|
Author
|
Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
Message 186 of 344 (641656)
11-21-2011 7:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 185 by Panda
11-21-2011 7:44 AM
|
|
Re: Reply to Panda
I've never seen an intentional word salad from DT. You are quite correct, of course. Hope s/he stays with us.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 185 by Panda, posted 11-21-2011 7:44 AM | | Panda has seen this message but not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 231 of 344 (641737)
11-22-2011 5:57 AM
|
|
|
I find it ironic that a topic labled 'A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate' has devolved into debating 'who said what'. This is the very reason why the 'Arguement from Authority' is very poor debating and a logical fallacy.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 233 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 6:09 AM | | Larni has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 234 of 344 (641742)
11-22-2011 6:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 233 by PaulK
11-22-2011 6:09 AM
|
|
Re: Could it have gone well ?
It is a bit of a bind, isn't it? I still think this whole thread is a saving throw to get out of being wrong in a previous thread. That said, the discourse didn't fall into gibberish and word salads as it often does with creos. Edited by Larni, : spellinking
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 233 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 6:09 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Reply to PaulK - #223
I'm not sure if the website is correct or not. Then why not do some actual research in an actual library? Websites are rubbish for research because they rarely have any accademic rigour.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Introducing the cherry picking fallacy
I want people to point out my errors, but it is unreasonable to expect me or anyone to never make errors. And yet when you made several logical fallacies you start whole thred devoted to showing how you didn't Holy contradiction, Batman! Edited by Larni, : Spelinkage
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 300 of 344 (641872)
11-23-2011 5:33 AM
|
|
|
Are we nearly there, yet?
So has anyone learnt anything new about logical fallacies as a result of reading this thread about who said what? Maybe, when this thread staggers into summation mode we could post simply what we have learnt about logical fallacies? I would find that fascinating.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 302 by PaulK, posted 11-23-2011 6:22 AM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 305 of 344 (641890)
11-23-2011 9:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 304 by Admin
11-23-2011 8:48 AM
|
|
Re: Thread is not yet in summation mode.
Sorry, I got it into my head that 300 was becoming the norm for summation mode. Didn't mean to bork the thread :/
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 304 by Admin, posted 11-23-2011 8:48 AM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Why don't you fuck off out of threads you have no intention of making any meaningful contribution to?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 307 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 3:22 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2