Promethean is a Commie

[Wizard22]

Oh no, more Ad Homs, diarrhea pants... grow the fuck up.

I hope you're no older than 22-24 years old. You remind me of when I argued morons in college. Surely you're not that simple minded. Is your IQ capped out at 99 points, or can you break the three-digit barrier?

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh no, more Ad Homs, diarrhea pants... grow the fuck up.

I hope you're no older than 22-24 years old. You remind me of when I argued morons in college. Surely you're not that simple minded. Is your IQ capped out at 99 points, or can you break the three-digit barrier?

Bit of a self-own to accuse me of ad hominem and then ramble pointlessly into a speculation about my IQ.

[FlashDangerpants]

Considering how poorly you argue, and how emotional you are, it's easy to see how you don't know when conclusions can follow from premises, especially when it comes to twice defrondled hibblehams. The fact that you constantly dodge, what should be easy questions, demonstrates that you cannot win "easy" arguments, even when handed to you.

You are just confirming how accurate my predictive powers were when I wrote "his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane."

Just accept you made a small mistake about some terminology some weeks ago. You don't need to double-down like a psycho.

[Wizard22]

I don't need to speculate; I can see your IQ in every word you write. Your insistence and dependence on Ad Hom argumentation, means that you're capped-out. If you could argue rationally, coherently, logically, then you wouldn't need to rely on fallacies as much as you do.

If we want to go down the road of just insulting, then I'll just point at your avatar, a good reminder to everyone of your inner-psychology and philosophical ability. I can win the dirt-slinging battle too, if you insist.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't need to speculate; I can see your IQ in every word you write. Your insistence and dependence on Ad Hom argumentation, means that you're capped-out. If you could argue rationally, coherently, logically, then you wouldn't need to rely on fallacies as much as you do.

If we want to go down the road of just insulting, then I'll just point at your avatar, a good reminder to everyone of your inner-psychology and philosophical ability. I can win the dirt-slinging battle too, if you insist.

Now you want to change the conversation and you're hoping that I am weak enough to get dragged into a name calling specatacle with you. But the issue at hand remains the question of why you are too feeble to just take on board mistakes you make and learn from them?

[Wizard22]

Now you want to change the conversation and you're hoping that I am weak enough to get dragged into a name calling specatacle with you.

you are too feeble

This is exactly what I'm talking about, Dunce. You're beginning to bore me.

Come back when you have a real argument.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sidestepping silliness aside, let's return to the questions that were being avoided in that round of evasions..

4. Can I admit to mistakes? Privately, maybe. Publicly, no. That's not how debate and argumentation work. And if I'm wrong, then it should be easy to prove and quote. So have at it.

Well that's QED for what we've been saying really. You've been trying to bullshit your way out of a trivial mistake when a sane person would have just said "oops". You are a dribbling loon. There is nobody dumb enough to buy your nonsense.


And for the avoidance of doubt, would you please be so kind as to tell us which parts of this nazi rant are "half-joking"?

I do not care if Jews stay alive for 1000 years, or are viciously expelled and genocided. I do not have FlashDpant's emotional attachment to the subject, hence he is projecting his own fear on the matter. My focus is on Philosophy. I can criticize "God's So-called Self-appointed Chosen Ones" if I want to. Nobody is immune from criticism in philosophy, least of all the Jewish race and religion. FlashDpants falsely identifies and construes this fact as "Hate" and "Anti-semitism". Wrong, I can identify a biological parasite, a Wasp laying eggs inside of a caterpillar...that doesn't mean I "Hate" the Wasp or sympathize with the caterpillar. It means that I suppress my antipathy and sympathy, something which Dpants is unable to do, hence why he is so emotionally-clouded.

[Wizard22]

And for the avoidance of doubt, would you please be so kind as to tell us which parts of this nazi rant are "half-joking"?

If you can't tell when somebody is serious or joking, then you don't deserve to know.

How can a conclusion follow from premises if the premises are not, and can never be, real?

Why won't you answer the question? Is it because you don't know (obviously), or, that it would destroy your "argument"?

[FlashDangerpants]

And for the avoidance of doubt, would you please be so kind as to tell us which parts of this nazi rant are "half-joking"?

If you can't tell when somebody is serious or joking, then you don't deserve to know.

How can a conclusion follow from premises if the premises are not, and can never be, real?

Why won't you answer the question? Is it because you don't know (obviously), or, that it would destroy your "argument"?

Logic applies in the same way in all worlds, all possible worlds, and all imaginary worlds without reference to factuality, plausibility or believability. That's just the way logic is. The correct answer to your question there is that the conclusions follow logically irrespective of whether the premises are true or not. That's why we have validity as one necessary but not sufficient component of soundness, and truth as the other.

There was never any debate about whether you understand this stuff better than everyone else, you lost the moment you didn't realise your own error and just correct it like a sane person would. The issue is why you need to gaslight so hard and are willing to degrade yourself this badly.

[Wizard22]

Literacy, Dpants, go back through the recent few pages, and pay attention to where I talk about 'real' qualifiers. Reality is different when introduced to hypothetical arguments. My arguments have been consistent: unless arguments are based/grounded in reality, then conclusions cannot follow from premises, because the premises are NOT real.

That's the difference between "deductive" logic and "real" logic.

[FlashDangerpants]

Literacy, Dpants, go back through the recent few pages, and pay attention to where I talk about 'real' qualifiers. Reality is different when introduced to hypothetical arguments. My arguments have been consistent: unless arguments are based/grounded in reality, then conclusions cannot follow from premises, because the premises are NOT real.

That's the difference between "deductive" logic and "real" logic.

Logic applies in the same way in all worlds, all possible worlds, and all imaginary worlds without reference to factuality, plausibility or believability. That's just the way logic is. The correct answer to your question there is that the conclusions follow logically irrespective of whether the premises are true or not. That's why we have validity as one necessary but not sufficient component of soundness, and truth as the other.

There was never any debate about whether you understand this stuff better than everyone else, you lost the moment you didn't realise your own error and just correct it like a sane person would. The issue is why you need to gaslight so hard and are willing to degrade yourself this badly.

[Wizard22]

Logic applies in the same way in all worlds, all possible worlds, and all imaginary worlds without reference to factuality, plausibility or believability. That's just the way logic is. The correct answer to your question there is that the conclusions follow logically irrespective of whether the premises are true or not. That's why we have validity as one necessary but not sufficient component of soundness, and truth as the other.

There was never any debate about whether you understand this stuff better than everyone else, you lost the moment you didn't realise your own error and just correct it like a sane person would. The issue is why you need to gaslight so hard and are willing to degrade yourself this badly.

No, in reality, real conclusions only follow real premises/statements.

Truth/False, Soundness, is a different quality. Things can be real yet false, true yet unreal.

Purely deductive logic, hypothetical only, is as you say, and I never said otherwise.

Go reread what I claimed from the beginning.

[promethean75]

Now you're just tryna obfuscate your way out of it bro. Believe me, if anyone thinks you're an idiot, they established this opinion long before any of this happened. So when u make a simple mistake, don't wig out dude. Instead, go forward. Move ahead. Try to detect it. It's not too late

[FlashDangerpants]

Logic applies in the same way in all worlds, all possible worlds, and all imaginary worlds without reference to factuality, plausibility or believability. That's just the way logic is. The correct answer to your question there is that the conclusions follow logically irrespective of whether the premises are true or not. That's why we have validity as one necessary but not sufficient component of soundness, and truth as the other.

There was never any debate about whether you understand this stuff better than everyone else, you lost the moment you didn't realise your own error and just correct it like a sane person would. The issue is why you need to gaslight so hard and are willing to degrade yourself this badly.

No, in reality, real conclusions only follow real premises/statements.

Truth/False, Soundness, is a different quality. Things can be real yet false, true yet unreal.

Purely deductive logic, hypothetical only, is as you say, and I never said otherwise.

Go reread what I claimed from the beginning.

Logic is logic and nobody cares if you want to make up some fake alternative just to save pride. Your nonsense is denied.