▲ 859 ▼ 20% of the worlds prison population (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by veganbtw@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death. Nah, I don’t retract my statement Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse. I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death. Nah, I don’t retract my statement Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse. I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent
