Logical Fallacies - just for your information

[By Grace]

But to claim the logic sequence I employed to derive the observation is not valid (for whatever reasons you are trying to concoct) for this thread is in fact quite illogical.

Could you please rewrite this paragraph?
I do not have the foggiest idea what you are attempting to state, and that is why I am asking you to clarify your casual conversation with me.

 

[smaller]

Could you please rewrite this paragraph?
I do not have the foggiest idea what you are attempting to state, and that is why I am asking you to clarify your casual conversation with me.

I've put plenty of basic info in this thread for anyone to read if they were all that interested in dialog.

 

[By Grace]

smaller said: ↑
But to claim the logic sequence I employed to derive the observation is not valid (for whatever reasons you are trying to concoct) for this thread is in fact quite illogical.

Could you please rewrite this paragraph?
I do not have the foggiest idea what you are attempting to state, and that is why I am asking you to clarify your casual conversation with me.

I've put plenty of basic info in this thread for anyone to read if they were all that interested in dialog.

Excuse me, but there is quite a difference of perception here.

I am simply asking you to state something again so that I can understand it. Are you perhaps refusing to do that? I do not know, so I ask, but in order for people to converse on a civil and intelligent level, we need to understand the terms and sentences that another poster is using. That is all I am attempting to do

There are other posters who have politely asked the same sort of question I ask tonight, and every time you gave the same sort of cryptic answer. Since you state you did, namely " I've put plenty of basic info in this thread" I am requesting that you go to your thread where you specifically answered the questions you were asked, and provide a link to that post in your reply.

 

[smaller]

I am requesting that you go to your thread where you specifically answered the questions you were asked, and provide a link to that post in your reply.

Don't recall anyone even trying to dialog on the info I did post. So thanks but no thanks.

 

[OzSpen]

It's been given to you twice now. And you still can't see it. So, yeah, pass from me to entertain this demand further on the basis of logic.

Please refer me to your post # where you have defined your understanding of logic. Please don't waffle around 'divine Logic' when you haven't defined logic. I'm waiting.

 

[OzSpen]

Jasonese,a sub dialect of the English language .It has no dictionary ,but only it's user knows the syntax and spelling and definitions. The only way to learn it is by guessing and by trial and error.

There's a fair bit of that done on this forum.

 

[smaller]

Please refer me to your post # where you have defined your understanding of logic. Please don't waffle around 'divine Logic' when you haven't defined logic. I'm waiting.

I logically reject manipulations, theology boxes insufficient to harmonize the body of scripture and conversations where other people or myself are not interested in engaging. Enjoy the wait. May be longer than you care for.

 

[OzSpen]

I logically reject manipulations, theology boxes insufficient to harmonize the body of scripture and conversations where other people or myself are not interested in engaging. Enjoy the wait. May be longer than you care for.

Thank you for confirming your avoidance of defining logic.

 

[OzSpen]

Don't recall anyone even trying to dialog on the info I did post. So thanks but no thanks.

I asked you but got avoidance and not information about how you understand the meaning of logic.

 

[smaller]

Thank you for confirming your avoidance of defining logic.

And thank you for providing a logical fallacy as an example.

 

[By Grace]

I logically reject manipulations, theology boxes insufficient to harmonize the body of scripture and conversations where other people or myself are not interested in engaging. Enjoy the wait. May be longer than you care for.

If you are "not interested in engaging" which of course is your right, then why do you respond to posts of others? That seems to be very inconsistent. Are you perhaps unaware of the "ignore function/option" here?

I also made a simple request to you, AND I gave you a web link to use:

So your statement does sorta require your answer on your take on the fact that the poster Oz requested a definition on what you mean by "logic"...............

Could you please use THIS dictionary site and provide to him (and to the rest of us here) your answer?

So the choices are yours:

1. Leave the thread since you state you are "not interested in engaging"
2. Place some of us who post on ignore because you stated that you are "not interested in engaging "
3. Reply to this and other posts despite the fact that you claimed that you were " not interested in engaging"
4. Something else

 

[reba]

Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

[smaller]

If you are "not interested in engaging" which of course is your right, then why do you respond to posts of others? That seems to be very inconsistent. Are you perhaps unaware of the "ignore function/option" here?

Well, you see, what I actually DID say was that I put sufficient observations on the table already in this thread that anyone could read and critique IF they were interested.

Obviously that isn't the case.

 

[OzSpen]

And thank you for providing a logical fallacy as an example.

Please state which logical fallacy I committed in my answer to you.

 

[smaller]

Please state which logical fallacy I committed in my answer to you.

1 Corinthians 3:
18 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 

[By Grace]

And thank you for providing a logical fallacy as an example.

Actually what he stated was truth.

Your labeling it as something else and not addressing the many, many times (shall we count them?-- would that really make a difference?) that you have responded with non-answers, evasions and inconsistent statements is not evidence of your engaging in clear, consistent casual conversation.

 

[smaller]

Actually what he stated was truth.

Your labeling it as something else and not addressing the many, many times (shall we count them?-- would that really make a difference?) that you have responded with non-answers, evasions and inconsistent statements is not evidence of your engaging in clear, consistent casual conversation.

I doubt you have an understanding of the "history" behind the engagements, so it may be illogical to stick yer nose in it.

 

[By Grace]

There's a fair bit of that done on this forum.

Another poster refers to that phenomenon as "posting in tongues".
2
I sorta agree.
edited reba
2.8: The contents of private conversations with members or staff are to be kept strictly confidential including the contents of an ignore list or an intent to add a member to an ignore list.

 

[reba]

Just my simple opinion of all this useless dribble :

Seems to me logical fallacies
are nothing more then the 'political correct ' crowd finding fancy words to tell some one else their reasoning is not correct.
The difference between
Joe lied to me once therefor Joe always lies.
or Joe lied to me once therefor i will never believe Joe again ..

is very slim...this is just PC control of how some one else thinks some one else should think..
What is logical to one person may not be to another..
Example the differences between a rancher and a city dweller. ... Our environment help us form our logic.
A person living in Alaska years back saw logic in building a shelter of ice...

 

[By Grace]

Just my simple opinion of all this useless dribble :

Thank you for your opinion.
You should be aware that it is the opinion of others, and that includes me that the discussion of logic is not "useless dribble" but instead a very important tool in the usage of good communication.

Seems to me logical fallacies are nothing more then the 'political correct ' crowd finding fancy words to tell some one else their reasoning is not correct.

The usage of this term " political correct ' crowd " is an insult and diminishes those who have a different OPINION. And it is pointed out as an example not to follow, nor respond to, excepting to note it, and move on.

The usage of this phrase, " finding fancy words to tell some one else their reasoning is not correct." is taking the simple give-and-take of casual conversation onto a personal level, and turning it into an unwarranted and unintended insult. Of course we disagree with others! So what?? It is not a matter of disrespect to engage another poster and to post an opinion. it is akin to saying, "Because she does not like chocolate ice cream, she is therefore insulting me."

.this is just PC control of how some one else thinks some one else should think..

Here is another insult hurled at a poster, followed by an unwarranted assumption of a perceived and wholly unintended insult. And it is pointed out as an example not to follow, nor respond to, excepting to note it, and move on.

You are posting your opinion, and I am doing likewise by responding to that. WHAT?? are you now saying that you like Edy's vanilla ice cream the best? Are you saying that my reasoning about Gifford's chocolate ice cream is incorrect? How insulting can you get?

Yeah, that paragraph is facetious.