Discrimination Against Students

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

On the contrary I have a degree in Linguistics and can write Ecclesiastical Latin well enough when required.

You can also apparently write in English. That doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about when you write in English. Is this another reductio, in your view?

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You can also apparently write in English. That doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about when you write in English. Is this another reductio, in your view?

The suggestion was that I didn't know what the expression means. I did and I applied it in context as you were employing that particular logical fallacy. Close but no cigar as they say.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

The suggestion was that I didn't know what the expression means. I did and I applied it in context as you were employing that particular logical fallacy. Close but no cigar as they say.

You don't know what it means as my example was in no way a reductio. Furthermore, a reductio is not in and of itself a fallacy. But again, it wasn't one. If you think it was, maybe you'd like to explain in what way it was.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You don't know what it means as my example was in no way a reductio. Furthermore, a reductio is not in and of itself a fallacy. But again, it wasn't one. If you think it was, maybe you'd like to explain in what way it was.

I think it's obvious to posters, it was not only fallacious reasoning but a rather silly thing to say, grow up and stop writing nonsense, please.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

I think it's obvious to posters, it was not only fallacious reasoning but a rather silly thing to say, grow up and stop writing nonsense, please.

I'm afraid you're not correct about it being either fallacious or silly or nonsense (or a reductio, for that matter). It was a way of making the obvious point that the fact that a mob is arrayed against one in no way implies that the mob is right.

Again, if you think this is fallacious or silly or nonsense or a reductio, then you're going to have to have an argument to show those things, barring which please feel free to say nothing.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I'm afraid you're not correct about it being either fallacious or silly or nonsense (or a reductio, for that matter). It was a way of making the obvious point that the fact that a mob is arrayed against one in no way implies that the mob is right.

Again, if you think this is fallacious or silly or nonsense or a reductio, then you're going to have to have an argument to show those things, barring which please feel free to say nothing.

So not only have you said something idiotic and fallacious, you need me to explain to you exactly how you've been idiotic?

I honestly have better things to do with my time. Stop employing logical fallacies and you won't be called out on it in future, it's that simple.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

So not only have you said something idiotic and fallacious, you need me to explain to you exactly how you've been idiotic?

I honestly have better things to do with my time. Stop employing logical fallacies and you won't be called out on it in future, it's that simple.

You can't call someone out for a "logical fallacy" where no logical fallacy has been committed. A reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy at all. That fact alone is enough to establish that you don't know what it is. Don't believe me? Here's as good a definition as any:

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

Do you see anything about it being a fallacy there? It is a "style of reasoning." But I take it that reasoning is not really your thing.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You can't call someone out for a "logical fallacy" where no logical fallacy has been committed. A reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy at all. That fact alone is enough to establish that you don't know what it is. Don't believe me? Here's as good a definition as any:



Do you see anything about it being a fallacy there? It is a "style of reasoning." But I take it that reasoning is not really your thing.

It's one thing to be stupid Sam, it's another to expect others to explain to you why you have been stupid. Like I said, stop employing fallacies and you won't have any issues with people calling you out on it, surely that's not too difficult a concept to grasp?

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

It's one thing to be stupid Sam, it's another to expect others to explain to you why you have been stupid. Like I said, stop employing fallacies and you won't have any issues with people calling you out on it, surely that's not too difficult a concept to grasp?

Apparently, you also don't know what "stupid" means either. My definition of stupid includes insisting that something is the case (e.g., that a reductio is a fallacy] in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Apparently, you also don't know what "stupid" means either. My definition of stupid includes insisting that something is the case (e.g., that a reductio is a fallacy] in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

All you've really said is "no I'm not" - I don't have time to explain to you how you've been fallacious, work it out for yourself.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

All you've really said is "no I'm not" - I don't have time to explain to you how you've been fallacious, work it out for yourself.

No, you only have time to engage in the same infantile gainsaying ad nauseam.

Again, there is nothing fallacious about pointing out that a view endorsed by the mob is not made true simply because the mob has endorsed it. And there is nothing fallacious about giving another such example. Indeed, it's eminently reasonable. What is not reasonable, is to continue to insist that it's a fallacy and then, when called on your bull****, to adduce a "lack of time" to avoid answering the charge. Funny how you have a lot of time for tit-for-tat sniping, though.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

No, you only have time to engage in the same infantile gainsaying ad nauseam.

Again, there is nothing fallacious about pointing out that a view endorsed by the mob is not made true simply because the mob has endorsed it. And there is nothing fallacious about giving another such example. Indeed, it's eminently reasonable. What is not reasonable, is to continue to insist that it's a fallacy and then, when called on your bull****, to adduce a "lack of time" to avoid answering the charge. Funny how you have a lot of time for tit-for-tat sniping, though.

As a great man once said:

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead, it's a problem for everyone else.

It's the same when you're stupid.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

As a great man once said:

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead, it's a problem for everyone else.

It's the same when you're stupid.

Something we can agree on.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Something we can agree on.

Just tone down the fallacies in future, you'll be fine.

shruikan2553

The main issue I come across is that I want a 9 month lease. It costs to get new tenants and registering them so it makes sense to choose the person wanting to stay 12 months and then might stay even longer.

Raphael

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and lock this. Gg everyone.