Your equation doesn't work when B does not usually equal C

Wait, what?

Math class? Wot?

And you're more than welcome to go and try and prove it. If it would make you happy, I could say "For specific cases of Group A", but I think that's rather unnecessary.

However, the underlying logic is sound and my original point, that the people who condemn Ian McKellen ripping pages out of the bible are more likely than those who support Mr. McKellen to be the same people who also burn books they disagree with, still stands.

But how can you say that? There is no proof. Thus it is unsound to pull it into to an article that is discussing whether or not McKellen's actions are wrong.

If he didn't agree with what it said, that's fine... but he didn't have to go tearing pages out of a bible that wasn't even his.

You have no evidence either way, so what you have left is logic. When the logic points one direction, it is completely legitimate to pull it in to an article.

Proof? What do you want, a double-blind study? He stated common facts and connected them through logic. Perfectly acceptable.

But do you not see the contradiction? He asks for proof when he has no proof himself.

"It's gotten to a point where your sarcastic remarks really don't make a difference to anyone anymore, as we've all come to realize that in your eyes literally no desecration of anything sacred should be considered offensive. If this were Roman times, you'd be the guy mocking all the Christians complaining about how they were being fed to lions for the purpose of entertainment."

awww did someones feelings get hurt? How does This at all equate with death by lion eating entertainment? Weird people out much?

Where did I ask for proof?

All I said is that if you have evidence which contradicts what I'm saying ("And you're more than welcome to go and try and prove it", when referring to your "B does not usually equal C" comment), then you're more than welcome to show it. If you do show it, I will gladly revert my position. The beauty about rational thinking is that I'm not adverse to changing my mind when shown something that contradicts what I'm saying.

However, until you show me otherwise, I will go on what I have available. What I have available, is logic.

Feelings hurt? Well obviously yours, as you're going on the offensive now.

Forgive me I didn't know magneto's actions were such a big deal to you.

They're not. I just figured it was about time someone called you out for your immaturity and disrespect for every Christian who's ever been offended by anything.

Okay you guys need to calm down on here. Stop attacking each other. You may not agree with each other but that gives you no right to attack everyone else. Please, just take a step back and clam down.

Not moderating right now:

Students tend to support movie watching.
Movie watching tends to be supported by companies that supply stereo sound systems
Therefore students tends to coincide with compaines that supply stereo sound systems.

Seems like an advanced form of sophestry to me.

First of all, I'm not intentionally being decieving. Therefore, it doesn't qualify as sophistry.

However, I do admire your attempted pot-shot, although for a moderator I would have expected more. I thought name calling was beneath you (and against the rules)?

See the above? That is sophistry.

Second of all, your logic is impeccable. You do make a mistake by assuming your argument is fallicious. Most students who watch movies will very likely have a method of hearing that movie. They will very likely have bought a stereo sound system of which to hear that movie. Therefore, they will likely coincide with stereo companies at some point.

This post has been edited by Aeterna: Nov 6 2009, 08:37 PM

It might be my thick-headedness (and most likely is because I am not far from admiting that I'm stupid for not getting this), but I don't quite understand this part of your post. Is it ment to be a shot at me or are you trying to prove me wrong. Tone is so hard to read over the internet sometimes.


Trying to match your formula, I didn't explain myself very well. I ment the large stereo systems that the movie theaters buy in order to support the quality that people expect from a movie theather, but you will probably argue that away as well.

Also, the degree to wich the conside matters. I mean there is probably only a small percentage that both agree with burning books and disagree with McKellen compaired to the number who disagree with McKellen and hate burning books. I mean, I could probably use the same logic that you have used to prove that a number of people who agree with McKellen also think that burning books is a good idea. Both of these groups are probably too small in order for us to make rash generalizations though.

Forgive me for not being as clear. I was pointing out that my intention isn't to be deceptive or malicious. Because I am not intentionally trying to decieve others, I am not displaying sophistry. If I started making arguments that directly attacked the character of others, or argued a position that was markedly absurd by any rational standard, then I would have earned the title of sophist.

This, is not one of those discussions.



I'm more than open to a discussion on the degree of which the coincidence occurs. However, that is not the discussion that has taken place. In fact, the only reason I've continued the discussion this far is that other posters have accused my logic of being unintelligent or deceptive.

This is almost all that I have to say on the matter: Tearing a verse out of the Bible does not stop it from being true, and if he wanted to take out that verse, he should have taken out a lot of the chunks that Paul wrote in the New Testament right along with it...

Just two things about the recent conversation in here...

First, I kinda found it slightly offensive that SOMEONE has basically (and I know that you're going to disagree, but it is what you said) said that the only people that would have a problem with this are conservative, book burning, Fundamentalists.

Second, I think that it is kinda sad that this is all that has been talked about for the second half of this discussion...

Oh, I had no idea of the connotations behind that word. I thought it was purely the format of the logic. Thanks for informing me, I'll be sure to use it correctly from now on.


Ah, I can understand that. Sorry if I contributed to this in any way with my poor diction.

No worries. You figure after 2,000 years, someone would have forgiven the Sophists for killing Socrates. But no...



You didn't.



Since that someone is obviously me (and I don't mind being called out), allow me to retort. [Queue Samuel L. Jackson pose here]

First, you're right, I am going to disagree with you, because that is not what I have said. In fact, it's what I've been spending the last half of the discussion attempting to clarify.

Second, if you thought it was sad, why did you post a comment that begs for a reply?

I blame the Liberals.