Not at all. You’re ignoring my real arguments against Byzantine. And now you’re ignoring my arguments against you as well.
I realize that my claim about your arguments may not be evident to you, so I’m going to now back up my last post.
I’ve decided to ignore your non-arguments.
I will give you three examples from one of your statements.
I have already answered this. The fact that you continue to shout out Byzantines post are ridiculous do not make them so. You have have failed to logically prove he is wrong. Remember that logical fallacy I brought up earlier? Appeal to ridicule? You have continuously repeated that fallacy. Over and over again.
It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. Why? Because it’s illogical. And as Austrians we strive to make deductive logical arguments. So If I see an illogical arguments, I will make that known.
I already made a statement with regards to this matter. And this only make it evident to me that you do not fully read my responses to you.
Anything you have brought up to me has failed to meat the argument criteria IMO. But go head and cite these “arguments”
So in summation, we are now done discussing this matter, until you start providing arguments. What would that be? Well showing how your “arguments” are not the logical fallacies I stated.
This entire discussion were having has nothing to do with the content related to the thread, rather it has more to do with the facts that your posts are logically false, and emotionally heated and so assuming your claim on Byzantine is true, are just as empty as the very posts your acting against.
In effect you have become what you attempted to destroy.
Good day to you sir.
Go back two posts and read them. And my name is JUAN not JAN. So maybe you can’t read that well.
ugh
-
I think I’ll pass. Since my very first post dealt with the majority of your posts that were not arguments. I think there was only one post that I did not comment on, or perhaps I commented on all of them.
-
Now your Don Juan. Isn’t that way more sexier? Hope your happy now.
Good. Now do the same thing with Byzantine’s rant, which was just a collection of non arguments.
Something logically unbacked and emotive can’t be shown to “logically” be wrong. With all your ridiculing of juan, I’d expect that you would have understood this.
Women and government? That’s the worst combination ever. Don’t get married, it’s a trap! It’s minarchism interpreted as “for every family a queen regent”.
Also, the big “megarchist” statist government doesn’t only promise “protection” for the “feable”. It does offer some toys and adventure for us wreckless boys too, like big guns and wars, yeah!
Yes Boss. Taking my shirt off boss. Tying My shoes boss.
Since you’re such a lover of truth and debunker of fallacies, I thought you’d be interested in applying that standard to other posters as well…
“Something logically unbacked and emotive can’t be shown to “logically” be wrong”
Jimmy will make a bad economist because he is black/christian/male. Isn’t that logically unbacked? Couldn’t that in some circumcstanes be motivated by emotion? If that is not logically wrong, it is most certainly an ad hominem which is logically false is it not?
Are we just getting involved in semantics?
My point, if someone makes a poor argument, an unbacked argument, or an emotional argument, that does not infer that one cannot respond with a logical argument, or show there argument to be logically incorrect. Or illogical. What’s the difference between logically wrong or illogical?
Perhaps I don’t understand this, but please, enlighten me, rather than just saying, nope your wrong. You should know better. Unlike Don Juan, I will listen to what you say, and it is very likely I will question it.
You claim I’m ridiculing Don Juan.
Riduclue: Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing.
I have not been trying to do this. At least IMO. I thought I had kept it pretty civil and neutral up till now.All I’m saying is that he is failing to make an argument. If anything, it is Don Juan that appears to be ridiculing other people in this thread.
Suppose the statement:
A is B.
Logic is not invoked in this statement unless a relation between A and B is first shown, emperically or other. You cannot use logical axioms to critique the statement until an attempt to verify it logically takes place. It is simply void of any logical relevance.
A is B on it’s own simply cannot be assessed as a logical claim. Now replace A with “independance” and B with “a masculine trait”.
Ad hominem’s are a fallacy. Fallacies have a stated premise that fails to result in the implied conclusion. You can point to a disconnect within the logic of of a fallacious statement. You can’t do that for an asserted statement since the asserted statement only has a premise. It doesn’t derive logical meaning from anything.
“Your obviously very heated. Chill. Take a breath.”
“IMO Your emotions are straining your ability to reason.”
And your repeated use of “Don Juan”.
Are you blind or something <— (can you see this? it’s ridicule).
Let deal with the logic in a separate post.
The first two…
“Your obviously very heated. Chill. Take a breath.”
“IMO Your emotions are straining your ability to reason.”
…are not an attempt at ridicule. I was very serious in asking him to calm down. His responses do seem very emotional. All I was asking him to was calm down, and re-read my posts.
The 2nd one.
“And your repeated use of “Don Juan”.”
I didn’t start doing that until after you said I was ridiculing him. So at this point in time, yes saying I’m ridiculing him would be accurate. But all the posts before, IMO, no which is what your original statement pertained to.
“Are you blind or something <— (can you see this? it’s ridicule).”
Yes I can see that’s ridicule.
But if I tell someone to calm down/chill out, or that I think there emotions are interfering with their ability to reason (depending upon how one says it within context e.g i was saying it in a civil manner vs a vulgar or antagonistic mannar) , then no, that is not ridicule.
"Suppose the statement:
A is B.
Logic is not invoked in this statement unless a relation between A and B is first shown, emperically or other. You cannot use logical axioms to critique the statement until an attempt to verify it logically takes place. It is simply void of any logical relevance.
A is B on it’s own simply cannot be assessed as a logical claim. Now replace A with “independance” and B with “a masculine trait”.
loweleif:
If that is not logically wrong, it is most certainly an ad hominem which is logically false is it not?
Ad hominem’s are a fallacy. Fallacies have a stated premise that fails to result in the implied conclusion. You can point to a disconnect within the logic of of a fallacious statement. You can’t do that for an asserted statement since the asserted statement only has a premise. It doesn’t derive logical meaning from anything."
Can you dumb it down for me some more?
More bunnies, more pancakes please