No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
I have been soundly thrashed by the dual genius of Advocate and Trajik Logik here. So now I am swapping sides to be with the smart kids.Today we will solve the problem of there being no wood for trees, or trees for woods...
If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
Tune in next week to see us take down the definist fallacy be defining stuff not to be fallacious.
If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
Tune in next week to see us take down the definist fallacy be defining stuff not to be fallacious.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
If I had written that post without underlining the sarcasm, at least 3 idiots would have argued about it quite seriously.
-
- Posts: 6852
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
I solved the problem of equivocation.
It's not a fallacy.
Either you meant X.
Or you meant Y.
It's not a fallacy.
Either you meant X.
Or you meant Y.
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
Some people believe in the non sequitur fallacy, but really they just aren't smart enough to see that there is no such thing. Here is an example:
All dogs are named Joe.
My uncle is named Joe.
Therefore my uncle is a dog.
You can clearly see that the third sentence does follow the first two, because it's below them.
All dogs are named Joe.
My uncle is named Joe.
Therefore my uncle is a dog.
You can clearly see that the third sentence does follow the first two, because it's below them.
-
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
What about transvocations, which were identified as XX at birth but which now feel more like XY?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 5:40 pm I solved the problem of equivocation.
It's not a fallacy.
Either you meant X.
Or you meant Y.
-
- Posts: 6852
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
Like, ferry boat captain?
-
- Posts: 5260
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
You should be given an award for this post.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:30 pm I have been soundly thrashed by the dual genius of Advocate and Trajik Logik here. So now I am swapping sides to be with the smart kids.Today we will solve the problem of there being no wood for trees, or trees for woods...
If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
Tune in next week to see us take down the definist fallacy be defining stuff not to be fallacious.
- Trajk Logik
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
This thread should be renamed, "How to Misuse Language".
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
no wood for trees? are all woodpeckers now homeless and hungry or just the fallacious ones?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:30 pm I have been soundly thrashed by the dual genius of Advocate and Trajik Logik here. So now I am swapping sides to be with the smart kids.Today we will solve the problem of there being no wood for trees, or trees for woods...
If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
Tune in next week to see us take down the definist fallacy be defining stuff not to be fallacious.
-Imp
-
- Posts: 6852
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
Naming the birds and feeling bad about them is the nominalist fallacy. We can get rid of the woods, no problem. There are no birds.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:12 am no wood for trees? are all woodpeckers now homeless and hungry or just the fallacious ones?
There I solved two fallacies. Yours and the tree thing.
Yay.
-
- Posts: 6852
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
FSP is part of nature.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:43 pmYou should be given an award for this post.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:30 pm I have been soundly thrashed by the dual genius of Advocate and Trajik Logik here. So now I am swapping sides to be with the smart kids.Today we will solve the problem of there being no wood for trees, or trees for woods...
If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
Tune in next week to see us take down the definist fallacy be defining stuff not to be fallacious.
His posts exist and are a part of nature.
Therefore you are engaging in the naturalistic fallacy.
You found something in nature,
But it's actually good cause it's cool.so it is good.
And if it wasn't cool then it would be bad.
Yay.
I solved the naturalistic fallacy using your post.
Double Yay.
All these problems solved!!
- Trajk Logik
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
I saw my wood in your girlfriend's bush last night.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:30 pm If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
Eeeew, stop fucking your own mum you dirty little bastard.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:10 pmI saw my wood in your girlfriend's bush last night.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:30 pm If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
- Trajk Logik
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
So you're saying you date dead people? Now I know why you're such an irritable little dick - you haven't had a real woman in your life. Your own mom doesn't even love you because she never taught you how to behave like a rational human being.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:20 pmEeeew, stop fucking your own mum you dirty little bastard.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:10 pmI saw my wood in your girlfriend's bush last night.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:30 pm If there is a wood then there are trees, ergo you can only see the woods if you can see the trees .... The no wood for trees problem solved!!!!!
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses
What are you even trying to do here? You've become pathetic.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 1:39 pmSo you're saying you date dead people? Now I know why you're such an irritable little dick - you haven't had a real woman in your life. Your own mom doesn't even love you because she never taught you how to behave like a rational human being.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:20 pmEeeew, stop fucking your own mum you dirty little bastard.