View Single Post
Old
08-14-2012, 06:47 AM
  #102
HankClerval
Fifth Line Center
 
HankClerval's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
This is why lockouts happen. The fans aren't willing to do what has to be done to stop them. It's really that simple.
Don't want lockouts to affect your favorite sport? Then simply stop making it your favorite sport. Burn down your local arena in order to save it. Here's some napalm.

It's really that simple, amirite????

Quote:
Because at the end of the day, we're *not* in this together.
You are the worst motivational speaker ever.

Quote:
We all have our reasons for doing what we have to do, so let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
This sentence is *so impressive* in its logical fallaciousness that I *must* deconstruct it. I literally cannot help myself.

First of all, this sentence is constructed as a material implication: p, thus q.

The antecedent: "We all have our reasons for doing what we *have* to do" is absolutely literally logically inarguable, because it's not falsifiable. In other words: a tautology. And we all know that we cannot tell anything about a conditional with a tautology as its antecedent. Everything thus depends on the consequent. Thus, we can discard the antecedent entirely and focus on the consequent:

Let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.

Ah, what a gem. What a brilliantly conceived little troll. Holy ****, it's amazing! It contains *three separate assertions of premise!*

Premise #1: we are outraged.
Premise #2: the outrage is false.
Premise #3: we fully support the lockout.

Best of all, it begins with "let's", which is so, so smooth. It *immediately* shifts us from the field of classical logic to the field of imperative logic. An incisive call to action! LET US NOT BE OUTRAGED (ALBEIT FALSELY.)

Of course, for this imperative to be valid, *all three* of the preceding premises must also be valid. And what idiot would waste his time arguing against these premises? Especially if you have to spend this much time and effort breaking apart the sentence apart to figure out what the hell to argue first?

Just masterful.

--hank

HankClerval is offline   Reply With Quote