3 ms·

Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.

wfo 11y ago
The poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  And your response is supposed to represent the height of intellectual rationality, I suppose?
- dang 11y ago
  Please don't insult other users on HN, even when you think they're wrong. When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
  - wfo 11y ago
    The post was so incendiary/insulting my natural inclination to strike back in kind got the better of me but I recognize fighting fire with fire does not make for a good community so I'm sorry about that and will watch it.
unprepare 11y ago
Actually, this has nothing to do with mathematics other than one of the two examples being from geometry. This was pure deductive reasoning, a concept borrowed from philosophy. Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  > Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
  - unprepare 11y ago
    I'll give you a new example to work with, scrubbed of geometry so you can more easily understand it: Premise: >Za is a subset of Z >Za always results in behavior1 Conclusion: > Z always results in behavior1 How does this argument prove that behavior1 occurs in all instances of Z, when you've only shown us that a subset of Z (in this case Za) exhibits behavior1? How do you plan to prove that other subset Zb, Zc, Zd, etc follow this same rule when you've failed to provide even a single example? Or if you still are unable to answer that question, can you please show us in what way i misrepresented your argument to create a strawman? you not only have yet to actually address this point, you also have yet to address my point concerning your own words on hierarchy and the incompatibility with that and the idea of co-operative management of resources. Once you can make your argument make sense, you can begin looking at counterarguments for fallacies and semantics, else you will have this situation where you are digging yourself a deeper hole by misunderstanding counterarguments and rashly trying to mislabel them as fallacies. Editted formatting

wfo 11y ago

The poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.

PopeOfNope 11y ago
And your response is supposed to represent the height of intellectual rationality, I suppose?
dang 11y ago
Please don't insult other users on HN, even when you think they're wrong. When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
- wfo 11y ago
  The post was so incendiary/insulting my natural inclination to strike back in kind got the better of me but I recognize fighting fire with fire does not make for a good community so I'm sorry about that and will watch it.

unprepare 11y ago

Actually, this has nothing to do with mathematics other than one of the two examples being from geometry. This was pure deductive reasoning, a concept borrowed from philosophy. Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

PopeOfNope 11y ago
> Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
- unprepare 11y ago
  I'll give you a new example to work with, scrubbed of geometry so you can more easily understand it: Premise: >Za is a subset of Z >Za always results in behavior1 Conclusion: > Z always results in behavior1 How does this argument prove that behavior1 occurs in all instances of Z, when you've only shown us that a subset of Z (in this case Za) exhibits behavior1? How do you plan to prove that other subset Zb, Zc, Zd, etc follow this same rule when you've failed to provide even a single example? Or if you still are unable to answer that question, can you please show us in what way i misrepresented your argument to create a strawman? you not only have yet to actually address this point, you also have yet to address my point concerning your own words on hierarchy and the incompatibility with that and the idea of co-operative management of resources. Once you can make your argument make sense, you can begin looking at counterarguments for fallacies and semantics, else you will have this situation where you are digging yourself a deeper hole by misunderstanding counterarguments and rashly trying to mislabel them as fallacies. Editted formatting