CriticalSteel
-302
25
CriticalSteel has not written any posts yet.
CriticalSteel has not written any posts yet.
“person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him.”
First of all, how in the hell would you decide what is and isnt a critical matter. Its an appeal to authority of the most crazy kind. Now we cant even lie to protect ourselves for the reason that the law would always find in the favour of the plaintiff.
And what happens to omissions? Pretty soon we wont be able to have privacy atall, and instead, have state approved truths and security cameras on every street... but, we allready know that israel is a police state.
No amount of force results in logic. Science needs to hurry its ass and replace law.
mouth making promises my brain cant keep.
You clearly know something of the law. Then why would you try to learn from a case in an israeli jurisdiction!? They still use relgious law there. Which is the most obvious kind of appeal to authority fallacy the law produces. Clearly the verdict, case and even police cannot be trusted to be unbiased.
"I've not made any argument to you"
Everything you SAY is an argument, a proposition, everything is a theory until proven. Which the credibility must be analysed by critical thinking criteria.
and,
If your making an argument that doesnt include evidence then your not being logical.
"this is an instruction"
Who are you, who is to suggest instructions to me, without any evidence or credibility atall by the critical thinking criteria.
"Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again."
Restricting the options fallacy http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/restrictingtheoptions/
I'll choose door number 3 please: I'll continue using critical thinking, proving you wrong. Untill you all come around... or not.
He hasn’t proven anything yet...
All i did was challenge the "here be dragons" video, on its flaws, as per critical thinking. Which is the premier, logical method. But none of you seem to know it.
Now, having challenged your beliefs i am subjected to a cascade of arguments filled with logical fallacies in their critical thinking.
Simply put. You condemn what you don’t understand.
Also, most of you here are completely illogical and cannot even make a comment without handicapping yourself.
Just what makes you think you can down vote a critical thinker, when you yourself cannot even do it?
There are massive, gaping flaws in the core principles you all take for granted. Most of them are based on opinion and never tested, obviously, because their full of logical fallacies which people have known about since the 1700s.
“Not at all. It is entirely legitimate to down-vote completely crackpot ideas purely because hearing the same old completely crackpot ideas can be annoying.”
Just because you call something crackpot doesn’t mean its true. Just because you call something legitimate doesn’t mean its true.
Indeed you are committing a circular argument fallacy right now.
“Circular arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove. If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.”
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/circularity/
And by criticising me instead of my argument, you are also committing an ad hominem fallacy.
““Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering... (read more)
"Your comments were full of implicit and explicit signals of condescension towards the people you were talking to."
no source.
“It would only be an "ad hominem" fallacy if I was pretending to attack your argument: if I used an attack on your person in order to undermine your position. But I'm not doing that : I'm attacking your person, in order to have you improve your attitude, regardless of what position you hold.”
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. “Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”. http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/
Your above argument, is also a circular argument. “Circular arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to... (read more)
This is, for all practical purposes, false.
Because YOU say so? Wheres your evidence? Coz all i see is a theory...
"Obnoxious" and "arrogant" are not properties like "blue" or "spherical" or "rumbling" that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
Yes they are. They have set definitions in dictionaries. The evidence would be a specific quote, and the explanation of how the quote achieves the criteria of the dictionary.
Your "social context" does not prove anything besides you perception. Which is hardly evidence on its own.
"If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one."
No... (read more)
D:
Obnoxious and arrogant is in the eye of the beholder...
I tell people about the flaws in their arguments and theories and suddenly I AM THE ONE who's being arrogant. I find its verry common for people to start to criticise me personally after i have identified a number of critical thinking fallacies in their arguments.
This conforms to the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
"the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself." ~ http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/
Most often they criticise my tone, or by taking everything ive said as an insult instead of as identifying a logical puzzle for them to solve.
If they used critical thinking and scientific method and debated often, like me, then they would work out many of lifes puzzles, which is why i am such a strong proponent of it as a teaching method.
It took me a while to understand this one because theres allot of assumptions within it. They are;
that the king isnt lying
that the king isnt mistaken
that the inscription isnt lying
that there is infact 1 key or dagger.
All of which have to be taken on faith. Which my brain obviously couldnt handle.
But if you belive all of that. The you should find that; as the king told you one box contained the key, then there is only one key, and of the other box is to be believed "that both boxes contain the same mystery item" then thats a contradiction, which means the opposite box is more likly to be true.
However this is... (read more)