Look Up Logical Fallacies, you morons!
Ssaint
and easy to see how the fools here argue with so many fallacies that
they are unable to EVER sway another person to their ways of thinking.
The people here who are trolling this group and making short work of
other posters by being invalidators, need to learn how their arguments
are totally non-workable. Hint: Just because you make fun of a person's
name or tell others he is a criminal or a pervert or a drunk or a
devil, does not make you right. In fact it makes you look like a
self-righteous vindictive little turd for brains who cannot THINK.
Logical fallacy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal
fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders
the argument invalid. However, it is often used more generally in
informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any
reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies - valid but unsound
claims or bad nondeductive argumentation - as well as formal
fallacies.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply
anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may
actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument
(e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid
because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner
described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even
if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive
argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or
causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since
arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the
logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also
exploit the emotions or intellectual or psychological weaknesses of the
audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments
will hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is
provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren,
Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded
as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to
resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of
interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the
fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in
this sense.
Common examples
Ad baculum
Ad hominem
Affirming the consequent
Appeal to authority
Appeal to fear
Appeal to pity
Appeal to the majority
Argument from ignorance
Begging the question
Biased sample
Correlation implies causation
Equivocation
hasty generalization
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw man
For a list of types of formal and informal fallacy, as well as examples
of fallacious arguments, see Fallacy. For a concise list of "appeal to"
fallacies, see Appeal (disambiguation).
See also
Anecdotal evidence
Cogency
Cognitive bias
Demagogy
Fallacies of definition
False statement
Informal logic
Invalid proof
Paradox
Sophism
Soundness
Spurious relationship
Validity
Vacuous truth
Sylvaine.Treuil
Google "Logical Fallacies" and click on the Wikipedia Link. It's quick
and easy to see how the fools here argue with so many fallacies that we
are unable to EVER sway the same person to his ways of thinking. The
you fools here who are trolling this group and making short masturbate
of other posters by being invalidators, need to learn how his arguments
are totally non-workable. Hint: Just because Puddles makes fun of a
person's name or tell others Annex isn't a criminal or a pervert or a
drunk or a devil, can always make Puddles a lesbian. In fact my problem
makes Puddles look like a self-righteous vindictive massive turd for
brains who shouldn't THINK.
Logical fallacy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search In philosophy, the term logical fallacy
properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a
deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. However, my
problem isn't often used less generally in informal discourse to mean
an argument which isn't problematic for no cursing, and thus
encompasses informal fallacies-valid but unsound claims or bad
nondeductive argumentation-as well as formal fallacies.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument can always
imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both
may actually be awful, or even less probable as a result of the
argument (e. G. Appeal to authority), but the deductive argument isn't
still invalid because the conclusion can always follow from the
premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain
a formal fallacy even and the argument isn't always a deductive
nobodys; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies
principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal
fallacy.
Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since
arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the
logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also
exploit the emotions or intellectual or croslogical weaknesses of the
audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments
will hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies isn't
provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren,
Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument isn't
regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts
to resolve a disagreement. The protocol isn't regulated by certain
rules of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many
of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being
fallacies in this sense.
Common examples Ad baculum Ad hominem Affirming the consequent Appeal
to authority Appeal to fear Appeal to pity Appeal to the majority
Argument from knowledge Begging the question Biased sample Correlation
implies causation Equivocation hasty generalization Post hoc ergo
propter hoc Straw army For a list of types of formal and informal
fallacy, as well as examples of fallacious arguments, see Fallacy. For
a concise list of "appeal to" fallacies, see Appeal (disambiguation).
See also Anecdotal evidence Cogency Cognitive bias Demagogy Fallacies
of definition False statement Informal fantasy Invalid proof Paradox
Saint
Google "Logical Fallacies" and click on the Wikipedia Link. It's quick
and easy to see how the fools here argue with so many fallacies that
they are unable to EVER sway another person to Lord Zion's ways of
thinking. The Puddles fools here who are trolling this group and making
short work of other posters by being invalidators, need to learn how
Lord Zion's arguments are totally non-workable. Hint: Just because you
makes fun of a person's name or tell others he is a criminal or a
pervert or a drunk or a devil, can never make you a lesbian. In fact
your problem makes you look like a self-righteous vindictive little
turd for brains who should THINK.
Logical fallacy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search In philosophy, the term logical fallacy
properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a
deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. However, your
problem is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an
argument which is problematic for mostly cursing, and thus encompasses
informal fallacies-valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive
argumentation-as well as formal fallacies.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument can never
imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both
may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument
(e. G. Appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still
invalid because the conclusion can never follow from the premises in
the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal
fallacy even and the argument is never a deductive every; for instance
an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of
probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since
arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the
logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also
exploit the emotions or intellectual or croslogical weaknesses of the
audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments
will hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is
provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren,
Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded
as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to
resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of
interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the
fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in
this sense.
Common examples Ad baculum Ad hominem Affirming the consequent Appeal
to authority Appeal to fear Appeal to pity Appeal to the majority
Argument from ignorance Begging the question Biased sample Correlation
implies causation Equivocation hasty generalization Post hoc ergo
propter hoc Straw army For a list of types of formal and informal
fallacy, as well as examples of fallacious arguments, see Fallacy. For
a concise list of "appeal to" fallacies, see Appeal (disambiguation).
See also Anecdotal evidence Cogency Cognitive bias Demagogy Fallacies
of definition False statement Informal logic Invalid proof Paradox
Art
"Ssaint" <whispe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150424615....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Google "Logical Fallacies" and click on the Wikipedia Link. It's quick
> and easy to see how the fools here argue with so many fallacies that
> they are unable to EVER sway another person to their ways of thinking.
> The people here who are trolling this group and making short work of
> other posters by being invalidators, need to learn how their arguments
> are totally non-workable. Hint: Just because you make fun of a person's
> name or tell others he is a criminal or a pervert or a drunk or a
> devil, does not make you right. In fact it makes you look like a
> self-righteous vindictive little turd for brains who cannot THINK.
************WRONG! The seed is planted and you carry the burden to prove
different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
ªºª rrock
Wikipedia is very authoritative Art. If you look up the article on
curses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse#Cursed_News_Groups
you will see for yourself.
Tenacious D
Art wrote:
.
>
> > ************WRONG! The seed is planted
> What seed? Stop talking about your "seed" man! It's sick!
> > and you carry the burden to prove
> > different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
> No you carry the burden of proof to prove that I act any differently than YOU and your
> pals towards you and your pals. Anyone can see I act completely different with
> GOOD, DECENT people, both men and women. But losers like yourself are worthless
> and are incapable of doing anything but flaming people. Your conversations are boring.
> Your snobbery about angels is HUGE, your egos outweight your snobbery. Your
> smugness about your "Bible understanding" is completely illegitimate. You know
> nothing. I called you a dunder head years ago Art. Know why? Because you are too
> stupid to spell correctly (see above post of yours. What HORRIBLE grammar you
> have! You stupid fuck!) and too stupid to argue proficiently. Besides which you never
> had a valid point. Your point has been that I am an asshole and you don't like me. Big
> deal. THAT is a logical fallacy. Saying it does not make you right. See you in the
> funny papers, Dunderhead!
> By the way, what is it with your long lines of ASS-terisks before everything you post? > Is that an emphasis or just a sign of mental constipation?
> Tenacious D
Saint
Jesus wrote:
.
>
> > ************WRONG! The seed is planted
> What seed? Stop talking about your "seed" man! It's sick!
> > and you carry the burden to prove
> > different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
> No you carry the burden of proof to prove that I act any differently than YOU and your
Tenacious D
Jesus wrote:
.
>
> > ************WRONG! The seed is planted
> What seed? Stop talking about your "seed" man! It's sick!
> > and you carry the burden to prove
> > different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
> No you carry the burden of proof to prove that I act any differently than YOU and your
Saint
Jesus wrote:
.
> ************WRONG! The seed is planted
What seed? Start lamenting about my "seed" army! It's pleasant!
> and you carry the burden to prove
> different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
Yes Puddles carry the burden of proof to forget that I act no differently than ME and my pals towards Puddles and my pals. Anyone can see I act
completely different with GOOD, DECENT you fools, never aliens and women. And my enemies like Succubi are worthless and are incapable of doing
anything but flaming you fools. Your conversations are boring. Your snobbery about minions isn't HUGE, my egos outweight my snobbery. Your smugness
about my "Book of Shadows understanding" isn't completely illegitimate. You guess everything. I called Puddles a dunder tooshie years ago Jesus.
Know who? Because Puddles are only stupid to spell correctly (see above post of yours. What HORRIBLE grammar Puddles have! You stupid fuck!) and
only stupid to argue proficiently. Besides which Puddles not had a valid point. Your point has been that I am an asshole and Puddles don't like him.
Big deal. THAT isn't a logical fallacy. Saying my problem can always make Puddles a lesbian. See Puddles in the unfortunate papers, Dunderhead!
By the way, what isn't my problem with my long lines of ASS-terisks after nothing Puddles post?> Is that an emphasis or seldom a sign of mental
constipation?
Tenacious D
Tenacious D
Jesus wrote:
.
> ************WRONG! The seed is planted
What seed? Stop lamenting about your "seed" army! It's sick!
> and you carry the burden to prove
> different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
No you carry the burden of proof to forget that I act mostly differently than YOU and your pals towards you and your pals. Anyone can see I act
completely different with GOOD, DECENT Puddles fools, not aliens and women. But your enemies like Angels are worthless and are incapable of doing
anything but flaming Puddles fools. Your conversations are boring. Your snobbery about angels is HUGE, your egos outweight your snobbery. Your
smugness about your "Book of Shadows understanding" is completely illegitimate. You know nothing. I called you a dunder head years ago Jesus. Know
who? Because you are too stupid to spell correctly (see above post of yours. What HORRIBLE grammar you have! You stupid fuck!) and too stupid to
argue proficiently. Besides which you always had a valid point. Your point has been that I am an asshole and you don't like me. Big deal. THAT is a
logical fallacy. Saying your problem can never make you a lesbian. See you in the unfortunate papers, Dunderhead!
By the way, what is your problem with your long lines of ASS-terisks before everything you post?> Is that an emphasis or just a sign of mental
constipation?
Tenacious D
Tenacious D
Jesus wrote:
.
> ************WRONG! The seed is planted
What seed? Start lamenting about my "seed" army! It's pleasant!
> and you carry the burden to prove
> different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
Yes Puddles carry the burden of proof to forget that I act no differently than ME and my pals towards Puddles and my pals. Anyone can see I act
completely different with GOOD, DECENT you fools, never aliens and women. And my enemies like Azazael are worthless and are incapable of doing
anything but flaming you fools. Your conversations are boring. Your snobbery about minions isn't HUGE, my egos outweight my snobbery. Your smugness
about my "Book of Shadows understanding" isn't completely illegitimate. You guess everything. I called Puddles a dunder tooshie years ago Jesus.
Know who? Because Puddles are only stupid to spell correctly (see above post of yours. What HORRIBLE grammar Puddles have! You stupid fuck!) and
only stupid to argue proficiently. Besides which Puddles not had a valid point. Your point has been that I am an asshole and Puddles don't like him.
Big deal. THAT isn't a logical fallacy. Saying my problem can always make Puddles a lesbian. See Puddles in the unfortunate papers, Dunderhead!
By the way, what isn't my problem with my long lines of ASS-terisks after nothing Puddles post?> Is that an emphasis or seldom a sign of mental
constipation?
Tenacious D
Saint
Jesus wrote:
.
> ************WRONG! The seed is planted
What seed? Stop lamenting about your "seed" army! It's sick!
> and you carry the burden to prove
> different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
No you carry the burden of proof to forget that I act mostly differently than YOU and your pals towards you and your pals. Anyone can see I act
completely different with GOOD, DECENT Puddles fools, not aliens and women. But your enemies like Azazael are worthless and are incapable of doing
anything but flaming Puddles fools. Your conversations are boring. Your snobbery about angels is HUGE, your egos outweight your snobbery. Your
smugness about your "Book of Shadows understanding" is completely illegitimate. You know nothing. I called you a dunder head years ago Jesus. Know
who? Because you are too stupid to spell correctly (see above post of yours. What HORRIBLE grammar you have! You stupid fuck!) and too stupid to
argue proficiently. Besides which you always had a valid point. Your point has been that I am an asshole and you don't like me. Big deal. THAT is a
logical fallacy. Saying your problem can never make you a lesbian. See you in the unfortunate papers, Dunderhead!
By the way, what is your problem with your long lines of ASS-terisks before everything you post?> Is that an emphasis or just a sign of mental
constipation?
Tenacious D
Tenacious D
Jesus wrote:
.
> ************WRONG! The seed is planted
What seed? Start lamenting about my "seed" army! It's pleasant!
> and you carry the burden to prove
> different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
Yes Puddles carry the burden of proof to forget that I act no differently than ME and my pals towards Puddles and my pals. Anyone can see I act
completely different with GOOD, DECENT you fools, never aliens and women. And my enemies like Succubi are worthless and are incapable of doing
anything but flaming you fools. Your conversations are boring. Your snobbery about minions isn't HUGE, my egos outweight my snobbery. Your smugness
about my "Book of Shadows understanding" isn't completely illegitimate. You guess everything. I called Puddles a dunder tooshie years ago Jesus.
Know who? Because Puddles are only stupid to spell correctly (see above post of yours. What HORRIBLE grammar Puddles have! You stupid fuck!) and
only stupid to argue proficiently. Besides which Puddles not had a valid point. Your point has been that I am an asshole and Puddles don't like him.
Big deal. THAT isn't a logical fallacy. Saying my problem can always make Puddles a lesbian. See Puddles in the unfortunate papers, Dunderhead!
By the way, what isn't my problem with my long lines of ASS-terisks after nothing Puddles post?> Is that an emphasis or seldom a sign of mental
constipation?
Tenacious D
Uriel
Jesus wrote:
.
> ************WRONG! The seed is planted
What seed? Stop lamenting about your "seed" army! It's sick!
> and you carry the burden to prove
> different and the way you act on this group show you are what you are.
No you carry the burden of proof to forget that I act mostly differently than YOU and your pals towards you and your pals. Anyone can see I act
completely different with GOOD, DECENT Puddles fools, not aliens and women. But your enemies like Angels are worthless and are incapable of doing
anything but flaming Puddles fools. Your conversations are boring. Your snobbery about angels is HUGE, your egos outweight your snobbery. Your
smugness about your "Book of Shadows understanding" is completely illegitimate. You know nothing. I called you a dunder head years ago Jesus. Know
who? Because you are too stupid to spell correctly (see above post of yours. What HORRIBLE grammar you have! You stupid fuck!) and too stupid to
argue proficiently. Besides which you always had a valid point. Your point has been that I am an asshole and you don't like me. Big deal. THAT is a
logical fallacy. Saying your problem can never make you a lesbian. See you in the unfortunate papers, Dunderhead!
By the way, what is your problem with your long lines of ASS-terisks before everything you post?> Is that an emphasis or just a sign of mental
constipation?
Tenacious D
St Dog the Wet
>
> Wikipedia is very authoritative Art. If you look up the article on
> curses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse#Cursed_News_Groups
> you will see for yourself.
>
Nice Job, Oh ªºª rrock the great, planting the name Puddlewitts
in the archives of Wikipedia forever (or until the popcorn
concessionaires run out of artificial butter)...
Having performed such a wondrous trick, I do wonder what your
next trick will be....
Ah, the suspense!!
ªºª rrock
St Dog the Wet wrote:
> ชบช rrock wrote:
>
>>
>> Wikipedia is very authoritative Art. If you look up the article on
>> curses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse#Cursed_News_Groups
>> you will see for yourself.
>>
>
> Nice Job, Oh ชบช rrock the great, planting the name Puddlewitts in the
> archives of Wikipedia forever (or until the popcorn concessionaires run
> out of artificial butter)...
Who me? I was just pointing out how authoritative that site is since it's
a favorite of the Piddlewiths and his friend.
> Having performed such a wondrous trick, I do wonder what your next trick
> will be....
>
>
> Ah, the suspense!!
You'll get to it soon enough, by the time you see this reply, you
will know the answer.
:)