07-20-2018, 06:23 PM
Here is what I find funny. How so many feel that name calling and using hyperbola and other methods of disparaging a statement helps their argument. A sound argument should stand on it's own against all scrutiny.
By limiting the premises to only the ones the support a conclusion, does not make the argument valid. Example saying family is definitive proof a label refers to a surname. This is a false argument because a family could also refer to a group of the same species. For your argument to be true, you would need something to show one use is more prevalent over the other. Because the name is not used any where else as a surname, but has many examples of being a species. As a species is the most prevalent use. That is a deductive argument, without any name calling, hyperbola, or a limiting of information. A valid response would be to provide evidence of an alternative premises. An image without definitive context is not a premises.
The same hold true on all the other topics. Topics of Juliette guilt, Adalind's assault, Nicks integrate. All are topics that are argued from a point of belief, and not from deductive reasoning. On all these topics, they contain mass amounts of name calling. The contain post after post of dialog to support a belief. Yet only a few introduce any deductive reasoning. When it is used, it is meet with disdain as someone seeming to know "writers intent". What is funny, I did four years computer science. Not a subject that deals with a lot of the humanities. Yet even I remember the rules on how to make a cohesive argument.
By limiting the premises to only the ones the support a conclusion, does not make the argument valid. Example saying family is definitive proof a label refers to a surname. This is a false argument because a family could also refer to a group of the same species. For your argument to be true, you would need something to show one use is more prevalent over the other. Because the name is not used any where else as a surname, but has many examples of being a species. As a species is the most prevalent use. That is a deductive argument, without any name calling, hyperbola, or a limiting of information. A valid response would be to provide evidence of an alternative premises. An image without definitive context is not a premises.
The same hold true on all the other topics. Topics of Juliette guilt, Adalind's assault, Nicks integrate. All are topics that are argued from a point of belief, and not from deductive reasoning. On all these topics, they contain mass amounts of name calling. The contain post after post of dialog to support a belief. Yet only a few introduce any deductive reasoning. When it is used, it is meet with disdain as someone seeming to know "writers intent". What is funny, I did four years computer science. Not a subject that deals with a lot of the humanities. Yet even I remember the rules on how to make a cohesive argument.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one