Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[TheDemonLord]

See how I'm playing word games to avoid conceding a point

Fixed.....

[Graystone]

Fixed.....

I disagree, rationally. Obviously such a thing is beyond your ability.

It's not word games to interpret "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong" as counter to an assertion of an exemption from the argument from authority fallacy. Claiming such only underscores the futility of your position.

[Graystone]

Was it enlightening for you when despite your previous bragging of popularity claims of your personal views you only revived 0.56% of the votes when you ran as an MP.

Ha, but wasn't there another one recently? It's the trend that is more important right?

[TheDemonLord]

I disagree, rationally. Obviously such a thing is beyond your ability.

It's not word games to interpret "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong" as counter to an assertion of an exemption from the argument from authority fallacy. Claiming such only underscores the futility of your position.

Except for the whole "The exception is included in the description of the Fallacy" part. It's there for a reason, whether you like it or not.

Which is where your attempts to play word games come in.

The only reason you are resorting to playing such a game is because you've got nothing left to stand on.

And I said - I'm not going to entertain it. If you want to ignore that which is clearly articulated, by the sources that you yourself have cited - go right ahead. But to do so and try and making any claims about "rationality" or to impugn others is, to be frank, laughably ironic.

[Graystone]

Except for the whole "The exception is included in the description of the Fallacy" part. It's there for a reason, whether you like it or not.

Which is where your attempts to play word games come in.

The only reason you are resorting to playing such a game is because you've got nothing left to stand on.

And I said - I'm not going to entertain it. If you want to ignore that which is clearly articulated, by the sources that you yourself have cited - go right ahead. But to do so and try and making any claims about "rationality" or to impugn others is, to be frank, laughably ironic.

It would be rational to look at the exception to determine it's limits, like "all parties must agree" and "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong". Clearly articulated indeed

It has become clear you now realise your error on some level and refuse to go into any detailed discussion around it to maintain a delusion in which you are not in error. It is very common among god-botherers, antivaccers, conspiracy theorists, and morons of all types; it is quite amusing to watch the detail of discussion scale back as they are backed into a corner. It is especially amusing in your case as it is made so much more obvious due to your pedantic nature of going down to silly levels of detail in any discussion you try to participate in, only making it more obvious that your toys are heading out of the cot in this one.

[TheDemonLord]

It would be rational to look at the exception to determine it's limits, like "all parties must agree" and "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong". Clearly articulated indeed

You cling to that part, whilst ignoring the part about it being a valid inductive argument.

And I've already addressed the other caveat.

It has become clear you now realise your error on some level and refuse to go into any detailed discussion around it to maintain a delusion in which you are not in error. It is very common among god-botherers, antivaccers, conspiracy theorists, and morons of all types; it is quite amusing to watch the detail of discussion scale back as they are backed into a corner. It is especially amusing in your case as it is made so much more obvious due to your pedantic nature of going down to silly levels of detail in any discussion you try to participate in, only making it more obvious that your toys are heading out of the cot in this one.

Sargons Law.

[Graystone]

You cling to that part, whilst ignoring the part about it being a valid inductive argument.

And I've already addressed the other caveat.



Sargons Law.

So what you're saying is it's open to interpretation and not that clear? It can be a valid inductive argument as well as having a small chance of being wrong, however you seem to be of the opinion that an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof; to which I sought clarification and then had to duck some flying toys...

Interesting, for Sargon's law to apply the character judgement I make of you; which is your unwillingness to go into detail due to knowing it does not support your argument, would have to apply to me as well. Which is fine, since because I am willing to go into detail it forms an inductive argument that I am right

[TheDemonLord]

So what you're saying is it's open to interpretation and not that clear? It can be a valid inductive argument as well as having a small chance of being wrong, however you seem to be of the opinion that an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof; to which I sought clarification and then had to duck some flying toys...

You got your clarification, then you deliberately re-worded it so as to misrepresent it, to avoid conceding the point.

That's the bit at which I lost any and all interest.

Interesting, for Sargon's law to apply the character judgement I make of you; which is your unwillingness to go into detail due to knowing it does not support your argument, would have to apply to me as well. Which is fine, since because I am willing to go into detail it forms an inductive argument that I am right

I see you've got an incorrect understanding of Sargons Law aswell...

[Graystone]

You got your clarification, then you deliberately re-worded it so as to misrepresent it, to avoid conceding the point.

That's the bit at which I lost any and all interest.



I see you've got an incorrect understanding of Sargons Law aswell...

I went from your statement of "it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid." to "That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof", in what way is that a misrepresentation instead of a simplification? If anything that premise is less difficult to prove than your statement is. So why were the toys thrown instead of simply correcting my interpretation?

Why, are there some exceptions to it?

[TheDemonLord]

I went from your statement of "it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid." to "That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof", in what way is that a misrepresentation instead of a simplification?

You've changed what I said (and meant) into what you need it to mean for your argument to work.

That's how it's a Misrepresentation.

If anything that premise is less difficult to prove than your statement is. So why were the toys thrown instead of simply correcting my interpretation?

Why, are there some exceptions to it?

You really are obsessed with the status of my toys... That would be Sargons law, again.

[Graystone]

You've changed what I said (and meant) into what you need it to mean for your argument to work.

That's how it's a Misrepresentation.



You really are obsessed with the status of my toys... That would be Sargons law, again.

In what way was the meaning changed? Why not clarify that instead of avoiding any discussion, clearly it is not a time/motivation thing as you are still responding to me with all this evasion and ad-hominems.

It's a rather apt euphemism for someone who behaves as you do.

[Voltaire]

[Viking01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fQ...ature=youtu.be

[TheDemonLord]

In what way was the meaning changed? Why not clarify that instead of avoiding any discussion,

If the meaning didn't change - why rephrase it?

And you forget, I did clarify, then you tried to reinterpret it.

clearly it is not a time/motivation thing as you are still responding to me with all this evasion and ad-hominems.

Compared to the length and effort I normally put into a post, this is nothing.

Evasion? Nope.
Ad-Hominems? Nope.

You really are patently clueless when it comes to logical fallacies.

It's a rather apt euphemism for someone who behaves as you do.

Uh Huh.

Considering that you were the one that re-instigating this, I'd suggest a survey of both a mirror and your own floor, festooned with jettisoned toys...

[Graystone]

If the meaning didn't change - why rephrase it?

And you forget, I did clarify, then you tried to reinterpret it.



Compared to the length and effort I normally put into a post, this is nothing.

Evasion? Nope.
Ad-Hominems? Nope.

You really are patently clueless when it comes to logical fallacies.



Uh Huh.

Considering that you were the one that re-instigating this, I'd suggest a survey of both a mirror and your own floor, festooned with jettisoned toys...

Succinctness and validation, if you agree with the way I phrase it, then we would both understand your meaning, if you don't you can correct it and then we both understand your meaning.

See above.

Compared to a rational discussion though, it's much the same.

You keep saying I'm clueless, but it is you who refuses to discuss them and back yourself up. Stop with the evasion and ad-hominems and discuss the topic at hand...

I'm giving you a chance to back yourself up instead of all your usual cop-outs and know-all claims. To not take that chance, is to throw ones toys in a huff.