jmpet's logic

I

indazona

Chrono Cadet
jmpet\'s logic

I figured it best to start another thread, since you seemed to be taking us off the topic of that other thread with your questions and points. For the record here is your last post from over there.
-------------------
You are getting away from the point- and the point is that every single one of your posts is an attack on someone for something they wrote. Are you going to own up to this obvious claim, or obscure it with more of your doubletalk? Inquiring minds want to know.

>>And so... you agree that so-called time travelers are also contributing nothing when they bring negative predictions for the future? Which is exaxtly what I was getting at in my last reply to you.<<

First it's "exactly", not "exaxtly" and secondly, no- you're wrong. And for the hundreth time- THIS IS A TIME TRAVELING FORUM- EXACTLY THE PLACE WHERE A TIME TRAVELER SHOULD FEEL AT HOME.

>>If you do not agree with this statement, then I ask you to clarify why it is OK to have negative gloom & doom predictions of the future and NOT OK to have negative views of the people who bring them.<<

There is a difference. Every time traveleling claim has two parts: the claim itself and the message the claim brings. Case in point- you can't call yourself a time traveler unless you can explain time traveling. If you can't tell us "how you got here" then there's no difference between your claim and that of a hoaxter- at that point you're nothing more than another Zeshua: someone with a story and no story to back the story up with- in other words you're a sham: something only fools follow.

>>In fact, in reviewing the posts of the day I see you have also brought some negative statements to the latest time travel hoaxer.<<

Yes- that is the difference between you and I: you do nothing but shoot your coprolite and I do nothing but point out the illogic of the statements presented. Ultimately I will always win because I have more to offer than my rant; you are nothing more than undirected hatred towards anyone and everyone at anytime for any reason.

>>But I suppose you must think your negative statements are somehow "funny" or otherwise "good"? Help me out here, because right now I see you as a hypocrite.<<

As I told CigMan very recently, my god is logic. God is nothing if not right and "righteousness" is nothing if not logical. As such, God- if nothing else- is logical. As such, I point out illogic whenever I see it, simply because it is illogical.

You, on the other hand, exist to ignore 99% of the posts and indiscriminately attack the remaining 1% with your righteousness. Another word for this is "blind ignorance".

>>Help me out here, because right now I see you as a hypocrite.<<

I will happily help you out. If all you can do is bring negativity to the issue at hand, then what's left unsaid is better left unsaid. But if you can point out the illogic (and within lies the stupidity), then you're better off burning yourself out on some other forum: if all you can do is flame other people then this place is BETTER OFF WITHOUT YOU.

And by looking at EVERY SINGLE POST YOU'VE POSTED HERE, you've done nothing more than attack people, and in that case, THIS FORUM IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT YOU IN IT.
 
Re: jmpet\'s logic

First of all, I will say that I am impressed by your apparant application of logic to reason...sometimes. I have no disagreement with you on this issue, although we can talk a bit more about the formalisms of logic later.

"You are getting away from the point- and the point is that every single one of your posts is an attack on someone for something they wrote. Are you going to own up to this obvious claim, or obscure it with more of your doubletalk?"

I will admit to sharing my opinion about when others use faulty logic to arrive at conclusions. That is sharing my opinion. You wish to call it an attack, then that is your belief and nothing more. Why do you feel so defensive that you must label my opinions as "attacks"?

"Every time traveleling claim has two parts: the claim itself and the message the claim brings."

This is an opinion, but I do not believe you can prove this via logic as a fact. If you can, please do.

"As I told CigMan very recently, my god is logic. God is nothing if not right and "righteousness" is nothing if not logical. As such, God- if nothing else- is logical. As such, I point out illogic whenever I see it, simply because it is illogical."

Good. Nice. I agree logic is often a helpful tool, as long as you agree it has its flaws and limitations. Furthermore, I have seen you use "reason" and "rhetoric" in several posts. However, I do not think I have ever seen you use formal logic (Non-contradiction, excluded middle, or identity not to mention other forms). From your statement above it would seem that you think logic is infallible. I hope you do not think so, because it certainly is. That does not mean it is not a good tool, but it does mean it can be applied improperly. For example, your statement:

"If all you can do is bring negativity to the issue at hand, then what's left unsaid is better left unsaid. But if you can point out the illogic (and within lies the stupidity), then you're better off burning yourself out on some other forum"

This would often be classified as the logical fallacy termed "amphiboly". You use a confusing sentence to imply that it is OK for you to point out illogic here, but if I want to do it I should go elsewhere. That is a logical fallacy. I do believe I have witnessed at least one other form of logical fallacy in one or another of your posts. Now, if you wish to call this an attack, you are free. However, to me it is nothing more than pointing out your own illogic.

http://www.starlinesw.com/product/Guides/MESGuide-Logic.html
 
Re: jmpet\'s logic

Oh yes, I almost forgot: So if you are allowed to "attack" me about my typo on "exactly" then by logic I should be allowed to "attack" you on your typo of:

"Every time traveleling claim..."

I believe you've spelled that incorrectly. May I "attack"?
 
Back
Top