Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Ed, this is another case where I've explained my reasoning a number of times, and you've failed to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Merlyn, Your only explanation is, well, I'm not sure what it is but there is no hard facts behind your explanation to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 No Ed, I've explained why. You can't seem to find my explanations. I'll try once more: Person A and B are talking about the meaning of statement X. Both are being sincere, both are equally fluent in the language statement X is written in. A and B disagree quite strongly on the meaning of statement X. Based on the above, I conclude that statement X is not clear. Notice that asking me what part of "statement X" is not clear is not only irrelevant, it's not possible because my example doesn't even include what statement X says or any hint about why A and B disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 pack, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Ed and Merlyn will never successfully mate and have fertile offspring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Paternity would probably be in doubt (at least without a DNA test). But if this was a bet, I'd place my money on the 'NWIH' spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 not without divine intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interpretation of X then there's something wrong/unclear with X. However, if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong. The faulty logic lies in the fact that there's an assumption that there is a problem with X. I contend that there's a problem with either A or B. Therefore it's always possible that either Merlyn and/or Ed is wrong. Let the reader decide for themselves. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 And Stosh wins the cookies! Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 jblake47 writes: The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interpretation of X then there's something wrong/unclear with X. I only said X is UNCLEAR; I have never stated that X is WRONG. You are attacking a straw man; you are addressing an argument I haven't made. However, if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong. Irrelevant. Notice that the only claim I'm making is that X is unclear. Again, you are answering an argument I never made. I haven't assumed that X is wrong or right. The faulty logic lies in the fact that there's an assumption that there is a problem with X. I haven't made that assumption. I'm only concluding that X is unclear. I contend that there's a problem with either A or B. You do? Here's an example of A, B, and X: A = a citizen of England B = a citizen of Australia X = "The Prime Minister is named Kevin" Who has the problem? A or B? I say the statement is unclear, because it doesn't say which Prime Minister is being referred to. fixed typo.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 However, if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong. Irrelevant. Notice that the only claim I'm making is that X is unclear. Again, you are answering an argument I never made. I haven't assumed that X is wrong or right. Totally relevant! You have no supporting evidence that X is unclear! And your Here's an example of A, B, and X: A = a citizen of England B = a citizen of Australia X = "The Prime Minister is named Kevin" isn't even close to being similar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Ed, I was pointing out where jblake47's conclusion doesn't hold to show that his reasoning didn't follow. Your remark only shows you missed the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Stosh's reasoning is more on the mark, Merlyn. Just because two or more people disagree on the meaning doesn't mean the source is flawed or unclear. It could be the individuals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Both you and jblake47 keep adding "wrong" or "flawed" as if that was part of my argument. It never was. You are arguing a straw man. If you want to argue with ME, address arguments I actually make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 flawed or unclear From my last post. Or not and. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Ed, you're still changing the argument; I said "unclear", not "flawed or unclear". If you want to talk about the argument I've been making, don't change my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now