NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sick of people that either have not, or pretend not to have, the slightest grasp of logics in their posts. I thereby propose that, in answering to said people, we only point out their mistakes, and, if they do the same kind of idiocy three times, we simply stop answering to them and let them ramble on. I'm ready to do this myself (thereby keeping my impatience with stupidity in check) if more people are.

I'm sick of people that either have not, or pretend not to have, the slightest grasp of logics in their posts. I thereby propose that, in answering to said people, we only point out their mistakes, and, if they do the same kind of idiocy three times, we simply stop answering to them and let them ramble on. I'm ready to do this myself (thereby keeping my impatience with stupidity in check) if more people are.

Hmmm. But pretending to be illogical is so much fun. :)

I'm sick of people that either have not, or pretend not to have, the slightest grasp of logics in their posts. I thereby propose that, in answering to said people, we only point out their mistakes, and, if they do the same kind of idiocy three times, we simply stop answering to them and let them ramble on. I'm ready to do this myself (thereby keeping my impatience with stupidity in check) if more people are.
:D :eek: :( :rolleyes: :mad: :headbang:

Only problem is what you think is logical I may think is illogical and what I think is logical you may think is illogical. Unless we play by the Queen's rules of logic, the whole debate could be illogical. If we play by the Queen's rules, it would be totally logical, but wouldn't be any fun. :D

I'm sick of people that either have not, or pretend not to have, the slightest grasp of logics in their posts. I thereby propose that, in answering to said people, we only point out their mistakes, and, if they do the same kind of idiocy three times, we simply stop answering to them and let them ramble on. I'm ready to do this myself (thereby keeping my impatience with stupidity in check) if more people are.
Who's Pete?

But if we all debate logically, we won't be able to have constant "existence of God" and "evolution vs. creation" topics!

But if we all debate logically, we won't be able to have constant "existence of God" and "evolution vs. creation" topics!

And we could never lose by invoking the H or N word. :D

Logic is overrated.

I feel a strong need to quote a certain Mr.Spock here...

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

Would we have to use the logic equations? How would we express the concept of George W. Bush in logic, or human actions?
I think maybe what you're looking for is a little sense...

Sense can be the word, yes.

Fair enough then. People with absolutely no sense should be ignorified. People with a little should be persuaded if possible. And, if not, shot.

And, if not, shot.
Therefore if shot, then clearly not.

oh good lord what a horrible idea

we would soon be awash in a sea of "youre not being logical" "yes i am" posts. we would drown in pools of latin. bullshit arguments would win because they were made logically

no thank you.

oh good lord what a horrible idea

we would soon be awash in a sea of "youre not being logical" "yes i am" posts. we would drown in pools of latin. bullshit arguments would win because they were made logically

no thank you.
No, thank you.

I'm sick of people that either have not, or pretend not to have, the slightest grasp of logics in their posts. I thereby propose that, in answering to said people, we only point out their mistakes, and, if they do the same kind of idiocy three times, we simply stop answering to them and let them ramble on. I'm ready to do this myself (thereby keeping my impatience with stupidity in check) if more people are.
Good idea. The only problem with that is that one of the most frequent offenders is also the one making the proposal. :p

The only problem with that is that one of the most frequent offenders is also the one making the proposal.
No amount of smilies can mask true, heartfelt disdain there, eh Forrest?

Good idea. The only problem with that is that one of the most frequent offenders is also the one making the proposal. :p

That's cute coming from the guy that begins his answers with insults in just about every thread in which someone he disagrees with types. Show me any post in which my logic had a flaw, or in which I BEGAN an ad hominem attack, as opposed to reacting to it in kind, Forrest.

I dare you to find and classify ANY flaws - post hoc, reductio ad absurdum, ANY fallacy at ALL - in ANYTHING I ever said. I dare you. Fail to do that and you'll be admitting you're full of it.

No amount of smilies can mask true, heartfelt disdain there, eh Forrest?

No, no, by all means, let him have at it! Let's check how close Forrest is to his book/movie namesake, by all means, because, unless he has some degree of success in the dare I made him, we'll get to the conclusion that Forrest is REAL close to his namesake.

That's cute coming from the guy that begins his answers with insults in just about every thread in which someone he disagrees with types. Show me any post in which my logic had a flaw, or in which I BEGAN an ad hominem attack, as opposed to reacting to it in kind, Forrest.

I dare you to find and classify ANY flaws - post hoc, reductio ad absurdum, ANY fallacy at ALL - in ANYTHING I ever said. I dare you. Fail to do that and you'll be admitting you're full of it.
You're very good at being logical concerning incorrect assumptions. The very first step in logic is to make certain that your assumtions are correct. This is where you fail the test.

No, no, by all means, let him have at it! Let's check how close Forrest is to his book/movie namesake, by all means, because, unless he has some degree of success in the dare I made him, we'll get to the conclusion that Forrest is REAL close to his namesake.
Oh? Didn't you just accuse me of using ad hominem arguments? Yet here you are, the very FIRST one to do so. Doesn't sound very logical to me.

You're very good at being logical concerning incorrect assumptions. The very first step in logic is to make certain that your assumtions are correct. This is where you fail the test.

Then prove any "assumption" I made incorrect. Go ahead, I'm waiting. I have all the time in the world.

Oh? Didn't you just accuse me of using ad hominem arguments? Yet here you are, the very FIRST one to do so. Doesn't sound very logical to me.

Oh, right, because when YOU do it by accusing me of being illogical without offering evidence, it's not flaming, now, is it?

That's cute.

For that matter, I never said you ACTUALLY resemble your namesake. I dared you to prove you don't.

I'd go for this, so long as everyone has to convert their arguments into symbolic logic, not just rhetorical logic.

A -> B
B -> C
Therefore
A -> C

That's cute coming from the guy that begins his answers with insults in just about every thread in which someone he disagrees with types. Show me any post in which my logic had a flaw, or in which I BEGAN an ad hominem attack, as opposed to reacting to it in kind, Forrest.

I dare you to find and classify ANY flaws - post hoc, reductio ad absurdum, ANY fallacy at ALL - in ANYTHING I ever said. I dare you. Fail to do that and you'll be admitting you're full of it.


Remember how this was all gonna be about being logical and SENSIBLE?

Where does "I dare you!" fall on the sensible scale?

:rolleyes:

Then prove any "assumption" I made incorrect. Go ahead, I'm waiting. I have all the time in the world.
I have better things to do with my time than search back through all the hatefilled, derogatory posts you have made about Americans, but virtually every one of them was obviously based on several totally incorrect assumptions.

Remember how this was all gonna be about being logical and SENSIBLE?

Where does "I dare you!" fall on the sensible scale?

:rolleyes:
Obviously somewhere far to the left. :rolleyes:

I have better things to do with my time than search back through all the hatefilled, derogatory posts you have made about Americans, but virtually every one of them was obviously based on several totally incorrect assumptions.

Cute. Show me any posts I made that were "hate-filled towards Americans". You're making accusations without any evidence, Forrest. You're the one flaming now, and yet you accuse me of flaming without any evidence. Real cute.

Remember how this was all gonna be about being logical and SENSIBLE?

Where does "I dare you!" fall on the sensible scale?

:rolleyes:

Oh, about the same place as making claims of someone being "illogical" without the slightest iota of evidence. Would you kindly complain about that too?

Cute. Show me any posts I made that were "hate-filled towards Americans". You're making accusations without any evidence, Forrest. You're the one flaming now, and yet you accuse me of flaming without any evidence. Real cute.
LOL! Thank you. I try. :p

So what accusations am I making? You DON'T intensely dislike America? You LOVE Americans? Riiiight!

It's not flaming. It's calling a spade a fucking shovel.

Logic does seem like a good idea, and so does sense. But you have to add the human factor and assumptions into a debate too, both of which can somethimes cancel out logic and sense.

:D

Not bad for a 14 year old, eh?

Therefore if shot, then clearly not.
Is this rhyming day today?

Things have gone un-nice in here. I think it is time for folks to stop being mean to each other.
Also, at the risk of being flamed, Eutrusca, you did start the ad hominem stuff, what with you first post here being "Heikoku is crap at logic..." sans evidence.

LOL! Thank you. I try. :p

So what accusations am I making? You DON'T intensely dislike America? You LOVE Americans? Riiiight!

It's not flaming. It's calling a spade a fucking shovel.

No, I don't. I don't intensely dislike America. I don't even believe in the concept of countries. But nice flamebait.

You could see it coming... (http://nsolomonphoto.com/PhotoJournal/GreatGrayOwls/bird509_std.jpg)