LIFE IS AN ONION

Again, you should analyze your own actions with your critical eye. It's absurd to expect someone to accept a debate challenge when they are automatically on the defensive from the beginning, not to mention the fact that there are already several people waiting to vote against me. I'll not be manipulated that easily, but nice try. If you feel that the aforementioned points are either irrelevant, incorrect, or both, then you're far less intelligent than what I had given you credit for.

Well, you haven't got much to worry about, have you, seeing how you refuse to debate the original point - why this conversation started - and keep posting insubstantial comments to keep the conversation going, try to deflect the actual point, or have the last word. Which one I don't know, but can I ask: What are you trying to prove? What point are *you* trying to make?

Those are rhetorical.

I believe it's you who's got your tenses messed up. "I'd (future tense) vote against you because you showed (past tense)yourself unable to the task. The word "if" can't be found anywhere in your statement. You say that you would have no pre conceived bias about voting against me, and then you say that you would vote against me because I showed yourself unable to the task, which is a pre conceived notion. What else would you call voting against someone in a debate that hasn't even happened because of something that happened in the past?

You have got your tenses all mixed up, try untangling those and read again.

"I'd" or "I would": future tense; events to happen in the future; as in consideration for things yet to happen; as in IF you you showed yourself to be inadequate.

Spiral: You've basically contradicted yourself here. You say that you have no pre conceived bias about voting against me, and then go on to say that you'd vote against me because I've showed yourself unable to the task, though the debate hasn't even happened.

I'd have no pre conceived bias about voting against you Jamcke, I'd vote against you because you showed yourself unable to the task.

brittwaller: Look man, if I cared to debate you, I would've taken you up on your earlier offer. The only difference I see between a "flame war" and a debate is that everyone gets to vote on a debate. Regardless of the outcome, I've already got at least three of you who are going to vote against me, not to mention votes from any other accounts you all may have, so I really don't see the point. Additionally, there's no point you could make in a debate that you can't make here.

Vi Veri: Wow, did you ever get worked up on that one. Ha! I could really care less if you're "done waring in this comment box", however I will say that you're a little confused about your terminology. If you disagree you should take it up with the good folks at California State University, Northridge http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

As far as signing off with "smell ya later!" I was again expressing my sense of humor. If you didn't get it,maybe you should lighten up a little and get over YOURself. If you didn't that closing statement, perhaps this one will better suit you.

After supper motherf*cker!

Anyway, this is done, finished. I am done waring in this comment box so you can expect nothing more here -- brittwaller's debate with you is where you should spew your hypocrisy.

smell ya later! as you say *omg that's so immature... I can't believe I even typed that...*

Hmm... might be able to accuse me of that one though, because you were being a hypocrite to your old comment - might have found your fallacy for you!

Get over yourself :D Maybe you should follow your own advice ;)

Jamcke,

Ok, let me first begin by saying that it is *A* dicto simpliciter, not dicto simpliciter. And yes, the A is important because it is NOT an indefinite article (and all of the damn time English speakers screw that part up).

Secondly, a dicto simpliciter is committed in statistical syllogisms, which I did not recite. I said:

For someone so mature who takes life lightly, Jamcke, you sure got worked up on that last comment. :)

This is not a statistical syllogism. A statistical syllogism requires qualifying words. Actually, Jamcke, I said that because you said:

"Britwaller: Have you ever heard of a sense of humor? The way I see it, with a sense of maturity comes a sense of humility. You are clearly lacking of a sense of humility when you take yourself so seriously that you state that "I know it's difficult for some of you to comprehend, but it only proves your own level of stupidity when you so unashamedly vote on a topic because of the avatar, which was obviously the case here. Grow up children." Get over yourself."

I assumed you had strong feelings about having a sense of humor, therefore you were planted in X (sense of humor category!), and when you seemed to saunter over to Y (angry category!) I was a tad bit confused, and made a remark on it.

So, Jamcke, I did not commit, a dicto simpliciter, because I wasn't referring to all people with a sense of humor at all - just you and your former statement that you had one. Therefore, before you ever skim your notes again to use a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, please review your former comments and don't be a hypocrite - blaming us for fallacious reasoning when you do it yourself. And dont pull tu quoque there! It doesn't work! *giggles

Tu quoque is not "the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error," but it is accusing someone of being wrong just because they are a hypocrite.