how do i snitch on someone stealing satellite channels?

Aww not again!!

 

notice how you said it is NOT and now you are sayin it is...

mmm... thinking, thinking, oooh, now you are contradicting yourself ¦¬D

bet you hate me more and more as the time goes on.

 

*sighs* look at it this way.

sarcasm is a chevrolet, irony is General Motors. chevy is a branch of GM. when you see a chevy s-10, you don't say, "hey, there's a GM," you say, "hey, there' a chevy."

it's a subdivision, not classified exactly as irony. it's a form of irony, but irony has too many variants for this case of yours to be construed simply as irony.

as the most magnificent english instructor i ever studied under, Michael Huskey, often said, "BS, kids! and i don't mean bull sh*t!"

Be Specific.

 

or, look at it this way...

if you see somebody walkin down the street with a nano, you don't say, "hey, look, there's somebody with a nano" you would say, "hey, look, there's somebody with an iPod"

you see, nano is a sub-devision of iPod. 'cos you wouldn't say that it's a nano, you would just say it's an iPod


hate me yet?

 

however, that is a logical error. the Fallacy of Ambiguity, my philosophy professor would call it, when relating to deductive logic. that also makes your argument invalid.

i know you don't hate me yet; i present a challenge. a challenge is not to be hated, only conquered. it's possible, in debate, to win even when you are wrong; that's the trait that makes the greatest of debaters. you possess the mental faculties, but have you yet gained the tools?

 

"you think your hott sh*t 'cos you know words" -- "fairy" gerry from the benchwarmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

it doesn't make it invalid, 'cos what i said is true and still stands.

and i don't hate you: you are just a "challenge" as you say...

and now it's getting "tricky" as my maths teacher would say. tricky "to choose my words" as my R.E. teacher would say.

(god, do i love doing quotes or what?)

i don't know what you mean exactly with "the tools", but i do like a little argument every once in a while. especialy with my R.E., product design, maths and and chemistry teachers. oooh, its so fun...

 

however, we are not dealing with probability, but with facts, making this a deductive, not inductive, argument. there is no invalidity or validity with inductive arguments, only strong and weak arguments. ambiguity is a fallacy that destroys the fundamental ability of any deductive argument to prove it's point and makes it invalid.

we are not talking about logical fallacy in general, but a specific fallacy that inhibits your logic.

however, you have embraced a useful bit of strategy in continuing the argument far past the appropriate ending time in an attempt to confuse and distract your opponent, which often does succeed in tripping an arguer up.

 

here mate, i'll continue this 2morrow or something, but for now im away to get a wee munch... probibly the one described on my "my.afterdawn" here

 

by leaving, you surrender. sure you want to be talked down that way?

 

im not leaving, im merely taking a break...

i'll probibs be back in a few hours. obv

 

i don't think you have anything left to argue, craig. ^.~

 

STOP IT! i always get an e-mail sayin that i need to look...

so stop just for now, please.

now im getting a munch 'cos i've got the munchies ¦¬P

 

then just stop replying, craig. go get your munchies and ponder your doom

 

Aus never said it couldn't be irony, he said just in this case its sarcasm, not irony............... Unless you mean that you think your sentence is irony

 

to summarize, sarasm is a form of irony. "irony" is just far too general a term for that case.

i'm happy you see the overall point, tocool.

 

Sweet im improving my reading comprehension *Wink Wink*

 

ah, the familiar wink wink!

 

As a theology major allow me simply state this: there are TWO criteria necessary for a conclusion to be logical:

1. The argument or syllogism must be VALID .... but when something is "valid" it merely means that premeses do indeed add up to the conclusion but that is ALL it means. It doesn't mean it's logical but rather than the premeses of the argument add up to their conclusion. In addition, to constitute a logical arguement:

2. The premeses of the syllogism or arguement must be SOUND .... i.e. true and unambiguous.

The writings of authors like the Marquis de Sade were illegal until the 1960s because he was so good at valid thought that he could convince anyone of anything; it is the soundness of his premeses that make his arguments illogical though soundness is less in your face than the influential power of validity. Consider the following:

1. I exist.
2. I am a human being.
3. Everything that exists has a cause.
4. The causal chain cannot be infinite.
5. No effect is quantitativly greater that its cause.

Therefore: THERE MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE WHICH IS AT LEAST A HUMAN BEING.

Is this a logical argument? ...it was Albert Einsteins view of cosmology; is there an inherent problem in the thought?

Is a brown horse a horse? The answer is no because brown horse denotes the color of a form while the other stricly describes form in the abstract. Shit....I need to lay off the oxycontin.

 

it's gerry! gerry gerry gerry! please tell me i'm wrong so i'll stop fighting craig. you're the only one i'll concede to.

 

even for some one with very little education (not refering to my self, thanks) its easy to see the point that Aus is trying to make here.

that was purely sarcasm.

ture, u did say one thing and mean the opposite, for example u said that u did not want to steal the cable but in truth u did. Aus's argument is not that its not irony but that when u said it was irony, u were being way too vauge. its is irony, just a very specific form of it. he is stating that u need to be more specific when u are refering to something with so many subdivisions.

now as for the Ipod nano comment, that was just stupid. i mean i thought u had an argument there but then u said that and i completley lost all faith in ur argument. the proof u used just furthered Aus's argument. and showed that u obviosly have little-none knowledge in the topic your arguing. all in all i think u lost from the very start.

way ta' go Aus ^_^ AAAAAWWWWHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO