Isaac Clarke
Member
Either SHOW WHY it is not or stop it.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
This thread is about both evolution and politics, read description.
- Thread starter Isaac Clarke
- Start date
- Status
You really, genuinely don't get it, do you. I'm not committing an adpop because I'm not claiming that by virtue of popular or prevalent opinion anything is therefore the case. I'm making an observation. Wind your neck in before you embarrass yourself further.
Isaac Clarke
Member
I didn't want to do it because it would look insulting, but I have to now:
When you've to demonstrate something an appeal to popularity or an appeal to authority are worthless.
You do not explain things by saying "because he said so". Darwin explained why things happen, he was not right because he was himself, but because he explained why.
To prove that "you" are right you can not keep on going with "because they said so", you've to demonstrate it, you've to explain it.
Take this message https://leagueofreason.org.uk/index...ics-read-description.16746/page-8#post-195345 and explain WHERE, WHY it should be confusing at all.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
It lacks the idea. This is hardly rocket science.
You definitely, DEFINITELY don't know what you're talking about. You are in the first category I mentioned earlier,
You know the names of fallacies, but you don't know what's entailed in actually committing them.
Observing that people are confused by your content is NOT a fallacy, formal or informal, of any sort, in any way, shape or form. You can carry on making an arse of yourself as much as you want, it's only your own reputation at stake.
You know the names of fallacies, but you don't know what's entailed in actually committing them.
Observing that people are confused by your content is NOT a fallacy, formal or informal, of any sort, in any way, shape or form. You can carry on making an arse of yourself as much as you want, it's only your own reputation at stake.
Isaac Clarke
Member
Oh fiddlesticks.
People can be confused by something that is not confusing and/or poorly made.
I've already said that it depends from one's POV, which means from their subjective POV.
You all have brought nothing but "I don't get it" as "proof" that the intro is confusing, so I ask you to either stop it or to bring objective proof of any kind of error on my part.
So you're backing off your adpop accusation now yes? Good.
Isaac Clarke
Member
No, why should I ever?
By
i mean that you're still calling upon an appeal to popularity and/or an appeal to authority to say that I did something wrong.
EXPLAIN why it should be wrong, stop WASTING TIME.
EITHER you can show it OR it DOESN'T EXIST/ISN'T REAL.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
It's a shame our interlocutor here has blocked me, because now he has no chance to learn just how incredibly howlingly incompetently he's addressed the argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam, nor what a logical howler it was to juxtapose them voluntarily like that.
In reality, the appeal to authority is a fallacy because there's only one valid authority: the data.
Similarly, the appeal to popularity fails because it's treating popular opinion as a valid authority (it's all interconnected), and there is only one valid authority; the data.
Here's the fun part.
This is a question about whether something is confusing. In such a question as this, the aggregate of opinions is... the data. Thus, in a question of this specific nature, the appeal to popularity is an appeal to the data, thus an appeal to a valid authority.
On the other hand, Mr My-idea-is-so-great-I'm-going-to-make-you-guess-it, by attempting to set himself up as being the sole arbiter of his own competence to assess it's coherence, is genuinely committing a verecundiam, but his logical chops are so poor he doesn't even realise it, nor that he chose the worst possible example to appeal to.
Of course, I'm just vomit guy., so what the fuck do I know about logic and fallacies?
Because you're wrong about it, that's probably a good reason. You know the names of fallacies but you don't understand the entailments.
Except that I'm not, nor did I ever, not even once. You just think I did because you don't understand, but you're highly convinced that you do.
Already have.
I don't take orders from you, and neither does anyone else.
Yawn.
Isaac Clarke
Member
The last 2 messages are you telling me that "you already used facts and logic to destroy me".
You, nowhere in this tread, have ever brought up any factual reason why my work is confusing. You just said that some people are confused.
So either stop with this nonsense or I'll just "ignore" you as the troll that you may reveal yourself to be. Aren't you supposed to be better than this?
"BeCaUsE i SaId So."
Which is absolute confirmation that I haven't committed an adpop fallacy, thank you so much for finally acknowledging this
You don't get to ignore me, buddy. Sorry about that. I'll just quote all your posts and unless you intend to 'ignore' everyone (which at this point wouldn't surprise me) then they'll all see the replies.
Do keep making a tit of yourself, though, the floor is all yours
Isaac Clarke
Member
You appeal to a number of people doing/saying the same thing?
You commit an appeal to popularity.
Isaac Clarke
Member
Cool, you do that, I'll continue to quote everything you say which is incorrect, and include replies to such so that everyone else will see them. In the end, you'll just be talking to your self, but I don't think you're much of a stranger to that anyway so shouldn't bother you too much.
Hey, @Isaac Clarke No more ignoring for you, the function has been removed, sweetie
Isaac Clarke
Member
- Status