The Death of Sigfried "The Gotterdamerung"

[cybotron]

Originally posted by fafner@Jul 10 2004, 07:04 PM
Ok, ok...
I shouldn't have used the word cat also Let's change it by "dog" then

1 Cybotron is a living form
2 A dog is a living form
3 Therefore Cybotron is a dog

So... Are you a dog Cybotron ?
I recall Jeffbert's link, just in case...
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialCon...tion/Logic.html

Go watch the crawling eye....
Fafner is the name of a dragon.
A dragon is slain by the hero.
Therefore Fafner is to be slain.
So are you to be slain Faf?

Are you a crawling eye?

[fafner]

Originally posted by cybotron@Jul 10 2004, 12:46 PM
Go watch the crawling eye....
Fafner is the name of a dragon.
A dragon is slain by the hero.
Therefore Fafner is to be slain.
So are you to be slain Faf?

Are you a crawling eye?

Yes, good !
Can you identify the fallacies behind those arguments now?

[jeffbert]

 (Fafner)

[b](Cybotron)

And death of the body does not mean one is mortal.

I know what you mean, reincarnation has never been refutated...
[/b]

Aha! I caught you again, Fafner!! You have just committed Argumentum ad ignorantiam!! (Refer to the link elsewhere)

The burden of proof is upon the one who asserts that such and such is true. Logically, there is no need to prove the falsity of reincarnation, transmigration of souls, hell, or whatever cannot be proven as true. Just because these things are beyond our knowledge, we must not assume that they are true.


I came late into this most recent argument, so I am assuming that Fafner is trying to show flaws in Cybotron's reasoning by applying that same reasoning to other things. However, I assume that is not the case with the above statement. B)

  (Cybotron)
And death of the body does not mean one is mortal.

If not, perhaps you would care to show us a definition that precludes death of the biological organism (Oh, why do I bother with this?). :blink:

[fafner]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Jul 10 2004, 10:44 PM
Aha! I caught you again, Fafner!! You have just committed Argumentum ad ignorantiam!! (Refer to the link elsewhere)

The burden of proof is upon the one who asserts that such and such is true. Logically, there is no need to prove the falsity of reincarnation, transmigration of souls, hell, or whatever cannot be proven as true. Just because these things are beyond our knowledge, we must not assume that they are true.

The problem is that I must find reasonnings/premisses that Cybotron won't try to refutate And because "to be a living form" can't be refutated, I just substitute them so Cybotron won't refutate this one

And honestly, the burden of proof may not be Cybotron's, because I was the first one to assume the mortal condition by asserting that Cybotron and cats are mortal. The only true thing about that is that no one as a proof of either P(X) and not P(X) for any known X if P(X) is "X is mortal". At least in Cybotron's way of thinking. Might P(X) be undecidable?

<WHISPER>please stop doing Cybotron's homework </WHISPER>

[jeffbert]

<WHISPER>please stop doing Cybotron's homework </WHISPER>

Sorry about that, but I do so, to remain truly unbiased.

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Jul 11 2004, 07:30 AM

[b]<WHISPER>please stop doing Cybotron's homework </WHISPER>

Sorry about that, but I do so, to remain truly unbiased. [/b]

:wahah:
welcome back...

[jeffbert]

That little kid needs a royal spankin' for allthe trouble he has caused Ai & Yuu.

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Jul 12 2004, 07:58 AM

That little kid needs a royal spankin' for allthe trouble he has caused Ai & Yuu.

You wanted Fantasyland.... That's Fantasyland. Wonderland too. :wahah:

[jeffbert]

Aaaahhhh! a typo in my last postindg, and now that cybotron has quoted it, I cannot destroyt he evidence! :angry:

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Jul 12 2004, 08:56 AM
Aaaahhhh! a typo in my last postindg, and now that cybotron has quoted it, I cannot destroyt he evidence! :angry:

tsk...tsk....tsk....
The Earl is waiting......Final Fantasy Unlimited. Wow!