| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | If all fish are mammals, and some mammals are poisonous, |
| OniRonin 01/18/20 10:00:26 PM #6: | ParanoidObsessive posted... You're arguing from fallacious first principles, therefore the consequent is invalid. You're invalid. The consequent ("Some fish are poisonous") is preferable to the subsequent ("Fish don't poison people") because the latter ("Fish don't poison people") seems to presuppose something as common as fish poisoning or fish poisoning rates. (Why isn't a percentage of people poisoned by fish offered as a single count against an affected fish species?) It may also be so that, in a statistic (such as there was none, there is/was no fish poisoning), the sentence in the context of that statistic is phrased in negative, where its logical need for negation as a principle for ordinary language follows from the "I'm the only one who" and the verbal clausalization of this as indicative ("He's the only one who exists") and prior to subject ("you") is false a priori. --- http://boomeressentials.com/.well-known/ https://essentialboomer.guide/robots.txt #NotAllGamers #YesAllLandlords ... Copied to Clipboard! |
| Topic List | Page List: 1 |