 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Urban
when you are discussing a subject with other people, you can not say that you prooved something, when your proof did not convince them (when they did not see it as logical)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Logic rests on several axioms with which we are all in agreement (A == A, IF A == B THEN B == A, IF A == B AND B == C THEN A == C, etc.). It's not possible for something to be made logical through belief, it's only possible through the manipulation of these axioms. The appearance of logic doesn't mean jackshit, all that matters is the proof of logic. In another thread Sava didn't "believe" that 1 == .9-repeating, but who gives a **** when his mathematical reasoning was shot? |
this is true
but what I am saying is that many people whose logic is sound say that Urban's logic is not sound
so what you come down to is URban (and others) say that his logic is right
and others say that Urban's logic is wrong
and you say that Urban is right, but it is because you agree with him
and I say that Urban is wrong, and it is because I disagree with him
so Urban can say that he thinks he is logical
and I can say that he is not logical
but that does not make either of us right
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Your failure to understand a proof doesn't mean it's invalid, merely that you're not capable of understanding it.
In order to invalidate it, you must show how the proof is logically flawed. Saying "it doesn't prove anything to me" does not do that, it just admits your own inability to comprehend it. |
or it means that it is invalid and complete gibberish (not saying that all URban's are, what I am saying is that they have been arround for centuries, and a lot of very good logicians have argued about them and so they are not clear proofs)
you also realise, I am sure
that there are 'proofs', which have not been proven or disproven
I could for example say that I have a logical donkey
and so this donkey has food in two places an equal distance a way
what would be logical is to the food that is closer
but neither is closer
so the donkey starves (since it must be logical)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
oh, I love you
and I love Urban
and Gnu
I just disagree with you, and get frustrated with being deliberately misunderstood (Although as I posted I get misunderstood often and so it is probably partially my fault)
do you admit now that I am not being inconsistent?
and I do also admit that there is a possibilty that I did not see URban's referenced post but it was likely that I had (considering the ammount of time I spend on here), and from his later post I beleive I did
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
and so I claim to have seen his proof
and considered it not a proof |
And what was your reasoning, oh great and infallible Jon Miller? "Your proof is wrong 'just because'"?  Or do you not bother recalling the details of your many victories on the field of debate, since they are too unnumerable to mention?
quote:
it is obvious from my post that I disagree that he 'proved' that an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility |
Well, sure, obvious to anybody who is as infallible as you are, I suppose. Y'see, normally when somebody claims to have (but in fact has failed to) prove something, the response would be "Your proof was in error, here's my cite of the debate," as I did with Lincoln's trying to fall back on his circular "information" argument. However, it did not occur to me that you (in your infallible glory) may dismiss proofs on a whim, thus your saying "I missed that proof" is equivalent to saying "I did not understand your proof, thus it was clearly in error." Obviously the fault lies with me, since I did not recognize the self-evident infallibility that is Jon Miller, the only person alive who can claim that a post essentially saying "Consistency is good" is "unreasonable" (thereby justifying ad hominems, of course).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
What I claimed is that you misunderstood me
and this seems to be an ad hominem as well
"Unlike some people, I prefer to reserve judgment on a proof until I've actually seen the proof."
all I was stating is that I disagreed with him, I had not gotten to the point where I said why I disargeed with him
such a thing is allowed you know
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
And what was your reasoning, oh great and infallible Jon Miller? "Your proof is wrong 'just because'"? Or do you not bother recalling the details of your many victories on the field of debate, since they are too unnumerable to mention?
Well, sure, obvious to anybody who is as infallible as you are, I suppose. Y'see, normally when somebody claims to have (but in fact has failed to) prove something, the response would be "Your proof was in error, here's my cite of the debate," as I did with Lincoln's trying to fall back on his circular "information" argument. However, it did not occur to me that you (in your infallible glory) may dismiss proofs on a whim, thus your saying "I missed that proof" is equivalent to saying "I did not understand your proof, thus it was clearly in error." Obviously the fault lies with me, since I did not recognize the self-evident infallibility that is Jon Miller, the only person alive who can claim that a post essentially saying "Consistency is good" is "unreasonable" (thereby justifying ad hominems, of course). |
I think my meaning was clear
if oyu failed to follow, I am sorry
I was not dismissing his proof on a whim, I was implying that the previous discussion did not end in the triumph of his proof in the way he thought it had
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Ad hominems are used in debates, while flames are used in flame wars; our discussion had stopped being a debate several pages ago. I try to be polite to people, but when they start being impolite then I respond *** for tat. |
you were the one who brought up ad hominems
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I started out this evening being frustrated with you (pissed off might be a better term, but it's difficult to apply to an opponent in an online "debate") when your first post in reference to me included this little tidbit...
...though you later "justified" your use of strong language by claiming that I was being unreasonable (though how saying "Consistency is good" is unreasonable is beyond me), and apparently this also justified your repeated claims that I am illiterate.
I'm not particularly offended, though, just as I wasn't particularly offended at Lincoln calling me "high" in the Great Information Debate; ad hominems never offend me in online debates, and rarely faze me in real-life arguments either. Their use just causes me to be extremely disappointed in whoever resorted to them, since it really just shows that the person isn't capable of reasonable debate. Flame wars are one thing, but turning a debate into a flame war is inexcusable. |
I was not implying you were an idiot
I don't think you are an idiot, I just think that if you didn't understand what I said you were an idiot
I think that you do understand what I said, it was just not inlcuded in your argument for whatever reason (maybe even because it would invalidate oyur argument, but maybe it was an honest mistake)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
if oyu read what I said
you would see that before the line oyu quoted I said
"I agree that language in general is not always clear and that the Bible in particular has many passages that could be taken different ways (as anything that is written or communicated in any fashion)"
it is a fact that if oyu do not beleive that communication can be understood in different ways that you are, to put it bluntly, an idiot
however, I was not claiming that you were an idiot, I was merely claiming that my statment was already known to all who are not idiots
you seem to have a chip on your shoulder
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
to put it another way
I said if oyu do not beleive A, then you are an idiot
I never said that Loin did not beleive A
and so I never said that Loin was an idiot (or at least I did not then)
the only way you could construe me calling oyu an idiot is if you don't beleive A
which wasn't my intention
(A is that anything that is communicated may be interpreted in different ways)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
you seem to have a chip on your shoulder |
Your statement could have been taken any number of ways (most of them bad, since your post had very little to do with mine), so I reserved judgment on it to see how you'd respond in your next post, especially since I've not known you to resort to such contemptuous behavior in the past. Since in your next post you did not attempt to retract or clarify your statement, but instead seemed to be trying to justify it (by claiming that I was somehow being unreasonable, though I still fail to see how consistency is unreasonable), I figured that you'd probably intended your statement to be an ad hominem after all. When you then called Gnu dense and then questioned my literacy, all doubt left my mind, so I treated your ad hominems as an invitation to a flame war. By this point there were three ad hominems on the board (since the previous two had been solidified by your questioning my literacy), so I had no compunctions against answering *** for tat -- you'd had your chance to behave reasonably, and you'd blown it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
you said "**** you too." first, which was the first attack
I could see no reason for that, so I questioned oyur literacy (I should have said something like, you appeared to have misread me, do you care to read over that again?)
I already apologised for my statement to Gnu
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-11-2002 09:31
|
|