Originally posted by FMFand yet you cannot provide any evidence other than a rather glaring argumentum ad populum. Do you often a produce logical fallacy when its pointed out that you seem to have little more evidence for your claims than some value you have imbued to your own words?
I think there is ample evidence: this thread, page 7 onwards. People can judge for themselves. If they reckon I've got it wrong, then I will respond to their analysis.
Lets put it in context again, you asked a question, I made a reference to a piece of literature, you said that this was emotionalism, can you tell us your thought process that helped you arrive at this conclusion so we can begin to understand how it is emotionalism?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not resorting to "argumentum ad populum". I am saying that I laid out my case in my last 3 or 4 posts on this thread. And I am saying that the evidence is found in your posts [and my responses to them] from page 7 onwards. Inviting people to have a look and decide for themselves is not "argumentum ad populum".
and yet you cannot provide any evidence other than a rather glaring argumentum ad populum.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI cannot imagine the circumstances in which you would admit to being anti-intellectual and emotional. So it is not you I have to persuade. Others will judge for themselves. I will address any comments they might have on your demeanour and your argumentation on this thread if and when they post any.
Lets put it in context again, you asked a question, I made a reference to a piece of literature, you said that this was emotionalism, can you tell us your thought process that helped you arrive at this conclusion so we can begin to understand how it is emotionalism?
Originally posted by FMFYou were asked about claims for the veracity of a statement you made FMF and you cannot produce a single iota of evidence other than a logical fallacy and a vain appeal to other peoples opinions. Clearly you have little evidence for any of the claims you have made with regard to emotionalism and all they amount to is a value that you yourself have imbued to them, or in other words, they amount to nothing more than a belief in your own propaganda. I really should thank you for demonstrating this fact in such a thoroughly expository manner.
I cannot imagine the circumstances in which you would admit to being anti-intellectual and emotional. So it is not you I have to persuade. Others will judge for themselves. I will address any comments they might have on your demeanour and your argumentation on this thread if and when they post any.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI laid out my case in my last 3 or 4 posts [before I went to bed] on this thread. The evidence is found in your posts from page 7 onwards. You don't have to accept what I am saying.
you were asked for claims for the veracity of a statement you made FMF and you cannot produce a single iota of evidence...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't expect you to agree with the case I laid out.
Clearly you have little evidence for any of the claims you have made with regard to emotionalism and all they amount to is a value that you yourself have imbued to them, or in other words, they amount to nothing more than a belief in your own propaganda.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFyou have done exactly that,
I am not resorting to "argumentum ad populum". I am saying that I laid out my case in my last 3 or 4 posts on this thread. And I am saying that the evidence is found in your posts [and my responses to them] from page 7 onwards. Inviting people to have a look and decide for themselves is not "argumentum ad populum".
its true because other people will say its true, as bona fide an argumentum ad populum as you can get. You have nothing effhim but your own propaganda, some value that you thought to imbue to your own words with little evidence and its sorry to see you reduced to this grovelling about for the opinions of others to verify a statement that you yourself made! yes a sorry state of affairs indeed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps you don't understand what "argumentum ad populum" is? If I say, I am right because most people agree with me, then that is "argumentum ad populum". But me saying I rest my case so people can make of it what they want is not "argumentum ad populum".
you have done exactly that, its true because other people will say its true, as bona fide an argumentum ad populum as you can get.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no reason to think you will agree with me. Other posters my agree with you [and your claim that I have not produces evidence] while others may agree with the case I have made and may find the evidence supporting it exactly where I said they would find it.
until you produce a shred of evidence either way effhim, how can one agree or disagree with anything you claim?
Originally posted by FMFon the contrary you have made an appeal to the opinions of others when pressed upon for evidence for the veracity of claims you have made. that is an argumentum ad populum or in other words my argument will be seen to be true because other people will say that its true. Illogical and fallacious. here are your words again when pressed upon for evidence of your claim.
Perhaps you don't understand what "argumentum ad populum" is? If I say, I am right because most people agree with me, then that is "argumentum ad populum". But me saying I rest my case so people can make of it what they want is not "argumentum ad populum".
People can judge for themselves. If they reckon I've got it wrong, then I will respond to their analysis.
notice the appeal to other people when pressed upon for evidence.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOther people may well think you are right and I am wrong.
on the contrary you have made an appeal to the opinions of others when pressed upon for evidence for the veracity of claims you have made. that is an argumentum ad populum or in other words my argument will be seen to be true because other people will say that its true. Illogical and fallacious.