Evolution vs Creationism---Is there a God? Or is it all just random chance?

[Casual Leftist]

Certainly right. I was talking about Jesus's time, when there weren't any rich Christians (and it could be argued, if you are being purist about the matter, that there never have been). Rich pretend-Christians should certainly be squeezed till the pips squeak!

But there was a rich christian! Or at least a rich man asking how to be "christian" - and do you know what Jesus said?! I quoted it already!!

[Casual Leftist]

and yet, if the law provides that "loophole" (which is what lib'ruls like to call exemptions proscribed by IRS regulations to regulate the collection of taxes) aren't they paying exactly what they should pay?......

I would argue that if a billionaire "donates" to a politicians political campaign, then that politician lowers taxes it represents a problematic conflict of interest. Again, just because something is legal does not make it morally good. Do I need to bring up the cliche example that slavery was legal yet immoral?

doesn't the legislature decide which programs to provide?......

They fund the programs - but it's the Executive that controls the departments and how they'll spend those funds, unless explicitly noted in legislation.

true......if he gets elected president he won't be the only "non-neo-liberal" in the senate any more........I guess that means you think the other 99 senators will suddenly start doing the things he wants.........

Sure, but 1 of 100 isn't terribly important in the first place. 1 of 1 is a much stronger position to bargain when alone. But I hope you can reflect on what is means to get nothing done while the Reaper of the Senate is in charge of Washington.

[gfm7175]

Just because the Fallacy fallacy is my favorite fallacy

It seems to be. You've committed it numerous times throughout your comments that I've skimmed over.

and like most of your fallacy claim you're misusing it

He used it correctly. You are just illiterate in logic.

I'll respond to this one BS point of yours. The fallacy fallacy isn't "you used the wrong fallacy therefore you're wrong".

Yes, it quite literally is. That's one specific way that the Fallacy Fallacy can be committed. There are other ways, however.

Its a call on the pretentious notion that just because an argument contains a fallacy it's wrong. Which is what you've been doing. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Any argument that contains a fallacy is void. An argument cannot contain errors yet simultaneously be a valid argument.

I think what you're attempting to get at here is the incorrect notion that "an argument contains a fallacy, therefore the conclusion of that argument MUST be False". This would indeed be one form of the Fallacy Fallacy. Here's an example:

1. If Jane has a cat, then Jane has a pet
2. It is not the case that Jane has a cat
3. Therefore, it is not the case that Jane has a pet

1. If A, then B.
2. NOT A.
3. Therefore, NOT B.

In this example, the argumentation is void. It is invalid, as it contains a formal logic error (Denying the Antecedent). Now, even though the argumentation contains a fallacy, the conclusion of the argument (that Jane does not have a pet) could still very well be true.

But regardless, since the argumentation used to reach that conclusion is invalid, one would still need to replace the invalid argument with a valid argument of some sort. For example:

1. Jane does not have a pet.
2. Therefore, Jane does not have a pet.

1. NOT A.
2. Therefore, NOT A.

Here, I am using my conclusion as a predicate. I simply have faith that Jane does not have a pet. This is formally valid argumentation, as the conclusion follows from the predicate.


I like to describe the Fallacy Fallacy as "an error of logic about an error of logic", as that's what the fallacy's very name spells out.

[Casual Leftist]

Any argument that contains a fallacy is void. An argument cannot contain errors yet simultaneously be a valid argument.

This is not a debate or logic class. Void does not mean "wrong". An argument can contain fallacies and still be right. That is what I cited in the source I provided.

[PostmodernProphet]

I would argue that if a billionaire "donates" to a politicians political campaign, then that politician lowers taxes it represents a problematic conflict of interest. Again, just because something is legal does not make it morally good. Do I need to bring up the cliche example that slavery was legal yet immoral?

no.....I understand......it like when you point out that killing unborn children is legal when anyone with a human soul knows its immoral.......

Sure, but 1 of 100 isn't terribly important in the first place. 1 of 1 is a much stronger position to bargain when alone. But I hope you can reflect on what is means to get nothing done while the Reaper of the Senate is in charge of Washington.

you are dodging a simple question.........straight up yes or no.......do you think Bernie will pass anything that is on his agenda if elected president?.......



Sure, but 1 of 100 isn't terribly important in the first place. 1 of 1 is a much stronger position to bargain when alone. But I hope you can reflect on what is means to get nothing done while the Reaper of the Senate is in charge of Washington.[/QUOTE]

[PostmodernProphet]

This is not a debate or logic class. Void does not mean "wrong". An argument can contain fallacies and still be right. That is what I cited in the source I provided.

yet your argument contains fallacies and is not right.......

[PostmodernProphet]

This is not a debate or logic class. Void does not mean "wrong". An argument can contain fallacies and still be right. That is what I cited in the source I provided.

yet your argument contains fallacies and is not right.......

[Casual Leftist]

no.....I understand......it like when you point out that killing unborn children is legal when anyone with a human soul knows its immoral.......

Anyone with a soul, huh? Even if I don't believe in the concept of a soul that's still a dehumanizing position to hold.

you are dodging a simple question.........straight up yes or no.......do you think Bernie will pass anything that is on his agenda if elected president?.......

It entirely depends on the makeup of Congress after the election. If Dems take the Senate and keep the House then its highly likely Sanders could get some of his legislation passed. I'm sure he'll make light concessions to Dem establishment as a way of getting what he wants passed - so yes. But if Congress is unchanged then McConnell will continue to kill any bill sent to him - so no.

[Casual Leftist]

yet your argument contains fallacies and is not right.......

So you say, but so far as I've already noted you never back it up. This is your hobby I know.

[PostmodernProphet]

Anyone with a soul, huh? Even if I don't believe in the concept of a soul that's still a dehumanizing position to hold.

that is my point......anyone willing to kill unborn children is already dehumanized.....

It entirely depends on the makeup of Congress after the election. If Dems take the Senate and keep the House then its highly likely Sanders could get some of his legislation passed. I'm sure he'll make light concessions to Dem establishment as a way of getting what he wants passed - so yes. But if Congress is unchanged then McConnell will continue to kill any bill sent to him - so no.

the demmycrats controlled Congress most of the time Sanders was a senator and he couldn't get them to pass what he wanted........why do you think they would now?....

[PostmodernProphet]

So you say, but so far as I've already noted you never back it up. This is your hobby I know.

you think I haven't backed it up?........of course I have........you simply ignore fact.....

[gfm7175]

This is not a debate

Yes it is. That's the very purpose of this forum. If you wish not to debate ideas, then you're in the wrong place.

or logic class.

Correct, this is not a logic class. You'll learn a lot more about logic from what I presented here than you will in most logic classes. The "logic class" that I was in (to get my degree) was really bad. It was basically just a Christianity bash-fest that made numerous logical errors while bashing it. Unfortunately I was not that literate in logic at the time, and much more reserved, so I didn't challenge any of what was being taught. If I were in that class now, I would be intellectually mopping the floor with that "teacher".

Void does not mean "wrong".

Void simply means invalid and/or completely empty.

An argument can contain fallacies and still be right.

Nope. An argument that contains a fallacy is in error, thus rendering the argument to be invalid. Now, the CONCLUSION itself might still be a True (even though one formed an invalid argument to reach said conclusion), but the argument itself is invalid since it contains a fallacy, and thus it can be completely dismissed as fallacious.

That is what I cited in the source I provided.

The source you provided has no idea what a Fallacy Fallacy is. They stumbled upon one specific form that the fallacy can take, but they have no understanding of the other forms it can take.

[Casual Leftist]

Yes it is. That's the very purpose of this forum. If you wish not to debate ideas, then you're in the wrong place.

Contextual fallacy. Strawman fallacy. You broke apart the sentence to suggest we're debating in a snide attempt to ignore the context of 'debate class' - I never denied that we're debating, conversing, chatting etc. - but the point is you're playing school yard games and I'm not interested in it. You took my position out of context thus a false position to criticize.

Correct, this is not a logic class. You'll learn a lot more about logic from what I presented here than you will in most logic classes. The "logic class" that I was in (to get my degree) was really bad. It was basically just a Christianity bash-fest that made numerous logical errors while bashing it. Unfortunately I was not that literate in logic at the time, and much more reserved, so I didn't challenge any of what was being taught. If I were in that class now, I would be intellectually mopping the floor with that "teacher".

Anecdotal Evidence. False claim to authority. Irrelevant back story. You have not presented evidence of your certification, and the nature of your so proposed study seems fictitious.

Void simply means invalid and/or completely empty.

It would mean that in .. wait for it .... THE CLASSROOM.

But in casual conversation, which is what this non-regulated chat forum is - out right disregarding what a person is saying by calling it a fallacy is not a way to go about what's being asked or talked about. This isn't an academic debate for judges. Debates are about points and arguing that your side is correct regardless of probably truth.

Nope. An argument that contains a fallacy is in error, thus rendering the argument to be invalid. Now, the CONCLUSION itself might still be a True (even though one formed an invalid argument to reach said conclusion), but the argument itself is invalid since it contains a fallacy, and thus it can be completely dismissed as fallacious.

Invalid in a classroom. You don't attempt to actually disprove my claims regardless of sources, you just say they're fallacious. You even acknolge my point - it still might be true. You, like into the night, never actually try to say anything of fact to the point of the topic. You're just in an academic pursuit of playing fallacy.

The source you provided has no idea what a Fallacy Fallacy is. They stumbled upon one specific form that the fallacy can take, but they have no understanding of the other forms it can take.

False Authority Fallacy. You have no creditably to judge a source that's sole purpose is to document fallacies. See how easy and unproductive this line of rebuttal is?

[Casual Leftist]

you think I haven't backed it up?........of course I have........you simply ignore fact.....

No really, you never provided a source. You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..

[PostmodernProphet]

No really, you never provided a source. You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..

/shrugs......like I said.......you ignore fact........besides, as I recall this argument was about what Jesus said.........can you think of a source besides the Bible that we should use?....