i also find it funny how you intentionally deleted a portion of your quote of me since it clearly proved you wrong in me supposedly not mentioning about logic being subjective.
Originally posted by DarkC
A natural train of logic isn't subjective at all, period
define "natural". i doubt beyond eating/sleeping/shitting/and sex you have an argument there. all deductive reasoning is subjective. (period! dur )
Originally posted by Schecter
i also find it funny how you intentionally deleted a portion of your quote of me since it clearly proved you wrong, in me supposedly not mentioning about logic being subjective.
If I delete part of a quote, Schecter, it automatically means that you proved me wrong and that you win! Right, Schecter? Right? Wrong.
If I delete something, I either think it doesn't need addressing or is so off-topic it doesn't really merit a response at all.
Me, I'm not stupid enough to assume something outrageous like that from a silly little thing. You are.
define "natural". i doubt beyond eating/sleeping/shitting/and sex you have an argument there. (period! dur ) [/B]
nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]
–adjective
...
10. Proper to the circumstances of the case.
In this case, yes, a natural train of logic IS "proper to the circumstances fo the case".
What's your case now?
Oh, right. "eating/sleeping/shitting/and sex".
How very original.
all deductive reasoning is subjective.
Deductive reasoning takes previously known FACTS(not subjective) and use it to necessitate a conclusion based on these facts.
It is a logical process, Schecter. It isn't subjective at all.
You must have it confused with ABDUCTIVE reasoning.
Originally posted by Schecter
i explained my logic in a series of proverbs. thats reality. go back and read. never did i say that logic was absolute.
proverbs which are based in logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning. none of which is purely objective (as in no logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning of any kind). wow, you really want to argue that to death?
However, I do recall asking you very clearly before I said you were wrong:
Because Sorgo X has dished out a lot of buzzkill, he 'NEEDS', objectively, to experience one?
precisely. isnt it funny how the truth is sometimes spoken in sarcastic rhetoric?
To which you tried to explain with proverbs, which as you said,
none of which is purely objective (as in no logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning of any kind).
You tried to explain that something IS objective and logical by using something that isn't even objective as an example, Schecter. Rather ironic.
See my point?
The proverbs do nothing to prove that it is indeed an objective and logical reasoning to think that Sorgo X 'getting a taste of his own medicine' should be fact.
more semantics gaming.fine, ill retract my previous statement, publically. in its place:
"IMHO, *insert previous statement*"
See, for the most part I don't like assuming if it's not clear at all.
In this case, it wasn't.
So I didn't assume anything, because I didn't know which one you were referring to.
In turn, I shall retract my previous statement also.
Making sure to clear up any potential ambiguities is always a good idea, Schecter.
you actually webstered "nature" and tried to pass off one definition as absolute. do you have any idea how hard you failed there?
:edit:
Originally posted by DarkCDEDUCTIVE reasoning? Absolutely not.
Deductive reasoning takes previously known FACTS(not subjective) and use it to necessitate a conclusion based on these facts.
It is a logical process, Schecter. It isn't subjective at all.You must have it confused with ABDUCTIVE reasoning.
deductive reasoning is based on information/evidence which may or may not be fact or even reasonable by general standards. you really need to take your pills.
you fail, and your little dog too.
*flies off on broomstick cackling*