Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Word play in aramaic and syriac
#74
Steve if you would actually read the poster you reffered to you would see that you are in violation of 81% of them. And as for the other 19% if you think to stand behind them and think it helps to make your point - then yeh you are as you said I say, awmayn. And I stand beside you on that without a doubt.

1) strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.


Steve you are definatly guilty of this on more than one account. You have tried to make out that the oldest textural tradition are the newer ones and that the newertextural tradition are the older ones, whereby hocus pocus your faricated synario fits neetly into the mess of it.

2) false cause
You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.


This one ids at the very nature of your agrument as you ignore gfacts and point here and there at things that could've, should've, would've, but ain't.But none the less a 100% wantabie.

3) appeal to emotion
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.


I tell you the truth what I said was not a plead to emotion but rather a logical conclussion based upon factual observations. You are the one trying to make it all emotional, not me.

4) the fallacy fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments
.

Really, this is what you are using to make your argument sound good, oy. This one is in violation of the first one above is it not. Talk about making a circuler argument to try and get around to a point. Problem with this is it can easily be seen for what it is no matter what the spin one tries to rotate the BS within.

5) slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.


No this is called simple prophecy in which one with common sense can easily see the result of a bad idea coming around the turn pike. It is the simpletons that have not a clue that the other is actually trying to help stop them from making mistakes, not stopping them from making forward progress. See by helping others not make mistakes they can actually make forward progress. The Anointed One made reference to this when He said something about "the blind leading the blind".

6) ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.


OK I am partially guilty here as I did not actaually ingauge in the textural issues at hand, but make no mistake about it I was not trying to ditract anyone away from any facts that you presented, but rather pointing out a well know fact that some people come up with the darnest things. See I did not say what I did to distract one from concidering what you said, I said what I did to try and help others see why it is that you say such things. Again this silly saying puts the cart before the horse once again. Really I advise you to stop reading this stuff, as it is missleading to the left and to the right like a criss-crossed camel traversed in her ways.

7) tu quoque
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.


Durrr.

<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> personal incredulity
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.


Really, you gonna bring Darwin's THEORY into this to try and make your's look like they might just happen to have some validitity? I can't touch this. Next ...

9) special pleading
You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.
Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.


MY POINT EXACTLY!!! And I am not hollering I am simply trying to drive a point home. So I reitera "BINGO".

10) loaded question
You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.
Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot.


Yep it would seem if you violated this one with your first two retorical staements at the begining of you last post. Read 'em and wheep.

11) burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.


Others here have shown proof that is beyond all doubt yet you have dismissed it with this illoghical way of thinking where by claiming the fact that you can not prove what you claim does not mean it is not valid. Really ... this reverts back to #9 in that one is not being willing to take an honest look at the facts put before them while they make conjections through much conguring up of stuff.

12) ambiguity
You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.


Steve Paul called you out on this and you tried yor best to slip out of it mby trying to turn the focus on him and make him out to be the bad guy - in true politician form.

14) bandwagon
You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.


Was not this your excuse to continue referring to Paul and his kindsmen by the S* word?

15) appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).


Again just what you did, ignoring Paul's indepth understaning on in the matter, over the S* word.
Oh yeah, again, what's up with the monkey bussiness?

16) no true scotsman
You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.
In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.


Again putting the cart before the horse. It was your the OUT STANDING ARGUMENT you put before us that I drew my conclussion from. I was not trying to distract people away from what you said but rather my flaming arrow was aimed right at it. No I say it is you that is making the call to purity to try once again and ditsract people away from your highly flawed conclussions. Again you can not be taken siriously if you keep ignoring the facts that Brother Paul and others put before you whiole all the while you point at something that while may have some truth to it is not reavent to the issue at hand. And one that note I would incourage you to go against your very nature as you put it and stick to the facts and stop conjuring stuff up, at least notsuch as that goes against real world facts. So try and hold back a bit on the speculations until you at least get the facts straight, so when you do speculate it would have a far better change of lining up with fathumable cenario.

And puttimg aside the fact that I am a marginally literate English commoner as far as language goes, I will have to say that you have at lest been spot-on two accounts (count 'em two). The fact that not only that we do not speak the same language, but you astute observation as to that we are definally not at the say eye level either.

But I digress, my word of advise once again is get first the FACTS Pheshitta, and then the Greek follows.

Oh, don't bother trying to spell check this, as it would only serve to reviolate #7, and we would not want to do that now would we(?). <!-- s:tellme: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tellme.gif" alt=":tellme:" title="Tell Me" /><!-- s:tellme: -->
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 02-27-2013, 08:26 PM
RE: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thomas - 05-27-2020, 04:56 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by distazo - 02-28-2013, 04:10 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 02-28-2013, 04:27 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 02-28-2013, 05:06 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by distazo - 03-01-2013, 06:59 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-01-2013, 07:45 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 03-01-2013, 08:25 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by distazo - 03-01-2013, 08:40 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-02-2013, 01:07 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-03-2013, 07:29 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 03-04-2013, 12:58 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 03-04-2013, 08:47 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by distazo - 03-04-2013, 08:53 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 03-05-2013, 04:37 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by distazo - 03-06-2013, 07:18 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-06-2013, 07:48 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-07-2013, 05:23 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-07-2013, 06:23 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by distazo - 03-07-2013, 10:49 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 03-07-2013, 05:16 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-08-2013, 01:23 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-08-2013, 04:11 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 03-08-2013, 04:47 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 03-08-2013, 01:25 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by memradya - 03-09-2013, 08:19 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 06-25-2014, 02:46 AM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by Thirdwoe - 06-28-2014, 09:12 PM
Re: Word play in aramaic and syriac - by The Texas RAT - 06-29-2014, 07:51 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)