Unusual Distractions

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

TheSmokingGnu wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
So let's run this up the flagpole:

1. Nothing is better than sex.
2. Masturbation is better than nothing; therefore
3. Masturbation is better than sex.

Pour toi, c'est vrai?

Not that I wish to detract, but you do know about the rules of
equivocation, right?

Or was that the joke? I swear, sometimes people try much too hard to
castigate the resident troll; he's not that intellectually endowed!

Indeed. That's the joke. in fact, it's one of the daily fortune
cookie fortunes I get on my server I log in to daily. It fit well with
where the topic was headed in this thread.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGl/pRyBkZmuMZ8L8RApwtAJ4qMXoWNPPKVo+tuVWSt48RZe8wRQCb Bqfn
h0C28UPbF1Gjh/BjIigGwsk=
=FdIj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Doug Semler writes:

Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

So far, so good.

Therefo
Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
(Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.

1. All A are B.
2. X is B.
3. X is A.

Incorrect.

1. All A are B.
2. X is A.
3. X is B.

Correct.


No, it is syllogistic (deductive) logic with a logical fallacy of an
undistributed middle (and an aside ad hominem attack). Hence my
parenthetical about the conclusion. Of course you knew that, since you are
a teacher of English, are supposedly fluent in the English language and have
basic reading comprehenshion skills.

For your edification (not like you'd understand this but...):
Inductive reasoning infers a universal based on observational premises.
Probably the most common form of inductive reasoning is a spam blocker,
which infers new item categorization based upon previously observed
categorizations (which is why spam blockers get more accurate as the user
categorizes more items; the increase in sample size allows more
specificity). You will also commonly hear this (the spam blocker, not
inductive reasoning) called a "Bayesian Classifier". Inductive arguments
are often referred to as "probabilistic."

Deductive reasoning infers its conclusions from the premises. Boolean
algebra, also symbolic logic, are forms of deductive reasoning. The
conclusions logically follow from the premises. A deductive argument is
valid if it follows the syllogistic rules (my argument above is not even a
valid argument due to the fallacy of undistributed middle). An argument may
be valid even if the premises are not true. A deductive argument is sound
if the argument is valid and the premises are also true.

Abductive reasoning infers the premises from observed conclusion. (Also
known as infering the causes, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

By the way, your statement that "inductive reasoning is unreliable" is
itself an inductive argument, and therefore unreliable (assuming that
inductive reasoning, is, in fact unreliable). Oh, yeah, that is ........
drum roll please ..... a circular argument

"DougS" wrote in message
...

So, the bottom line is Anthony is trying to use big words again in order to
sound intelligent?

No, it is syllogistic (deductive) logic with a logical fallacy of an
undistributed middle (and an aside ad hominem attack).

Inductive reasoning infers a universal based on observational premises.

Abductive reasoning infers the premises from observed conclusion. (Also
known as infering the causes, post hoc ergo propter hoc).


By the way, your statement that "inductive reasoning is unreliable" is
itself an inductive argument, and therefore unreliable (assuming that
inductive reasoning, is, in fact unreliable). Oh, yeah, that is ........
drum roll please ..... a circular argument

"El Maximo" wrote in message
...
"DougS" wrote in message
...

So, the bottom line is Anthony is trying to use big words again in order
to sound intelligent?

You know, the entire time I was composing that message, I was thinking he's
"better to keep his mouth shut and be thought an idiot than to open it and
remove all doubt."

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Doug Semler writes:

Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

So far, so good.

Therefo
Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
(Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is
a
homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.

1. All A are B.
2. X is B.
3. X is A.

Incorrect.

1. All A are B.
2. X is A.
3. X is B.

Correct.


Whooosh


Bertie

writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Clueless.

Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Yeah, real human beings.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Notwithstanding the hasty generalization regarding the reasons for
consumption, ethanol is a CNS depressant, not a "mind altering drug."


Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Yeah, we all know (now) that you avoid naked women.

DougS wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Notwithstanding the hasty generalization regarding the reasons for
consumption, ethanol is a CNS depressant, not a "mind altering drug."


Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Yeah, we all know (now) that you avoid naked women.

And any contact with real humans.

Which is probably a good thing with his insufferable attitude.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
writes:

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.


Pilots, obviously.

Bertie