View Single Post
Old
08-14-2012, 09:09 AM
  #105
halleJOKEL
strong as brickwall
 
halleJOKEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NC
Country: United States
Posts: 5,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HankClerval View Post
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????



You are the worst motivational speaker ever.



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
Please post more often.

halleJOKEL is offline   Reply With Quote