|
|
|
|
#1
06-06-2013, 12:11 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2] Straw man A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#2
06-06-2013, 12:18 AM
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| |||||
|
|
||||||
|
#3
06-06-2013, 12:19 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#4
06-06-2013, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
I love it when people argue opinions. It's like you realize even your scientific facts are opinions. The beauty of science is it always has room for error. Then again if your somoene who doesn't accept it. It is considered inaccurate anyway. So the reality is you will never reach a common ground with the entire world on something. Even if you did there would be to many variables. There for this argument amongst you chaps is nothing ,but a halarious display of children sucking eachother off
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#6
06-05-2013, 11:01 PM
|
|||
|
how does one know that reason, has a design flaw, namely, it cannot reckon absolute origins or ends of any kind whatsoever?
That's some fine antinomy work there Joe.
__________________
go go go
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#7
06-05-2013, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
you could always turn up the clip plane, but still. We just cannot reason absolute orgins and ends. They do not make sense to how our minds work. Granted, a deep question, either regarding the absolute origin or the absolute end, of time, which means, existence.
Can you imagine a time in which nothing exists? In what and in relation to what would time then exist? Can you imagine an entity that was not caused by something prior to it? If not, how do you stop the infinite causal regress? Can you imagine an eventual entity that has no effect? If not, how can you imagine the end of existence? We can do this all day, you know. That is why they are called antinomies. Trust me: a chick sees you know what an antinomy is, bam, sex.
__________________
go go go
| ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
