Unusual Distractions

On Jul 12, 9:55 am, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.
Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

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


They also contain women. Naked women. Usually at least one good
looking naked woman.

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

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.

In my case, my lack of interest is that I don't care for PAYING to see
naked women. (Although some might argue that I "pay" on a daily basis
at home g)

Doug Semler wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:55 am, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.
Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

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


They also contain women. Naked women. Usually at least one good
looking naked woman.

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

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.

In my case, my lack of interest is that I don't care for PAYING to see
naked women. (Although some might argue that I "pay" on a daily basis
at home g)

It was never specified as either a staight strip club or gay strip club,
so the only possible conclusion is he is asexual like a fungus.

Most people have the related objective of social interaction (i.e. BS)
with other people, so the conclusion is he has no interest in human
contact of any kind.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 12, 1:15 pm, wrote:
Doug Semler wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:55 am, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.
Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

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

They also contain women. Naked women. Usually at least one good
looking naked woman.
Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.
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.
In my case, my lack of interest is that I don't care for PAYING to see
naked women. (Although some might argue that I "pay" on a daily basis
at home g)

It was never specified as either a staight strip club or gay strip club,
so the only possible conclusion is he is asexual like a fungus.

Good point, but in the context of the thread, a reasonable conclusion
was that I was referring to a "gentlemen's club" due to the fact that
I was originally referring to the statement that he has "done all
sorts of things with a beautiful girl next to [him]."


Most people have the related objective of social interaction (i.e. BS)
with other people, so the conclusion is he has no interest in human
contact of any kind.

Reasonable conclusion. The DSM-IV calls it "Social Phobia," I
believe. I also believe that there is treatment available for it as
well. g

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.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

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?

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)

iD8DBQFGlwugyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsdEAKCxZDDVuqUq1D/hI7pCgDj6gd/qzACeNw+O
3GcIUermXyBL6mwm2aCxq+w=
=LeJf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
news:BYDli.6336

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?

If you replace Masturbation with Microsoft Flight Simulator, you've summed
up Anthony's dismal life in three lines. In fact, you could also replace sex
with anything, (real flying, social interaction, intelligent conversation,
etc...) and still be on target.

"El Maximo" wrote

If you replace Masturbation with Microsoft Flight Simulator, you've summed
up Anthony's dismal life in three lines. In fact, you could also replace
sex
with anything, (real flying, social interaction, intelligent conversation,
etc...) and still be on target.


I suspect it's a voluntary program to help save France from having to go
through the formality of enacting a law that forbids him to reproduce.

BDS

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!

TheSmokingGnu

-----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