Printable View
Is it me or the fallacies?Quote:
Originally posted by oblio
I am incredibly attracted to you victorkaum
For fallacies read: Pirie 1985: vii
else you are using some illocutionar power to bind me to your arguments and that's also a fallacie. This time a fallacie of purpose. This means in short that the intention could be false.
Are you addressing me in the socraticial second person VictorKaum? HaHa(Iwill read Pirie by the way):hello:Quote:
Originally posted by VictorKaum
Is it me or the fallacies?
For fallacies read: Pirie 1985: vii
else you are using some illocutionar power to bind me to your arguments and that's also a fallacie. This time a fallacie of purpose. This means in short that the intention could be false.
chemicals logic makes plenty of sense
Remote Access is a Script Kiddie
Script Kiddies are Antionline members
Antionline members are idiots
Therefore, Remote Access is an idiot
Re: antihaxor, no I responded to Oblio
I replied to you in the post "Well antihaxor about logics..."
Anyway: I'am surprised about the amount of philosophy used on this site.
chemicals logic makes plenty of sense
- On second thought, it dosen't...
Remote Access is a Script Kiddie
- Hahaha, that's original.
Person_A: Person_B is a stupid script kiddie
Person_B: No I'm not, you are
Person_C: STFU before i kill both of you!
Script Kiddies are Antionline members
- SOME AO members are... like YOU. Have you failed to realise that you too are an Antionline member??
Antionline members are idiots
Therefore, Remote Access is an idiot
- YOU'RE STUPID. YOUR ****ING STUPID. STFU!!! YOU ARE AN ANTIONLNE MEMBER IDIOT!!
ARGH!!!
Remote_Access_
Well Oblio it seems you didn't read my posts carefull cause an analyses of your post comes up with the followingQuote:
Originally posted by oblio
chemicals logic makes plenty of sense
Remote Access is a Script Kiddie
Script Kiddies are Antionline members
Antionline members are idiots
Therefore, Remote Access is an idiot
a = Remote Access is a Script Kiddie
a = wrong cause it is a fallacia accidentis (a false particularisation)
there is always the chance that RA is not an SK
b = Script Kiddies are Antionline members
b = wrong cause it is a converse accident (a false generalisation)
there is always one SK that does not know AO so your logic is false
c = Antionline members are idiots
c = wrong cause it is a converse accident (a false generalisation)
there is always one AO member that isn't an idiot so your logic is false
conclusion Oblio: Therefore, Remote Access is an idiot
conclusion Oblio = false
You have to come up with better logic to prove the things you want to. (no offense) :)
actually yes and no
remote access IS a script kiddie
Script kiddies are rather immature exploiters of security lapse.
as admitted, Remote Access is an immature exploiter of security lapses therefore remote access is a script kiddie. My antionline member one is flawed.
Is there a need for all this?
No Ennis there is no need for this.
First I wanted to keep me out of the 'discussion' (flames)
But...then Chem started to use logic...
This is the result:
Oblio indeed your AO member sentence is false so you have to built a new argumentation.
RAx = some RA
AOx = some AO member
Ix = some idiot
- stands for negation
(Ex) [RAx ^ SKx]
(Ex) [AOx ^ - SKx]
(Ex) [AOx ^ - Ix]
(Ex) [RAx ^ AOx]
_______________
this could not lead to a conclusion cause there is an internal contradiction between lines 1 and 4 with 2 and 3.
Oblio if this was true
Then you were yourself an idiot cause you are also a member of AOQuote:
chemicals logic makes plenty of sense
Remote Access is a Script Kiddie
Script Kiddies are Antionline members
Antionline members are idiots
Therefore, Remote Access is an idiot
a: Antionline members are idiots
b: Oblio is an Antionline member
________________________
conclusion: Oblio is an idiot
the same then goes for everyone here
a: Antionline members are idiots
b: Victorkaum is an Antionline member
________________________
conclusion: Victorkaum is an idiot
So your logic doesn't make real sense