Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[Theldorrin]

No, you're wrong.

Reductio ad absurdum is using the same arguments in order to prove somethin absurd. If you can prove something absurd using the same arguments, then clearly the arguments are faulty. It's a very strong form of argument, and I wish people would actually learn about argument and logic before disparagingly it.

It's very common for ignorant people on the Internet to think that reductio ad absurdum is stupid, but that doesn't make it so.

[Theldorrin]

Also, Santa Claus and all that is not unprovable. If he came out of the north pole that would be proof of his existing.

[Theldorrin]

You're basically wrong in every way it's possible to be wrong, Outland.

[Matthew Outland]

My simpler explanation is morelikely to bethe correct one, theldorrin

You're the one who needs all this rationalizing

[Theldorrin]

You shouldn't post in this thread, since you're actually making Chris' position look stupider. It's quite the feat.

[Matthew Outland]

I also make invisible pink unicorns look stupider

[Theldorrin]

Yes.

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

How about not ignoring 99% of what he said, most importantly, that such comparison is false, and how it is false?

The most salient points:

"First, the main problem with this argument is that what people actually experience is NOT the same thing as what a skeptic deliberately makes up for the sake of argument!"

"Third, if there were millions of credible intelligent adults out there claiming to have seen or experienced invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus flying in the air, then this comparison would have merit. But there aren’t, so this comparison is without merit."

"Fifth, just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can’t prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I can’t prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesn’t mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library. "

[Theldorrin]

Those things aren't facts because they're not true.

And it's not unprovable, Chris, it's unproven. It's perfectly possible to prove these things, it's just that you're not going to because they don't exist.

[Matthew Outland]

Sorta like howGod is not unprovealbe, but just unproven? You'regoiong in circles thel

[Theldorrin]

The fact that you don't know the difference between something being unproven and unprovable makes me very uncomfortable.

The existence of Santa Claus is not the Continuum Hypothesis, Christopher.

[Theldorrin]

Also, you shouldn't believe anything that doesn't have a preponderance of evidence in support of it. Theistic beliefs have no evidence, in fact they often have counter evidence, so you shouldn't believe them.

[Matthew Outland]

Oh yeah and Santa clause does

you fucking nitwit

[Ryoko's Biatch]

You guys are forgetting something important.

[Jason]

their gay

[Jason]

Haha I made a misspelled post with a bad joke AM I FUNNY NOW

[Ryoko's Biatch]

No.

[Jason]

Thanks, Terrene.

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

- Every argument with you basically involves you making shockingly, unfairly ridiculous assumptions about what I "don't understand" and what distinctions I am "unable to make". It's hard to unpack this, but basically, it should be impossible at this point in our relationship for you to think I'm stupid enough to not understand the types of things you think I don't understand. Of course, this is something you do with a lot of people (especially those you are biased against - unreasonable, pathological bias coloring your interpretation of every single thing someone says following the first time they ever say something you disagree with is also an enormous issue for you), so at least I don't feel singled out.

Example: I understand the difference between something that is unproven and something that is unprovable. There is no way that you can't know that I understand this difference.

- You focus obsessively on the details, wording, and form of an argument and how well it conforms to established, by-the-book standards and protocol far more than the basic logic or gist behind an argument, and you cast out the argument wholesale if there are any defects in those specifics.

- Arguing with you is excruciating in ways that it's going to take me years to articulate.

[Theldorrin]

You're basically the standard Internet debater, Chris. You have never studied argument, and don't really know anything about it, so you make a ridiculous number of very ignorant statements.

Like right now you're basically doing that whole 'semantics' thing that people scream when someone questions them on the meaning of their words. As if the meaning of things is an unimportant part of the argument!

Anyway, I concluded that you didn't know the difference because you just used it inappropriately.

Also, you don't understand logic if you don't realize that structure, form and meaning is all that it is. I am focusing on the logic. You're focusing on something else, and calling it logic. It's not logic.