What, you really think middle school debate club over here uses the word “logic” for anything but browbeating? If you’re not using syllogisms, it’s 4channer buzzword speak and not logic.
If you buy/interact with something made by a person with shitty ideas, then you support those shitty ideas.
It is a syllogism, and the whole point of the above comment is that if we accept it, then we have to apply for everything, and that is impossible.
If you want to go even further, you can also easily prove that the above is fundamentally flawed by showing how easy it is to prove that a person supports both sides of basically any argument on Earth, by buying or interacting with products that are made by people holding those views, which is obviously a contradiction.
The last parts are obvious: if you interact with HP you support JKR ideas.
In fact I only presented 1 part of the syllogysm above, not 2, so you can stuff that smug comment where it belongs :)
Maybe next try you can also address the actual merit of the conversation, since so far you resorted to embarrassing ad hominem when you didn’t make a bad trip and confused me with someone else.
The guy still think that logic didn’t evolve past Aristotle and basic syllogisms, even after a couple of millenia, and argues about a supposed Socrates logic (?) that involves them (???)
They have no idea what they’re talking about other than some random information that they found online, probably.
I wouldn’t expect any kind of real logical argument from there.
The funniest thing is that you showed them a perfect example of socratic reductio ad absurdum, but it completely flew over their head because they are too busy trying to argue about syllogisms…
Yeah indeed! Like if syllogisms also had not been discussed at length, specifically the necessity to have absolutely scientific axioms as both premises, which is an obvious problem here as the major premise is not impossible, but definitely not proven.
The funniest thing is that you showed them a perfect example of socratic reductio ad absurdum, but it completely flew over their head because they are too busy trying to argue about syllogisms…
Yep… I think that user is not really in for a discussion, so possibly they just ignored whatever could not be attacked with a silly personal attack. I was going to block, but then after this comment I decided to wait, just to make the situation even more surreal :)
What, you really think middle school debate club over here uses the word “logic” for anything but browbeating? If you’re not using syllogisms, it’s 4channer buzzword speak and not logic.
If you buy/interact with something made by a person with shitty ideas, then you support those shitty ideas. It is a syllogism, and the whole point of the above comment is that if we accept it, then we have to apply for everything, and that is impossible.
If you want to go even further, you can also easily prove that the above is fundamentally flawed by showing how easy it is to prove that a person supports both sides of basically any argument on Earth, by buying or interacting with products that are made by people holding those views, which is obviously a contradiction.
A single syllogism requires 3 steps, you have 2 here. Back to debate club, kiddo
The last parts are obvious: if you interact with HP you support JKR ideas. In fact I only presented 1 part of the syllogysm above, not 2, so you can stuff that smug comment where it belongs :)
Maybe next try you can also address the actual merit of the conversation, since so far you resorted to embarrassing ad hominem when you didn’t make a bad trip and confused me with someone else.
The guy still think that logic didn’t evolve past Aristotle and basic syllogisms, even after a couple of millenia, and argues about a supposed Socrates logic (?) that involves them (???)
They have no idea what they’re talking about other than some random information that they found online, probably. I wouldn’t expect any kind of real logical argument from there.
The funniest thing is that you showed them a perfect example of socratic reductio ad absurdum, but it completely flew over their head because they are too busy trying to argue about syllogisms…
Yeah indeed! Like if syllogisms also had not been discussed at length, specifically the necessity to have absolutely scientific axioms as both premises, which is an obvious problem here as the major premise is not impossible, but definitely not proven.
Yep… I think that user is not really in for a discussion, so possibly they just ignored whatever could not be attacked with a silly personal attack. I was going to block, but then after this comment I decided to wait, just to make the situation even more surreal :)