If the idea is to reach the goal claimed in the opening topic essay then having you speak for me will not work to get to the goal.
"well that's true for you but not for me."
So who said those words?
Who is targeting who to paint who as someone who is flippant?
"In fact, it's a logical fallacy, one of composition."
If you are still speaking to your creation of fantasy, then how does that involve me?
Who said the words that you published as such:
You place those words that you publish in quotes: why?
Who wrote those words that are now flippant, and as you claim those words are a logical fallacy, and those words that you publish are as you say, "one of composition".
Note how I quote your words that you publish, and those words that you publish are words that I can cut and past from your published words, and I don't have to make those words up that you publish, since you published those words, not me.
Then you go on an continue your argument with your Straw Man based upon what your Straw Man says, according to you, so how does that have anything to do with me, or what I offer as a competitive perspective?
"Obviously this is false. But this is essentially what you have done."
What you have done, in fact, without the qualifier of "essentially" is that you have constructed a phrase, of your own construction, you pin those words supposedly on me, and the words you create for your Straw Man to speak, are stupid words, words you create, and then as if by magic you defeat the stupid words you publish and claim that you are defeating me.
I am not arguing, so the documented facts of what you do are only that, and the documented facts of what I do are only that, and you are the one making false claims about how your words are somehow attributable to me, which they are not, so why are you doing that, and here is a simple question that you can dodge.
Why are you making up words that you publish and then why are you attributing your words to me as if I had said the words that you are now publishing?
Why are your falsifying the facts as they are documented, and easy to check, right here on this forum?
You argue with your Man of Straw as if I am somehow involved in your argument with your Man of Straw, so what is the point in doing that all alone in whatever argument you are constructing; how does that, in any way, involve me?
Perhaps this shows me that I should clarify my premise to something like this: "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature."
What happened to cause you to arrive at that insight? I am curious since I had nothing to do with your argument with your Straw Man. Was it your argument with your Straw Man that led you to believe that you need to change your story?
Now your story is improved?
"I do not think it's the premise you are arguing against, but the conclusion."
I am not arguing. I don't argue. I see no point in it. I am reporting. I offer an accurate, measurable, perspective for competitive review in discussion. If you need someone to argue with, then it makes sense that you may then create Men of Straw, but what does that have to do with me?
This is demonstrably false:
"all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature."
There is no argument, it is merely false. The use of the absolute qualifier automatically makes the statement false, as there are many human beings, whereby the human being exists an entire life time without ever acting in any way that can be measured as being corrupt.
The false construction of words that you have constructed goes on to move from an absolute measure ("all") into subjective nonsense with the two words "inherently corrupt" as if such a combination of words could ever be known in any way by anyone at any time, when in fact any effort to do so, to know what those two words mean, require an individuals subjective opinion, which can change from one minute to the next, to measure the meaning of those two words, and therefore the sentence is not only false (for the false claim of applying the claim to "all") it is not only false, it is ambiguous to a point of meaninglessness.
Then you go even further into subjective nonsense whereby "all humans" (according to you exclusively) are such and such (nonsense) "by their nature".
What is "by their nature" supposed to mean, other than what you say it means right now, and subject to change into some opposite meaning a minute from now?
"As Aristotle taught us, any logical argument can be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. I have offered just one premise, you have rightly figured out the second, and I believe you object to the conclusion."
Aristotle taught you something? That is news. So someone taught you how to argue, and now you think I should join in on the argument?
I don't think in terms of arguments, what is the point?
I think in terms of a competition of perspectives whereby the more accurate perspective is preferable, better, than the less accurate perspective in specific ways that can be accurately measured.
If you want ot argue, then that may explain why you keep creating a Man of Straw to argue with, but what does that have to do with me?
Your latest sentence is patently absurd.
If there is an accurate perspective that you can offer up for competitive review in a discussion, so as to then find the basic differences between your perspective an an competitive perspective, then you could do so, and you could do so without making up absurd statements that are measurably false, and you could do so by avoiding the continued resort to fabricating an imaginary opponent in a argument that you are having with that Man of Straw of your own construction.
"In saying "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature." You must also say "I am a human" (which is the 2nd premise)."
You can say anything you want, but your words are measurably false, and of no interest to me, other than to defend myself against your claims that I have anything to do with your argument that you are having with your imaginary opponent.
All human beings are on the planet Earth. That is measurable.
All human beings are...
You say, as if it were true, that all human beings are inherently...
Human being A dies before the age of 1.
That is a human being, never reaching the age of 2, and therefore the claim applies to that human being, since that human being is within the set of "all" human beings.
What was "in" that human being, something that is in all human beings inherently?
All human beings are inherently corrupt.
How is this baseless, ambiguous, meaningless, sentence, in any way measurable?
Your claim goes on well beyond patent absurdity by adding even further subjective nonsense as all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.
What do you mean, exactly, are you speaking about genetic code? What is the purpose of publishing ambiguous nonsense? Do you seek a method by which an argument can perpetuate forever?
Why go even further past the creation of nonsense by claiming that your nonsense is in some way factual?
When you do so, when you claim that your nonsense if factual, then you set yourself up to the challenge of providing proof of the claim that all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.
Since there are no facts to prove, in your production of nonsense, then there can be no proof, so why claim that your nonsense if factual?
"This seems to be a place you are unwilling to go. And I respect your opinion."
The use of the word "are" as if there is no room for doubt, as if the claim you make is factual, and therefore your claim, which can't possibly be factual, is proven, self-evidently proven, to be nonsense. Then you claim that for some reason someone, a strange entity consisting of vapor, a ghost, a phantom, is not "willing to go" into your fantasy world where all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.
And then you respect the opinion of your Man of Straw, but your Man of Straw, who you claim is not going somewhere, is called "you" and you respect "your" opinion when you speak to your Man of Straw.
How does that have anything to do with me?
"I suppose I would rather talk about the first premise though and not jump ahead to the conclusion."
Are you speaking to your Man of Straw?
"Your arguments against my conclusion do not prove it false."
I don't argue. What would be the point? If you invent a sentence, then the sentence can be discussed, if that is the idea, to discuss a sentence that you invent.
You invented a sentence. I can discuss that sentence. I can "go there" as you say. If you want someone to follow you into your fantasy world where all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature, then that sounds like an argument you are constructing with someone who has an interest in arguments. I don't have that interest.
I have an interest in finding the fundamental differences between one perspective and another perspective based upon the concept of accuracy; whereby the more accurate perspective is fundamentally better.
A good perspective is an accurate perspective.
A bad perspective is exemplified by many competitively bad sentences.
Here is one competitively bad sentence (due to the lack of any way of measuring it):
All human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.
If there were a way to measure that claim, in that sentence, then that sentence could move up the accurate (good) scale.
At the moment, as far as I can tell, that sentence is a complete fabrication of nonsense.
"Not all people are as bad as they could be, this is true."
If you ever get done having an argument with your Man of Straw, you might begin offering a competitive perspective by constructing an arrangement of English words that can convey an accurate perspective - I suppose.
What can obviously happen is a point at which there will be no point in continuing the effort to discuss the topic (the law of diminishing returns steps in): too much cost and no benefit.
"Not all people manifest external behavior that society asserts is bad, this is true."
How can that be true? "Society" cannot assert anything. Individual people can assert something. Do you mean to suggest that there is a responsible entity called "society" whereby "it" can assert something, as if "society" can be responsible, and "society" can be held to account?
If so then there is another patently absurd sentence backed up by a patently absurd claim of truth.
If, on the other hand, you are claiming that "society" is a list of people, then who is on that list, if they belong on that list, and who is not on that list, if they do not belong on that list, and do you mean everyone is on that list as in "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature."?
Do you mean to equate "all humans" with "society" as if one is the same list of people as the other list, or are there exceptions in "society" which are people who are not on the list in "all humans"?
"People still do good things, this is true."
If you can measure it, then we both can know that it is true, according to your measure of how true it is, and then another person could conceivably add to the list of people who claim that same "truth".
"All these objections to my premise and more can still be true and my premise still stand."
Returning back to your argument with your Man of Straw can easily find anything conceivable in your mind - exclusively - but that has nothing to do with a discussion on the topic as far as I am concerned.
Again, the fallacy you are falling into is that of Affirming a disjunct;
A or B
Therefore, it is not the case that B.
You have little in the way of knowing what I think, let alone what I am falling into, but you are intimately aware of exactly what your Man of Straw may or may not do at any given moment.
What will you have your Man of Straw do next: jump off a bridge?
Or to put it in our terms:
Man is inherently good or bad
Man can do good
Therefore, it is not the case that man is inherently bad
You are using the word "our" to mean what, exactly: you and your imaginary friend?
If my viewpoint is to be viewed for competitive analysis, compared with any other viewpoint, then that can be done, but to claim that your version of my viewpoint has anything to do with my viewpoint is as false as your latest creations.
If you can measure how all humans are inherently corrupt by their nature, then I can see how well that measures up as being true, not until then.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: