RobertGreenSky wrote:If you can't figure out how your snotty response, 'Anyone for Logic 101?' is 'to the man', then you are beyond hope.
I might say the same about your ability to discern the logical content of a statement through those egotistical filters of yours, but I won't.
The logical fallacy of ad hominem does not simply constitute a personal attack, as it has come to be used on message boards and the like. Rather it is an argument which addresses the person making the point as opposed to the point itself.
If you cannot see how
'Anyone for logic 101' addresses the fallacious nature of the statement
'You do not occupy all possible worlds' and is thereby not a logical fallacy, then either you would do well to avail yourself of a better knowledge of logic or you already have this knowledge but forsake truth in order to win; in which case you'd be truly beyond hope, ethically.
However, my apparent ignorance of the meaning of 'all possible worlds' hardly verifies that the absolute truth to which Solway referred is true 'in all possible words' - whatever that might mean - or for that matter is true in any sense at all.
Here we go again. All I did was question the fallacious nature of the contextual usage of the statement
'You do not occupy all possible worlds'.
I couldn't give a flying fuck what Kevin referred to as being true in all possible worlds and whether it’s absolute truth or truth at all. My statement alluded to such in no way whatsoever. Yet, again, you put my words through those egotistical filters of yours and, inevitably, fallacy follows.
It does appear your answer was vacuous and ad hom after all since all you've said amounts to 'Robert is ignorant'.
Mmm, see above. If it was vacuous, it'd be lacking content with regard to the matter it was addressing, which plainly it didn't. If it was ad hom it would constitute a logical fallacy, which it doesn't.
Your snotty answer avoided response, as did Quinn's and Rowden's non-responses, to 1) all thinking is relative; 2) all thinking is fragmentary; 3) what is timeless, i.e., enlightenment, cannot be apprehended by thinking; 4) belief systems are fictions; 5) it is certainly possible to believe what is false; 6) by implication, here continuing what Alex Jacobs began in this thread, mere belief in what QRS hold is useless. I can do quite well without 'all possible worlds'.
My statement in no way attempted to respond to the above, as opposed to avoiding doing so. I mean I specifically referred to your one line statement and called its fallacious nature into question. Why on earth would that, to you, constitute my avoiding responding to the rest of the content of the post which that one line statement was lifted from, content that was directed at others?
I am not part of your mythical battle with the enlightenment dragons. When will you get that through your thick…… ego and realise its fallacious nature?
So thank you for your vacuity, Mr. Toast.
For future reference, this is a good example of ad hom.
You could have brilliantly expounded on those modal propositions and relating them first to sunyata then brilliantly affirmed the QRS view of 'absolute truth', but you didn't.
Yes indeed, didn’t even get anywhere near attempting to even think about considering doing so, and there’s no reason why I should have done. So what was your post about then?
And thanks for showing me something valuable about their view.
Ah yes, the foolish sub-demon has inadvertently provided you with a new mythril sword to use against his masters. The ironing is so delicious, muhuhahahaha, etc.
In the real world, you now know how 'all possible worlds' relates to a necessary modal proposition and what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is. There's your valuable.