{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/1/2015 4:49:00 PM
1
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 4:58:04 PMYou use Cthreepo as an authoritative source: that's an unfounded assertion. You claim that it's authoritative because it's "commonly accepted": that's an unfounded assertion. Unfounded assertions in argumentative reasoning are fallacious.
-
Edited by JustOnePepsi: 6/1/2015 4:59:21 PMI did not claim it authoritative. I used it as a better explanation than one I could form on my own. I even stated this specifically. Yet you completely ignored that fact...
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 5:10:08 PMYou use the link to further your side in argumentative reasoning, on numerous occasions through-out this whole thread. Just by using that link to further your side [i]of an argument[/i], you accept that those words are authoritative and by no means false. That's an argument from authority. You then try to further prove the authority of the words by making the allegation that they're "commonly accepted"; just another unfounded assertion.
-
The existence of dissenters does not make them unaccepted. But I digress. I've already explained why your own assertions are incorrect, and I'm not going to continue repeating myself.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 5:37:39 PMYou can 'show me how I'm incorrect' with fallacious claims all you'd like, that doesn't make it so! What is a dissenter but one that does not accept? It would seem that the very existence of dissenters makes it exactly that: unaccepted. You use the link in authority; that's a fallacy. You then attempt to prove its authority by saying that it's "commonly accepted"; that's a fallacy.
-
There are those who believe there should be no laws regarding legal drinking ages. This doesn't change the fact that legal drinking ages are largely accepted within the countries that have them. You're attempt to say something is not accepted because some do not accept it. [i]That's[/i] a fallacy.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 6:10:04 PM[quote]you're attempt to say something is not accepted because some do not accept it. [i]That's[/i] a fallacy.[/quote] That's a straw-man argument if I've ever seen one. The irony is that [i]this statement[/i] is a fallacy. It purposely misrepresents my statement in a way that allows you to knock it down. In the [i]same sense[/i], you're attempting to say that something [i]is[/i] accepted because some do accept it. The difference between our two claims, is that mine never mentions a degree of 'unacceptability". What I actually said was that because something isn't accepted, it can be said that it's unaccepted. Semantically speaking, this leaves room for the duality expected to be found in the general population, IE: from the perspective of a group of people who think the drinking age should be lowered, the law can either be accepted or unaccepted. Of course, that's not even close to the argument we were just having: You use cthreepo's link in an attempt to contradict an opponent's argument: this is fallacious. You say that his idea's are commonly accepted: this is fallacious. Edit: just reread your post to find that your comparison is actually also a false equivalence fallacy. Good on ya!
