Kurto the Clown

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. I am done arguing. You refuse to accept the perfectly legitimate definitions I linked to. Fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

having perfectly failed to prove his point, Jax does his usual final gambit... he declares victory and ends the discussion. Now Jax can resume thinking he's won another victory. He won't let the fact that even his definition he posted contradicts his statement. Nor that every other definition available also proves him wrong. Nor will he bother to be swayed by the other poster who is clearly educated in logic constructs and has pointed out the mistakes in all his ill-formed arguments.

Jaxmike is too smart to let logic, dictionaries or encyclopedias sway him. He knows if he makes stuff up, then it must be right.

Good show, jax.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. I am done arguing. You refuse to accept the perfectly legitimate definitions I linked to. Fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

having perfectly failed to prove his point, Jax does his usual final gambit... he declares victory and ends the discussion. Now Jax can resume thinking he's won another victory. He won't let the fact that even his definition he posted contradicts his statement. Nor that every other definition available also proves him wrong. Nor will he bother to be swayed by the other poster who is clearly educated in logic constructs and has pointed out the mistakes in all his ill-formed arguments.

Jaxmike is too smart to let logic, dictionaries or encyclopedias sway him. He knows if he makes stuff up, then it must be right.

Good show, jax.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you just posted is totally incorrect. I refer you to the definition again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...amp;va=natural
having a normal or usual character

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861632505
in accordance with the usual course of nature

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...&dict=CALD
normal or expected

http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/N0029800.html
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature

The dictionaries, logic, et al are on my side. Only your warped sense of reality is on yours. As to the contradiction you believe there to be, there is none. There is more than one definition for the word natural, check out any of those links, there are a lot of definitions for the word, some make homosexuality natural, others make it unnatural. Can you wrap your mind around the fact that it can be both depending on the definition you use?

Sorry pfunk, I really will try to stop, but his post was a lie and nonsense... and natural...

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...&dict=CALD

[kurto]

Jax posts definitions that show he is wrong... and declares victory.

Let's look:
[ QUOTE ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature


[/ QUOTE ]

This confirms homosexuality is natural, you moron. Homosexuality is found in the ORDINARY course of nature. It is an ordinary part of nature (ie, the natural world).

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...amp;va=natural
having a normal or usual character

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is normal and usual. It NORMALLY and USUALLY constitutes anywhere from 4-10% of the population. It is NORMALLY found ALL throughout the world of NATURE.

[ QUOTE ]
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861632505
in accordance with the usual course of nature

[/ QUOTE ]

It is USUAL to find homosexuality in the 'course of nature.' As it is usual to find people who are lefthanded, brown-eyed or as stupid as you.

[ QUOTE ]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...&dict=CALD
normal or expected

[/ QUOTE ]

It is entirely NORMAL and EXPECTED to find homosexuals throughout the animal kingdom. It would be ABNORMAL and UNEXPECTED if there were NO homosexuals.

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/N0029800.html
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature

[/ QUOTE ]

In the usual and ordinary course of nature, you will find a significant sample of homosexuality. In humans, the usual and ordinary sample is said to be between 4-10%.

[ QUOTE ]
The dictionaries, logic, et al are on my side.

[/ QUOTE ]

You definitely are the dumbest person on this forum. You just posted numerous references which all prove your wrong. You don't know the first thing about logic since you have repeated been asked to construct a logical argument and cannot do so.

[ QUOTE ]
There is more than one definition for the word natural, check out any of those links, there are a lot of definitions for the word, some make homosexuality natural, others make it unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, not a single one of them made homosexuality unnatural. The only thing confirmed is you can't even decipher the meaning of a word with a dictionary.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you wrap your mind around the fact that it can be both depending on the definition you use?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except you're wrong. By the way, for the future, you should define how you use a word. Since you are apt to misuse a word, you should try to clarify what you MEAN to say. In this case, you clarified and proved my point.

For fun, I will print EVERY definition of the word from your first link and show why you are wrong and dumber then everyone thought possible at the same time.

FROM: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural

[ QUOTE ]
(1) Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we have established that homosexuality is found throughout nature (multiple species and throughout time), it is therefore present and produced by nature.

[ QUOTE ]
(2) Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the USUAL (Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed) course of nature, one observes homosexuality. It is perfectly ordinary (Commonly encountered; usual.).

[ QUOTE ]
(3) a) Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b) Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c) Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

[/ QUOTE ]
a) inherent- The common belief is that our sexuality is inherent (ie- not chosen). Recent studies on the order of children being born has strengthened this argument. (that's another topic entirely so I won't go into detail.)
b) as we have established, "having a character by nature: a born leader" is essentially the same idea... they do not choose, they just are. (in the context of your use of unnatural, it does not seem like this is what you meant)
c) biology "Not produced or changed artificially" Clearly they didn't take a magic drug that made them gay.

[ QUOTE ]
Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can all agree this definition isn't applicable.

[ QUOTE ]
Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can all agree this definition isn't applicable.

[ QUOTE ]
Faithfully representing nature or life.
Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).

[/ QUOTE ]

This use of the term deals with consequence... ie, by reading Jax's posts one NATURALY (expects and accepts) concludes he's a moron.

[ QUOTE ]
Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not apply to the context of our use.
[ QUOTE ]
Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definition does not apply to the context of our use.

[ QUOTE ]
Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definition does not fit the context of your use.

[ QUOTE ]
Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definition does not fit the context of your use.

The rest are related to music which does not fit the context of your use.

There it is. Not a single definiton for 'natural' that fits the context of your use would NOT include homosexuality.

In conclusion- you are wrong again. You are an idiot.

I suggest you do your usual, ignore all the evidence, declare victory and move on.

[jaxmike]

Sigh. Point of view. A very important concept that you ignore.

From my point of view, I am right, and the facts support me. You are WRONG because you don't accept the definitions that I am using, which are legitimate. I accept your definitions and understand how you are using them. They are legitimate. However, you are far to obtuse or ignorant to do the same.

Clearly, despite bholder's suggestions, there is a normal (expected) state for human sexuality. That state is undeniably heterosexuality. Homosexuality provides no critical benefit to a species that procreates through sexual means. Whether it provide non-critical benefits is irrelevant. Our survival as a species does NOT depend on homosexuality, it does depend on heterosexuality (or did until science conquered God). Because it is natural (expected biologically) for humans to procreate, it is natural (realistic, and normal) for heterosexuality to be the expected sexual state of a human. So, if naturally people are heterosexual, then those who are homosexual are unnaturally so. However, at the same time. Homosexuality is natural. It occurs freely in nature. It is both expected, and not expected at the same time. Can you comprehend the paradox? It is both natural and unnatural at the same time. It is a paradox, but a legitimate statement EITHER way.

Just to help you out because I used a big word....
paradox-n-A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox

If you could open your eyes, and stop being so closed minded you could see the truth of what I write. I am sure you will again deny this, but it makes no difference. The fact is that you are wrong, not about your general belief, but about me being wrong. The way you are using natural is perfectly acceptable, however, at the same time, so is the way that I am using it. If you weren't so motivated to flame me, I doubt you would have committed this folly. If it were some other poster, you may have simply agreed, like you should.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Jax posts definitions that show he is wrong... and declares victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do no such thing.

[ QUOTE ]

Let's look:
[ QUOTE ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature


[/ QUOTE ]

This confirms homosexuality is natural, you moron. Homosexuality is found in the ORDINARY course of nature. It is an ordinary part of nature (ie, the natural world).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, usually people are gay? Ordinarily (As a general rule) people are gay? Usually and ordinarily are majorities (if you get to work on time 90% of the time would you say that you are usually or ordinarily late?). Is it your assertion that over 50% of the people on Earth are in fact gay?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...amp;va=natural
having a normal or usual character

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is normal and usual. It NORMALLY and USUALLY constitutes anywhere from 4-10% of the population. It is NORMALLY found ALL throughout the world of NATURE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but again. But if you were going to pick one person at random are they normally going to be gay? Are they usually going to be gay? No. Hence, I am right. You cannot deny this fact.

[ QUOTE ]

There it is. Not a single definiton for 'natural' that fits the context of your use would NOT include homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have shown that this is patently false. If it is natural for humans to be homosexual; then if you pick one person at random you would expect them to be gay. Can you say this with confidence? Really?

[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion- you are wrong again. You are an idiot.


[/ QUOTE ]

So funny. Arbitrarily making statements that are not supported by the facts. You are everything you accuse me of it seems.

[ QUOTE ]

I suggest you do your usual, ignore all the evidence, declare victory and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I incorporated all the evidence into my decision to declare victory (as its supported by all the facts), and am moving on, slowly.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Point of view. A very important concept that you ignore.


[/ QUOTE ]

A point of view requires a disparity of interpretation. You could say, in my point of view, Scorcese is a better director then Spielberg, and these are my reasons...

But if you say, in my point of view, 2+2=5. This is not interpretive. It is concrete.

You want to pretend words don't mean something so support your point of view. Unfortunately, you misuse or misunderstand the meanings of words and end up proving that your point of view is erroneous.

[ QUOTE ]
You are WRONG because you don't accept the definitions that I am using, which are legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ] I posted your definitions. posted a definition without putting it into context doesn't prove your case.

For instance, you posted "conforming to the usual or normal course of nature." You posted that and, without further comment, acted as if that supported your POV. But it doesn't. The usual or normal course of natural means ANY and all variations commonly found in nature. Therefore, if a person is an albino, and they are found in 1% of the population, they are 'natural.' It is a USUAL and NORMAL variation found in the course of nature. If nature goes on its USUAL course, you will find variations of creatures that engage in homosexual behaviour.

Honestly, let me know how you are interpreting this definition. I am being quite literal as reference texts are meant to be used. One cannot decide that it doesn't say what it says.

If you disagree, please show how your see it different by putting it in context of the definition.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, despite bholder's suggestions, there is a normal (expected) state for human sexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are confusing "expected" with "predominant." For homosexuality to be "unexpected" it would not be a standard variation. How could one not EXPECT homosexuality when, as far as we know, it has always been there. It is expected. Matter of fact, the studies I mentioned earlier noted that each successive child born from the same mother has a greater chance of being gay. They are still trying to determine exactly why this is. The point being, they EXPECT and can PREDICT a rough estimate of how often they will see it under certain conditions.

It seems that what you keep implying that because MOST people are heterosexual (predominant) that anything else is unnatural. That is not what unnatural means.

[ QUOTE ]
That state is undeniably heterosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ] Due to your misuse of "expected", this does not follow.

[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuality provides no critical benefit to a species that procreates through sexual means.

[/ QUOTE ]
First off... this statement has no bearing on whether or not it is natural. Being a diabetic has not critical benefit to a species that procreates through sexual means but it is not UNNATURAL. You're now saying something entirely unrelated to the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Our survival as a species does NOT depend on homosexuality, it does depend on heterosexuality (or did until science conquered God).

[/ QUOTE ]
This has NO bearing on whether or not homosexuality is natural. You are on a tangent.

[ QUOTE ]
Because it is natural (expected biologically) for humans to procreate, it is natural (realistic, and normal) for heterosexuality to be the expected sexual state of a human.

[/ QUOTE ] You're all over the place here. For humans to procreate, it would certainly help if we were predominately heterosexual (which we are.) But every member of a race does not have to aid in procreation. And anyone who doesn't procreate isn't unnatural. If someone is born impotent, it doesn't mean they are unnatural. Impotence is a natural variation. I'm honestly not just trying to insult you here, but you really do exhibit a weakness in logic. (I studied it for awhile, you are making a number of common logical fallacies.)

[ QUOTE ]
So, if naturally people are heterosexual, then those who are homosexual are unnaturally so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even this is a fundamentally flawed argument. It implies that there is only one natural state or condition for the offered scenario. I could say, "if naturally people are white, then those who are black are unnaturally so." or "If naturally people have sight, then people who are blind are unnaturally so." yet this is not the case. Variations in skin color or variations in vision are all natural.

[ QUOTE ]
It is both expected, and not expected at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ] This is not a paradox. It is simply wrong. If a scientistic/doctor/sociologist/whatever said that homosexuality was 'unexpected', they would be laughed out of their profession.

[ QUOTE ]
If you could open your eyes, and stop being so closed minded you could see the truth of what I write.

[/ QUOTE ] What beholdr and I are trying to point out, which you seem set to ignore, is that there are standard principles of logic. An argument is based on certain logical equations. (ie If A=B and B=C then A=C) You constantly break the rules (ie, your statements are illogical.) Bhldr politely (and I, trying to be more polite in this post [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) are pointing out the mistakes you are making. You keep ignoring and repeating the incorrect logic.

Its like Utah's post...
He said Dean believes X
Dean is a member of the Party Y
Therefore, All Y believes X.

This is asyllogistic error (Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject)

A straightforward example of why it doesn't work:
A Penguin Cannot Fly
A Penguin is a bird
therefore all birds cannot fly.

In this post you have:
1) you seem to want to imply that the predominant is natural when it is not an either/or situation.
2) You then talk about how humans need sex to procreate... while this is true, this has nothing to do with natural. The inability of individual creates to procreate is entirely EXPECTED and natural.
3) You make logical fallacies in your argument. I don't mean this to be insulting, but I take it that you haven't formally studied logic so when bholdr or I point out logical fallacies, I suspect you think we're speaking greek. (or in bholdrs case: Latin... literally.)

The fact is logic is not a POV thing. Logic is like math. It is formulaic with proven constants. (btw- people regularly make logical errors. they are not unique to you. But many arguments that sound good don't hold up under scrutiny. Usually because they make a syllogistic error. Like the example I listed above.)

[jaxmike]

This is an amazingly ignorant post. I cannot believe that you graduated from college, let alone grade school. Everyone who read this is now dumber for having done so. I award you zero points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

[ QUOTE ]

A point of view requires a disparity of interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is EXACTLY what we have here. I am fluid in my interpretations of definition, you are rigid (and in the end, wrong).

[ QUOTE ]

But if you say, in my point of view, 2+2=5. This is not interpretive. It is concrete.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but we are dealing with words that have multiple meanings, thus, it is NOT a concrete issue. Your inability to grasp these concepts is your problem.

[ QUOTE ]

You want to pretend words don't mean something so support your point of view. Unfortunately, you misuse or misunderstand the meanings of words and end up proving that your point of view is erroneous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. It is you that do this very thing. You cannot accept the fact that I am right, thus you stick to your narrow view on the meanings of these words. It is YOU that pretends that words don't mean something. I granted that SOME of your interpretations were indeed correct. However, you are not opening your mind and seeing reality. YOU are the one that is PRETENDING that words don't mean what they do.

[ QUOTE ]

For instance, you posted "conforming to the usual or normal course of nature." You posted that and, without further comment, acted as if that supported your POV. But it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, but it does. You are just too ignorant or obtuse to admit it.

[ QUOTE ]
The usual or normal course of natural means ANY and all variations commonly found in nature. Therefore, if a person is an albino, and they are found in 1% of the population, they are 'natural.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But at the same time, it is not natural. Can you understand that FACT?

[ QUOTE ]
It is a USUAL and NORMAL variation found in the course of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keyword you used, "variation". IE, abnormal, IE unnatural.

[ QUOTE ]
If nature goes on its USUAL course, you will find variations of creatures that engage in homosexual behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. However the variations are normal, and at the same time they are variations, and as such, by definition, abnormal (unnatural).

variation-n-Marked difference or deviation from the normal or recognized form, function, or structure
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=variation

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly, let me know how you are interpreting this definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I have made that quite clear.

[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree, please show how your see it different by putting it in context of the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have done this as well.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, you are confusing "expected" with "predominant."

[/ QUOTE ]

If something is "predominant" is it not "expected"? Come on.

[ QUOTE ]
For homosexuality to be "unexpected" it would not be a standard variation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. If you pick person at random and there are only two choices, heterosexual or homosexual, which would you expect the person you chose to be?

[ QUOTE ]
How could one not EXPECT homosexuality when, as far as we know, it has always been there. It is expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point. Homosexuallity is both expected and unexpected, depending on what you are looking for. If you are looking over a large sample, you expect to see homosexuals, if you look at a sample of one, you do not.

[ QUOTE ]
Matter of fact, the studies I mentioned earlier noted that each successive child born from the same mother has a greater chance of being gay. They are still trying to determine exactly why this is. The point being, they EXPECT and can PREDICT a rough estimate of how often they will see it under certain conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I grant that point. However, it doesn't make me wrong. The fact that it happens does not mean its the expected state of any given individual. That state is heterosexual because its the most common.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that what you keep implying that because MOST people are heterosexual (predominant) that anything else is unnatural. That is not what unnatural means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, but it is. Read the definitions.
unnatural-adj-# Deviating from a behavioral or social norm

The norm IS heterosexuality, thus homosexuality is unnatural.

[ QUOTE ]
Due to your misuse of "expected", this does not follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[ QUOTE ]

First off... this statement has no bearing on whether or not it is natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it does. It lends credence to the claim that heterosexuality is the norm, thus the natural state of human sexuality. As if common sense wasn't enough...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our survival as a species does NOT depend on homosexuality, it does depend on heterosexuality (or did until science conquered God).

[/ QUOTE ]
This has NO bearing on whether or not homosexuality is natural. You are on a tangent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, supporting argument, nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
You're all over the place here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your inability to follow an argument is not suprising given your history on this issue.

[ QUOTE ]
For humans to procreate, it would certainly help if we were predominately heterosexual (which we are.) But every member of a race does not have to aid in procreation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. However, procreation is normal, its biological, its ingrainded into DNA.

[ QUOTE ]
And anyone who doesn't procreate isn't unnatural. If someone is born impotent, it doesn't mean they are unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does, because they are deviating from the norm.

[ QUOTE ]
mpotence is a natural variation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, however, at the same time impotence is not normal, normally people are capable of reproduction.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm honestly not just trying to insult you here, but you really do exhibit a weakness in logic. (I studied it for awhile, you are making a number of common logical fallacies.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are unwilling to accept perfectly reasonable definitions. That is why you are unable to realize the truth.

[ QUOTE ]

Even this is a fundamentally flawed argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
It implies that there is only one natural state or condition for the offered scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the case.

[ QUOTE ]
I could say, "if naturally people are white, then those who are black are unnaturally so." or "If naturally people have sight, then people who are blind are unnaturally so." yet this is not the case. Variations in skin color or variations in vision are all natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Variations in sexuality are natural also. However, skin color variations are environmental and based upon lineage. Homosexuality doesn't appear to be. It appears to be a random (if its not a choice) variation, an unnatural one, because its outside the norm.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a paradox.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your inability to understand the English language is impressive.

[ QUOTE ]
It is simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not.

[ QUOTE ]
If a scientistic/doctor/sociologist/whatever said that homosexuality was 'unexpected', they would be laughed out of their profession.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the context under which they use the word. You can't see that either because you are too obtuse or ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]
What beholdr and I are trying to point out, which you seem set to ignore, is that there are standard principles of logic. An argument is based on certain logical equations. (ie If A=B and B=C then A=C) You constantly break the rules (ie, your statements are illogical.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't. You aren't taking into account the fact that definitions of words are open to interpretation and how they are used in context.

[ QUOTE ]
Bhldr politely (and I, trying to be more polite in this post [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) are pointing out the mistakes you are making. You keep ignoring and repeating the incorrect logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you ignore the valid meanings of words is this true.

[ QUOTE ]
Its like Utah's post...
He said Dean believes X
Dean is a member of the Party Y
Therefore, All Y believes X.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you weren't such an idiot you would have realized that he didn't say ALL y believes x.

[ QUOTE ]
This is asyllogistic error (Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your inability to be flexible with meanings is what causes this. Your point is NOT TRUE because you are looking at definitios as being concrete and exclusionary.

[ QUOTE ]

A straightforward example of why it doesn't work:
A Penguin Cannot Fly
A Penguin is a bird
therefore all birds cannot fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only YOU are doing this. Here is why.

Homosexuality is present in nature
Nature is natural
Homosexuality is always natural

You are not taking into account the different ways in which natural can be used. If you cannot understand this, you are amazingly ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]

3) You make logical fallacies in your argument. I don't mean this to be insulting, but I take it that you haven't formally studied logic so when bholdr or I point out logical fallacies, I suspect you think we're speaking greek. (or in bholdrs case: Latin... literally.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are the ones making the mistakes in logic.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is logic is not a POV thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interpretation of meaning is. That is why you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is like math. It is formulaic with proven constants. (btw- people regularly make logical errors. they are not unique to you. But many arguments that sound good don't hold up under scrutiny. Usually because they make a syllogistic error. Like the example I listed above.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You have proven this. I am not claiming I am infallible, I am sure I make logical errors. However, you and bholder both are doing it as much (and in this case more profoundly) than I.

[bholdr]

jax, with every post you reveal more of the scope of your stubborn intolerance and ignorance. your 'argument' is based upon fallacy, but beyond that, it doesn't even follow a logical structure, 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).

it's somewhat baffling that you either aren't capable of understanding this, or are unwilling to admit your error.

however, i'm willing to help poor 'ol jaxmike learn a thing or two: 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

[kurto]

Wow.

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.

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)

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).

Unfortunately, since you clearly don't understand and are too stubborn to admit you are wrong, you reply with even MORE erroneous responses.

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.

Well this is what is happening to your arguments. They're getting worse and worse.

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.

[MuckJagger]

They fight, and bite,
And fight, and bite, and fight,
Fight, fight, fight,
Bite, bite, bite,
The Itchy and Scratchy Show!