cause and effect

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it

---

Elsewhere, one of the more prolific posters on this forum has taken a stand, though you fail to realize it. The problem is that you do not like tht stand, as it screws up your preformatted argument as outlined by you later in the thread.

quote:

---

1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)... the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value

---

I'm sorry, conditions for validity have nothing to do with its truth value?

quote:

---

only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe...

---

Actually, not vague at all, though perhaps over your head.

quote:

---

but at the moment i'm only interested in the premise itself, not how it pertains to some subject that, if affirmed, would lead one into a trap of her own devising...

---

hmmmm..... Let's see. Do parallel lines converge? Its a simple question. A yes or no will suffice, and then we can move on. I'm only interested in the truth value of the statement, not in how it applies to this or that. Please don't introduce extraneous comments. Focus only on the premise itself. Take a stand. Show some backbone! Which is it? Yes? Or no?

quote:

---

is the first premise so intuitively true that to deny it would be to deny all inductive reasoning based on a person's experience?

---

Well, you have mixed intuition with inductive reasoning. Which is it? Intuitively true or is it a conclusion based on a person's experience and inductive reasoning? You see, 'intuitive truth' is normally synonymous with a priori and is typically invoked when one has nothing else upon which to stand.

quote:

---

is it a metaphysical truth that seems prima facie reasonable?

---

hmmm... prima facie? That means 'at first look' does it not? AKA... superficially! That's funny. Who cares what its superficial appearance is? Oh, sorry, I guess you do. We butt heads because you refuse to go beneath the surface.

quote:

---

is it in fact true that ex nihilo nil, or is it instead true that from nothing, nothing comes?

---

Want I should flip a coin? Perhaps that will make more of an impression than the answers to this question you've been given repeatedly.

quote:

---

a) itself,
b) someone(thing) else or,
c) nothing

---

Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.

quote:

---

self-causation being impossible

---

Well that's begging the question isn't it?

quote:

---

if that were true, the cause of anything existing would rest in its very potential to exist...

---

Well that's begging the question isn't it?

quote:

---

that leaves b), but if *that's* the case: that which begins to exist has a cause

---

Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.

quote:

---

this simple syllogism can even lead into other subjects, such as does an actual infinite exist?

---

How about just answering my question about parallel lines? Enquiring minds want to know.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B]I'm sorry, conditions for validity have nothing to do with its truth value?[/quote]no need to apologize... of course not, john... [/b][/quote]LOL......

quote:

---

some things are way over my head, but thus far nothing you've posted has reached that elevation...

---

You haven't even understood what I've posted.

quote:

---

hmmmm..... Let's see. Do parallel lines converge? Its a simple question. A yes or no will suffice, and then we can move on. I'm only interested in the truth value of the statement, not in how it applies to this or that. Please don't introduce extraneous comments. Focus only on the premise itself. Take a stand. Show some backbone! Which is it? Yes? Or no?

---

quote:

---

the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it...

---

What is your hang-up with syllogisms? Just finish a freshma Phil. class and think you've picked up some deep insight into logic?

quote:

---

a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion...

---

umm... it is a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?

quote:

---

but it is interesting that you demand an answer to something when you yourself seem sadly lacking in the ability or willingness to do the same...

---

What are you afraid of? Can't take a stand? Not willing to commit to an answer? It isn't a hard question. Do parallel lines converge?

quote:

---

from whence comes inductive reasoning, john?

---

hmmm... gee, from experience essentially. Now what does this have to do with intuition?

quote:

---

on it's face, on the face of it, meaning obvious...

---

Obvious, of course, meaning true? You have got to be joking. What is obvious is that you will not answer a simple question about parallel lines. Instead of anwering this VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, you bring in extraneous stuff about syllogisms, and minor premises and conclusions. It is a simple question. I didn't bring up anything about arguments, logic... I asked a simple question. Do parallel lines converge?

quote:

---

LOL... finally i think you may have given a little more than seems wise...

---

Actually, I think you are finally getting the point.

quote:

---

so for those of us interested, why not form an argument that shows an effect (any effect) that has no cause... we'll see how it turns out

---

LOL.....You can bitch and cry and moan about logic and syllogisms until your fingers bleed, the fact remains that there are conditions under which causality as we know it DOES NOT APPLY. Those conditions exist at the singularity at the center of black holes and, of course, at the singularity of the BB. The BB singularity is the one of particular importance to the origin of the universe.And lets not forget quantum physics, which make a mess of causality in its own right.

quote:

---

as i said, put it into a logical format and we'll see what we have...

---

Logical format????? DO PARALLEL LINES CONVERGE? It is a simple question. What format do you want? You seem to be unable to take a stand. Why is it so hard? All I want is a yes or a no? Which is it? Do parallel lines converge?

quote:

---

once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied...

---

You've got to be joking?

quote:

---

check again the first post in this thread... see if you can use reason to refute either premise... else leave it to someone else

---

LOL....Funny thing is that I haven't made up anything I've posted to you. This stuff was all worked out by the best and brightest in physics and cosmology. In essense, I am just the messenger.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

ah.... yet another post full of you not getting it.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
at least this is an attempt to stay on the topic of the thread, and as such is a welcome addition... i'll attempt to address each "point"

---

You arrogance is really getting on my nerves. Everything I have posted to you has been directly related to the topic of the thread.

quote:

---

but to avoid his having to make the nonsensical argument

---

You seem to be of the opinion that you are the only one here with a grasp of logic. That is far from the truth, though you stubbornly refuse to see it.

quote:

---

i'll even switch the premises around if it makes it easier for him to understand..

---

arrogant arrogant arrogant...

quote:

---

(i) i began to exist
(ii) anything that begins to exist has a cause
therefore, i have a cause

---

Funny, you've moved the premises but have the problem. The problem is with the phrasing "that begins to exist"

quote:

---

yes, one might say that... one might say anything one wants, people do that all the time, but redefining the terms at ones whim doesn't lend itself to rational discourse

---

No. Obviously we should all accept the terms as you define them. Again, are you serious?

quote:

---

... as for his question regarding God, the answer is no... christianity (at least no sect of which i'm aware) doesn't say that God began to exist, so he's raised a rather flimsy straw man here (more of these follow)...

---

Wow... you missed that one as well. Mister P was addressing your phrasing of the premise. You choose "that which begins to exist" rather than "that which exists" specifically, as I suspect as well, to avoid this problem.Skipping the logic lesson....

quote:

---

this one is hard to follow..

---

LOL......

quote:

---

the objection appears to be that you casual readers are being hoodwinked by allowing me to form an argument of my choosing, rather than one of pamboli's choosing...

---

He suspects that you formulated the argument to avoid a very prickly problem involving the existence of God. Yes, you can formulate any argument you wish. BUT WE CAN CRITICISE THE PREMISES. You seem to be missing that part. Did they not teach you that in Logic 101?

quote:

---

whether or not all things which begin to exist do so in the same manner is irrelevant...

---

Hardly. If things begin to exist in different manners it means that your argument suffers from oversimplification.

quote:

---

any objection to an argument that has nothing to do with the terms of the argument is the straw man fallacy...

---

You so very over-rate your grasp of logic.

quote:

---

as for premise the first begging the question, that's the very question we're examining...

---

uh-huh....?

quote:

---

if pamboli thinks it begs the question, one would suppose he disagrees with the premise... in that case, all he should do in this thread is attempt to show us all (even you casual readers) why the premise is false... then maybe we can get somewhere...

---

It isn't so much false as it is an overgeneralization. In other words, you can't know that it is true.Lets talk about deductive logic for a second. It seems to be an obsession of yours. Deductive logic is all subtractive. That is you derive a subset of a whole. This works just fine when you can actually observe the whole--- for example, all the marbles on the table. When you get to set which you cannot observe, you find that you must over-generalize. Logically, you crash and burn right there. Unless you can demonstrate that you have in fact observed every single case of things-coming-into-being and can therefore claim the truth of your first premise.

quote:

---

instead of making blanket statements with nothing to back them up

---

That is rich... you mean blanket statements like 'all things which come to exist have a cause'?

quote:

---

"you left off self-causation, your reasoning is flawed!!!!"

---

This is the least of your problems actually.

quote:

---

sigh... i won't get into ad hominem grappling...

---

Self-reflection is a virtue you appear to lack.

quote:

---

besides, i don't know the discipline from which pamboli gets his expertise, it isn't readily evident from this post...

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

language is important, the words we use are important...

---

Yes, because it can lead to great confusion, as in your case.

quote:

---

whether or not the implication is temporal, we're left with the premise itself..

---

NO WE ARE NOT. The premise does not exist as some kind or platonic form. You are claiming that the premise is primary. We are claiming that it isn't, that it implies, requires and assumes other premises.

quote:

---

to time and the universe

---

Sorry, but we have. You introduce both in your first premise, though you do not realize it.

quote:

---

please note, casual reader, pamboli wants to "get back" to temporal terms, even tho such terms are of his devising...

---

Such terms as you are desperately trying to keep out of the debate as they break your preformatted argument.

quote:

---

things that come into existence

---

Do you really maintain that such a statement does NOT imply time?

quote:

---

now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence?

---

This is a logic game. Do you consider "potential existence" to be some form of real thing? If so, you are contradicting yourself. If "potential existence" is some form of real thing, then it can be the source of a things comng into being.

quote:

---

space/time didn't exist and since they didn't exist they had no potential to exist"... this assertion needs something more, methinks... if a thing has no potential to exist (NO potential), it wouldn't exist... yet, it does exist

---

You are treating potential existence as if it were some form of real thing. Make up your mind(s).

quote:

---

sprinkled thruout you'll see pamboli use phrases such as "I suspect not."

---

Pot calling the kettle black...------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
umm.. i'll say, given perfect measuring devices

---

You can't add conditions. I said nothing about the state of measuring devises.

quote:

---

no... how's that?

---

How's that? It is wrong. You assume a Euclidean geometry, which I did not specify. There are non-euclidean geometries within which parallel lines do converge and others wherein such lines diverge.Now, if you had answered "yes" you would have been wrong as well. Parallel lines do not converge within a Euclidean geometric system. The answer depends upon unstated conditions.This is the position you have been attempting to force me into. You have been insisting that I give you a 'straight' answer but the answer depends upon unstated conditions. Your 'straight' answer is wrong no matter how you answer, unless you specify the conditions, and this you have not allowed me. When I have tried to specify those conditions, you have accused me of not answering the question and, in fact, have been quite abrasive about it.

quote:

---

so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate on my premises?

---

I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

then perhaps your question is at fault... you simply asked, i simply answered... if you want a simple answer to a question that depends on conditions stated or unstated, say so

---

Well, what do you know?This is what I and others have been telling you all along about YOUR question. Do you now acknowledge that? Nope.You want a simple answer to a question that depends upon conditions not stated yet refuse to state the conditions or allow anyone else to state those condition. Really, it is the height of absurdity. Yet, I'm sure you will continue. [quote][b]i take issue with this... [quote][b]Thought you might.

quote:

---

i haven't attempted to force you into any position at all...

---

Any honest person reading the thread will know that is not true.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
but it's said in such a way as to imply that arrogance in and of itself is only unacceptable if it gets on john's nerves

---

hmmm....

quote:

---

john uses his intuition to state my opinion on a subject, but i've neither stated nor implied that to which he refers... another assertion base entirely upon his opinion...

---

Couldn't have said it better myself. So just change the the first word to 'forgiven'.

quote:

---

john uses his intuition to state my opinion on a subject

---

Actually, this would be my stating the impression I get from your behavior. This is not the same thing as stating your opinion for you. Remember, words are important.

quote:

---

the phrase to which john objects is "that which begins to exist"...

---

Actually, just clarifying what MisterP said.

quote:

---

john could take the subject of the first premise, the subject of the second premise, and the middle term of each and assign his own definitions.. that seems to be fair, who could possibly object?

---

Apparently, you object, since this is precisely what I have been doing since the beginning.

quote:

---

here john 'suspects' or opines a motive with, again, only his opinion to back it up...

---

Wow, that is a damning insight since it is precisely what I said.

quote:

---

the premises i put forth happen to be the ones i chose, that's true.. perhaps in the future, before beginning a thread on any subject, i should ask john to phrase my premises for me

---

You may phrase your premises any way you like. I never said otherwise. HOWEVER, we get to criticise those premises. You seem to have a serious problem with this. Tough.

quote:

---

obviously

---

... coming from someone who has managed to miss the last hundred years of physics and cosmology and the last 2.5 thousand years of logic and metaphysics, this is very painful.

quote:

---

i almost didn't include this in john's long list of ad hominem remarks

---

I appreciate the inclusion.

quote:

---

john again speaks for pamboli

---

Actually, just restated. The point was hard to miss, though you managed. If I am off base, MrP will correct me.

quote:

---

of course premises can be criticized

---

Then what, exactly, is your problem?

quote:

---

one instead needs to put forth valid arguments as to the truth value of the premises as a whole or the terms of each...

---

This has been done numerous times. Remember that stuff about the conditions of causality, and the universe, and time? All the stuff that you discount as not being relevant?

quote:

---

here john almost got there... the argument is sound and valid... he states that i can't "know" the premise is true... inductively and intuitively it is true..

---

I'm sorry, what? I have to prove your unsupported statement wrong? That is laughable.

quote:

---

if he wishes to show it isn't, the path is clear.. simply form an argument for something that began to exist and show how it is uncaused..

---

Wow. We are right back to where this all began, yet again. To do this I must assume causality. To build an argument involving causality-- to build an argument AT ALL, I must assume causality. THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE.

quote:

---

and here john appears to be saying that most, if not all, categorical syllogisms have crashed and burned...

---

I hate to break it to you....This isn't news to logicians. It is old information actually.

quote:

---

by this logic, some of the greatest thinkers of all time have wasted many years of their lives...

---

That is a distinct possiblity. Every system rests ultimately upon unproveable assumptions.

quote:

---

note also that i'm perfectly willing to expand on the premises set forth, yet john has to be willing to expand on his arguments also...

---

Been trying.... been trying really really hard...... but everything I say is judged slipperly sidestepping.

quote:

---

having refused the offer of a formal (moderated, hopefully) debate, that isn't likely to happen

---

Did I refuse this? [quote][b]here john nearly states my premise... if he wishes to challenge it all he need do is set forth an argument utilizing something that began to exist and show the validity of it not having a cause... that would be the logical way to continueStill not getting it.

quote:

---

even when commenting on my supposed ad hominems he can't refrain from lauching yet another of his own...

---

Yep... I figure if i make you mad enough the steam might soften that hard head.

quote:

---

i don't recall having personally attacked anyone, but if i have i sincerely apologize.. perhaps john can help refresh my memory

---

Try re-reading every post to me after about the third one, and lets not leave out the other participants who've now left the debate.

quote:

---

then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed

---

When everything not to your liking is written off as not on topic, slippery, and irrelevant, this is not possible. I have addressed your premise.

quote:

---

john asserts that i did something and didn't realize i did it...

---

I am asserting that your premise implies time and space. This is a valid comment.

quote:

---

perhaps he's reading into it something that he wants to be there and is intent upon seeing it there even tho it isn't?

---

Subtract time, and what do you have of causality? Subtract space?

quote:

---

and here we finally arrive at the admission against which he's argued from the start.. one can't have it both ways.. if i'm "desparately" trying to keep terms out of the argument, is it possible they aren't there?

---

Yes, that follows....

quote:

---

yet just above he says they *are* there, that i introduced them (albeit unknowingly)

---

Gee.... it happens. In fact, it is favorite pastime of philosophers.

quote:

---

by the mere fact of starting this thread.. questions of temporality can be addressed in their proper time (a little pun)...

---

You first premise implies temporality. Causality requires it. Right from the get-go is the proper time.

quote:

---

yet another bald assertion by john...

---

Note: questions are not assertions.

quote:

---

here he equates the potentiality of a thing that doesn't exist (hasn't begun to exist) with something that did begin to exist..

---

Why are we talking about me in the third person?And actually, it appears to me to be you who is making this equivalency. Notice the question marks in my paragraph? In English, those imply that the statement is a question. You see, here I was asking for clarification of your position. I guess that is too much to ask.

quote:

---

his use of the word "source" is confusing..

---

Well... hmmm... you seem to have gotten it. Must not be that confusing. But again, you are confusing my asking for clarification with my stating my opinion/belief. You see, this is part of that whole debate process, where you say something then I think about it and reply with my thoughts on the matter. In this case, I responded with what seems to me to be the implications of some of your statements. Now would be your turn to respond to my response.

quote:

---

if by it he means "cause," his statement would read, "that which has the potential to exist is the cause of things that begin to exist"... this seems absurd, but maybe he can offer an argument for it

---

See this:

quote:

---

now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence?

---

If potential is treated as some sort of real thing, this becomes a distinct possibility. If it isn't some sort of real thing, I fail to see the point. Its just a word game.

quote:

---

this is simply mind-boggling... john appears to be saying (as way of example), "the transporter in star trek can potentially exist, however since it has this potential it already exists"... if this isn't what he's saying, maybe he can clarify it

---

Notice that it all hinges upon your answer to the question posed. Still looking for clarification here.

quote:

---

ahhh the old pot and kettle fallacy... well worded, yes, and adds much to the discussion

---

Fallacy? For it to be fallacious it must first be an argument. This would instead be an accusation.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
if you have any, post them...

​

Well... it starts here, post #27:

​

quote:

---

sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest...

---

​

And graduates quickly to this in post #29:

​

quote:

---

yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest... what i don't seem to realize is why you appear to fear answering the question, given the number of times it's been asked and the number of opportunities you've had to answer it

---

​

Then on to post #38 where we find this:

​

quote:

---

now then, forget the universe for a moment, concentrate on that argument.. is it valid? yes, of course it is... do you agree with the premises? why not just say yay or nay, john?

---

​

and this:

​

quote:

---

sigh... i guess i should have added the words "in a valid argument," but i assumed that was understood

---

​

And this:

​

quote:

---

john, the conditions of causality have nothing whatsoever to do with the syllogism nor your refusal to answer... for some reason you seem to think there's a trick here when there isn't... but i can't make you answer...

​

all i've done is use accepted standards of logic to ask a very basic question, and your refusal should give pause to most thinking people, should make them wonder why you're so intent on dodging the issue

---

​

Then there is #44 where we find this:

​

quote:

---

what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?

---

​

Then post #1 of this thread:

​

quote:

---

it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it

---

​

quote:

---

1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)...

---

​

quote:

---

the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value, only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe..

---

​

Post #3 of this thread:

​

quote:

---

the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it... a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion...

---

​

quote:

---

once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied...

---

​

Post #7:

​

quote:

---

i haven't attacked you personally, i believe it harms both the discussion and the one doing the attacking... please make an attempt in the future to address the subject and not make uncalled for personal remarks

---

​

Ok. This was just funny, in context.

​

Post #10, this thread:

​

quote:

---

john, in this post and the one i'll address next, goes to great lengths criticizing the reasoning i use, yet time after time he makes bald assertions such as "it is wrong" without proofs...

---

​

And here:

​

quote:

---

i take issue with this.. any honest person reading your posts will notice the numerous times you resort to ad hominems, name-calling, and character judgements, yet you call me abrasive...

---

​

quote:

---

i started a brand new thread in the hopes of getting someone to keep to that subject...

---

​

Post #12:

​

quote:

---

yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on

---

​

quote:

---

then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed

---

​

i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...

​

when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse... and it also shows why the following is true

​

quote:

---

forgiven: having refused the offer of a formal (moderated, hopefully) debate, that isn't likely to happen

---

​

quote:

---

John:
Did I refuse this?

---

​

quote:

---

forgiven:
so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate of my premises?

---

​

quote:

---

John:
I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible.

---

​

is that a refusal?

​

in a formal debate, with rules and moderators, logical fallacies will be brought out by an objective third party... ad hominems are weapons you seem to be fond of, so it comes as no surprise that you'd refuse...

​

there seems no use in continuing a discussion in which i'm subject to name calling and in which the barest modicum of courtesy is shown to ones opponent...

---

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B]if you have any, post them...Well... it starts here, post #27:

quote:

---

sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest...

---

Mild, yes, but what you refuse to realize is that I have answered you in dead earnest, especially in the beginning. You don't like that answer. Tough. It was in dead earnest. This kind of dismissive response is really quite irritating.And graduates quickly to this in post #29:

quote:

---

yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest... what i don't seem to realize is why you appear to fear answering the question, given the number of times it's been asked and the number of opportunities you've had to answer it

---

Nope. Not a non-reply. The best reply I've got. And what is this about fear? Quite a skillful attempt to discredit me. This, and all I have done thus far is try to answer your question.Then on to post #38 where we find this:

quote:

---

now then, forget the universe for a moment, concentrate on that argument.. is it valid? yes, of course it is... do you agree with the premises? why not just say yay or nay, john?

---

More of that bully-debate tactic you are so fond of using. Topped off with the suggestion of spinelessness.and this:

quote:

---

sigh... i guess i should have added the words "in a valid argument," but i assumed that was understood

---

Subtle jab at my ability to comprehend the argument, and essentially a brush off of my post.Yes, this gets old very quickly.And this:

quote:

---

john, the conditions of causality have nothing whatsoever to do with the syllogism nor your refusal to answer... for some reason you seem to think there's a trick here when there isn't... but i can't make you answer...

---

This is a restatement of your premises after I have made a criticism of those premises. In effect, you are ignoring what I have said. Notice, how you have yet to actually respond to any comment I have made. Everything you've said thus far is a string of statements about what you think is valid and appropriate. Bully debate tactics again.

quote:

---

all i've done is use accepted standards of logic to ask a very basic question, and your refusal should give pause to most thinking people, should make them wonder why you're so intent on dodging the issue

---

Here we have the suggestion that I neglect 'accepted standards of logic' then the accusation that I am dodging the issue.Then there is #44 where we find this:

quote:

---

what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?

---

More jabbing me for what you think is avoiding the issue. When, and I repeat-- please pay attention-- I HAVE RESPONDED TO YOU HONESTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH.Then post #1 of this thread:

quote:

---

it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it

---

More of the same....

quote:

---

1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)...

---

Ouch....! Need I explain this?

quote:

---

the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value, only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe..

---

My remarks are vague and apparently meaningless... and of course you still haven't addressed any of them.Post #3 of this thread:

quote:

---

the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it... a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion...

---

Now how does this apply to the question I asked? This was about parallel lines remember? What form of syllogism do you propose would be a valid way to ASK A QUESTION? Can't think of one. Looks like just another chance to imply that I am not logical.

quote:

---

once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied...

---

Here we go again... more accusations that I do not respond to you. I do.Post #7:

quote:

---

i haven't attacked you personally, i believe it harms both the discussion and the one doing the attacking... please make an attempt in the future to address the subject and not make uncalled for personal remarks

---

Ok. This was just funny, in context. Nice attempt to dress yourself up and dress me down.Post #10, this thread:

quote:

---

john, in this post and the one i'll address next, goes to great lengths criticizing the reasoning i use, yet time after time he makes bald assertions such as "it is wrong" without proofs...

---

This, dear forgiven, is simple deceitful. I stated that you were wrong and told you why.

quote:

---

John:It is wrong. You assume a Euclidean geometry, which I did not specify. There are non-euclidean geometries within which parallel lines do converge and others wherein such lines diverge.

---

And here:

quote:

---

i take issue with this.. any honest person reading your posts will notice the numerous times you resort to ad hominems, name-calling, and character judgements, yet you call me abrasive...

---

Well, any HONEST person would I suppose....Again, you brush off the point made in the paragraph. The paragraph was an attempt to explain to you why I answer the way I do. Another good faith effort; another brush off and another jab.

quote:

---

i started a brand new thread in the hopes of getting someone to keep to that subject...

---

Need I repeat... I have answered you in dead earnest.Post #12:

quote:

---

yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on

---

Not rely upon... deploy when my serious responses are brushed away like dirt. Imagine that?

quote:

---

then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed

---

Funny, since you have brushed away all of my efforts to do this. Mostly without a response beyond "You can't do that!!!!!"quotejohn again speaks for pamboli][/quote]Is it improper to build upon what someone else has said? I see no point to this statement, which you made a few time, other than to discredit me.And right below it: [quote][b]one instead needs to put forth valid arguments as to the truth value of the premises as a whole or the terms of each.../b][/quote]Indicative that you haven't paid attention to anything I have said to you.

quote:

---

simply form an argument for something that began to exist and show how it is uncaused.. it isn't enough merely to assert that a thing is false, build a case for its falsity

---

More logic lessons. Irritating because it positions you as 'teacher'. Bully debate tactic.

quote:

---

yet another bald assertion by john.

---

And this is deceptive. The "bald assertion" was part of a request that you clarify your position.

quote:

---

you can't make me mad, but you can and have shown others the caliber of your arguments

---

Right-o. And you have responded to not a one of them, but brush everything off as not being relevant. The caliber of my arguments is just fine, thanks. The caliber of my ad hominem attacks ain't bad either, but the two are not the same.Of course, I am leaving out the countless logic lessons. All of which paint you as teacher.

quote:

---

i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...

---

This statement is simply amazing to me. Unaware? Really? At least I am aware when I impune your character and intelligence. I wish you'd show the same consideration.

quote:

---

when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse...

---

hmmm... the same immaturity is demonstrated when one refuses to acknowledge another's honest answers.

quote:

---

is that a refusal?

---

Didn't know I had an offer to refuse.

quote:

---

ad hominems are weapons you seem to be fond of, so it comes as no surprise that you'd refuse...

---

Lets see.... what was that again.....?

quote:

---

when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse...

---

quote:

---

there seems no use in continuing a discussion in which i'm subject to name calling and in which the barest modicum of courtesy is shown to ones opponent...

---

Likewise there seems no point in continuing a discussion in which I am allowed to say not one damn thing with having my opponent-- and apparently judge, jury and executioner of the laws of logic and debate-- brush it off as an evasive tactic.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation...

---

quote:

---

if you have any, post them... i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...

---

So much for standing by your word, but I figured as much. Do you think that if you choose you words carefully you can remain squeaky clean? Apparently, it seem to be the method.You've been unable to see your own blatant crap thus far, why should that change?

quote:

---

i posted the definition of ad hominem earlier, i honestly don't see that any of the remarks in your post fall in that category...

---

Didn't actually say they did. Nor, in fact, did you require it. What you will see is a lot of misrepresentation, a lot of avoidance, some red-herrings, and a whole lot of hard-headedness. (you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation...) Most of it is the bully debate tactics, where you refuse to admit anything not in your plan. Though I don't think you realize it, this is not good debate.

quote:

---

but if you think i was casting aspersions on either your character or your intelligence, then i sincerely apologize

---

After the disclaimer, I am not impressed.Oh, I really don't see what I may have said to offend you, but I am sincerely sorry.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-17-2002][This message has been edited by John, 11-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i chose (usually) my words carefully to avoid ambiguity and to make sure i didn't commit the fallacies you are fond of...

---

This is very interesting. Now remember, you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation. That said, you have been given a list of fallacious and deceptive practices which you are fond of committing, yet deny them. Wording hardly excuses you. Surely these is every bit the crimes as are mine?

quote:

---

i take exception to your "blatant crap" remark.. my crap is *not* blatant

---

Then it is simply crap. You do try to hide your own faults. Remember, mind you, you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation.

quote:

---

well, i accused you

---

Wait a minute.... you accused?

quote:

---

of ad hominems, you made a statement that i'd done the same to you..

---

And herein lies much trouble, you do assume a great deal and then defend yourself by appealing to your own assumptions. (You might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation.) What you actually said was that if I had evidence -- ie posts-- demonstrating that you have impuned my character, then please post them. I did. You did not require that anything meet the deinition of an ad hominem attack. (By the way, much of what you call an ad hominem fallacy, isn't. To be a fallacy, it has to be within an argument. Otherwise, it is just a insult.)

quote:

---

you'll have to forgive me for assuming you were speaking of the same thing i was, i'm used to people keeping discussions in context

---

Gee whiz, is that another effort to impune my character? Really, for all your whining, you launch these things with frightening regularity.

quote:

---

as for "good" debate vs. bad, are you sure you're qualified to comment on that? does "good" debate include the type of postings you make?

---

What do ya know? Yet another assault. And all I said was that your debate tactics are poor. Rather than address the issue, you criticise the man. Hang on, isn't that an ad hominem?Let's review one thing here, and that is this:

quote:

---

quoteriginally posted by John:
ah.... yet another post full of you not getting it.....

​

yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on

---

What I notice is that you quite obviously object the comment I made about you not getting it. What I also notice is that you class this as an [/i]ad hominem[/i] fallacy. Now, if one were to review post #16 of this thread, it is quite apparent that your initial responses to me are the functional equivalent of this ad hominem attack. Your wording is different, but the meaning is the same. I see no effort to address what I said, which would have been greatly appreciated being as it is that I am here to learn something. What I see is you telling me that I am not getting it. This, by your own standards, is an ad hominem attack. Surely, you can see this?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i see the same things others see... any mention i've made of a formal debate, complete with rules and moderators, has been brushed aside...

---

Are you serious? This is a response to my post? The post where I demonstrate that you blatantly disregard your own rules of conduct? This is sticking to the topic? This is not changing the subject? This is answering a direct question? This is not yet another ad hominem? This is not misdirection? This is not avoidance? This is not forgiven speaking for "others"? This is not similar to John speaking for Mr.P. for which I was criticised? This in not a non-answer, like those of which you are fond of accusing me? Do your rules not apply to you?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
admittedly in an oblique and mildly abrasive fashion

---

Well, you're not getting your bribe this week ------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com