New (old school) opinion

[Yukface]

Originally Posted by mr.miketastic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In a way, I was pointing out the comical transparency of the the "logic" being utilized to "deceive" the intended audience. Forgive my inarticulateness and brevity in trying to jape and jest in this otherwise worthless thread.

I cant believe some of you guys allow this goon to speak, let alone defend him.

[Ihealyou]

Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ad hom

You cannot prove that I am not better than Yukface, therefore I must be better than him.

[mr.miketastic]

Originally Posted by Ihealyou [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You cannot prove that I am not better than Yukface, therefore I must be better than him.

Point taken. The lack of negative proof, though, is not always a means of validation.

[mr.miketastic]

But I was going to say... He keeps making your point on every post [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ihealyou]

Originally Posted by mr.miketastic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Point taken. The lack of negative proof, though, is not always a means of validation.

Thats usually true, but I'm a special case.

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by mr.miketastic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Point taken. The lack of negative proof, though, is not always a means of validation.

yes, for the sake of brevity philosophers and debaters call this 'hasty generalization'

[Ihealyou]

You missed my negative proof fallacy, and a no true scottsman.

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by Ihealyou [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You missed my negative proof fallacy, and a no true scottsman.

true scotsman and equivocation can be equivocated without making an equivocation.

[mr.miketastic]

Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yes, for the sake of brevity philosophers and debaters call this 'hasty generalization'

It's too bad he couldn't have included some statistics.

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by mr.miketastic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's too bad he couldn't have included some statistics.

we don't need statistics here - just good, sound logic.

TBH i just was bored of this thread and thought I found a good opportunity to hijack it.