Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

Omnibus · February 03, 2011, 04:57:17 PM

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 04:48:50 PM
these very serious flaws in thinking demonstrated in this thread (and others) by omnibus are par for his course. cogent arguments are rarely supplied in rebuttal to another persons point(s) and are instead supplanted by a wild variety of logical fallacies. when called on this, he retreats to his favorite fallacy of all argumentum ad nauseam, where he repeats the same thing over and over till you are sick of hearing it.

No, a person like you who has clearly demonstrated muddled thinking cannot utter such judgements. It's obviously preposterous and untrue. Of course, you have no restraint and you have to be constantly reminded of that, despite your love for the word 'cogent'. That word and your thinking are not friends despite your impression to the contrary.

WilbyInebriated · February 03, 2011, 05:02:17 PM

Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 04:45:47 PM
You repeatedly asked me about something I already repeatedly answered. I know you want very much the win to be yours but it isn't, unfortunately.

you sir, are a liar. you haven't shown how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case...

the win is mine albeit not one i am proud of... not much competition from the likes of you, who refuses to present a cogent rebuttal.

Omnibus · February 03, 2011, 05:05:23 PM

Oh, by the way, whatever happened to the other possibilities for the flawed Karl Popper's logic? One was his mediocrity, the other was deliberate conspiracy to destroy science. Our friend said I've committed logical fallacy because there are other possibilities. What are they?

WilbyInebriated · February 03, 2011, 05:07:50 PM

Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:05:23 PM
Oh, by the way, whatever happened to the other possibilities for the flawed Karl Popper's logic? One was his mediocrity, the other was deliberate conspiracy to destroy science. Our friend said I've committed logical fallacy because there are other possibilities. What are they?

denied, your pathetic attempt at a strawman argument has been noted. even more pathetic is that you used a previous logical fallacy as a segue into this one...

tell you what, you show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case, and i'll be your huckleberry on the popper fallacy.

Omnibus · February 03, 2011, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:02:17 PM
you sir, are a liar. you haven't shown how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case... the win is mine albeit not one i am proud of... not much competition from the likes of you, who refuses to present a cogent rebuttal.

Well, so much for ad hominem attqck. Here it is, par excellence. I'm not to blame that you don't understand the explanations I gave for the differences.

Thus, your win is only in your imagination.