Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Dulan · 08-23-2004, 03:47 PM

Wrong. This is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Not only is it , but it is that is invalid in this context. Furthermore, it is a blatant lie, as all Traithe did was point out the logical fallacies that I was using. I began using them as you refused to stop with the logical fallacies, and you were losing badly in the argument. Traithe stepped in and pointed out my fallacies, but did not bother to point out your own. (Which there were pages of, if memory serves.)

Now, let's point out in detail just what parts of that post were logical fallacies.

There's more, too. However, the_logos, I have never seen you bother to actually enter a discussion. All of your arguments consist nearly entirely of logical fallacies when you argue, and quite often all that saves you is a horde of rabid fans. Tell me, the_logos, can you honestly enter a discussion, only by yourself, against one other person, and not resort to your hordes or logical fallacies?

Honestly? I know I've tried to discuss something with you civilly in a thread before, but you refused completely. And I also can't believe how many logical fallacies you succeeded in including in, what, TWO SENTENCES?

Finally, this isn't a threatre the_logos. That is actually a logical fallacy in and of itself - specifically, a fallacy of definition in that it is too A theatre is irrelevant in this case. There is no equal circumstances which can be equated currently - after all, buying popcorn is not equivalent to buying, say, a better seat. You could argue that this is equivalent to offering free seats in a theatre, but the only seats worth having are the ones that are paid for. That is closer to an analogy that could be drawn. Furthermore, I believe there is a fallacy of analogy (False analogy, perhaps?), but I have forgotten that particular one. Popcorn is closest to the client, not the pay for benefits.

Now, back to the discussion. And please stop trying to derail the discussion at hand, the_logos. It's a fairly benign discussion about just what -is- free, if you'd bother to read the posts. Why do you feel so threatened about a discussion about what is/is not free?

08-23-2004, 03:47 PM	#98
Dulan Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 354	Wrong. This is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Not only is it , but it is that is invalid in this context. Furthermore, it is a blatant lie, as all Traithe did was point out the logical fallacies that I was using. I began using them as you refused to stop with the logical fallacies, and you were losing badly in the argument. Traithe stepped in and pointed out my fallacies, but did not bother to point out your own. (Which there were pages of, if memory serves.) Now, let's point out in detail just what parts of that post were logical fallacies. There's more, too. However, the_logos, I have never seen you bother to actually enter a discussion. All of your arguments consist nearly entirely of logical fallacies when you argue, and quite often all that saves you is a horde of rabid fans. Tell me, the_logos, can you honestly enter a discussion, only by yourself, against one other person, and not resort to your hordes or logical fallacies? Honestly? I know I've tried to discuss something with you civilly in a thread before, but you refused completely. And I also can't believe how many logical fallacies you succeeded in including in, what, TWO SENTENCES? Finally, this isn't a threatre the_logos. That is actually a logical fallacy in and of itself - specifically, a fallacy of definition in that it is too A theatre is irrelevant in this case. There is no equal circumstances which can be equated currently - after all, buying popcorn is not equivalent to buying, say, a better seat. You could argue that this is equivalent to offering free seats in a theatre, but the only seats worth having are the ones that are paid for. That is closer to an analogy that could be drawn. Furthermore, I believe there is a fallacy of analogy (False analogy, perhaps?), but I have forgotten that particular one. Popcorn is closest to the client, not the pay for benefits. Now, back to the discussion. And please stop trying to derail the discussion at hand, the_logos. It's a fairly benign discussion about just what -is- free, if you'd bother to read the posts. Why do you feel so threatened about a discussion about what is/is not free?