congresswoman/judge shot in Arizona

[240 is Back]

I've debated you here for about 5 years now, beach bum, and I know you fairly well.  

Something seems to have changed with you, in the last few months.  using profanity, insults, saying things like

Good grief.  You are one insecure little twat.  

and

Stick that up that up your rear end

Everything cool, man?  You used to be very peaceful and religious and never resorted to crass statements like these.  What's up?

[Dos Equis]

I've debated you here for about 5 years now, beach bum, and I know you fairly well.  

Something seems to have changed with you, in the last few months.  using profanity, insults, saying things like

and

Everything cool, man?  You used to be very peaceful and religious and never resorted to crass statements like these.  What's up?

Yawn.    Context is everything grasshopper.   

[tonymctones]

if you didn't get it after 10 pages why would I want to waste my time

Lurkers last post on that thread pretty much sums it up (I already decided to stop wasting my time on you 5 pages earlier)

LOL well I guess since lurker said so it makes it so...check that fallacy you accused me of. 

again point out the specific false logic i used...

[Straw Man]

LOL well I guess since lurker said so it makes it so...check that fallacy you accused me of. 

again point out the specific false logic i used...

no Lurker just summed up the last ten pages of you running in circles and how pointless it is to try having an actual conversation with you.

I gave you an example in this thread of your "false logic" and you didn't even seem to understand it

why would I keep wasting my time   

[tonymctones]

no Lurker just summed up the last ten pages of you running in circles and how pointless it is to try having an actual conversation with you.

I gave you an example in this thread of your "false logic" and you didn't even seem to understand it

why would I keep wasting my time   

yup just as i thought not one, NOT ONE SINGLE QUOTE to prove your point

yet another the post office is doing just fine moment 

[Straw Man]

yup just as i thought not one, NOT ONE SINGLE QUOTE to prove your point

yet another the post office is doing just fine moment 

new flash - doing this makes it harder to read

you love changing the subject when you can't defend yourself on the topic at hand

[tonymctones]

new flash - doing this makes it harder to read

you love changing the subject when you can't defend yourself on the topic at hand

you were the one that brought this up dumb ass...LMAO

[Straw Man]

you were the one that brought this up dumb ass...LMAO

I brought it up because you keep referirng to "logic"  in this thread and the last time you did that you got your ass handed to you

just like you do every time

[tonymctones]

I brought it up because you keep referirng to "logic"  in this thread and the last time you did that you got your ass handed to you

just like you do every time

LOL then how am i changing the subject you dumb bastard LMAO, it was you who changed the subject...

my point which is valid, is about his writing and it being in basic if, then logic format...WHICH IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hugo Chavez]

odd?  look at this, Giffords youtube channel.  look at the lower left of the channel showing what channels she subscribed to.  There are only two and one of them is the shooters channel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2

[Straw Man]

LOL then how am i changing the subject you dumb bastard LMAO, it was you who changed the subject...

my point which is valid, is about his writing and it being in basic if, then logic format...WHICH IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you mentioned logic in this thread

I suggested you should stop embarressing yourself with your attempts to explain logic and I sited a recent example as a reminder of the typical result when you attemp to give logic lessons

I'm honestly trying to help you out

[tonymctones]

odd?  look at this, Giffords youtube channel.  look at the lower left of the channel showing what channels she subscribed to.  There are only two and one of them is the shooters channel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2

that is odd

[tonymctones]

you mentioned logic in this thread

I suggested you should stop embarressing yourself with your attempts to explain logic and I sited a recent example as a reminder of the typical result when you attemp to give logic lessons

I'm honestly trying to help you out

I mentioned b/c it is relevant to the conversation you moronic toad LOL

then you went off on a tangent changing the subject, then I said to quit derailing the thread and you continued, I asked for you to prove your ascertions and once again you side stepped and didnt provide any proof for your idiocy...

[tonymctones]

odd?  look at this, Giffords youtube channel.  look at the lower left of the channel showing what channels she subscribed to.  There are only two and one of them is the shooters channel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2

can you tell when she added the channel?

could this be yet another fake?

[Straw Man]

I mentioned b/c it is relevant to the conversation you moronic toad LOL

then you went off on a tangent changing the subject, then I said to quit derailing the thread and you continued, I asked for you to prove your ascertions and once again you side stepped and didnt provide any proof for your idiocy...

you've attempted to explain that the shooters ramblings are actually logical (to you)

correct?

[tonymctones]

you've attempted to explain that the shooters ramblings are actually logical (to you)

correct?

LOL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

for fucks sake just log off, hahahahah

they follow the if, then statement format a common and basic concept in LOGIC...

some of them are valid statements in terms of LOGIC and some arent...

before you go off and try to think and get yourself in a bind let me show you a valid argument in logic that isnt true...

all dogs are boys
steve has a dog
steves dog is a boy  <====== This is a valid argument in philosophy its not a sound argument but its valid

his statements follow basic logic formats, I wouldnt be suprised if he took a philosophy class in community college or has tried to study it at some point or another...

[tonymctones]

odd?  look at this, Giffords youtube channel.  look at the lower left of the channel showing what channels she subscribed to.  There are only two and one of them is the shooters channel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2

he did campaign for her correct?

perhaps she added him b/c of that?

[Straw Man]

LOL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

for fucks sake just log off, hahahahah

they follow the if, then statement format a common and basic concept in LOGIC...

some of them are valid statements in terms of LOGIC and some arent...

before you go off and try to think and get yourself in a bind let me show you a valid argument in logic that isnt true...

all dogs are boys
steve has a dog
steves dog is a boy  <====== This is a valid argument in philosophy its not a sound argument but its valid

his statements follow basic logic formats, I wouldnt be suprised if he took a philosophy class in community college or has tried to study it at some point or another...

yeah I read your 2nd grade attempt to explain his so called logic

he seems to use logic in a way that makes sense to you

why don't you site some examples of his actual writing and make it all clear for us

[tonymctones]

yeah I read your 2nd grade attempt to explain his so called logic

he seems to use logic in a way that makes sense to you

why don't you site some examples of his actual writing and make it all clear for us

hahaha for 2nd grade logic you sure seem to have a hard time of understanding it...

all dogs are boys
steve has a dog
steves dog is a boy 

If the police remove you from the educational facility for talking then removing you from the educational facility for talking is unconstitutional in the United States.
The police remove you from the educational facility for talking.
Thus, removing you from the educational facility for talking is unconstitutional in the United States.

do you not see how this statement follows the same format as the one above?

[Straw Man]

hahaha for 2nd grade logic you sure seem to have a hard time of understanding it...

all dogs are boys
steve has a dog
steves dog is a boy 

If the police remove you from the educational facility for talking then removing you from the educational facility for talking is unconstitutional in the United States.
The police remove you from the educational facility for talking.
Thus, removing you from the educational facility for talking is unconstitutional in the United States.

do you not see how this statement follows the same format as the one above?

no I don't

other than the use of "if" and "then" it makes no sense at all

can you explain it ?

[tonymctones]

no I don't

other than the use of "if" and "then" it makes no sense at all

can you explain it ?

yes I can you see in philosophy/LOGIC

a statement does not have to make sense to be valid...a statment can be completely untrue and still be valid but it would not be a sound argument if that was the case...

he states a premise
states another premise
and then states a conclusion

basic logic format...

from the wikilink i posted earlier you obviously didnt read...

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

do you not see how his statement follows this format?

[Straw Man]

yes I can you see in philosophy/LOGIC

a statement does not have to make sense to be valid...a statment can be completely untrue and still be valid but it would not be a sound argument if that was the case...

he states a premise
states another premise
and then states a conclusion

basic logic format...

from the wikilink i posted earlier you obviously didnt read...

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

do you not see how his statement follows this format?

yes but can you explain Loughner's statement which you posted

you seem to be suggesting that if he uses some format which you recognize (which does't actually match the format you used) that it doesn't matter that what he is actually saying is jibberish and that you still recognize as basic "logic"

[tonymctones]

yes but can you explain Loughner's statement which you posted

you seem to be suggesting that if he uses some format which you recognize (which does't actually match the formt you used) that it doesn't matter that what he is actually saying is jibberish and that you still recognize as basic "logic"

youre a fuking moron....

lol i recognize it as using the basic logic format that obviously anyone can see other than youre dumb ass...

i didnt say it makes sense in the real world but in terms of validity in philosophy/logic it does....which brings me back to my original point...

YOURE A FUKING MORON....

[Straw Man]

youre a fuking moron....

lol i recognize it as using the basic logic format that obviously anyone can see other than youre dumb ass...

i didnt say it makes sense in the real world but in terms of validity in philosophy/logic it does[/u]....which brings me back to my original point...

YOURE A FUKING MORON....

you seem to be getting upset

you should try to calm down

I don't undertand what this statement means

you're suggesting a statement doesn't have to make sense in the real world but can still be "valid" in philopohy/logic?

how does that work professor?

[tonymctones]

you seem to be getting upset

you should try to calm down

I don't undertand what this statement means

you're suggesting a statement doesn't have to make sense in the real world but can still be "valid" in philopohy/logic?

how does that work professor?

Yes, very good champ...I refer you to my previous posts, and the links i posted THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDNT READ!!! 

yes I can you see in philosophy/LOGIC

a statement does not have to make sense to be valid...a statment can be completely untrue and still be valid but it would not be a sound argument if that was the case...

he states a premise
states another premise
and then states a conclusion

basic logic format...

from the wikilink i posted earlier you obviously didnt read...

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

do you not see how his statement follows this format?