soc.culture.iraq

Mavisbeacon said the following on 2/29/2008 7:38 AM:
> "DanielSan" wrote in message
> news:9JOdnVVxBrVek1XanZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@...

I'm going to snip down to here because it is nothing but as hominem
attacks against me which are really irrelevant.

>>> That is not a logical conclusion!
>> Why not? Let's try this:
>>
>> P: All cats are mammals
>> Q: A tiger is a cat
>>
>> Therefore you conclude that a tiger is a mammal?
>
> Thats right. But puit your statement above sie by side
>
> P: All cats are mammals.......................P1 : All religious bigots are
> athiests
> Q: A tiger is a cat.................................Q1: Daniel san is an
> athiest
>
> See? The difference in your RIGGED example.

That's not my statement.

>
> The predicate?
> cats- bigots
> mammals-athiests
> Tiger-Daniel
> cat - athiest
>
> your Tiger example would have to END BOTH P and Q with the same predicate
>
> . A tiger is a mammal. fair enough A tiger IS a mammal and you can say a
> Tiger is a cat but it does NOT follow from "all cats are mammals"!
>
> You are saying Daniel is a mammal and concluding Daniel is a cat!
>
>> That is not a logical conclusion!
>>
>> ...does that sound right to you?
>
> Please please please look up some logical fallacy sites. You are committing
> BASIC errors in logic!

You're missing something:

"Religious bigots such as atheists"

>
> It isnt unusual. you are not trained in it and probably didnt study it.
> Please look it up and you will usually not make these mistakes .
>>>
>>>> It is, of course, a baldfaced lie.
>>> It is of course an erronuous and illogical conclusion yo have reached!
>>> you seem to constantly commit logical errors and contradict yourself! And
>>> when you do you then attribute these problems to others! YOUR mistakes
>>> become displaced onto what you think are other peoples attitide to you.
>>> you are aware that bigots also do that?
>>>
>>>>> Let us assume
>>>>> P : All communists have beards
>>>>> and that we know
>>>>> Q: Danielsan has a beard
>>>>>
>>>>> Pointing out you have a beard is NOT claiming you are a communist
>>>>> (which in that case woudl be fallacious anyway)
>>>> And what was claimed is that all atheists are religious bigots.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Read what was written again: "Religious bigots such as atheists do tend
>>>> to call names a lot."
>
> Yes and this was followed by the inference that you DanielSan call names a
> lot

No, that's not correct at all. The inference is that I'm a religious
bigot because I'm an atheist.

>
> You can NOT logically conclude that you are a Bigot (though you might well
> be but it does not logically follow!)

That's what was said, though. "Religious bigots such as atheists do X."

In this context, "atheist" is a type of religious bigot.



>>> But it is the CONSEQUENT you affirm!
>> I decided to snip for brevity's sake since it is just repetition of the
>> above claim. I am just going to respond with this. How do you take:
>>
>> "Religious bigots such as Mavisbeacon do tend to call names a lot."
>>
>> I am not affirming the consequent.
>
> this breaks down into
>
> Mavis is a bigot ( which is a false premise)

Which is *EXACTLY* what I meant way back when I said that "I'm not a
religious bigot."

> Some bigots call names

This wasn't said. Point to "some", implied or otherwise.

>
> you could not conclude:
> all bigots call names

And now you conclude based upon false premesis.

Boy, but you are a stubborn one.


--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************