempting to stop them from living on in ignorance.

Where the "CEASE ALL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC BECAUSE IT IS OFFENDING PEOPLE" thing comes from, I don't completely understand. That is, of course, given that people are well-intentioned and honest in their discussion.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 3:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 3:02:55 PM, Oryus wrote:

If I understand you correctly, I think you have a knack for softening the blow.

No. I'm actually being more harsh than most people are willing to accept. Someone in another thread actually called me "pedantic" or "dogmatic," I think, in response.

I would just say these people are lazy.

Agreed.

I'm sure everyone is guilty of it to a certain degree in different arenas.

Agreed.

And obviously it wouldn't be practical to talk about things in depth at all times. It's difficult to constantly have everything you believe in scrutinized.

BUT- given that we are all here on this website, I would think that scrutiny is not only what everyone would expect- but hope for as well.

Truth.

If you are attempting to scrutinize someone's beliefs in good faith, I would consider that a favor. You are attempting to stop them from living on in ignorance.

Truth.

To answer your question with your own post:

The "CEASE ALL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC BECAUSE IT IS OFFENDING PEOPLE" comes from people are well-intentioned and honest in their discussion confronted with those who are not.