@Eris Your simple comment was acknowledged as your opinion and belief, but you couldn't let it go, and being unable to present any logical arguments of your own, resorted to asserting that I hold the opposite opinion and belief, when I expressed no opinions or beliefs in my reply that have anything to do with your assertion.
>now you are playing word games to save your skin...
Bro that's what you're doing. I'm replying to your word games.
>contradicting A does not contradict the theorem once again
No, but it contradicts you and your argument.
Do we care about logic, or do we care about the topic being discussed?
> I presented the theorem and nothing else
You presented objectives for how society ought to be, you presented problems you identify in society, and you presented clear calls to action on what you think can be done to solve those alleged problems.
All of which are opinions I can and do disagree with you on.
>points out a logical error in the OPs line of thinking, as they focus on the symptoms instead of causes.
Then I'm pointing out the logical error in both of your lines of thinking, as you are looking at the "symptoms" and "causes" of something that is not actually a problem. Look at your premises.
@Eris A premise can't be a logical error. Just like an assertion is not a logical argument. You either accept them or you do not in a given context. I accept the premise of the OP for the purposes of logical discussion. If you do not accept the premise you can not have a logical discussion. If you would like to explore the context if which a given premise is a logical conclusion to be argues over, then feel free to write your own essay, and if it's interesting enough someone might respond.
>A premise can't be a logical error.
Basing "good" logic on false premises is how people are wrong 99% of the time.
No one gives a shit how good your theorizing and reasoning is if it reaches a false conclusion.
>If you do not accept the premise you can not have a logical discussion.
Why on earth do you think this? You can have logical discussions about whether the premise is false, and how that impacts your argument.
> If you would like to explore the context if which a given premise is a logical conclusion to be argues over, then feel free to write your own essay, and if it's interesting enough someone might respond.
If you had done this instead of engaging in a meta-argument about how i'm not arguing the way you want, you would have saved yourself a lot of time, energy, and frustration.
>Basing "good" logic on false premises is how people are wrong 99% of the time.
>No one gives a shit how good your theorizing and reasoning is if it reaches a false conclusion.
> If you had done this instead of engaging in a meta-argument about how i'm not arguing the way you want, you would have saved yourself a lot of time, energy, and frustration.
When the logic is bad, you can't reach a conclusion, I can't help but point it out. The rest of your problems of finding the ultimate truth and god I don't care about, again.
> Why on earth do you think this? You can have logical discussions about whether the premise is false, and how that impacts your argument.
Because that's how logic works, if something is presented as a premise in a given context you can't logically argue with it in that context, that the meaning of the word premise. Don't thank me for another basic language lesson. Examining the premises is what meta discussion is and you are the only one doing that, and it's not even my premises yet you keep implying that they are mine, when all I did is hypothetically assume them to be true to present a logical argument, in the fashion of "if that's true, then".
>Because that's how logic works, if something is presented as a premise in a given context you can't logically argue with it in that context, that the meaning of the word premise
Nothing is compelling you to just accept any premise someone offers, that's not how reasonable discussion works. This is a rule you made up.
What if instead of limiting the context of the discussion to only people who agree with you, you didn't?
@Eris I don't care if you agree with me, you are the only one who has a problem with that.
@Eris I'm pointing out a logical error in the OP, I have no clue what you are doing. Evangelizing or something.
I am doing exactly what you are doing.
@Eris no you are having a religious meta rant on how the OPs premise is wrong, nothing to do with logic presented in OP or my reply.
@Eris so far you are asserting your beliefs and nothing more, at some point you even accepted it, but now you have changed your mind and are pretending that you have presented logical arguments.
>so far you are asserting your beliefs and nothing more
You keep asserting this and never substantiating it.
I have made multiple posts explaining my position. I have even reposted those posts to you. You just insist it didn't happen and continue to assert your goofy excuse to dismiss me as though if you assert it enough i'll go "Oh yeah, he's right, i'm insane and unreasonable!"
@Eris You elaborated on your rejection of the premise. That is not a logic argument. I'm ok with your rejection of the premise. It is irrelevant to the argument I presented.
@Eris Yeah... here is how it went
you: I reject premise
me: ok
you: you can't be ok I destroyed your logic
me: *educates you on basic english and logic*
you: not everything is about logic
me now: ok
@Eris if it was my premise, which it wasn't, for the third time I repeat I made an argument like "if true, then", for no other purpose than to point out a logical mistake in the OPs narrative.
Responding to an "if, then" by pointing out that the if is not true and that the then is therefore also not true is 100% perfectly logical.
@Eris yes and is not a contradiction to the original statement
@Eris it's not an argument
> if it rains, you'll get wet
> it's not raining, I didn't get wet
> wow you destroyed me
If this conversation is in the context of whether or not you should wear a coat, yeah, i destroyed you. I removed all of your arguments for why i should wear a coat.
