|
|
#91
05-26-2005, 12:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jax again proves he\'s the stupidest man alive
[ QUOTE ]
jax, with every post you reveal more of the scope of your stubborn intolerance and ignorance. [/ QUOTE ] The really funny thing is that you and Kurto have displayed FAR MORE intolerance and ignorance in this thread. [ QUOTE ] your 'argument' is based upon fallacy, but beyond that, it doesn't even follow a logical structure, [/ QUOTE ] You have your belief, misguided though it may be. [ QUOTE ] so would be invalid EVEN IF your definition was correct and approiatly used (it is not, but you lack the education to understand why- i'm not putting you down here, most people don't have the necessary schooling to see the distinctions that kurto and i are making). [/ QUOTE ] No, I understand what you are trying to say. It doesn't change the fact that I am right. Mainly because my definition is correct, and so is my conclusion. [ QUOTE ] it's somewhat baffling that you either aren't capable of understanding this, or are unwilling to admit your error. [/ QUOTE ] Pot, meet kettle. [ QUOTE ] however, i'm willing to help poor 'ol jaxmike learn a thing or two: [/ QUOTE ] This ought to be good. [ QUOTE ] if you take the time to write out your argument in a logical format, then i will take the time to disprove it conclusivly, but i doubt you are capable of doing so- prove me wrong. GL [/ QUOTE ] Sigh. I have proven my case, none the less... Humans can be heterosexual or homosexual under these definitions for heterosexual and homosexual. [ QUOTE ] heterosexual-adj-Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterosexual homosexual-adj-Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homosexual [/ QUOTE ] Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are natural under this definition of natural. [ QUOTE ] natural-adj-Present in or produced by nature http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural [/ QUOTE ] Human are normally heterosexual under this definition [ QUOTE ] Normally=adv=according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm ; conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=normal [/ QUOTE ] Because humans are normally (in that its the norm/standard) heterosexual under the previous definition(most humans are heterosexual, its the standard sexuality), homosexuality must be abnormal under said definition. Homosexuality can be unnatural under this definition of natural. [ QUOTE ] natural-adj-normal or expected http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...&dict=CALD [/ QUOTE ] Because.. [ QUOTE ] expected-v-To consider likely or certain http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expected and likely-adv-Probably http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=likely [/ QUOTE ] Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would be homosexual? No, because its not likley, the chances are not good. 4-10% if you believe Kurtos numbers. Understanding that since homosexuality can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that homosexuality is not natural. at the same time, you can say that homosexuality is natural under another definition. a paradox in a way because both statements are UNDENIABLY true. GAME OVER. 
|
|
#92
05-26-2005, 12:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jax again proves he\'s the stupidest man alive
[ QUOTE ]
I can see why you spend more time here then in the poker forum. One section leads me to believe you wouldn't understand a lot of the theory of poker. There is so much wrong with post, that I am actually boggled. I'm not even trying to be insulting right now, but I honestly thought you were smarter then this. [/ QUOTE ] More insults because he cannot win the debate/argument. [ QUOTE ] Someone could write a doctoral thesis on you: They would have to figure out if you are EITHER stubborn so Willfully ignorant, unknowingly ignorant or just totally in a fantasy world of your own creating (The subject of the thesis is determining which ever one it is) [/ QUOTE ] You would be a much better subject. [ QUOTE ] And I know you disrespect bholdr because you think that you're just too smart, but its quite clear that he has studied logic, syllogisms, etc. (law school would likely teach it, programmers at times) Furthermore, it is quite clear that you haven't. Yet, despite someone who is clearly educated on the subject is clearly explaining your fallacies (I suspect the problem is you just have no idea what he's talking about... so you choose to ignore it). [/ QUOTE ] Nope. [ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, since you clearly don't understand and are too stubborn to admit you are wrong, you reply with even MORE erroneous responses. [/ QUOTE ] And you reply with more baseless and inaccurate allegations. [ QUOTE ] Its like when someone lies. And to make the lie believeable, he has to embellish it more... and again and again until the lie becomes absurd. It becomes a tall tale. [/ QUOTE ] You must know a LOT about that. [ QUOTE ] Well this is what is happening to your arguments. They're getting worse and worse. [/ QUOTE ] For you. [ QUOTE ] Later, I will go through and point out some. But that is a doozy of a post with perhaps the most inaccuracies I've seen yet. [/ QUOTE ] Yet never approaching the number you present.
|
|
#93
05-26-2005, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jax again proves he\'s the stupidest man alive
Once again, the extent of Jax's argument...
"I'm right and you're wrong." Imagine if Jax had kids and homeschooled them. It would be paramount to child abuse.
|
|
#95
05-26-2005, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Jaxian Logic Lessons
[ QUOTE ]
Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would be homosexual? No, because its not likley, the chances are not good. 4-10% if you believe Kurtos numbers. Understanding that since homosexuality can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that homosexuality is not natural. [/ QUOTE ] So, according to Jax, if you picked a human at random, you are less likely to pick a homosexual, THEREFORE, they are unexpected and that means they're unnatural. (Stop laughing... Jax is serious.) BRILLIANT. Let's continue with Jaxian logic and see what other conclusions we can draw. It would be a shame to let such sound reasoning go to waste. Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would be white? No, because statistically its highly unlikely; the person would likely be Asian. Understanding that since 'having white skin' can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that being White is not natural. WOW. Jax is on to something. There must be more! Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would be left handed? No, because statistically its highly unlikely; the person would likely be a rightie. Understanding that since being a leftie can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that being left handed is not natural. Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would have naturally blonde hair? No, because statistically its highly unlikely; the person would likely have black hair. Understanding that since being a blonde can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that having naturally blonde is not natural. You could go on forever. Oh man, Jax should get a show on comedy central. Each episode would have Jax trying to teach people and/or debating a subject. The producers would stick a laugh track underneath and run on prime time. Instant hit.
|
|
#96
05-26-2005, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jax again proves he\'s the stupidest man alive
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, the extent of Jax's argument... "I'm right and you're wrong." Imagine if Jax had kids and homeschooled them. It would be paramount to child abuse. [/ QUOTE ] And the extent of Kurto's argument is this. "I am right, you are an idiot, and the facts don't support me, but I keep saying it anyway so that maybe someone besides me will believe it even though its lunacy."
|
|
#97
05-26-2005, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Kurto the Clown
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious... no say on the arguments. Does Jax make sense to anyone? Any see any sense to his logic? [/ QUOTE ] On the flip side, can anyone believe that Kurto is so closed minded that he refuses to accept the dictionary definitions of words in favor of his own stoic interpretations? Can anyone believe he still adamantly denies reality to the extent he does?
|
|
#98
05-26-2005, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Jaxian Logic Lessons
[ QUOTE ]
So, according to Jax, if you picked a human at random, you are less likely to pick a homosexual, THEREFORE, they are unexpected and that means they're unnatural. (Stop laughing... Jax is serious.) [/ QUOTE ] Serious because that's what reality is. How can you deny the FACT? My God, you are the most obtuse and ignorant person I have ever discussed ANYTHING with. [ QUOTE ] BRILLIANT. Let's continue with Jaxian logic and see what other conclusions we can draw. It would be a shame to let such sound reasoning go to waste. Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would be white? No, because statistically its highly unlikely; the person would likely be Asian. [/ QUOTE ] Ahh. Except that he is making a lot of assumptions that are not true. You cannot apply the same logic to the situation for more than one reason. He probably knows this, but yet he still posts this ignorant drivel. [ QUOTE ] Understanding that since 'having white skin' can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that being White is not natural. [/ QUOTE ] You can use logic to prove just about anything if you delimit the terms of the argument sufficiently. That is one of the reasons that you cannot trust logic or statistics in many cases. [ QUOTE ] Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would be left handed? No, because statistically its highly unlikely; the person would likely be a rightie. Understanding that since being a leftie can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that being left handed is not natural. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, because it fully fits the definition and is supported by deductive reasoning. [ QUOTE ] Can it be expected that if you were to randomly select one person in the world that said person would have naturally blonde hair? No, because statistically its highly unlikely; the person would likely have black hair. Understanding that since being a blonde can be found to be not normal under the definition of normal and that a definition of natural is defined by normal you can LOGICALLY say that having naturally blonde is not natural. You could go on forever. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, you can. That is because of the nature (theres that word again) of the English language. There is a lot of ambiguity and flexibility in the definitions of the words we use. If you were really smart enough to realise that this is not so much a logical problem, but more of a symantic one, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has. [ QUOTE ] Oh man, Jax should get a show on comedy central. [/ QUOTE ] I probably should. I am quite funny and have a great (if not sometimes warped) sense of humor. [ QUOTE ] Each episode would have Jax trying to teach people and/or debating a subject. The producers would stick a laugh track underneath and run on prime time. Instant hit. [/ QUOTE ] So long as you were who I was debating I am sure people would find your ignorance quite funny.
|
|
#99
05-26-2005, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Jaxian Logic Lessons
To the board... I think I've taken this particular as far as I can. There's really no new variations from Jax.
Since anyone who has studied logic can tell that Jax has no idea what its about, I can't appeal to him to debate logic. Even when one points out the problem with his logic, he says things like, "that's what reality is"... which makes us much sense, I suppose, as half the other random things that come out of his mouth. Furthermore, though I'm confident Jax has many more amusingly ignorant things to share with us, I think we'll see that in other subjects. The end result of this thread was that we learned that, if you are Jax, you believe its unnatural to be a white person, to have red hair or to be lefthanded. Fascinating. I suppose if we pushed long enough, eventually Jax would argue that people feed themselves through photosynthesis and that all Men really ARE from Mars and women from Venus.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
