Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete  Quote: |
This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you for some time now, JD. You really do need to read a logic textbook before attempting to impress everyone by whipping out syllogisms. I don't know why you haven't listened to me, but maybe now that someone else is raising the same objections you will take heed.
| Why do you think I am trying to impress anyone, Dave?
If it will make the nitpickers happy, I will use "syllogistic-like" when I employ the form.
Maybe:
Statement 1 that is true or contains truth.
Statement 2 that is true or contains truth.
Leads me to make some conclusions.
I am much more concerned about the content and context than getting logic 101 lessons - it is a red herring. |
This is what you said in the OP:
Quote:
|
I have seen a couple of threads that have referenced self love in fairly negative terms. This got me thinking in terms of a logical syllogism (as I am wont to do) based around the great commandment:]
|
After such an opening statement, I would have expected you to be already familiar with logic 101, and if not, to be willing to take some time to look into it if you really want to use syllogisms.
Also, to say that it's a red herring to request that you follow the rules of formal logic when using formal logic is no good. You chose to make comments about the way you think, and you chose to argue syllogistically. If you are "wont" to thinking in syllogisms, I don't see why you get so defensive when we expect real ones.
So if you're so concerned about content and context, it would be better to just have a normal discussion.
Congratulations on 3000 posts.
