3 ms·
> 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 th
by 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 agoI'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