Just in case someone didn't get it yet . . . .

[Trev]

No, the argument from authority is invalid in the mind of anyone who understands logic.

Interesting that you 'rest your case' without stating what the case is.

Roy, you're not the only student of logic on here.
Logic can be used to "prove" or "disprove" anything you want it to.
You make your argument and stick to it, regardless of whatever conflicting argument someone else may put. And in an academic sense, being able to argue your case is all that matters in logic. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant.
That's why I reject your arguments. Because you "think: you are always right, to the exclusion of all else, because you have developed a stance on something. The fact that others disagree with you (often with similarly valid arguments for their conflicting position) has no bearing on you which just alienates you from the rest of the world.
The trouble is, some of your points are valid but your credibility suffers as a result of the way you put the rest of your opinions (for "opinions" they certainly are; not facts).
And you obviously like to argue or you wouldn't be on here. If you were genuinely happy in your beliefs, to the exclusion of all else, you wouldn't need to keep posting on here.

Anyone who reads the quote above and has an ounce of common sense (something for which "logic" doesn't allow), would associate my "I rest my case" with the relevent portion of your comment. If you can't see it, too bad. I admit with that line I was playing to the wider audience.

[Roy_Stewart]

No, the argument from authority is invalid in the mind of anyone who understands logic.

Interesting that you 'rest your case' without stating what the case is.

Roy, you're not the only student of logic on here.

An allusion to yet another argument from authority

Logic can be used to "prove" or "disprove" anything you want it to.

That's definitely false, for example logic cannot prove that logic is useless.

You make your argument and stick to it, regardless of whatever conflicting argument someone else may put.

That's an accusation that I am using the 'argument by vehemence' but it isn't true because I almost always answer the arguments put by others. What you are doing is asserting that because I almost always answer the arguments put by others in such a way that I retain my position, that therefore i am not answering the arguments put by others.. . . this is obviously a false argument, and it is based on the fallacy that if I were listening to the arguments of others I would therefore be convinced by them.

And in an academic sense, being able to argue your case is all that matters in logic. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant.

The assumption is that all we are doing here is attempting to argue logically, and that the truth doesn't matter. This is fallacious as the benefits of logical thought include discovering what is true and false. Indeed without 'true and false' there could be no logic so the proposition is internally contradictory.

That's why I reject your arguments. Because you "think: you are always right, to the exclusion of all else, because you have developed a stance on something.

That's a fallacious straw man argument: you attempt to attribute an argumentative fallacy to me which I don't use ( Namely the argument by doggedness ) and then attack the straw man argument.

Just because my position doesn't appear to change it does not follow that that is due to doggedness, and it ignores the possibility that my position remains because it is correct.

The fact that others disagree with you (often with similarly valid arguments for their conflicting position) has no bearing on you which just alienates you from the rest of the world.

You state that arguments have no bearing on me, attempting to support that position via the assertion that 'equally valid arguments' are presented to me and that the fact that my position allegedly doesn't change. supoosdly this shows that I don't listen to the arguments of others or give them their proper weight.

It's another attempt to accuse me of the argument by doggedness. It doesn't work however as it rests on the proposition that the arguments which are presented to me are valid. . . which is precisely what we have been disputing. Thus the attempt uses a circular argument and a proposition which has not been demonstrated, namely that the arguments made to me are valid.

The trouble is, some of your points are valid but your credibility suffers as a result of the way you put the rest of your opinions (for "opinions" they certainly are; not facts).

You use two fallacious arguments here:

1) The 'poisoning the well' argument. You attempt to dicredit me as a source by saying that I argue in a way which is socially unacceptable in some unspecified way.

2) The false assumption that because opinion is not always truth that therefore opinion can never be truth.

and you obviously like to argue or you wouldn't be on here. If you were genuinely happy in your beliefs, to the exclusion of all else, you wouldn't need to keep posting on here.

You attempt to state that engaging in a discussion is evidence that one is unhappy, while also stating that I enjoy arguing. These two statements are contradictory.

Although you don't state what the contradictory statements supoosedly prove it appears that you might be alluding to a fallacious possibility that either liking and/or disliking argumentative processes in general makes the arguments used therefore false.

Anyone who reads the quote above and has an ounce of common sense (something for which "logic" doesn't allow), would associate my "I rest my case" with the relevent portion of your comment. If you can't see it, too bad. I admit with that line I was playing to the wider audience.

Firstly you state that logic doesn't allow 'common sense' . This appears to be an attempt to say that illogical positions and arguments can be superior to logical ones if commonly used. . . that's the fallacious 'appeal to common practice' .

Secondly you state that your comment 'I rest my case' refers to the 'relevant' portion of my argument. Since you haven't stated what your case is it's impossible to know what the relevant portion of the argument is, and since the arguments I made are in support of my position it's impossible to use them to prove my position false without demonstrating that my argument is false. . . . something which you certainly didn't manage as you didn't even make an attempt to do so.. . . the reader is left to guess a) What your 'case' is b) What the releveant portion of the argument is and c) Why you think that it is false.

.

[Trev]

Trev, mate, let it go. This bloke will just keep turnin' ya handle... You will never agree in a discussion with Roy. Because the logical world according to Roy, is Roy's logic alone.

The bloke's as nutty as a fruit cake. A conspiratorist in the truest form. If you want to read shit, just keep spoon feeding him, and he will turn the lot into excrement. Now watch.....

Roy, please explain to me again why anyone not riding your surfboards, isn't really surfing... and whilst you're doing that, let me know why I, or any other punter, has to pay 528 thouuuuusand dollars for the privilege.... because I still don't get it....

[Trev]

No, the argument from authority is invalid in the mind of anyone who understands logic.

Interesting that you 'rest your case' without stating what the case is.

Roy, you're not the only student of logic on here.

An allusion to yet another argument from authority

Logic can be used to "prove" or "disprove" anything you want it to.

That's definitely false, for example logic cannot prove that logic is useless.

You make your argument and stick to it, regardless of whatever conflicting argument someone else may put.

That's an accusation that I am using the 'argument by vehemence' but it isn't true because I almost always answer the arguments put by others. What you are doing is asserting that because I almost always answer the arguments put by others in such a way that I retain my position, that therefore i am not answering the arguments put by others.. . . this is obviously a false argument, and it is based on the fallacy that if I were listening to the arguments of others I would therefore be convinced by them.

And in an academic sense, being able to argue your case is all that matters in logic. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant.

This argument attempts to build on a false premise: namely that I don't argue my case.

It then adds the proposition that all that matters in logic is being able to argue your case, a false assumption as all that matters in logic is being logical . .. . one doesn't need to argue a case.

An assumption is also sneaked in that all we are doing here is attempting to argue logically, and that the truth doesn't matter. This is fallacious as the benefits of logical thought include discovering what is true and false. Indeed without 'true and false' there could be no logic so the proposition is internally contradictory.

That's why I reject your arguments. Because you "think: you are always right, to the exclusion of all else, because you have developed a stance on something.

That's a fallacious straw man argument: you attempt to attribute an argumentative fallacy to me which I don't use ( Namely the argument by doggedness ) and then attack the straw man argument.

The fact that others disagree with you (often with similarly valid arguments for their conflicting position) has no bearing on you which just alienates you from the rest of the world.

You state that arguments have no bearing on me, and support that position via the assertion that 'equally valid arguments' are presented to me and that the fact that my position allegedly doesn't change shows that I don't listen to gthe arguments of others or give them their proper weight.

It's another attempt to acuse me of the argument by doggedness. It doesn't work however as it rests on the proposition that the arguments which are presented to me are valid. . . which is precisely what we have been disputing. Thus the attempt uses a circular argument and a proposition which has not been demonstrated, namely that the arguments made to me are valid.

The trouble is, some of your points are valid but your credibility suffers as a result of the way you put the rest of your opinions (for "opinions" they certainly are; not facts).

You use two fallacious arguments here:

1) The 'poisoning the well' argument. You attempt to dicredit me as a source by saying that I argue in a way which is socially unacceptable in some unspecified way.

2) The false assumption that because opinion is not always truth that therefore opinion can never be truth.

and you obviously like to argue or you wouldn't be on here. If you were genuinely happy in your beliefs, to the exclusion of all else, you wouldn't need to keep posting on here.

You attempt to state that engaging in a discussion is evidence that one is unhappy, while also stating that I enjoy arguing. These two statements are contradictory.

Although you don't state what the contradictory statements supoosedly prove it appears that you might be alluding to a fallacious possibility that either liking and/or disliking argumentative processes in general makes the arguments used therefore false.

Anyone who reads the quote above and has an ounce of common sense (something for which "logic" doesn't allow), would associate my "I rest my case" with the relevent portion of your comment. If you can't see it, too bad. I admit with that line I was playing to the wider audience.

Firstly you state that logic doesn't allow 'common sense' . This appears to be an attempt to say that illogical positions and arguments can be superior to logical ones if commonly used. . . that's the fallacious 'appeal to common practice' .

Secondly you state that your comment 'I rest my case' refers to the 'relevant' portion of my argument. Since you haven't stated what your case is it's impossible to know what the relevant portion of the argument is, and since the arguments I made are in support of my position it's impossible to use them to prove my position false without demonstrating that my argument is false. . . . something which you certainly didn't manage as you didn't even make an attempt to do so.. . . the reader is left to guess a) What your 'case' is b) What the releveant portion of the argument is and c) Why you think that it is false.

.

So. What you're saying is, "Roy is always right. And everyone else doesn't have a clue"
By George! I think I get it.

[Animal_Chin]

I had a farkin grouse surf today.

3-4ft... off shories... came home and did some gardening.

good day i reckon.

Roy, on the other hand, has spent his day blowing wind up his own arsse on these forums.

I love an argument Roy, but please try to act a little bit modest.

No-one likes a know-it-all.

[Roy_Stewart]

Roy, you're not the only student of logic on here.

An allusion to yet another argument from authority

Logic can be used to "prove" or "disprove" anything you want it to.

That's definitely false, for example logic cannot prove that logic is useless.

You make your argument and stick to it, regardless of whatever conflicting argument someone else may put.

That's an accusation that I am using the 'argument by vehemence' but it isn't true because I almost always answer the arguments put by others. What you are doing is asserting that because I almost always answer the arguments put by others in such a way that I retain my position, that therefore i am not answering the arguments put by others.. . . this is obviously a false argument, and it is based on the fallacy that if I were listening to the arguments of others I would therefore be convinced by them.

And in an academic sense, being able to argue your case is all that matters in logic. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant.

This argument attempts to build on a false premise: namely that I don't argue my case.

It then adds the proposition that all that matters in logic is being able to argue your case, a false assumption as all that matters in logic is being logical . .. . one doesn't need to argue a case.

An assumption is also sneaked in that all we are doing here is attempting to argue logically, and that the truth doesn't matter. This is fallacious as the benefits of logical thought include discovering what is true and false. Indeed without 'true and false' there could be no logic so the proposition is internally contradictory.

That's why I reject your arguments. Because you "think: you are always right, to the exclusion of all else, because you have developed a stance on something.

That's a fallacious straw man argument: you attempt to attribute an argumentative fallacy to me which I don't use ( Namely the argument by doggedness ) and then attack the straw man argument.

The fact that others disagree with you (often with similarly valid arguments for their conflicting position) has no bearing on you which just alienates you from the rest of the world.

You state that arguments have no bearing on me, and support that position via the assertion that 'equally valid arguments' are presented to me and that the fact that my position allegedly doesn't change shows that I don't listen to gthe arguments of others or give them their proper weight.

It's another attempt to acuse me of the argument by doggedness. It doesn't work however as it rests on the proposition that the arguments which are presented to me are valid. . . which is precisely what we have been disputing. Thus the attempt uses a circular argument and a proposition which has not been demonstrated, namely that the arguments made to me are valid.

The trouble is, some of your points are valid but your credibility suffers as a result of the way you put the rest of your opinions (for "opinions" they certainly are; not facts).

You use two fallacious arguments here:

1) The 'poisoning the well' argument. You attempt to dicredit me as a source by saying that I argue in a way which is socially unacceptable in some unspecified way.

2) The false assumption that because opinion is not always truth that therefore opinion can never be truth.

and you obviously like to argue or you wouldn't be on here. If you were genuinely happy in your beliefs, to the exclusion of all else, you wouldn't need to keep posting on here.

You attempt to state that engaging in a discussion is evidence that one is unhappy, while also stating that I enjoy arguing. These two statements are contradictory.

Although you don't state what the contradictory statements supoosedly prove it appears that you might be alluding to a fallacious possibility that either liking and/or disliking argumentative processes in general makes the arguments used therefore false.

Anyone who reads the quote above and has an ounce of common sense (something for which "logic" doesn't allow), would associate my "I rest my case" with the relevent portion of your comment. If you can't see it, too bad. I admit with that line I was playing to the wider audience.

Firstly you state that logic doesn't allow 'common sense' . This appears to be an attempt to say that illogical positions and arguments can be superior to logical ones if commonly used. . . that's the fallacious 'appeal to common practice' .

Secondly you state that your comment 'I rest my case' refers to the 'relevant' portion of my argument. Since you haven't stated what your case is it's impossible to know what the relevant portion of the argument is, and since the arguments I made are in support of my position it's impossible to use them to prove my position false without demonstrating that my argument is false. . . . something which you certainly didn't manage as you didn't even make an attempt to do so.. . . the reader is left to guess a) What your 'case' is b) What the releveant portion of the argument is and c) Why you think that it is false.

.

So. What you're saying is, "Roy is always right. And everyone else doesn't have a clue"
By George! I think I get it.

That's an attempt to say that i'm using the fallacious argument by doggedness. In order to make that stick you'd have to show that the arguments which opposemine are valid ( which you haven't done) otherwise there is the possibility that the arguments presented to me are false and that my position is perfectly logical and true, and remains the same because of it.

You keep making the same old tired mistakes.

[Trev]

As I said. "Roy is always right"
He IS the messiah.

[Trev]

So. What you're saying is, "Roy is always right. And everyone else doesn't have a clue"
By George! I think I get it.

Correct! You're on it now Trev.

Welcome to the world of Roy.

Here's a question for the old tired mistake..... Is the world flat Roy, or is it a little bent?

Here you go............
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm

[lessormore]

Roy's World.

[Roy_Stewart]

Roy, please explain to me again why anyone not riding your surfboards, isn't really surfing

The statement is not only false it is one I have never used.

Thus it is an attempt to introduce a straw man argument.

... and whilst you're doing that, let me know why I, or any other punter, has to pay 528 thouuuuusand dollars for the privilege.... because I still don't get it....

I have never suggested that anyone 'has to' pay anything to me.

In addition to that I have already stated that there are seven ways in which one can experience some or all of what I've been advocating. . . and only two of those ways involve a payment to me.

http://olosurfer-woodensurfboardsatpipe ... board.html

[Roy_Stewart]

As I said. "Roy is always right"

He IS the messiah.

You have either changed your opinion radically or are indulging in sarcasm.

In either case realise that I have never claimed to be 'always right' or to be 'the messiah'

Another fallacious straw man argument alluded to by yourself there . . . it is one of your favourite errors !

[Trev]

Roy it;s past your bedtime.
Go to bed.

[Roy_Stewart]

So. What you're saying is, "Roy is always right. And everyone else doesn't have a clue"
By George! I think I get it.

Correct! You're on it now Trev.

Welcome to the world of Roy.

Here's a question for the old tired mistake..... Is the world flat Roy, or is it a little bent?

This appears to be an attempt to suggest that I am the kind of person who might think that the earth is flat.. . . an attempt to discredit me on the basis of a fasle proposition which I don't believe in.

It could be however that you genuinely don't know the answer and wish to find out, in which case i suggest that you search online via a source which you respect.


.

[Trev]

So. What you're saying is, "Roy is always right. And everyone else doesn't have a clue"
By George! I think I get it.

Correct! You're on it now Trev.

Welcome to the world of Roy.

Here's a question for the old tired mistake..... Is the world flat Roy, or is it a little bent?

This appears to be an attempt to suggest that I am the kind of person who might think that the earth is flat.. . . an attempt to discredit me on the basis of a fasle proposition which I don't believe in.

It could be however that you genuinely don't know the answer and wish to find out, in which case i suggest that you search online via a source which you respect.


.

Perhaps he respects you so much he genuinely wants to know what you think.
Oh! Sorry! Sarcasm again.
Sprung.

[Roy_Stewart]

I had a farkin grouse surf today.

3-4ft... off shories... came home and did some gardening.

good day i reckon.

Roy, on the other hand, has spent his day blowing wind up his own arsse on these forums.

I love an argument Roy, but please try to act a little bit modest.

No-one likes a know-it-all.

You suggest that I'm interested in the possibility of being liked by forum members.

I'm indifferent to it actually.

You also suggest that I should be modest. The statement is a spurious emotional red herring and has nothing to do with the content of my posts.


.

[Roy_Stewart]

Correct! You're on it now Trev.

Welcome to the world of Roy.

Here's a question for the old tired mistake..... Is the world flat Roy, or is it a little bent?

This appears to be an attempt to suggest that I am the kind of person who might think that the earth is flat.. . . an attempt to discredit me on the basis of a fasle proposition which I don't believe in.

It could be however that you genuinely don't know the answer and wish to find out, in which case i suggest that you search online via a source which you respect.


.

Perhaps he respects you so much he genuinely wants to know what you think.

Oh! Sorry! Sarcasm again.

Sprung.

The lowest form of wit, but at least you labelled it as such thus avoiding ambiguity.



.

[Roy_Stewart]

[Roy_Stewart]

I have a little fun 'playing' with this whack job, but I fear I may be lowering my standards, simply by playing 'the game'.

.

Presumably that's an attempt to suggest that roy is not sane.

If so realise that it is without foundation.

.