Originally posted by Schecter
you actually webstered "nature" and tried to pass off one definition as absolute. do you have any idea how hard you failed there?
Explain to me how I attempted to pass off one definition as absolute.
Once again, you're grasping at thin air, Schecter.
Remember earlier when I said that I deleted things that wasn't really necessary or relevant to this discussion? This is one of these cases.
Look closely at the definition. It's a copy/pasted definition, I deleted most things, such as links to other pronounciations, origins, etc.
Notice how I very clearly left the "10.)" and the "..." above it ALONE? It's number ten on the list. I'm not acting like it's the first and most easily recognized definition.
nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]
–adjective
...
10. Proper to the circumstances of the case.
Your point is negated.
There is absolutely no reasoning why you can assume that I was attempting to pass off a single definition as absolute. You don't have a case at all.
Deleting the rest doesn't imply anything.
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.
Half right.
Deductive reasoning is based on information that is PURELY fact and MUST be reasonable in order to reach a NON-FALSE conclusion.
If and only if, the premises (the facts behind the deductive reasoning) are TRUE FACT, then the end conclusion is also surmised to be true fact AS WELL.
For example:
Premises:
1-All humans classify as living organisms.
2-Person A is a human.
Non-False Conclusion:
Therefore, Person A classifies as a living organism.
You don't take an unaccepted fact or ambiguity, plug it in, and hope that your conclusion at the end will be correct, Schecter.
That's not how it works out correctly.
you fail, and your little dog too.*flies off on broomstick cackling*
So immature, you can't even refrain from trashtalking for a single post.
It's astounding how pathetic it turns out to be.