Page 46 of 47 FirstFirst ... 36424344454647 LastLast
Results 676 to 690 of 701

Thread: Abortion Follies: Texas style

  1. #676 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,315
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,281 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 225 Times in 213 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    You did.

    Go learn logic. Stop denying it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error.

    Mockery. Trolling. Void argument fallacy.

    If someone claims 2+1 = 4, it is simple to point out the math error and show the correct math. It is the same with logic errors. If one claims there is a logic error then they should be able to point out the error rather than simply shouting "YOU'RE WRONG." Claiming a statement is a fallacy without being able to explain why it is a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy. It is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of the statement. The fallacy fallacy is often used by weak minded people to try to pretend they are more intelligent than they are. Into the Night is a good example of this as he constantly claims fallacies but never is able to point out why the fallacy exists. Then when asked to explain the fallacy he further avoids the issue by saying "Go learn logic."
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Dutch Uncle (09-16-2021), LV426 (09-16-2021), Taichiliberal (09-16-2021)

  3. #677 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Every time I think this right wing squawker has achieved a new level of stupidity, he surprises me. Let's just look at the time and space he wasted in thinking he's clever:

    1. It's my thread, ya damned fool! I put him on IA so I don't clutter up my scroll with his idiocy, as he's run out of steam and is babbling like some MAGA moron (you can relate, I'm sure). So no one is "running away". I don't waste time with idiots diverting to silly school yard blathers when they can't defend their position and start lying or obfuscating.
    Bulverism fallacy. Running away to the kiddie pool isn't going to save you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    2. Here we have an example of pure ignorance trying to revise reality to suit his mental short comings. Now, "facts" are "assumed predicates".
    That's exactly what they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    I do wish this fool would get a dictionary (like Oxfords), then have an adult present to explain the differences: Predicate - state, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of a proposition.
    No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word. Denial of eytomology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true.
    A fact is not a proof. It is an assumed predicate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
    Observations are not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
    News articles are not a proof.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Arguments can be about how many angels dance on a pinhead
    A rather silly argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    or what collection of facts (or lack of facts) determine a situation.
    Facts do not determine anything. They are simply assumed predicates. If one disagrees with a fact it is not longer a fact. It is an argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Our MAGA bird prefers the former, thus he can NEVER be wrong. Conway put forth a similar tactic...and was laughed right out of a job.
    Straw man fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    3. A nick name bestowed on Trump by Meaghan McCain, the daughter of the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). It refers to his fake orange skin and hair color and his constant claims of near prophetic genius, along with the fanatical worship status by his "base".
    Trump is not God. He makes a damn fine President though. He is also a successful real estate developer. Think about that, dumbass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    4. Another display of sheer idiocy by our Maga Squawker. Now dictionary's are of no use because they don't give the definitions that he likes.
    No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. Denial of eytomology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Amazing. The fool's entire language and communication skills are based on what comes out of dictionaries,
    Nope. No dictionary owns any word. No dictionary defines any word.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    yet he now rejects them all in favor of his own personal neologism....
    I didn't define the words. Denial of eytomology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    yet he is constantly using the word "fallacy".
    Because you keep making them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Evidently, one has to consult this new lexicon by our Maga Squawker to understand his delusional world.
    Nah. It is YOU that can't speak English.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    5. And here is another childish tactic of Maga minions....when they cannot logically or factually refute or disprove a point,
    Already have many times. Argument of the Stone fallacies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    they alter the content of a previous post.
    Lie. I do not alter any post (except to correct an obvious spelling problem). I do not alter the intent of any post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Problem with that is the little arrow that readers click on to see the real content.
    I welcome readers to go check on what you said. Idiots here like you frequently deny what you said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Squawker's intellectual impotence and dishonesty are so painfully obvious that it's pathetic.
    Insult fallacies. Lies. Inversion fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    The rest of his drivel reeks of some college kid high on booze and weed waxing philosophy at 2 a.m.
    Don't drink, dude. Don't smoke either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    This is why Squawker is now on permanent IA,
    Argument of the Stick fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    because he is clearly not rational or so delusional as to be a candidate for observation at your nearest hospital psych ward.
    Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Sad that his ilk is allowed to vote on any level. Oh well, time to move on.
    Enjoy yourself in the kiddie pool. It will do you no good.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  4. #678 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    an extrapolation from mouse embryo's.....get real! NOTHING in your link contradicts what Christiefan posted. At the embryo stage of human beings there are NO VALVES OR CAPILLARIES, etc. that is necessary to be the equivalent of a formed heart. As other research shows, what is being registered are electrical impulses, NOT heart "beats".
    The method of determining the existence of a 'heartbeat' is clearly defined in the law. Go read the law.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  5. #679 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,315
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,281 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 225 Times in 213 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Facts can certainly reference fiction. Since you also understand that Tolkien described Hobbits this way, it is a fact that Hobbits have hairy feet.
    ROFLMAO.
    Ok. Please show us a hobbit to support your claim.

    We'll ignore your position that you have claimed that if anything is argued then it is no longer a fact which would require that it no longer be a fact based on my not agreeing it is a fact. You seem to not even know what your own logic rules are, let alone follow them.
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  6. #680 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    If someone claims 2+1 = 4, it is simple to point out the math error and show the correct math.
    And yet you claim the 2+1=4 is valid...or at least the equivalent in logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    It is the same with logic errors.
    True.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    If one claims there is a logic error then they should be able to point out the error
    Already have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    rather than simply shouting "YOU'RE WRONG."
    Contextomy fallacy. ?(U)->(V)?(V) is an error in logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Claiming a statement is a fallacy without being able to explain why it is a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy.
    Redefinition fallacy. !A=(B) is an error in logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    It is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of the statement.
    Void argument fallacy. !A=A is an error in logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    The fallacy fallacy is often used by weak minded people to try to pretend they are more intelligent than they are.
    Psychoquackery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Into the Night is a good example of this as he constantly claims fallacies but never is able to point out why the fallacy exists.
    I already have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Then when asked to explain the fallacy he further avoids the issue by saying "Go learn logic."
    That's exactly what you should do, not run away to the kiddie pool and try to deny logic and redefine words.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  7. #681 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Ok. Please show us a hobbit to support your claim.
    RQAA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    We'll ignore your position that you have claimed that if anything is argued then it is no longer a fact which would require that it no longer be a fact based on my not agreeing it is a fact. You seem to not even know what your own logic rules are, let alone follow them.
    If you don't think Hobbits have hairy toes, that's your choice. You can argue that all you want. I won't bother.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  8. #682 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,315
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,281 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 225 Times in 213 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    And yet you claim the 2+1=4 is valid...or at least the equivalent in logic.

    True.

    Already have.

    Contextomy fallacy. ?(U)->(V)?(V) is an error in logic.

    Redefinition fallacy. !A=(B) is an error in logic.

    Void argument fallacy. !A=A is an error in logic.
    ROFLMAO.
    So if someone claims 2+1=3, your correction is X+Y=Z?
    If you fail to define X, Y and Z then you aren't correcting anything. Using logic symbols doesn't show how the logic was wrong if you don't define the symbols based on the statements you are attempting to correct.

    Let's examine this statement by you -
    Redefinition fallacy. !A=(B) is an error in logic.
    The real problem with your attempt is that you have not defined A or B in your logic formula. You haven't shown what I said, what I used for the wrong definition or provided us with the correct definition. As such, you haven't proven anything other than you can't provide evidence in support of your fallacy claim. Your failure to provide support would make your claim a fallacy fallacy.
    But then in the previous post you posted this.
    No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word. Denial of eytomology.
    Since no dictionary defines any word then how can any word ever be redefined? You have created a paradox here. If there is no official definition then there can never be a redefinition fallacy because it would require a definition first. Clearly you are arguing against yourself.

    Psychoquackery.

    I already have.

    That's exactly what you should do, not run away to the kiddie pool and try to deny logic and redefine words.
    How can I redefine worlds that you claim are not defined in any dictionary? Please explain your logic. Maybe you can write it out with logic symbols.
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

  9. #683 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    54,309
    Thanks
    89,409
    Thanked 44,267 Times in 28,335 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,052 Times in 3,802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    If someone claims 2+1 = 4, it is simple to point out the math error and show the correct math. It is the same with logic errors. If one claims there is a logic error then they should be able to point out the error rather than simply shouting "YOU'RE WRONG." Claiming a statement is a fallacy without being able to explain why it is a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy. It is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of the statement. The fallacy fallacy is often used by weak minded people to try to pretend they are more intelligent than they are. Into the Night is a good example of this as he constantly claims fallacies but never is able to point out why the fallacy exists. Then when asked to explain the fallacy he further avoids the issue by saying "Go learn logic."
    Into the Night is best served as an entree on your Ignore List. He offers nothing from kneejerk pap and trollish b.s.
    “She was not quite what you would call refined. She was not quite what you would call unrefined. She was the kind of person that keeps a parrot.” -- Mark Twain

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Taichiliberal (09-17-2021)

  11. #684 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    37,753
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 16,501 Times in 11,499 Posts
    Groans
    4,404
    Groaned 3,732 Times in 3,470 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The method of determining the existence of a 'heartbeat' is clearly defined in the law. Go read the law.
    yep, 6 weeks in there is no heartbeat. There are no valves. It is an embryo. https://www.insider.com/heartbeat-ba...artbeat-2021-5

  12. #685 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    56,224
    Thanks
    18,193
    Thanked 26,010 Times in 20,350 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,237 Times in 2,195 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    If someone claims 2+1 = 4, it is simple to point out the math error and show the correct math. It is the same with logic errors. If one claims there is a logic error then they should be able to point out the error rather than simply shouting "YOU'RE WRONG." Claiming a statement is a fallacy without being able to explain why it is a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy. It is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of the statement. The fallacy fallacy is often used by weak minded people to try to pretend they are more intelligent than they are. Into the Night is a good example of this as he constantly claims fallacies but never is able to point out why the fallacy exists. Then when asked to explain the fallacy he further avoids the issue by saying "Go learn logic."
    Excellent points.


    Pro Tip: Never expect to be able to reason with people incapable of sound reason due to mental issues. Reasonable people don't have to agree on anything except facts.

    A person who declares the Moon landing was faked is irrational. They are disregarding facts to proclaim an unsubstantiated claim. They cannot be reasoned with, only ignored...or poked at with a stick.

  13. #686 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    So if someone claims 2+1=3, your correction is X+Y=Z?
    If you fail to define X, Y and Z then you aren't correcting anything. Using logic symbols doesn't show how the logic was wrong if you don't define the symbols based on the statements you are attempting to correct.
    Contextomy fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Let's examine this statement by you -


    The real problem with your attempt is that you have not defined A or B in your logic formula. You haven't shown what I said, what I used for the wrong definition or provided us with the correct definition. As such, you haven't proven anything other than you can't provide evidence in support of your fallacy claim. Your failure to provide support would make your claim a fallacy fallacy.
    Denial of logic. Redefinition fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    But then in the previous post you posted this.

    Since no dictionary defines any word then how can any word ever be redefined?
    Denial of eytomology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    You have created a paradox here.
    No paradox. Dictionaries do not define words. People do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    If there is no official definition then there can never be a redefinition fallacy because it would require a definition first.
    The word is defined. You are attempting to redefine. Denial of eytomology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Clearly you are arguing against yourself.
    Attempted proof by denial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    How can I redefine worlds that you claim are not defined in any dictionary?
    Denial of eytomology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Please explain your logic. Maybe you can write it out with logic symbols.
    RQAA. Trolling.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  14. #687 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Into the Night is best served as an entree on your Ignore List. He offers nothing from kneejerk pap and trollish b.s.
    Bulverism fallacy. Trolling.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  15. #688 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    yep, 6 weeks in there is no heartbeat. There are no valves. It is an embryo. https://www.insider.com/heartbeat-ba...artbeat-2021-5
    The method of determining the existence of a 'heartbeat' is clearly defined in the law. Go read the law.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  16. #689 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    33,757
    Thanks
    11,228
    Thanked 6,486 Times in 5,725 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 394 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Excellent points.


    Pro Tip: Never expect to be able to reason with people incapable of sound reason due to mental issues. Reasonable people don't have to agree on anything except facts.

    A person who declares the Moon landing was faked is irrational. They are disregarding facts to proclaim an unsubstantiated claim. They cannot be reasoned with, only ignored...or poked at with a stick.
    Me to-ism. You are just as ignorant and illiterate as he is.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  17. #690 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,315
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,281 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 225 Times in 213 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Contextomy fallacy.

    Denial of logic. Redefinition fallacy.

    Denial of eytomology.

    No paradox. Dictionaries do not define words. People do.

    The word is defined. You are attempting to redefine. Denial of eytomology.

    Attempted proof by denial.

    Denial of eytomology.

    RQAA. Trolling.
    I am curious since words are not defined in dictionaries, where do I find the definitions?
    You claimed Hobbits have hairy feet because it is written in a book, but if definitions can't be found in books then why would any truths about Hobbit feet be found in books. You are making no sense at all. (Of course, you never make sense so this is no different from normal. I am just pointing out how ridiculous your arguments are since you argue against yourself.)

    If I can't rely on a dictionary for a definition then there is no actual definition and people can simply make up whatever meaning they want. Since that would be the case then there can never be a redefinition fallacy as you claim.
    Etymology is how words change in meaning. If words can change meaning then how can there be a redefinition fallacy? It seems you are simply making up a fallacy that you are arguing can't exist.
    He that tweets much, is much mistaken

Similar Threads

  1. 3rd world quality electric grids - Texas style
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 06-19-2021, 08:17 PM
  2. Waiter defends himself from abusive customer, Texas-style
    By Legion Troll in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-25-2016, 04:54 PM
  3. double standards of justice, dallas texas style
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-04-2016, 09:05 AM
  4. Get set to celebrate the zombie rising, Texas-style! Yee-haw!
    By Legion Troll in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-25-2016, 09:45 AM
  5. How to silence Hate Speech. Texas Style!
    By Voted4Reagan in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 10:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •