Posted: Sep 13, 2017 7:37 am
I'm waiting for the author to confirm, but if it is, it's a ludicrous straw-men.
Cito di Pense wrote:
That is (of course) because there isn't an instruction manual for implementing it correctly (according to whom?)
At some point, Thomas, you will acquire some recognition that robotically claiming to have identified fallacies in other people's arguments only saves you the trouble of constructing one yourself. You could at least explain the details of the fallacy you claim someone has committed, instead of simply naming it, which convinces no one that you've even correctly identified a fallacy in someone else's argument. Incidentally, the "no true Scotsman" is, among other things about the Really-o, Truly-o, which of course, does not present itself. Besides that, no one but you is going to give the smallest fuck about the fallacies you robotically claim to have identified without your accompanying analysis of them.
To be fair, Randian objectivism hasn't ever really been implemented either, because it is nothing but a fictional plot device.
Ah more of the vapid trolling you so often devolve to.
The above wall of text not only does not adress what I actually posted, it also misrepresents my contributions in other threads.
In most if not all cases, I do actually explain/demonstrate how someone is presenting a fallacious argument.
The times when I don't is usually because it's already been pointed out and my interlocutor is just regurgitating the same fallacy over and over, whilst failing to adress my rebuttal or those of others.
Now, you'll no doubt can't resist the urge to come out from under the bride again, to post more vacuous nonsense.
As far as I am concerned it'll only affect you.