Izbo's Philosophy Class: Basic Syllogisms

Many of my earlier classes were overly ambitious, I expected people on this board to understand arguments and syllogisms, this simply was not the case.

We had people like JCMT presenting this as a valid syllogism:

all the parts of a table are wooden
therefore the table is wooden.

This is not a valid syllogism. A valid syllogism must have a major and minor premise. This syllogism only has the minor premise. It is in need of a major premise to be a good syllogism. To actually get a valid syllogism we need the major premise, lets see if we can do this.

All things that are made of all wooden parts are wooden
The table is made from all parts that are wood
The table is wooden.

That is how a syllogism works. Remember people a valid argument has 2 premises, if you only have 1 and you think its valid, you are wrong, you probably are just assuming a hidden premise, as was JCMT.

Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

At 11/21/2011 10:32:24 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

Premise 1 is false therefore the argument is unsound try doing some research on what philosophers say next time.

At 11/21/2011 10:32:24 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

I will give you a 75% for this, you at least realized you did need a major and a minor premise which is a good start, as long as you aren't presenting this nonsense as valid and sound.

At 11/21/2011 11:04:25 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 10:32:24 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

I will give you a 75% for this, you at least realized you did need a major and a minor premise which is a good start, as long as you aren't presenting this nonsense as valid and sound.

LOL. Actually premise 1 is justified. If you want, I will debate you on the moral argument.

At 11/21/2011 11:30:17 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:04:25 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 10:32:24 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

I will give you a 75% for this, you at least realized you did need a major and a minor premise which is a good start, as long as you aren't presenting this nonsense as valid and sound.

LOL. Actually premise 1 is justified. If you want, I will debate you on the moral argument.

not at all, existence of a natural thing such as human morality does not get us to dem der magik man in dem der sky did it. No need for a debate premise 1 is not even remotely intellectual, I would be doing the intellectual world a disservice to debate such a ridiculous argument. God of dem der gaps much hee hee hee, me playin chess today, teeheehee, me find meself maginary friend who help me wit me chess game, right mr. neff?

At 11/21/2011 11:33:37 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:30:17 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:04:25 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 10:32:24 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

I will give you a 75% for this, you at least realized you did need a major and a minor premise which is a good start, as long as you aren't presenting this nonsense as valid and sound.

LOL. Actually premise 1 is justified. If you want, I will debate you on the moral argument.

not at all, existence of a natural thing such as human morality does not get us to dem der magik man in dem der sky did it. No need for a debate premise 1 is not even remotely intellectual, I would be doing the intellectual world a disservice to debate such a ridiculous argument. God of dem der gaps much hee hee hee, me playin chess today, teeheehee, me find meself maginary friend who help me wit me chess game, right mr. neff?

LOL! Anyway, perhaps you might want to go back to 1st grade English. Anyways, premise 1 is 100% valid. Human minds disagree; hence for any objective morality to exist, the objective morality must be given from a transcendent mind.

At 11/21/2011 11:35:39 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:33:37 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:30:17 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:04:25 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 10:32:24 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

I will give you a 75% for this, you at least realized you did need a major and a minor premise which is a good start, as long as you aren't presenting this nonsense as valid and sound.

LOL. Actually premise 1 is justified. If you want, I will debate you on the moral argument.

not at all, existence of a natural thing such as human morality does not get us to dem der magik man in dem der sky did it. No need for a debate premise 1 is not even remotely intellectual, I would be doing the intellectual world a disservice to debate such a ridiculous argument. God of dem der gaps much hee hee hee, me playin chess today, teeheehee, me find meself maginary friend who help me wit me chess game, right mr. neff?

LOL! Anyway, perhaps you might want to go back to 1st grade English. Anyways, premise 1 is 100% valid. Human minds disagree; hence for any objective morality to exist, the objective morality must be given from a transcendent mind.

actually go ahead make the debate idiot I want to embarass you.

P1: Anyone who has passed a course in logic or philosophy understands the concept of objectivity.
P2: Izbo does not understand the concept of objectivity.
P3: Izbo has never passed a course in logic or philosophy.

No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

I am sure someone is, but Izbo is possibly the least qualified amongst us.

At 11/21/2011 12:09:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
P1: Anyone who has passed a course in logic or philosophy understands the concept of objectivity.
P2: Izbo does not understand the concept of objectivity.
P3: Izbo has never passed a course in logic or philosophy.

says the guy who ran and hid yesterday.

At 11/21/2011 12:17:16 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:09:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
P1: Anyone who has passed a course in logic or philosophy understands the concept of objectivity.
P2: Izbo does not understand the concept of objectivity.
P3: Izbo has never passed a course in logic or philosophy.

says the guy who ran and hid yesterday.

I am fat, I never run.
I have no idea what you are talking about or how this is a rebuttal.

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

At 11/21/2011 12:13:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

I am sure someone is, but Izbo is possibly the least qualified amongst us.

No one. DDO is really bad when it comes to philosophy, believe me. Of course some would be better than others but no one's tuition would be worthwhile.

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

Higher Education sites, yeah? Not really, it's one topic, a basic introduction to syllogisms and fallacy then off to mind-body duality, I'm sure.

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

At 11/21/2011 1:06:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

answer the fuckin question, just because you are too stupid to see why it is relevant is not my problem, I will hold ur wittle hand and walk you through its relevance. You never say anything relevant to anything, its about time you learn something. Why won't you answer the question are you scared of the consequences that the answer will lead to.

At 11/21/2011 1:04:17 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:13:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

I am sure someone is, but Izbo is possibly the least qualified amongst us.

No one. DDO is really bad when it comes to philosophy, believe me. Of course some would be better than others but no one's tuition would be worthwhile.

You speak as though you somehow have a worthwhile opinion on the matter.

But saying that even you would be a better source of philosophical education.

At 11/21/2011 1:08:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:06:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

answer the fuckin question, just because you are too stupid to see why it is relevant is not my problem, I will hold ur wittle hand and walk you through its relevance.

Okay go ahead. How are your nonsense questions on the holocaust relevant in any way to your failure to understand what philosophers mean when they say objective?

You never say anything relevant to anything, its about time you learn something. Why won't you answer the question are you scared of the consequences that the answer will lead to.

I am not scared of the questions at all, they are irrelevant nonsense questions that are the groundwork for a retarded strawman. I can see your ignorance from space.

At 11/21/2011 1:11:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:08:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:06:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

answer the fuckin question, just because you are too stupid to see why it is relevant is not my problem, I will hold ur wittle hand and walk you through its relevance.

Okay go ahead. How are your nonsense questions on the holocaust relevant in any way to your failure to understand what philosophers mean when they say objective?

You never say anything relevant to anything, its about time you learn something. Why won't you answer the question are you scared of the consequences that the answer will lead to.

I am not scared of the questions at all, they are irrelevant nonsense questions that are the groundwork for a retarded strawman. I can see your ignorance from space.

If you would fuckin answer the question I will walk you through it like the goddamn mental equivalent of a 2 year old that you are.

At 11/21/2011 1:15:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:11:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:08:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:06:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

answer the fuckin question, just because you are too stupid to see why it is relevant is not my problem, I will hold ur wittle hand and walk you through its relevance.

Okay go ahead. How are your nonsense questions on the holocaust relevant in any way to your failure to understand what philosophers mean when they say objective?

You never say anything relevant to anything, its about time you learn something. Why won't you answer the question are you scared of the consequences that the answer will lead to.

I am not scared of the questions at all, they are irrelevant nonsense questions that are the groundwork for a retarded strawman. I can see your ignorance from space.

If you would fuckin answer the question I will walk you through it like the goddamn mental equivalent of a 2 year old that you are.

There is no possible way that my feeding of your irrelevant strawman will justify your rampant stupidity.

At 11/21/2011 1:17:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:15:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:11:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:08:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:06:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

answer the fuckin question, just because you are too stupid to see why it is relevant is not my problem, I will hold ur wittle hand and walk you through its relevance.

Okay go ahead. How are your nonsense questions on the holocaust relevant in any way to your failure to understand what philosophers mean when they say objective?

You never say anything relevant to anything, its about time you learn something. Why won't you answer the question are you scared of the consequences that the answer will lead to.

I am not scared of the questions at all, they are irrelevant nonsense questions that are the groundwork for a retarded strawman. I can see your ignorance from space.

If you would fuckin answer the question I will walk you through it like the goddamn mental equivalent of a 2 year old that you are.

There is no possible way that my feeding of your irrelevant strawman will justify your rampant stupidity.

If you think im so stupid, then you wouldn't be such a fuckin coward, you would answer the question, its a simple yes or no question.

now watch the video and get the dancing out, the come back and answer with a yes or no

At 11/21/2011 1:08:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:04:17 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:13:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

I am sure someone is, but Izbo is possibly the least qualified amongst us.

No one. DDO is really bad when it comes to philosophy, believe me. Of course some would be better than others but no one's tuition would be worthwhile.

You speak as though you somehow have a worthwhile opinion on the matter.

But saying that even you would be a better source of philosophical education.

Ha ha, ever so dismissive aren't you Cerebral?

Even a fool can recognise another fool if he sees one.

At 11/21/2011 11:36:21 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:35:39 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:33:37 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:30:17 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:

At 11/21/2011 11:04:25 AM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 10:32:24 AM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Do you even know what the word "valid" means? In logic, an argument is valid, if and only if its conclusions is entailed by its premise, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. . and argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
(thought I'd teach you something).

1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists.
2. Objective moral facts exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There is no way around that!

I will give you a 75% for this, you at least realized you did need a major and a minor premise which is a good start, as long as you aren't presenting this nonsense as valid and sound.

LOL. Actually premise 1 is justified. If you want, I will debate you on the moral argument.

not at all, existence of a natural thing such as human morality does not get us to dem der magik man in dem der sky did it. No need for a debate premise 1 is not even remotely intellectual, I would be doing the intellectual world a disservice to debate such a ridiculous argument. God of dem der gaps much hee hee hee, me playin chess today, teeheehee, me find meself maginary friend who help me wit me chess game, right mr. neff?

LOL! Anyway, perhaps you might want to go back to 1st grade English. Anyways, premise 1 is 100% valid. Human minds disagree; hence for any objective morality to exist, the objective morality must be given from a transcendent mind.

actually go ahead make the debate idiot I want to embarass you.

Spelling correction: embarrass nor embarass!

At 11/21/2011 1:23:14 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:17:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:15:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:11:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:08:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:06:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

answer the fuckin question, just because you are too stupid to see why it is relevant is not my problem, I will hold ur wittle hand and walk you through its relevance.

Okay go ahead. How are your nonsense questions on the holocaust relevant in any way to your failure to understand what philosophers mean when they say objective?

You never say anything relevant to anything, its about time you learn something. Why won't you answer the question are you scared of the consequences that the answer will lead to.

I am not scared of the questions at all, they are irrelevant nonsense questions that are the groundwork for a retarded strawman. I can see your ignorance from space.

If you would fuckin answer the question I will walk you through it like the goddamn mental equivalent of a 2 year old that you are.

There is no possible way that my feeding of your irrelevant strawman will justify your rampant stupidity.

If you think im so stupid, then you wouldn't be such a fuckin coward, you would answer the question, its a simple yes or no question.

now watch the video and get the dancing out, the come back and answer with a yes or no

The issue is you do not understand objectivity, you ought to be humiliated. The holocaust has nothing to do with this issue. I repeatedly offered to debate moral issues with you and refused to do so, I am not willing to be drawn into irrelevant tangents for you to strawman me.

At 11/21/2011 1:54:41 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:23:14 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:17:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:15:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:11:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:08:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 1:06:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:46:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:44:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:20:21 PM, izbo10 wrote:

At 11/21/2011 12:11:37 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
No one on this website is in the right mind to be giving "philosophy classes"

Fallacies are a part of logic (dubbed as "Critical Thinking" in education), barely a philosophy. Izbo, leave it alone.

says the guy who doesn't understand that logic is taught in the philosophy curriculum in almost all colleges and universities.

What point am I evading Izbo, or is this yet another lie?

all the questions from yesterday, for instance are there any facts about the holocaust that could be used to show it was wrong? Was there any reason for the allies to stop it?

Oh I see irrelevant question that in no way invalidated anything I was saying and had no bearing on the thread at all. Righto.

answer the fuckin question, just because you are too stupid to see why it is relevant is not my problem, I will hold ur wittle hand and walk you through its relevance.

Okay go ahead. How are your nonsense questions on the holocaust relevant in any way to your failure to understand what philosophers mean when they say objective?

You never say anything relevant to anything, its about time you learn something. Why won't you answer the question are you scared of the consequences that the answer will lead to.

I am not scared of the questions at all, they are irrelevant nonsense questions that are the groundwork for a retarded strawman. I can see your ignorance from space.

If you would fuckin answer the question I will walk you through it like the goddamn mental equivalent of a 2 year old that you are.

There is no possible way that my feeding of your irrelevant strawman will justify your rampant stupidity.

If you think im so stupid, then you wouldn't be such a fuckin coward, you would answer the question, its a simple yes or no question.

now watch the video and get the dancing out, the come back and answer with a yes or no

The issue is you do not understand objectivity, you ought to be humiliated. The holocaust has nothing to do with this issue. I repeatedly offered to debate moral issues with you and refused to do so, I am not willing to be drawn into irrelevant tangents for you to strawman me.

it is very relevant, you dispute that there is a objective morality, now when I get you in a corner you fuckin cower like a little bitch.

At 11/21/2011 2:07:33 PM, izbo10 wrote:
it is very relevant, you dispute that there is a objective morality, now when I get you in a corner you fuckin cower like a little bitch.

I do not dispute that there is an objective morality I affirm that there is not an objective morality. You do not affirm that there is an objective morality because you are too stupid to understand what is meant by either objective or morality, you believe objective is simply what a given society believes in or what someone has written down. I am not in a corner, you have yet to defend your views in any way shape or form. You are free to challenge me to a debate at any point... oh wait we even had this debate.

I am a moral nhilist, shouting Hitler, holocaust or child rape at me does not shame me into rejecting moral nihilism. You only think it should because you are an absolute fuckin retard that does not understand anything that is said here.

Please delete your account, you are utterly worthless.

At 11/21/2011 2:36:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 11/21/2011 2:07:33 PM, izbo10 wrote:
it is very relevant, you dispute that there is a objective morality, now when I get you in a corner you fuckin cower like a little bitch.

I do not dispute that there is an objective morality I affirm that there is not an objective morality. You do not affirm that there is an objective morality because you are too stupid to understand what is meant by either objective or morality, you believe objective is simply what a given society believes in or what someone has written down. I am not in a corner, you have yet to defend your views in any way shape or form. You are free to challenge me to a debate at any point... oh wait we even had this debate.

I am a moral nhilist, shouting Hitler, holocaust or child rape at me does not shame me into rejecting moral nihilism. You only think it should because you are an absolute fuckin retard that does not understand anything that is said here.

Please delete your account, you are utterly worthless.

straw man.

Speaking of utter retards that statement from you reaffirms what betrand russel said about stupid people.