No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by FlashDangerpants »

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.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by FlashDangerpants »

If I had written that post without underlining the sarcasm, at least 3 idiots would have argued about it quite seriously.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6802
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Iwannaplato »

I solved the problem of equivocation.
It's not a fallacy.
Either you meant X.
Or you meant Y.
Atla
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Atla »

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.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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.
What about transvocations, which were identified as XX at birth but which now feel more like XY?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6802
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 6:27 pm What about transvocations.....
Like, ferry boat captain?
commonsense
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by commonsense »

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.
You should be given an award for this post.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Trajk Logik »

This thread should be renamed, "How to Misuse Language".
Impenitent
Posts: 4370
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Impenitent »

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.
no wood for trees? are all woodpeckers now homeless and hungry or just the fallacious ones?

-Imp
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6802
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Iwannaplato »

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?
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.
There I solved two fallacies. Yours and the tree thing.
Yay.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6802
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Iwannaplato »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:43 pm
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.
You should be given an award for this post.
FSP is part of nature.
His posts exist and are a part of nature.
Therefore you are engaging in the naturalistic fallacy.
You found something in nature,
so it is good.
But it's actually good cause it's cool.
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!! :D
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Trajk Logik »

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!!!!!
I saw my wood in your girlfriend's bush last night.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:10 pm
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!!!!!
I saw my wood in your girlfriend's bush last night.
Eeeew, stop fucking your own mum you dirty little bastard.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by Trajk Logik »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:20 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:10 pm
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!!!!!
I saw my wood in your girlfriend's bush last night.
Eeeew, stop fucking your own mum you dirty little bastard.
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.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6335
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: No wood for trees problem solved by geniuses

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 1:39 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:20 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:10 pm
I saw my wood in your girlfriend's bush last night.
Eeeew, stop fucking your own mum you dirty little bastard.
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.
What are you even trying to do here? You've become pathetic.
Post Reply