No, you seem to be liberal in your position on issues. Studying logic and philosophy has nothing to do with whether you are liberal or conservative.MJDuncan1982 said:Why am I a liberal? What do you mean, because I studied logic and philosophy?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you seem to be liberal in your position on issues. Studying logic and philosophy has nothing to do with whether you are liberal or conservative.MJDuncan1982 said:Why am I a liberal? What do you mean, because I studied logic and philosophy?
Pale Rider said:There is no error in my logic. It's based solely on my reading, listening and watching the liberal media bias, and then stating what I've read, heard and seen on here. The main stream media is biased liberal. There is NO error in that statement. It's fact. You've now admitted that yourself. But that's what irritates me when you say I made the assumption that the main stream media was liberal WITHOUT FIRST KNOWING THAT, and then insist I PROVE it. THAT was a twisted line of bologna.
Now we're no longer arguing about two different things, and I'm not mad.
MJDuncan1982 said:Sounds good. I don't doubt that your belief that the media is liberal is without reason. However, the fact that a conclusion has been reached using a set of premises does not mean that that conclusion validates all premises.
MJDuncan1982 said:For starters, it's spelled 'ridiculous'. I'll assume you were attempting to emphasize the 're' syllable.
MJDuncan1982 said:And I have in no way lost my argument. YOU refuse to engage in my argument. You respond with name calling and reinforcement of a different argument to which I do not wish to engage in.
MJDuncan1982 said:Psycho babble is a new description regarding the rules of logic.
MJDuncan1982 said:And I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing (which isn't inherently bad either).
MJDuncan1982 said:WHY is it impossible for you to engage my argument that based on the rules of formal logic, you're reasoning is incorrect?
musicman said:Why on earth would you use the contraction, "you're" in this context?
MJDuncan1982 said:And I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing
MJDuncan1982 said:WHY is it impossible for you to engage my argument
MJDuncan1982 said:My intuition says that the first argument is in some sense valid and I
concede that for the sake of the second."
In any case, both arguments are inductive arguments and are not
deductively valid.
"It seems to me though that the
second is based on a conclusion which then attempts to conform the facts
to that conclusion."
What you're picking up on, I think, is the inductive nature of the
second argument. Unfortunately, nothing in your coursework on symbolic
logic can help sort out which inductive arguments are good and which aren't.
Pale Rider said:Could you come up with a better contradiction if you tried? Need more time maybe?
And below is Grade A Prime "psycho-babble"...
Your intuition or anything else other than pure and simple common sense are all that were needed here from the beginning. You KNOW the media is liberal, you KNOW they refer to *PRESIDENT* Bush as mister Bush, and that they do it as a cut, a slander, to be disrespectful, but yet you CHOOSE to take apart, dilute, spin, and psychoanalyze that simple fact until it's almost unrecognizable. Which doesn't surprize me, that's what you liberals do. The TRUTH is something that you people can rarely handle. It exposes you for the morons you are.
MJDuncan1982 said:"I KNOW the media is liberal" - I wasn't even debating this point, and again, I DON'T WANT TO. Irrelevant point to mean on this thread. ONCE AGAIN - my point was to show your logical error.
MJDuncan1982 said:"I KNOW they refer to...." - You really do believe that saying something makes it true. How on EARTH do you know why the do it? It seems some people have already shown it is a common practice in journalism. Sorry bud. But again, not what I want to talk about.
MJDuncan1982 said:An argument usually has two parts:
1. Premise(s)
2. Conclusion
Pale Rider said:1. Premise: Liberals call *PRESIDENT* Bush, mister Bush.
2. Conclusion: They do it to show disrespect, and to piss off the conservatives who voted him there.
What the fuck is sooooooooo hard to understand about that?
Think straight, and you'll get it. Forget all that gobbledee gook your puking, and think. You can do it. The logic is without "FLAW".
MJDuncan1982 said:That is not a logical argument. I am beginning to assume you have little knowledge of Logic. How does your premise lead to your conclusion? Your full argument should look like this:
1. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush.
2. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect.
Therefore, When liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush, it is a sign of disrespect.
That would be a 'valid' argument and if you believe the first two premises, you must believe the conclusion, however..
The flaw in the logic is the circularity. You claim that the media is liberal. Anything that is liberal is disrespectful to a conservative President. Then you claim that because they are liberal, they do not refer to President Bush as President. Finally, you conclude that they do this out of disrespect. Thus YOUR argument is like this:
1. Liberals disrespect President Bush
2. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush
3. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect
Therefore, those that disrespect President Bush call President Bush simply Mr. Bush and to call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is disrespectful. So...those that disrespect President Bush are disrespectful.
Circular and logically erroneous.
MJDuncan1982 said:1. Liberals disrespect President Bush
2. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush
3. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect
Therefore, those that disrespect President Bush call President Bush simply Mr. Bush and to call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is disrespectful. So...those that disrespect President Bush are disrespectful.
Circular and logically erroneous.