The fact that it doesn't cross your mind to determine the context for someone claiming "all dogs are brown" proves my point. Horses and water, QED.
What are you talking about? As serious as I can be when met by someone who lodges an "argument from authority".
And that marks an obvious agenda. Mine is honest discussion of what you are doing here. Yours is dishonest, and not discussion.
Sorry, were you actually claiming to be President, or merely providing a hypothetical situation? If you were claiming to be, I wouldn't be able to dismiss your claim simply on the basis that the POTUS wouldn't frequent online forums. So no, not remarkably similar at all. Or perhaps you are reading into it implications that simply aren't there, due to your misunderstanding. Yet yours was based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote and a desire to obfuscate and deflect from the initial issue, mine based on rather clear and repeated behaviour on your part. Go figure. I think we're done here, Musika. But feel free to spout your irrelevance to the empty room.
But then are you going to abide my directive about phrenology textbooks? Or do you give it a miss because you know I am not the president? IOW one can get thoroughly specious about what one claims or doesn't claim to know, but the field of action clarifies the question quite concisely. You've had ample opportunity to clarify whether you are or whether you are not willing to employ normative descriptions (of God? Of the president? Of cures/treatments for cancer? Etc) into the picture. Everything indicates the latter. It's no surprise that you find your own antics untenable when re-presented in the guise of alternative scenarios.
You. And what perspective are you arguing from? "Argument from non-authority"? Belief? OK, I can believe that....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Until you get specific with your critique, it becomes to difficult to view any of this as something other than hot air.
Of course, that's the only logic you understand. But you still haven't told anyone from what perspective you create your arguments. Not even hot air. Just an empty balloon. Musika I can keep this up as long as you insist on keeping your style of trying to discredit your opponent rather than debating the real issues with facts and persuasive logic. What you practise is not named argument from authority or argument from ignorance", it's no argument at all.
Ok. So you haven't, can't and won't read anything in this thread. That's all we needed to know. Thanks.
One uses other information, of course. That has never been denied, either directly or through implication, other than through your misunderstanding. It still doesn't alter the fact that your initial dismissal was fallacious. And you haven't addressed that. Even after 11 pages of you spouting irrelevancies and misunderstanding what people write. I have no need to clarify it because it is an irrelevancy. :thud: You're discussing an irrelevancy, Musika, seemingly based on a misunderstanding. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be about it. I'm not going down that path. I've made that clear to you as well. If you wish to be so dishonest as to effectively make crap up about what people say, keep going on as if they have said it, and then think you're scoring a victory because you're showing them how crap that imaginary crap is... go for it. If that's what gets you up in the morning, if that is who you are, be my guest. Just be sure to turn the lights out when you leave.
So in your opinion, the difference was that Carapacus was providing a seamless representation of God making an appearance on an online discussion forum, whereas my posing as the president gave obvious clues it was a charade?
Who is we? And the problem is that I did read everything in this thread and you haven't made your case, a fact clearly visible and for "us" to see.
We already know the context of, "all dogs are brown." It's wrong. We don't need to consider any other context.
