• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the last line of each triplet is supposed to be a conclusion, but he didn't make it explicit.
Yeah, he would have had to put the word "therefore" or some other synonym in the third line. If only someone had explained the English language to him...

denying the consequent
Affirming the consequent
 
Yeah, he would have had to put the word "therefore" or some other synonym in the third line. If only someone had explained the English language to him...

Affirming the consequent

Belly laugh, the format of the syllogism renders that not only unnecessary but indeed redundant.

Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion.

In any event, what a spectacularly minor and pedantic quibble. Cool try at a gotcha, tho!
 
Trump Tweets

The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see. When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!
 
Yeah, he would have had to put the word "therefore" or some other synonym in the third line. If only someone had explained the English language to him...

Affirming the consequent

Yes, affirming, of course. Thanks for the correction of my brain fart.

I still intend to count off any of my students who make that mistake on Tuesday's exam, mind you.
 
Trump Tweets

The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see. When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!
(my hilight)

Is he laying the groundwork for disputing the results of the 2020 election?
 
Belly laugh, the format of the syllogism renders that not only unnecessary but indeed redundant.

Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion.

In any event, what a spectacularly minor and pedantic quibble. Cool try at a gotcha, tho!

If you're gonna play the game, play it right.
 
I'm not even sure of the reason for the questioning in the first place. Although I'm glad they did it.



I noticed that, too. If the meeting actually does take place, I'm sure The PDJT will have a good time. I think he's going to be actually shocked when he returns at how far it's fallen apart.

Dunno. He would be in a position to seek asylum if it all went wahoonie shaped back home....
 
Belly laugh, the format of the syllogism renders that not only unnecessary but indeed redundant.

Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion.

In any event, what a spectacularly minor and pedantic quibble. Cool try at a gotcha, tho!

That's the Magic Bean fallacy.
 
That would require him to do more than look up the structure on Wikipedia.

would that our hero had done so before complaining that I did not write the word "therefore" in the syllogism.

Say, here is a spectacularly specious objection about not putting "therefore" in it, one that doubt shows has been decimated by wikipedia.

Great point!
 
Last edited:
Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Rep. Jim Jordan
‏Verified account

@AdamSchiff:- Meets with Glenn Simpson, who hired Nellie Ohr and Chris Steele and paid for the Dossier- Doesn’t disclose the meeting- Says there’s nothing wrong
REMEMBER: Schiff demanded that Nunes be investigated for meeting with administration officials.

Double standard?


Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Judicial Watch
‏Verified account

JW released State Dept docs showing the Clinton-linked Podesta Group run by Tony Podesta (the brother of John Podesta who was a WH Counselor & then was Clinton's 2016 campaign chair) worked for a pro-Russian Ukrainian political group ("Party of Regions").


Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Dan Bongino
‏Verified account

The corrupt spying operation against Donald Trump’s team is the biggest scandal in political history. Read my new book for the shocking details about the scheme to take down Trump.
 
Last edited:
I think the last line of each triplet is supposed to be a conclusion, but he didn't make it explicit. Let me write it as many logic texts do:

Attorneys general can order investigations
Bob ordered an investigation
So, Bob is the attorney general.

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
So, Whitaker can order an investigation

<snip>



Rule OF So!!! Rule Of So!!!

(There were two of them, so I had to say it twice. :p)
 
Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Dan Bongino
‏Verified account

The corrupt spying operation against Donald Trump’s team is the biggest scandal in political history. Read my new book for the shocking details about the scheme to take down Trump.

I looked up Bongino and found this: NRATV Host Says ‘My Life Is All About Owning The Libs Now’

Peyser said the phrase “own the libs” came about in 2015 when someone “tweeted at Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, attaching a photo of himself lying face down in a dumpster.” User @randygdub then tweeted, “Thinkin about the one guy who laid down in a dumpster to own libs online and hoping ted cruz does it too.”

Lying in a dumpster to "own the libs" is why it became a meme for doing stupid **** like burning your $200 sneakers, but trumpers seem to love it.
 
Rule OF So!!! Rule Of So!!!

(There were two of them, so I had to say it twice. :p)

It wasn't an accident. I was hoping that someone might learn what "so" means and that one doesn't use it to mean "in other words" but "in conclusion".

Of course, I don't expect it to take, any more than the more explicit point about equivocation took.
 
It wasn't an accident. I was hoping that someone might learn what "so" means and that one doesn't use it to mean "in other words" but "in conclusion".

Of course, I don't expect it to take, any more than the more explicit point about equivocation took.

Those are not examples of the Rule of So, and your "point" about "equivocation" was laughably wrong.

/quick reminder: the rule of so states that where a post starts with the word so and purports to characterize another person's argument, the sentence invariably contains a strawman.
 
Those are not examples of the Rule of So, and your "point" about "equivocation" was laughably wrong.

/quick reminder: the rule of so states that where a post starts with the word so and purports to characterize another person's argument, the sentence invariably contains a strawman.

So, it's a strawman even if it's an accurate characterization or logical conclusion and can invariably be dismissed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom