I question the use of links of other webpages, or even worse, making other peoples arguements for them like in the “Fallacies in Pro-Abortion Arguments” thread, tactic.

Seems to me as it is done now it is just a way to make a one sided arguement. Without the other side vetting out YOUR errors of logic then such conversations serve no real use/the conversation itself is a fallacy.

Plus I think debates should be allowed, if not, then a ban on such should include one sided debates too.

Now if conversation to said links only provided a strict showing of logic failure, with no specific counter claims made against them. That would be something different.

It might even be great if people actually explained how they could see X arguement stated differently & correctly. Since many arguements quoted are reasonable in their way(especially when drawn in comparison to counter arguements against them) Its often just the language of said arguement they question once you reduce it down. But then of course that would require admitting to some validity of a POV you don’t share.

Hello TruePurple:

I will like to know your point of view, please tell me:

How do you know what is true?
How do you know when something is good? and
What exist?

I am sure you can answers those questions in a couple of lines, this to make the conversation more productive.

Bye, bye

TruePurple wrote:

It might even be great if people actually explained how they could see X arguement stated differently & correctly.

This is not an easy question, but I will try to explain:?

Imagine that you have a pair of glasses (to see thru your point of view) and I have one (to ?see thru my point of view).?

Then we have a fact in front of us. The fact is the fact, we can not change it, but as we see ?the fact with our different glasses we will have different views about how this fact is ?good or bad, it is true or false or even if exist or not. ?

So, all we see will be influence for our Point of View Glasses, that is why it is necessary ?to know the point of view of each other before have a conversation useful, if not, we will not have a good comunication.

One example: If we talk about eat fruits, you can say, “yes fruits are good” (because in ?your mind you see and apple), but I will say: “eat fruits is bad” ( because in your mind is ?a poisonous cactus).  We need to know first what we will call good, true, and what exist, ?before start to see the facts, if not we will be using different rules to measure, and this do ?not work well.?

Bye, bye

I did not ask a question in that and that tangent of yours has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

What I was talking about is, if you believe someones logic is flawed. At least some of the time people should be able to point out a way to state that POV where the logic is not flawed. That is if people were really interested in in the logic, rather then having one sided arguements.

True Pruple:?

You can be perfectly logically in your own world (where you set your logic rules, you ?define good and bad, you define true and false, and you define what exist), but this do not ?mean that you are right in the reality.?

Look in mathematics: I can define a new system of numbers and define operation for that ?system, even solve problem within my numeric system.  But does it mean I can use my ?numeric system and its logic to go shopping in the mall?  No, not at all. My system will ?work in my little paper world where I create the numbers and their relation, operations, etc

You have a POV where you alone set the rules, it work in your mind, there you do not ?see any problem, all looks perfect, you can not even understand why other people do not ?accept it. I will tell you, I understate your POV, but lack of efficiency. The ?problem you have is to demonstrate that your POV is right in reality. We know is right in ?your mind, but which what do you are comparing your system to know if it is ok??

God was before even the time come to exist, He create all rules, all things. He has the ??“master stick to measure” everything, Everything. ?

When we have a new system of measure we can compare our stick with His stick and in ?this way to know how far or close we are from true. If we “believe” that our own ideas ?about the reality are good/true, without compare with the “master stick” we are living in a ?danger place, ready to make mistake any moment.?

Do you like science? Well, study the life of Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, etc, ?scientists that has develop Laws in Science, there all used the Bible as source of True. ?And then you can compare “the Discovery Channel Scientist” developing theories and ?models, some contradict one to each other, never finding the answers, because they ??“believe” they can find the true apart from God. And that it is impossible, but they keep ?trying! Why? Man has a tendency to be far from God.?

I know why you get upset when I ask you main question about your POV (authority, ?source of good, true, what is real), It is because with this questions, maybe at first time in ?your life you see your own system of believes in the “table of the laboratory” and you do ?not like it. There is something inside you that told you can not be right that you alone ?determine true, good and define what exist or not.?

True Purple, all people has been in your position before. I had being deceived from my ?own ideas too, deeply. But I am thankful God open my eyes and let me see what I was ?not able to see before. I hope one day you can put on Biblical Glasses and you will see ?everything with a new light.?

Please, thinking careful in your POV, analyze it, be critic with your own ideas. Make ?question to your self. “How do I know that I am right about this issue or this other?” etc, ?

Bye, bye

Please stop spamming this thread with off topic lectures. You must love the sound of your own voice.

If you wish to talk about, what ever your talking about(I guess about how you supposedly have a monoply on the truth of the universe thanks to god and that I’m supposedly just full of it) Then make your own thread please!

OK

This forum is for discussing logical fallacies, not philosphy or religion - except as these are related to fallacies. Please make sure your posts are relivant to this forum, otherwise I may need to remove them.

I don’t want to sound harsh here, but I need to keep this forum focused.

Yes Sir O:-)

What’s a one sided argument?  I don’t understand what you’re saying, but I’d really like to, as knowledge is good!  Thx.

TruePurple wrote:

I question the use of links of other webpages, or even worse, making other peoples arguements for them like in the “Fallacies in Pro-Abortion Arguments” thread, tactic.

For the first part I partially agree.  If it’s just someone posting links, especially if it’s exhaustive reading then it serves little purpose for a discussion.  Now what would be permissable in my opinion is state your arguments and conclusion.  Then, if they want to read more about how or why you came to that conclusion then the link might be helpful.  At least with their own arguments you can find out where they’re coming from as a starting point.  I have in some cases used the information in the links to point out where it’s wrong.  But again I won’t read copious amounts of information to do it.

On the second point do you mean they try to tell someone else’ argument in such a way that it sounds different than what they intended? 
If that is the case I think people make a mistake.  It’s quite okay to restate someone’ point if it’s in a fashion to try and clarify what they are saying or fill any gaps.  In some cases they use it to make the other persons’ argument sound rediculous when in fact it’s not. 

Seems to me as it is done now it is just a way to make a one sided arguement. Without the other side vetting out YOUR errors of logic then such conversations serve no real use/the conversation itself is a fallacy.

In the first instance of just posting links without arguments it can be pretty much one-sided.  They certainly serve very little if any use.

I cannot see where the conversation itself is a fallacy because it makes no point really.  It’s simple a conversation or telling a story but since there is really no argument to make on their part I don’t think you can determine that it’s a fallacy. 

Plus I think debates should be allowed, if not, then a ban on such should include one sided debates too.

Maybe a reference point on this one would help me. 

Now if conversation to said links only provided a strict showing of logic failure, with no specific counter claims made against them. That would be something different.

It might even be great if people actually explained how they could see X arguement stated differently & correctly. Since many arguements quoted are reasonable in their way(especially when drawn in comparison to counter arguements against them) Its often just the language of said arguement they question once you reduce it down. But then of course that would require admitting to some validity of a POV you don’t share.

I think you hit on a point.  The problem is not just the language but even more specifically definition of terms.  Though we might use the same words some people pour more, less, or even totally different meanings into those words.  Such that each person’ point is probably valid however each person is looking at it from a different definition.  That gets nowhere fast. 

I hope I understood your points correctly.

Michael