twister -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 09:12:50pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: twister

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03/13/04 3:01pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Don't pogo around the premises, pick one!" on 03/13/04 2:23pm

>Odd, I didn't mention eternity past in the text you
>quoted me.

No, but of course as we both know, your original argument assumes this.

>
>Well, basically eternity past is the infinite past.
>So when I say Shandy has been writing from eternity
>past, it means that he's always been writing
>throughout the infinite past.

The infinite past. So, the argument does assume there is a thing called the infinite past, and makes assumptions about what that might be/entail?

>>You assume that an "infinite past" is in fact,
>>something that we can imagine, which we can, but we
>>don't know if it's accurate.
>
>In which premise?

It's assumed. Deductive arguments rest on assumptions. Did you read Baz's article?

>
> You are also guilty of reifying the past.
>
>How and in which premise?

It's assumed. You are obviously treating a title as if it were the thing itself.

>What other problems? So far I haven't seen much of
>any. (Vague assertions here and there that don't
>attack a single premise, but not much in the way of
>real, legitimate problems.)

You're right, they attack things more fundamental than premises, and that is the assumptions.
>
>>That's two
>>logical fallacies against you, notwithstanding the
>>other problems everyone has pointed out.
>

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
'round and 'round we go...	Wade A. Tisthammer	03/13/04 4:26pm
In the argument -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 7:29pm I can do that too. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 10:17pm But not as well -- Damoclese, 03/14/04 8:11am Where are the assumptions? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 12:23pm Confession of much apathy -- Damoclese, 03/15/04 5:29pm If you're apathetic about this, why have you continued so far? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/18/04 9:55am