07-20-2018, 11:21 PM
(07-20-2018, 06:23 PM)syscrash Wrote: 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.
This is what happens when some can not dispute facts and spin or deflect and end up arguing about the argument instead of facts which the differ of opinions. This is the basis for all this additional BS to cover up the original BS. Your so call name calling is just one more of your opinion. In my world, it is a form of making a point. You might not like it and thats just too flocking bad.
When did you become the authority on how to ridicule a contributing liar to these threads. Oops, did I just call someone a name? Is that what "name calling" is? Liar might not be the most diplomatic tactical label to put on someone whom wishes to create what never took place or not acknowledging what took place in it's entirety, but in the end, BS is BS.
Maybe someone such as learned as you would prefer the term "storyteller'. Would that appease you better? Don't they both mean the same? I just prefer the more direct approach. As for my critics? As the saying goes: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
BTW, I wasn't aware of your expertise on Genealogy, Heraldry and the Biological Science of Wesen Species. Last time I looked, this was a fictional show doing fictional things about a bunch of fictional characters. The city was real but I hope that is where reality ends.
I am curios on where you acquired your Doctorate on Wesen Physiology. Was on line or did you attend a brick and mortar school. I am curios, I might want to pursuit myself as I am approaching my later years and with more time on my hands. I figure, what the hell, with such a degree under my belt, at least it will make me a better "name caller".
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!