Child Slavery

[Orthogonal]

@Daniel Muffinburg

So if a human cannot communicate with any other human and, thus, cannot argue for its rationality, does that human not have rights?

Indeed, Stephen Hawking better hope his computer doesn’t crash before he runs into someone who didn’t realize he is a rationale being.

[jaredsmith]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

Why is it immaterial?

You sound like a child who just learned the meaning of the word why. Because.

Let that be the beginning of your journey to enlightenment.

So you have no real answer? Oh wait, let me guess it’s… immaterial. Why again? Because.

(Oh, now I get it!)

[Spideynw]

@Daniel Muffinburg

My answer to your red herrings: no.

My questions were not yes or no. If you do not have reading comprehension, there is not much I can do.

And questions cannot be red herrings. Again, you should check with an English professor to help you with logical fallacies. Probably a philosophy professor as well.

[Spideynw]

@E. R. Olovetto

You know that strictly translates to, “Yes, children still have rights.”?

Unless he meant to say, “no, they do not have rights”, then it would not translate to that. Maybe you should ask for clarification?

[Stranger]

@jaredsmith

So you have no real answer? Oh wait, let me guess it’s… immaterial. Why again? Because.

(Oh, now I get it!)

Finally, someone learns something useful. Not every question has an answer.

[Spideynw]

@JackCuyler

The assumption that unicorns do not exist until proven otherwise is also a perfect example of the same fallacy.

You obviously do not understand the negative proof fallacy.

For me to prove unicorns exist means I just need to provide only one unicorn. If they do exist, it is extremely simple. For me to prove unicorns do not exist requires me to scour the complete universe, every crevice, all at the same time, to show there are no unicorns, which is an impossibility.

Have you actually studied logical fallacies?

[wilderness]

Spideynw. You asserted that children don’t reason. What you say has nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy. Prove they don’t reason or else plead ignorance and your plead will not go unnoticed as you fail to provide the proof will be enough to validate the ignorance.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Spideynw

@Daniel Muffinburg

My answer to your red herrings: no.

My questions were not yes or no. If you do not have reading comprehension, there is not much I can do.

And questions cannot be red herrings. Again, you should check with an English professor to help you with logical fallacies. Probably a philosophy professor as well.

Immaterial.

[wilderness]

@Orthogonal

Indeed, Stephen Hawking better hope his computer doesn’t crash before he runs into someone who didn’t realize he is a rationale being.

negative proof fallacy!![:P]

immaterial[:P]

a tree fell in woods

[Spideynw]

@wilderness

Spideynw. You asserted that children don’t reason. What you say has nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy. Prove they don’t reason or else plead ignorance and your plead will not go unnoticed as you fail to provide the proof will be enough to validate the ignorance.

Prove unicorns don’t exist and I will prove children cannot reason.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Spideynw

@E. R. Olovetto

You know that strictly translates to, “Yes, children still have rights.”?

Unless he meant to say, “no, they do not have rights”, then it would not translate to that. Maybe you should ask for clarification?

You, sir, have won the award for ironic post of the week.

[Spideynw]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Immaterial.

Sadly, you do not understand what Stranger was pointing out. Now you are just using the word because it suits you. Fail.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Spideynw

@wilderness

Spideynw. You asserted that children don’t reason. What you say has nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy. Prove they don’t reason or else plead ignorance and your plead will not go unnoticed as you fail to provide the proof will be enough to validate the ignorance.

Prove unicorns don’t exist and I will prove children cannot reason.

Wilderness asserted that unicorns exist? I should spent more time on here to make sure I read every post.

[wilderness]

@Spideynw

@wilderness

Spideynw. You asserted that children don’t reason. What you say has nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy. Prove they don’t reason or else plead ignorance and your plead will not go unnoticed as you fail to provide the proof will be enough to validate the ignorance.

Prove unicorns don’t exist and I will prove children cannot reason.

This has nothing to do with negative proofs.

You are talking hypotheticals. Big difference. Unicorns might exist. Children might not reason. Both possibilities, meaning, possibly no, possibly yes. Now you need to find the evidence and prove it either way when you make the hypothetical assertion that children do not reason. Prove it. Do the science. I want to see the evidence.

[apehead]

Jeez, I get hollered at for going off topic, yet Ollie V allows all this doody to continue? Maybe he’s OK with people aimlessly bickering with those he disagrees with.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Spideynw

@Daniel Muffinburg

Immaterial.

Sadly, you do not understand what Stranger was pointing out. Now you are just using the word because it suits you. Fail.

O rly? Maybe that is why I was for clarification, and the best Stranger could do was “because.”

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

Jeez, I get hollered at for going off topic, yet Ollie V allows all this doody to continue? Maybe he’s OK with people aimlessly bickering with those he disagrees with.

this is a bit why I stayed out of the thread. ok. they prefer to enslave or allow for children to be murdered. they argue it to death. fine. they can simply stay over there. but spideynw has no idea what some of these logical propositions mean. I’m not even arguing the child murder thing-a-dee-do at this point. Simply spideynw’s logic. but hey, maybe i’m off-topic - again - [:P]

[Spideynw]

@wilderness

@Spideynw

@wilderness

Spideynw. You asserted that children don’t reason. What you say has nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy. Prove they don’t reason or else plead ignorance and your plead will not go unnoticed as you fail to provide the proof will be enough to validate the ignorance.

Prove unicorns don’t exist and I will prove children cannot reason.

This has nothing to do with negative proofs.

You are talking hypotheticals. Big difference. Unicorns might exist. Children might not reason. Both possibilities, meaning, possibly no, possibly yes. Now you need to find the evidence and prove it either way when you make the assertion that children do not reason. Prove it. I want to see the evidence.

Again, prove unicorns don’t exist, and I will prove children cannot reason. I want to see the evidence.

[wilderness]

@Spideynw

Again, prove unicorns don’t exist, and I will prove children cannot reason. I want to see the evidence.

Don’t make hypothetical assertions without any proof next time. It’s what gives you that mystical hum-bug appearance in your posts.

[Spideynw]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Spideynw

@wilderness

Spideynw. You asserted that children don’t reason. What you say has nothing to do with the negative proof fallacy. Prove they don’t reason or else plead ignorance and your plead will not go unnoticed as you fail to provide the proof will be enough to validate the ignorance.

Prove unicorns don’t exist and I will prove children cannot reason.

Wilderness asserted that unicorns exist? I should spent more time on here to make sure I read every post.

When did I claim he did? You guys keep asking for my proof that children cannot reason, so I want your proof that unicorns do not exist.