White? Dont teach here. Op Updated to address false 'racist' labal

[dphantom]

That's why I asked you... if your next post doesn't contain an answer i'll take it as a concession that english isn't your first language.

lol this is fun.

Have not seen some like dank get owned so much yet still dig himself deeper

 

[dank69]

That's why I asked you... if your next post doesn't contain an answer i'll take it as a concession that english isn't your first language.

Q: What did you say was your first language is again?
A: I didn't say what my first language is.

See? Very easy to answer a question because I am an honest person. Very difficult for you to answer my question because you are a dishonest person.

 

[dank69]

lol this is fun.

Have not seen some like dank get owned so much yet still dig himself deeper

Must be nice, Justoh, to have an endless supply of idiots to pile on to the wrong side of an argument in order to create the illusion of it being right.

 

[justoh]

Q: What did you say was your first language is again?
A: I didn't say what my first language is.

See? Very easy to answer a question because I am an honest person. Very difficult for you to answer my question because you are a dishonest person.

Right answer to the wrong question. What does it mean for two statements to be equal? Anything to avoid answering the tough questions, eh?

 

[justoh]

Must be nice, Justoh, to have an endless supply of idiots to pile on to the wrong side of an argument in order to create the illusion of it being right.

I'm sure these people don't appreciate being called idiots. Isn't there a better way to deal with your frustration than resorting to ad nauseum. It's sickening.

 

[dank69]

Right answer to the wrong question. What does it mean for two statements to be equal? Anything to avoid answering the tough questions, eh?

You have to be specific.

Q: What does it mean for two statements to be equal?
A: They are analogous.

See? Simple honest answer. Want to try and be honest yourself? Or just going to continue trolling?

 

[justoh]

You have to be specific.

Q: What does it mean for two statements to be equal?
A: They are analogous.

See? Simple honest answer. Want to try and be honest yourself? Or just going to continue trolling?

Ok. I'm asking honestly for you to please support your claim that this is what it means for two statements to be logically equal. Got any links? I know you prefer for us to educate ourselves, but I tried and couldn't find support for what you just posted: equal means analogous

 

[dank69]

I'm sure these people don't appreciate being called idiots. Isn't there a better way to deal with your frustration than resorting to ad nauseum. It's sickening.

Why didn't you call out dhantom for doing it first?

Why should black people only be able to teach African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies?

that is called sarcasm. but i think you know that but just trolling by calling people racist. Then again it could just be you are a fucking idiot.

I am leaning toward the latter.

Because you refuse to be honest?

 

[dank69]

Ok. I'm asking honestly for you to please support your claim that this is what it means for two statements to be logically equal. Got any links? I know you prefer for us to educate ourselves, but I tried and couldn't find support for what you just posted: equal means analogous

Honestly? If you want an honest answer don't start by misstating my statements. I didn't post that equal = analogous. I posted that in the context of extending logic with statements, saying the two statements are equal is saying they are analogous. My support is the link I just posted that says that if you extend the logic with unequal statements, the reductio ad absurdum becomes a straw man instead.

 

[Svnla]

Was I correct that blacks and hispanics were/are not doing well in schools while Asians were/are doing as well as whites or better?

YES or NO? Just one simple answer. Again, I stress Yes or No only.

Hey Whisky16, again, any response about this question? Don't pull the race card out and then run away like a biotch when confront with facts. :awe:

 

[justoh]

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.

Missed this one. Alright, give me one possible alternative to me having an elephant on my head. Or can't you? Difficult to force yourself to answer such a stupid request, isn't it? That's exactly what you're doing by claiming, without any support at all, that waggy must believe something by virtue of him having typed something which could merely lead to that conclusion, and then asking for alternatives after having already dismissed the obvious alternative out of hand: it was an improperly induced hypothetical premise, improperly thought to be analogous.

Possible v plausible is integral, not a distraction, when you're talking about what must be the case. Recall the classic example of waking up to find everything wet outside. Do you think it must have rained or that it's just the most likely explanation for the wetness? It's not plausible that a group of water enthusiasts hosed the city down overnight, but it's possible.

 

[justoh]

Ok. I'm asking honestly for you to please support your claim that this is what it means for two statements to be logically equal. Got any links? I know you prefer for us to educate ourselves, but I tried and couldn't find support for what you just posted: equal means analogous

Honestly? If you want an honest answer don't start by misstating my statements. I didn't post that equal = analogous. I posted that in the context of extending logic with statements, saying the two statements are equal is saying they are analogous. My support is the link I just posted that says that if you extend the logic with unequal statements, the reductio ad absurdum becomes a straw man instead.

The context was made clear by the "logically" qualifier. Why do you have such a hard time with context?

 

[justoh]

Why didn't you call out dhantom for doing it first?



Because you refuse to be honest?

Oh, because that omission must mean that I refuse to be honest. I see. I guess you should add "honesty" and "refusal" to the list of words. Now go do your homework.

 

[dphantom]

Why didn't you call out dhantom for doing it first?



Because you refuse to be honest?

if we are supposed to be being precise in our language, I did not directly say you were an idiot. I was simply tending toward or "leaning to" that perspective.

 

[dank69]

Missed this one. Alright, give me one possible alternative to me having an elephant on my head.

Okay, a possible alternative is that you do not have an elephant on your head. See how easy it is to answer a question when I don't have to be afraid of being honest?

Or can't you? Difficult to force yourself to answer such a stupid request, isn't it? That's exactly what you're doing by claiming, without any support at all, that waggy must believe something by virtue of him having typed something which could merely lead to that conclusion, and then asking for alternatives after having already dismissed the obvious alternative out of hand: it was an improperly induced hypothetical premise, improperly thought to be analogous.

Lol you just admitted he thought it was analogous. Thank you. I agree, he thought improperly.

Possible v plausible is integral, not a distraction, when you're talking about what must be the case. Recall the classic example of waking up to find everything wet outside. Do you think it must have rained or that it's just the most likely explanation for the wetness? It's not plausible that a group of water enthusiasts hosed the city down overnight, but it's possible.

Now that you yourself have admitted that he did, in fact, think the two were analogous we can move on to these pathetic attempts to distract. I'll be happy to analyze the shit you fling at the wall in the hopes that something, anything, will stick. Yes I am aware of similar wetness examples, although they are usually much more logically formed than your version. Usually formed in a way where someone accepting the unlikely alternative as the most likely wouldn't be considered insane. In your example, I would say the alternative is highly implausible barring any other evidence.

 

[dank69]

if we are supposed to be being precise in our language, I did not directly say you were an idiot. I was simply tending toward or "leaning to" that perspective.

Thank you, I can read. I'm leaning towards thinking your parents were brother and sister. Not offensive because I only said I'm leaning in that direction.

 

[dank69]

Oh, because that omission must mean that I refuse to be honest. I see. I guess you should add "honesty" and "refusal" to the list of words. Now go do your homework.

No, most of your posts in this thread imply that you are dishonest. Why do you think I always mean must even when I don't use the word must? Must I have meant must? LOL.

 

[dank69]

The context was made clear by the "logically" qualifier. Why do you have such a hard time with context?

Well, sorry, but with all the dishonesty you are shoveling in the form of semantic argument, excuse me for thinking that might be an attempt at the same thing. We used to have a poster here that was big on semantic argument. His name was cybrsage. His name is now synonymous with retard. Is that the image you are going for?

 

[justoh]

Well, sorry, but with all the dishonesty you are shoveling in the form of semantic argument, excuse me for thinking that might be an attempt at the same thing. We used to have a poster here that was big on semantic argument. His name was cybrsage. His name is now synonymous with retard. Is that the image you are going for?

Add semantics to that list. Did you even look any of those words up? Talk about dishonesty...

and still no support for the claim that equal = analogous

 

[dank69]

Add semantics to that list. Did you even look any of those words up? Talk about dishonesty...

and still no support for the claim that logical equivalence = analogous

You already admitted I was right, so I'm done with you.

 

[dphantom]

Let's keep track of the words dank69 appears to misunderstand

must
equal
analogous
arrogant
possible
plausible
semantics

 

[werepossum]

That's racist

lol +1 I see what you did there.

Just for the record, racism is an inherent belief that a particular race is inherently superior or inferior to another. Whether or not one believes that a minority studies teacher must be a minority, surely we can agree that valid points can be raised on grounds other than racism.

 

[justoh]

You already admitted I was right, so I'm done with you.

If you say so. It was realibrad who was concerned about your admission, not me. I just think it's funny how stubborn and obtuse you are, and how you call everyone else stupid while demonstrating your own stupidity. run away, little girl.

 

[dank69]

If you say so. It was realibrad that seemed concerned about your admission, not me. I just think it's funny how stubborn and obtuse you are, and how you call everyone else stupid while demonstrating stupidity. run away, little girl.

That's a funny way to apologize. I expect nothing less from someone so dishonest.

 

[justoh]

That's a funny way to apologize. I expect nothing less from someone so dishonest.

I know you are, but what am I?