Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,883
In Reply To

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,188
Subj: Re: It can be if the premise itself is based on faulty reasoning
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 at 07:32:33 pm EDT (Viewed 58 times)
Reply Subj: Re: It can be if the premise itself is based on faulty reasoning
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 04:26:15 pm EDT (Viewed 68 times)

Previous Post

    Why are you getting so emotional about this. My main interest was in the logical fallacy. You and HT seemed to be willing to say anything you disagreed with was a logical fallacy. I tried to point out that was not the case, but was fought.

    I have enjoyed this mostly.

    And before you turn the "you are the one getting emotional" card. You said I always agreed with Norvell. You tend to make claims like that when you are too invested. You well know that you and I apparently mostly agree with aspects of this from our discussion above. Seems to be a trend whenever we discuss anything for a while.

    Skip the lectures and take a breather. Not worth getting worked up over. I am going to enjoy the evening.

What emotion? I would ask why do you focus on semantics rather than the issue? All I can figure is that's the only thing you think you can pick at as a possible wrong...there is quite a few points made that you ignore and keep going back to one thing over and over. Your reasoning has literally become circular and insular on this topic.

I was already on to other things when you talked of breathers....hope you took your own somewhat late advice and had a relaxing time.

It was lovely, thank you.

I am just not sure you really understand the issues with the things you were agreeing with at all.

You guys were pretty much jumping on the false premise as being a logical fallacy because Norvell said you committed some. Under the logic that appears to be that you and HT do not agree with him. Thus, he was wrong, he was wrong because of false reasoning and that made it a logical fallacy. At least as far as I can tell, since neither of you elaborated.

That is ridiculous.

You then went on to more or less make the case that anybody who takes one side of any given issues is claiming popularity and using it as a cause to be right. Along with claiming he hit most of the others in your fallacy list on the way down.

No evidence was provided.

You can think reparations are as racist as you want. I really do not care. Your claims about logic are pretty weak.

It wouldn't matter if I agreed with Norvell's stance or not. It would not change the problems pointed out. Same as if I agreed with HT's position on reparations, only difference is we would be on the same side more often.

Heck, your original point is ridiculous. You do not even logically agree with it. You agreed above that if two groups took slaves they were both wrong. Your argument about other countries needing to get punished or give reparations is basically blame passing as an out.

So, if not everybody is punished through history than nobody should be sort of logic. It deserved to get called out.

Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 75.0.3770.100 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software