nonpareil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,108
- Reaction score
- 743
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you claiming the methodology was sound? Why do you consider the issue I raised to only be a "possible" problem?
Because at the time that post (your post) was made, you still have not elaborated on how the methodology in this particular case was flawed, you only made general claims about methodological flaws.
- My "attack" on Nate was not an ad hominem. It was an insult and nothing more -- it never entered my line of reasoning.
Maybe it wasn't part of your "line of reasoning". But when you drop "Did I mention he's a hack?" in the middle of your arguement, do you expect a reasonable person to believe that it wasn't part of your arguement?
- Uhh... yeah, both illustrations of why propositions are typically defined as statements that can be true or false. rof
If they were phrased as "propositions", which they weren't.
I mean, if you don't even know what a proposition is -- one of the most basic concepts in logic -- I can't see why anyone would seriously consider anything you have to say on the subject of fallacies.
Now THAT'S an ad hominem!
Ad Hominem and false assumption. Next week you can start your lesson with Professor Tucker.
(and here's to hoping it comes across in the good-natured sort-of-way I intended -- note the smilies)
----
Hope to get to the rest tonight and before I leave for a four day trip to MiddleofKnowhere, Utah.
It has. I do enjoy debate with people with some wit and aren't too overly serious.
Last edited: