Not a single possible alternative has been offered in this thread. Put up or shut up. I said I will settle for possible if that floats your boat. Stop stalling and post up a possible explanation for why Waggy chose that statement to extend the logic when he didn't think they were equal statements.
Still stalling I see. What's wrong? Can't find a possible alternative? If your next post doesn't contain a possible alternative I'll take that as a concession that you cannot think of a single one.
The way you posted seemed like you were accusing me of reductio ad absurdum. I did not employ this technique because it would not make sense for my case. If you meant that brief comment to mean that Waggy's argument was a reductio ad absurdum, then yes I agree. I stated it was such way back in the beginning.
You need to read the specific section of your post I quoted when I said that. I was refuting your erroneous statement.
And that's what does not make sense. There are two possibilities for extending logic: using equivalent statements and using inequivalent statements. Using inequivalent statements would not achieve the desired effect as it would be nonsensical. Stating the name of the type of argument I am discussing does not refute my statement about it. I am not sure why you think it would.
What a surprise, you can't think of one. I even allowed possible just for you already knowing you still wouldn't find one. I expect you'll fuck off now with your tail between your legs like a decent human being? No? Just harp on the word must some more even though there is no alternative? Let me guess, did your mommy once tell you that there are no certainties in life? LOL. You give liberals a bad name.
Your original statement was that the only way to extend logic is through equivalent statements. Clearly false, as reductio ad absurdum is another valid method.
Clearly you don't know what reductio ad absurdum means. Clearly you think it means "to make inequivalent statements." LOL.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
I live in reality. It's possible that you have a purple elephant sitting on your head right not but it is implausible. I allowed it because I know how far into implausibility you have to venture in order to come up with a possibility, and they will all make you look stupid. Go ahead, one possibility. Stop stalling with this irrelevant distraction of plausibility vs. possibility.
Thank you for showing you know how to Google. If you were comfortable with the definition you would know that reductio ad absurdum is not different from extending logic with equivalent statements, it's actually the same thing. LOL indeed.
Belligerent towards ignorant arrogance? Yes, that is me in a nutshell, especially when I was the one attacked first, over and over.
Facebook
Twitter