|
Escrito por Yazzy, 16.04.2014 at 15:11
Strictly speaking, there will only be 1 true religion or none at all in the end. So yes, in my eyes, other religions are wrong, the same could be said for a Jew or a Christian.
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
It's funny how ferocious and combative these people are against my truths, yet when they see someone speakijng outrageous nonsense like this, they ignore it alltogether. I think this speaks volumes.
lol - you *really* don't get it.
Whether or not his religious belief is *TRUE* his argument is *VALID* - you really don't realize the difference between the two states?
Really?
People are 'ferociously combative' against your 'truths' because you make logically invalid arguments - literally the words that your brain shits onto the screen are worse than nonsense in their effectiveness towards convincing others of your meaning.
The argument EnD is making is *logically consistent* - a state of argumentative achievement you have never achieved, at least intentionally.
excuse me, but what exactly is valid, from what that guy said.I havent heard anything from him yet, other than "what i say is the truth because i said so".He failed to answer my last post also.I realize that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" , but please dont apply it to this particular discussion 
Are you saying that the argument made by EnD is invalid?
and thats the reason i dont like to discuss with you.I dont care what you do with unleashed, but i value my time, so dont try to pull this shit on me.What argument is that?What argument did he made exactly?He still hasnt answered my question.I have the reply ready and i am waiting for his answer, which he cleverly evaded.Instead i am talking with you.Why?Are you his lawyer?Are you his bodyguard?Are you robin hood protecting the weak from us "monsters"?Why are you in this specific thread?Why do you feel the need to intervene,without stating your opinion on the matter?You have no personal opinion on the matter, but you want to get in the middle of this,why?Do you and e.n.d. share the same opinion on islam?on quran?Can you contradict MY argument?.If the answer is NO to these questions, then i will kindly ask you to gtfo this thread.thanks
1. I am not him. Complaining to me about someone else's behavior isn't likely to get you the result you desire.
2. Do you realize you replied to me, not him?
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Yazzy, 16.04.2014 at 15:11
Strictly speaking, there will only be 1 true religion or none at all in the end. So yes, in my eyes, other religions are wrong, the same could be said for a Jew or a Christian.
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
It's funny how ferocious and combative these people are against my truths, yet when they see someone speakijng outrageous nonsense like this, they ignore it alltogether. I think this speaks volumes.
lol - you *really* don't get it.
Whether or not his religious belief is *TRUE* his argument is *VALID* - you really don't realize the difference between the two states?
Really?
People are 'ferociously combative' against your 'truths' because you make logically invalid arguments - literally the words that your brain shits onto the screen are worse than nonsense in their effectiveness towards convincing others of your meaning.
The argument EnD is making is *logically consistent* - a state of argumentative achievement you have never achieved, at least intentionally.
excuse me, but what exactly is valid, from what that guy said.I havent heard anything from him yet, other than "what i say is the truth because i said so".He failed to answer my last post also.I realize that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" , but please dont apply it to this particular discussion
Are you saying that the argument made by EnD is invalid?
and thats the reason i dont like to discuss with you.I dont care what you do with unleashed, but i value my time, so dont try to pull this shit on me.What argument is that?What argument did he made exactly?He still hasnt answered my question.I have the reply ready and i am waiting for his answer, which he cleverly evaded.Instead i am talking with you.Why?Are you his lawyer?Are you his bodyguard?Are you robin hood protecting the weak from us "monsters"?Why are you in this specific thread?Why do you feel the need to intervene,without stating your opinion on the matter?You have no personal opinion on the matter, but you want to get in the middle of this,why?Do you and e.n.d. share the same opinion on islam?on quran?Can you contradict MY argument?.If the answer is NO to these questions, then i will kindly ask you to gtfo this thread.thanks
1. I am not him. Complaining to me about someone else's behavior isn't likely to get you the result you desire.
2. Do you realize you replied to me, not him?
Yes, i replied to you, because you supported a fanatical extremist in the making (that is my personal opinion), just so you get the chance to have a go with unleashed again.I ve already told you, you are intelligent and educated,but your hate for unleashed got the best of you and the only thing your intervention here would do,is derail the thread and start another piss-match with unleashed..
The essence of the thread, was me saying this :
"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."
After which i got attacked and was called a liar and a child.Also i was accused of living in a country with no internet.All these acusations without one single piece of proof.I have my proof ready,there are websites easily found in 2 minutes by anyone,that have all these 109 verses translated and explained.I have no problem posting 40 pages of proof here and spamming the whole forum,because i can back up what im saying.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
If you wish to discuss the validity of the arguments I make, or the evidence I cite, please do.
Citação: You argument is irrelevant to the main topic, since you have based your entire argument in "unleashed is ignorant, therefore i am right" which by far sounds more like a personal attack, and is lovely how then you proceed to accuse me of such a thing.
Here this may help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
1. That is not my argument.
2. Even if that were my argument (Unleashed is ignorant, therefore Yeti is right) - the argument doesn't suffer from the Ad Hominem fallacy.
The argument stems from the ignorance of unleashed, not the personhood of Unleashed.
3. Thank you for the link. Perhaps you should re-read it.
Clearly, you haven't. Instead you resort to personal attacks - meaningless, empty, personal attacks.
PROVE IT, where did i used personal attacks? why do you consider them personal attacks? do you consider a religion a personal attack? if so, why do you contradict yourself in your notes?
Citação: Now i get it, you have been a hypocrite all along, your agenda is becoming more and more apparent each time you reply to unleashed.
1.- E.n.D makes the sames arguments that a insane man would do, yet you haven't tried to intervene like you did with unleashed.
2.- YOU can't prove wrong unleashed's argument so you proceed to discredit him making rude comments and insults about his intellect and way of thinking.
This leads me to the belief that you are either:
In this single example you have accused me of hypocracy without any evidence, having an 'agenda' and of attempting to discredit and insult Unleashed *without* addressing his arguments.
If those aren't adequate examples of personal attacks I can provide others.
In my experience this means you have no serious challenge to the validity of my arguments or the evidence I cite.
Citação: How is the experience of a individual related to validity?
Let say Bob has 15 years working for Taco Bell, and he tells John (his fellow employ) that the meat of a taco is blue, when is clearly brown, does this make bob right just because he has more years working for Taco Bell?
It would appear that you are attempting to apply the informal fallacy of Argument from Authority to something I've said.
That something isn't at all clear. In any case, you've missed the point: You're name calling, rather than arguing.
See Khalesi's response above. K. questions my argument. Do you see the difference?
Yes, you didn't replied to him, but you did with me.
This is the part where you can choose to respond. In my experience, one who leads with personal attacks will not provide a meaningful response, but the opportunity is available for you to do so.
As i have explained before, i wasn't using personal attacks, but if you insist, PROVE IT.
Please tell me my 'agenda' - since it is so 'clear'? Then please tell me of my hypocrisy.
Citação: You have a religious agenda, but lets assume you don't: you already claimed that you feel superior to unleashed, wish is a Moral high ground fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holier-than-thou
Excellent. So I say "I am opposed to intolerance". You say "you have a religious agenda". I say "I am a religious SKEPTIC" you say "you have a religious agenda".
1. This isn't a fallacy, anyway. 2. If it were a fallacy, it would be informal. 3. If it is an informal fallacy, it's a retread of the Argument from Authority. 4. Doesn't apply, because I don't claim to be right because I am somehow more moral or virtuous than Unleashed.
I claim to be more tolerant of the view of others than Unleashed is -- but being more tolerant than Unleashed is like being more informed than Unleashed - not a great stretch.
Please also tell me what Unleashed's [u]argument is[/u] since you claim I am trying, and failing, to prove it wrong.
I see words, but an argument is a specific ordering of words, where one builds to one or more conclusions based on a series of propositions supporting a claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
Citação: Unleashed's argument is that: Religion is manipulative and leads man to commit "justified" atrocities, which is funny because the religion preaches love and peace
but of course, this required your own interpretation of the pictures presented above, which you most likely skip and jumped into the "Anti-Unleashed" Wagon.
I agree that religion can be manipulative and lead people to commit atrocities.
I agree that religion sometimes preaches an anti-atrocity message.
I have never disagreed with either of these two contentions. History is full of examples where religion (or any idea) is manipulated by one person or group to their ends.
Satisfied?
Because I'm pretty sure that's not all that Unleashed is saying.
If you think that's all he's saying, either you're not reading, or you're being willfully ignorant.
Go read.
This is the part where I respond to your 'conclusions'.
Summary:
1. So what if I hate Unleashed? So what if I am a biased, hypocritical Muslim? If you care to wrestle with my arguments, or reply to my evidence, do so.
Your empty-name-calling doesn't do anything to prove your point.
Citação:
If you hate unleashed, then your argument has no credibility, because your intention all along has been to undermine unleashed, regardless of the validity of his "argument".
If you are a biased Muslim, then you will never change your opinion due to having a strong belief in islam, which make this discussion pointless.
Understood. Because I hate Unleashed (which I do not) than anything I say must be wrong.
1+1=2.
Before you cite one more wiki on informal fallacy you should read them first.
2. I am a skeptic, particularly a religious skeptic. I wholeheartedly and completely endorse meaningful skepticism. Unleashed is not a skeptic, he is an ignorant hater of religion. Unleashed does not serve skepticism, he serves hate - which makes him no different from the religious fundamentalists he so stridently opposes.
It would be ironic if it weren't so laughably tragic.
Unleashed doesn't believe in god, and he has good reason not to (endless contradictions within the bible, human nature to twist everything it can in order to be above other humans).
Mocking Religion isn't ignorant, but rather rude.
Citação:
No one needs to justify their belief or non-belief, or skepticism of God (to me, anyway). I don't particularly care what Unleashed's beliefs are.
However, I must gently remind you, and all other eurocentric folk that there are plenty of people who believe in god/gods/spirits that don't care one bit about 'the bible' that you speak of - and whose beliefs (or disbelief, or non-belief) in the realm of the supernatural care not one whit about such arguments.
Detail:
I don't hate Unleashed. What little thought I give to the person that is Unleashed can be encapsulated into one word: Pity. But much less than I would give to a homeless person I would meet on the street, or a kitten I saw run over on the road a few days ago.
I despise intolerance, and I am ashamed of how he makes a valid, logical, reasonable philosophical standpoint (skepticism, specifically, religious skepticism) into a rage-filled, anti-theistic ignorance fest. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume I hate Unleashed. How has this changed any argument I have posted in response to him? Not one bit. The arguments stand or fail on the reason and evidence.
Citação: You ignored E.n.D ignorant comments, and limited yourself to personally insult unleashed, you called him a "fool" compared him to a "cave-man" and now you compare him to degrading biological beings, which makes your "Crusade again'ts intolerance" look absurd.
I have no 'crusade' against intolerance. When I see it, if I am motivated to, I speak against it.
I am not here to speak on every post.
I don't monitor every word written in AW.
I don't 'track' Unleashed's posts.
And again, feel free to address my argument at any time.
No?
Not that I expected any differently.
Are you accusing me of being a Muslim? Is that the assertion now?
Previously, I've been 'accused' of being a child Professor who is a Jewish Black American German Republican Lesbian Christian Liberal Communist alt of TopHats or others, if all of the accusations are strung together. As if who I am, and what my personal beliefs are, make ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE on the merits of my arguments, or the value of my evidence.
Note: I am not particularly insulted to be called a Jewish Black American German Lesbian Christian Liberal Communist alt. Clearly I cannot be all of these things at once, and it amuses me that being called some of these things is considered to be an insult.
I din't accused you of being Muslim, oh no, i only emphasized the possibility that you may believe in some form of God or Deity, regardless of what other people think about you: I think you are a College student that loves debates, and happens to hate unleashed.
I attempt to be *charitable* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity when I am given a reasonable opportunity, but I am intolerant of ignorance and intolerance generally, especially religious intolerance. You're just inventing things.
As to me being 'neutral' what do you mean? And as to being 'biased' have I ever EVER intentionally misquoted anyone or presented intentionally misleading evidence or arguments? If so, what?
Since you have read the wiki entry on what an argument is, we can see that you have made a series of propositions in support of a conclusion.
Not specifically misleading but more like this: "Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them." Wikipedia
Do your arguments support your conclusion? And if so, does it affect the argumentative power of what I have said?
Actually, the paragraph that contained the comparisons with unleashed and a dying cat, helped confirm my conclusion more than my early post.
P.D: Stop bombarding endless amount of sub-subjects when the main topic is about unleashed's statement about religion, not about how bad unleashed is at debating.
Feel free to respond to my arguments, rather than tell me how to play big boy brain ball - and I am responding to outright lies and name calling, not bombarding.
Finally, HAVE YOU EVEN READ what the topic is?
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Yazzy, 16.04.2014 at 15:11
Strictly speaking, there will only be 1 true religion or none at all in the end. So yes, in my eyes, other religions are wrong, the same could be said for a Jew or a Christian.
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
It's funny how ferocious and combative these people are against my truths, yet when they see someone speakijng outrageous nonsense like this, they ignore it alltogether. I think this speaks volumes.
lol - you *really* don't get it.
Whether or not his religious belief is *TRUE* his argument is *VALID* - you really don't realize the difference between the two states?
Really?
People are 'ferociously combative' against your 'truths' because you make logically invalid arguments - literally the words that your brain shits onto the screen are worse than nonsense in their effectiveness towards convincing others of your meaning.
The argument EnD is making is *logically consistent* - a state of argumentative achievement you have never achieved, at least intentionally.
excuse me, but what exactly is valid, from what that guy said.I havent heard anything from him yet, other than "what i say is the truth because i said so".He failed to answer my last post also.I realize that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" , but please dont apply it to this particular discussion
Are you saying that the argument made by EnD is invalid?
and thats the reason i dont like to discuss with you.I dont care what you do with unleashed, but i value my time, so dont try to pull this shit on me.What argument is that?What argument did he made exactly?He still hasnt answered my question.I have the reply ready and i am waiting for his answer, which he cleverly evaded.Instead i am talking with you.Why?Are you his lawyer?Are you his bodyguard?Are you robin hood protecting the weak from us "monsters"?Why are you in this specific thread?Why do you feel the need to intervene,without stating your opinion on the matter?You have no personal opinion on the matter, but you want to get in the middle of this,why?Do you and e.n.d. share the same opinion on islam?on quran?Can you contradict MY argument?.If the answer is NO to these questions, then i will kindly ask you to gtfo this thread.thanks
1. I am not him. Complaining to me about someone else's behavior isn't likely to get you the result you desire.
2. Do you realize you replied to me, not him?
Yes, i replied to you, because you supported a fanatical extremist in the making (that is my personal opinion), just so you get the chance to have a go with unleashed again.I ve already told you, you are intelligent and educated,but your hate for unleashed got the best of you and the only thing your intervention here would do,is derail the thread and start another piss-match with unleashed..
The essence of the thread, was me saying this :
"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."
After which i got attacked and was called a liar and a child.Also i was accused of living in a country with no internet.All these acusations without one single piece of proof.I have my proof ready,there are websites easily found in 2 minutes by anyone,that have all these 109 verses translated and explained.I have no problem posting 40 pages of proof here and spamming the whole forum,because i can back up what im saying.
Come off your rage horse and quit your bitching. I said his reasoning was VALID (the bit I read anyway). And now I'm 'supporting a fanatical extremist'?
Because I noted the OBVIOUS FACT that he can make a VALID ARGUMENT?
I didn't speak to the 109 Verses, DID I? I have before, to which you dismissed with 'text walls'. What did any of the attacks BY OTHERS have to do with me?
Here are three (more) examples where you need to grow the F up. Maybe you are a child, or don't have access to the internet. I don't know.
You clearly don't know the basics of argumentation. Since you (and Unleashed) post a lot of words-on-screens maybe this little lesson is in order.
1. If Hitler says "All A is B" and "All B is C" and then "Therefore all A is C" and I say that Hitler's argument is VALID and TRUE this does not mean that I am a Nazi.
The premises are true, and the conclusion is supported by the propositions. For the record, I hate Hitler.
2. If Stalin says "All Archers are Boys" and then says "All Boys are Communists" and finally concludes "All Archers are Communists" I say Stalin's argument is VALID. It doesn't mean that his argument is TRUE, nor does it mean that I am a Stalinist. Clearly the argument IS NOT TRUE.
The premises are false. The conclusion is however VALIDLY supported by the propositions. For the record, I am not a Commie.
3. If Unleashed says "God doesn't exist because Islam is Bad" and I say his argument is INVALID it does not mean it isn't TRUE.
Whatever the truth or falsity of the propositions, the Conclusion (God doesn't exist) IS NOT supported by the proposition ('because' Islam is bad).
For the record, I don't hate Unleashed - he's just words on a screen.
If you spent 45 seconds reading the three examples above (I can read this OUT LOUD in 45 seconds, I timed it) then you should be falling all over yourself apologizing.
And you're welcome for the lesson on ELEMENTARY argumentation. This is shit I learned by 10-11. Seriously.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Yazzy, 16.04.2014 at 15:11
Strictly speaking, there will only be 1 true religion or none at all in the end. So yes, in my eyes, other religions are wrong, the same could be said for a Jew or a Christian.
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
It's funny how ferocious and combative these people are against my truths, yet when they see someone speakijng outrageous nonsense like this, they ignore it alltogether. I think this speaks volumes.
lol - you *really* don't get it.
Whether or not his religious belief is *TRUE* his argument is *VALID* - you really don't realize the difference between the two states?
Really?
People are 'ferociously combative' against your 'truths' because you make logically invalid arguments - literally the words that your brain shits onto the screen are worse than nonsense in their effectiveness towards convincing others of your meaning.
The argument EnD is making is *logically consistent* - a state of argumentative achievement you have never achieved, at least intentionally.
excuse me, but what exactly is valid, from what that guy said.I havent heard anything from him yet, other than "what i say is the truth because i said so".He failed to answer my last post also.I realize that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" , but please dont apply it to this particular discussion
Are you saying that the argument made by EnD is invalid?
and thats the reason i dont like to discuss with you.I dont care what you do with unleashed, but i value my time, so dont try to pull this shit on me.What argument is that?What argument did he made exactly?He still hasnt answered my question.I have the reply ready and i am waiting for his answer, which he cleverly evaded.Instead i am talking with you.Why?Are you his lawyer?Are you his bodyguard?Are you robin hood protecting the weak from us "monsters"?Why are you in this specific thread?Why do you feel the need to intervene,without stating your opinion on the matter?You have no personal opinion on the matter, but you want to get in the middle of this,why?Do you and e.n.d. share the same opinion on islam?on quran?Can you contradict MY argument?.If the answer is NO to these questions, then i will kindly ask you to gtfo this thread.thanks
1. I am not him. Complaining to me about someone else's behavior isn't likely to get you the result you desire.
2. Do you realize you replied to me, not him?
Yes, i replied to you, because you supported a fanatical extremist in the making (that is my personal opinion), just so you get the chance to have a go with unleashed again.I ve already told you, you are intelligent and educated,but your hate for unleashed got the best of you and the only thing your intervention here would do,is derail the thread and start another piss-match with unleashed..
The essence of the thread, was me saying this :
"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."
After which i got attacked and was called a liar and a child.Also i was accused of living in a country with no internet.All these acusations without one single piece of proof.I have my proof ready,there are websites easily found in 2 minutes by anyone,that have all these 109 verses translated and explained.I have no problem posting 40 pages of proof here and spamming the whole forum,because i can back up what im saying.
Come off your rage horse and quit your bitching. I said his reasoning was VALID (the bit I read anyway). And now I'm 'supporting a fanatical extremist'?
Because I noted the OBVIOUS FACT that he can make a VALID ARGUMENT?
I didn't speak to the 109 Verses, DID I? I have before, to which you dismissed with 'text walls'. What did any of the attacks BY OTHERS have to do with me?
Here are three (more) examples where you need to grow the F up. Maybe you are a child, or don't have access to the internet. I don't know.
You clearly don't know the basics of argumentation. Since you (and Unleashed) post a lot of words-on-screens maybe this little lesson is in order.
1. If Hitler says "All A is B" and "All B is C" and then "Therefore all A is C" and I say that Hitler's argument is VALID and TRUE this does not mean that I am a Nazi.
The premises are true, and the conclusion is supported by the propositions. For the record, I hate Hitler.
2. If Stalin says "All Archers are Boys" and then says "All Boys are Communists" and finally concludes "All Archers are Communists" I say Stalin's argument is VALID. It doesn't mean that his argument is TRUE, nor does it mean that I am a Stalinist. Clearly the argument IS NOT TRUE.
The premises are false. The conclusion is however VALIDLY supported by the propositions. For the record, I am not a Commie.
3. If Unleashed says "God doesn't exist because Islam is Bad" and I say his argument is INVALID it does not mean it isn't TRUE.
Whatever the truth or falsity of the propositions, the Conclusion (God doesn't exist) IS NOT supported by the proposition ('because' Islam is bad).
For the record, I don't hate Unleashed - he's just words on a screen.
If you spent 45 seconds reading the three examples above (I can read this OUT LOUD in 45 seconds, I timed it) then you should be falling all over yourself apologizing.
And you're welcome for the lesson on ELEMENTARY argumentation. This is shit I learned by 10-11. Seriously.
no im not gona do you the favour.The only thing i read was that i was "bitching",i need to "grow the fuck up" and that i am a child or i dont have internet.Uncalled for also, cause i actually paid you compliments and wasnt hostile.So much for personal attacks,right?Also you said that i am just like unleashed now.I wasnt like unleashed 2 posts before,where you used me for an example of a good arguer,but i am now, just because i disagreed with you.You just exposed your true self.Yeah read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy , but this time read it carefully please.
Knowledge in everything else, is nothing if we have none for who we are.
Because your high education and intelect,cannot cover for the flaws of your character and your obvious immaturity.You act like a gentleman when things go your way and that is easy,but when you get cornered, you act exactly like Unleashed, with a tad "sweeter" wrapping.
Also
Because I noted the OBVIOUS FACT that he can make a VALID ARGUMENT?
Im not gonna let this thing fly.Here is his last "valid" argument
Escrito por Yazzy, 16.04.2014 at 15:11
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
You say that its a valid argument.And you are arrogant enough to want to give me lessons.
maybe this little lesson is in order.
And you're welcome for the lesson on ELEMENTARY argumentation. This is shit I learned by 10-11. Seriously.
I might not be as educated as you, but i have the maturity of character to admit that i dont know everything.You play the proffesor as shown in the quote above and you done that numerous of times,with many others.I dont get why using "bad words" like Unleashed does, is insulting,ignorant and intolerant practises, but when you use your sophisticated,narci-arrogant statements about the education and/or intellectual capabilites of another person, is not considered insulting?this may help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
But lets stay on topic.You say E.n.d. 's argument was valid.
Validity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
"In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises. A formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.
What makes a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false."
^ This is where you whole argument is based.
You support a supposedly valid argument with false premises and false conclusion, just so you can play with words and showoff how good you are at it.
So anyway now that we have established, that you need two premises and a conclusion, for a valid argument.Explain me then, proffesor where are the two premises that the conclusion is logically entailed by.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
The thought that this idiot monkey could be a real-life teacher, teaching our new generations with his retarded way of thinking, is frightening.
Professor, I think it's time to pack up your bags and go. The way I see it in khal's posts, you just got fired.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
Black Shark
Conta apagada |
The thought that this idiot monkey could be a real-life teacher, teaching our new generations with his retarded way of thinking, is frightening.
Professor, I think it's time to pack up your bags and go. The way I see it in khal's posts, you just got fired.
You aren't saying you're better, right?
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Yazzy, 16.04.2014 at 15:11
Strictly speaking, there will only be 1 true religion or none at all in the end. So yes, in my eyes, other religions are wrong, the same could be said for a Jew or a Christian.
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
It's funny how ferocious and combative these people are against my truths, yet when they see someone speakijng outrageous nonsense like this, they ignore it alltogether. I think this speaks volumes.
lol - you *really* don't get it.
Whether or not his religious belief is *TRUE* his argument is *VALID* - you really don't realize the difference between the two states?
Really?
People are 'ferociously combative' against your 'truths' because you make logically invalid arguments - literally the words that your brain shits onto the screen are worse than nonsense in their effectiveness towards convincing others of your meaning.
The argument EnD is making is *logically consistent* - a state of argumentative achievement you have never achieved, at least intentionally.
excuse me, but what exactly is valid, from what that guy said.I havent heard anything from him yet, other than "what i say is the truth because i said so".He failed to answer my last post also.I realize that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" , but please dont apply it to this particular discussion
Are you saying that the argument made by EnD is invalid?
and thats the reason i dont like to discuss with you.I dont care what you do with unleashed, but i value my time, so dont try to pull this shit on me.What argument is that?What argument did he made exactly?He still hasnt answered my question.I have the reply ready and i am waiting for his answer, which he cleverly evaded.Instead i am talking with you.Why?Are you his lawyer?Are you his bodyguard?Are you robin hood protecting the weak from us "monsters"?Why are you in this specific thread?Why do you feel the need to intervene,without stating your opinion on the matter?You have no personal opinion on the matter, but you want to get in the middle of this,why?Do you and e.n.d. share the same opinion on islam?on quran?Can you contradict MY argument?.If the answer is NO to these questions, then i will kindly ask you to gtfo this thread.thanks
1. I am not him. Complaining to me about someone else's behavior isn't likely to get you the result you desire.
2. Do you realize you replied to me, not him?
Yes, i replied to you, because you supported a fanatical extremist in the making (that is my personal opinion), just so you get the chance to have a go with unleashed again.I ve already told you, you are intelligent and educated,but your hate for unleashed got the best of you and the only thing your intervention here would do,is derail the thread and start another piss-match with unleashed..
The essence of the thread, was me saying this :
"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."
After which i got attacked and was called a liar and a child.Also i was accused of living in a country with no internet.All these acusations without one single piece of proof.I have my proof ready,there are websites easily found in 2 minutes by anyone,that have all these 109 verses translated and explained.I have no problem posting 40 pages of proof here and spamming the whole forum,because i can back up what im saying.
Come off your rage horse and quit your bitching. I said his reasoning was VALID (the bit I read anyway). And now I'm 'supporting a fanatical extremist'?
Because I noted the OBVIOUS FACT that he can make a VALID ARGUMENT?
I didn't speak to the 109 Verses, DID I? I have before, to which you dismissed with 'text walls'. What did any of the attacks BY OTHERS have to do with me?
Here are three (more) examples where you need to grow the F up. Maybe you are a child, or don't have access to the internet. I don't know.
You clearly don't know the basics of argumentation. Since you (and Unleashed) post a lot of words-on-screens maybe this little lesson is in order.
1. If Hitler says "All A is B" and "All B is C" and then "Therefore all A is C" and I say that Hitler's argument is VALID and TRUE this does not mean that I am a Nazi.
The premises are true, and the conclusion is supported by the propositions. For the record, I hate Hitler.
2. If Stalin says "All Archers are Boys" and then says "All Boys are Communists" and finally concludes "All Archers are Communists" I say Stalin's argument is VALID. It doesn't mean that his argument is TRUE, nor does it mean that I am a Stalinist. Clearly the argument IS NOT TRUE.
The premises are false. The conclusion is however VALIDLY supported by the propositions. For the record, I am not a Commie.
3. If Unleashed says "God doesn't exist because Islam is Bad" and I say his argument is INVALID it does not mean it isn't TRUE.
Whatever the truth or falsity of the propositions, the Conclusion (God doesn't exist) IS NOT supported by the proposition ('because' Islam is bad).
For the record, I don't hate Unleashed - he's just words on a screen.
If you spent 45 seconds reading the three examples above (I can read this OUT LOUD in 45 seconds, I timed it) then you should be falling all over yourself apologizing.
And you're welcome for the lesson on ELEMENTARY argumentation. This is shit I learned by 10-11. Seriously.
no im not gona do you the favour.The only thing i read was that i was "bitching",i need to "grow the fuck up" and that i am a child or i dont have internet.Uncalled for also, cause i actually paid you compliments and wasnt hostile.So much for personal attacks,right?Also you said that i am just like unleashed now.I wasnt like unleashed 2 posts before,where you used me for an example of a good arguer,but i am now, just because i disagreed with you.You just exposed your true self.Yeah read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy , but this time read it carefully please.
Knowledge in everything else, is nothing if we have none for who we are.
Because your high education and intelect,cannot cover for the flaws of your character and your obvious immaturity.You act like a gentleman when things go your way and that is easy,but when you get cornered, you act exactly like Unleashed, with a tad "sweeter" wrapping.
Also
Because I noted the OBVIOUS FACT that he can make a VALID ARGUMENT?
Im not gonna let this thing fly.Here is his last "valid" argument
Escrito por Yazzy, 16.04.2014 at 15:11
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
You say that its a valid argument.And you are arrogant enough to want to give me lessons.
maybe this little lesson is in order.
And you're welcome for the lesson on ELEMENTARY argumentation. This is shit I learned by 10-11. Seriously.
I might not be as educated as you, but i have the maturity of character to admit that i dont know everything.You play the proffesor as shown in the quote above and you done that numerous of times,with many others.I dont get why using "bad words" like Unleashed does, is insulting,ignorant and intolerant practises, but when you use your sophisticated,narci-arrogant statements about the education and/or intellectual capabilites of another person, is not considered insulting?this may help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
But lets stay on topic.You say E.n.d. 's argument was valid.
Validity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
"In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises. A formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.
What makes a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false."
^ This is where you whole argument is based.
You support a supposedly valid argument with false premises and false conclusion, just so you can play with words and showoff how good you are at it.
So anyway now that we have established, that you need two premises and a conclusion, for a valid argument.Explain me then, proffesor where are the two premises that the conclusion is logically entailed by.
1. Fuck off with the name calling. Now I will have to treat you as poorly as you treat me. I was patient, I tried.
I don't think I'm particularly smart or good with words. You *keep saying this*. I am a native-speaker of English, and I did receive a basic American education. That's it. I am well read, but I'm no genius.
2. It makes me sad that you had to look this up. I thought American schools were bad. Every bit of philosophy and logic I ever learned got its start in Greece. WTF happened to your people?
3. All you did was paste up WHAT I SAID: An argument's VALIDITY is IRRELEVANT to its TRUTH VALUE.
4. I said that EnD's argument was VALID. And you call that SUPPORT, again?
I said his argument was VALID in relation to Unleashed's argument. Moron!
5. Call me professor all you want. Is that some kind of an insult?
6. Here is the EnD Argument
Citação:
Strictly speaking, there will only be 1 true religion or none at all in the end. So yes, in my eyes, other religions are wrong, the same could be said for a Jew or a Christian.
My religion is better because it is the TRUE religion, what other reason is needed?
7. Now, Paster-of-Wikis, do you see at least one valid argument in there?
- Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in the same God (implied, and common knowledge).
- M, J, C each believe their religion to be the only true religion.
Therefore M, J, C can't all be right.
Therefore, either:
- - only one is right
- - none of them (of the three) are right.
- EnD is a Muslim.
Therefore: EnD believes that other religions are wrong.
8. I spent one paragraph stating the validity of his argument. You waste an hour of my time 'defending' the obvious truth.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
The thought that this idiot monkey could be a real-life teacher, teaching our new generations with his retarded way of thinking, is frightening.
Professor, I think it's time to pack up your bags and go. The way I see it in khal's posts, you just got fired.
Khal didn't say shit, not that you'd recognize that.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
Black Shark
Conta apagada |
Are you implying all Christians are like that?
Get brain surgery.
What if I showed some pics of a dumbass atheist, and called him your average atheist. It has to be true, since you did pretty much the same.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Guest, 19.04.2014 at 18:54
What if I showed some pics of a dumbass atheist, and called him your average atheist. It has to be true, since you did pretty much the same.
No problem, I might actually agree, you dick-faced christian suzzbucket.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
Black Shark
Conta apagada |
Escrito por Guest, 19.04.2014 at 18:54
What if I showed some pics of a dumbass atheist, and called him your average atheist. It has to be true, since you did pretty much the same.
No problem, I might actually agree, you dick-faced christian suzzbucket.
So you admit you are a dumbass?
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Guest, 19.04.2014 at 19:05
Escrito por Guest, 19.04.2014 at 18:54
What if I showed some pics of a dumbass atheist, and called him your average atheist. It has to be true, since you did pretty much the same.
No problem, I might actually agree, you dick-faced christian suzzbucket.
So you admit you are a dumbass?
You are the dumbass. I never put myself in the atheist category. I hate labeling and I don't want to be part of your warring, retarded groups. I am a free thinker
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
Black Shark
Conta apagada |
Escrito por Guest, 19.04.2014 at 19:05
Escrito por Guest, 19.04.2014 at 18:54
What if I showed some pics of a dumbass atheist, and called him your average atheist. It has to be true, since you did pretty much the same.
No problem, I might actually agree, you dick-faced christian suzzbucket.
So you admit you are a dumbass?
You are the dumbass. I never put myself in the atheist category. I hate labeling and I don't want to be part of your warring, retarded groups. I am a free thinker
So your thinking is not stopped by logic and reasoning? Seems legit. Like seriously.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
