Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by carnap »

unethicalVegan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:10 am It depends on how you denote NTT symbolically and also how you conjunct the sentences with logical connectives such as "if", "and", "or, "not"
So I'm not sure if my "disproof" would be correctly transformed the way Ask Yourself perceives it. To be honest I'm more concerned with claiming the NTT being valid in the first place.
Talking about "disproof" is a bit of a misdemeanor, you can either show that the argument presented is invalid (e.g., violates some rule of logic) or the argument is unsound (one of more of the premises is false).
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by Lay Vegan »

carnap wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:21 pm This argument is silly in that there is obviously such a trait, for example, the presence of a brain.
The argument (NTT) is silly in that it is logically incoherent. For the conclusion to follow, another premise must be added which declares that moral value is based on a trait. Otherwise, this is implied, and formal arguments cannot have implicit premises.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:21 pm But also who suggests that animals are "valueless"?
Many people suggest animals are either valueless or "less valuable" for various (arbitrary) reasons. Some people cite intelligence, species, self-awareness etc. Of course, they're all morally irrelevant traits. However, Name the Trait doesn't reject arbitrariness, so any of these traits would work to "debunk" it.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:21 pm There are also various semantic tricks in the argument that become apparent when you try to symbolize the argument.
Yes, like a hidden premise. http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by carnap »

Lay Vegan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:58 pm The argument (NTT) is silly in that it is logically incoherent. For the conclusion to follow, another premise must be added which declares that moral value is based on a trait. Otherwise, this is implied, and formal arguments cannot have implicit premises.
I'm not sure sure if this is an additional premise as its tacitly invoked in the second premise, but that is part of the value of putting an argument in gross form. It allows you clearly see whether its a valid inference or not....in this case its not clear.

Lay Vegan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:58 pm Many people suggest animals are either valueless or "less valuable" for various (arbitrary) reasons.
I don't think I've ever heard someone suggest animals are "valueless" just that their value is not equivalent to humans. Even existing laws for farm animals do not treat them as "valueless" morally speaking.

In terms of semantic tricks, I have in mind equivocation and issues of that nature. Personally I wouldn't bother trying to address the argument until the author clarified what they meant.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by NonZeroSum »

I only caught an hour of Ask Yourself talking over you, and then an hour of the convo in the vegan death squad server. You can listen or read back and give us a synopsis if you like of any useful exchanges:

Ask Yourself vs. Unethical Vegan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAZn2a8YCA

Transcript:
Oh I'm sure he's actually too retarded to use the mic or he's just behind me I'm not sure I don't I don't know if it's a mic problem on internet problem oh and data Oh you now I know the chat is just eating this guy alive like the vegan I made lunch is being incredibly either evasive or just stupid I mean if an argument is false you can point out why it's false it doesn't need to become a lecture about logic it doesn't need to become a conversation about the JAF debate it's just fucking simple if an argument is false you should be able to spell out why clearly well in an actual debate like people make arguments on the fly it's not like as soon as someone makes an argument the burden the burden isn't one yeah I mean the burden is on everyone who makes an argument ever to prove it using formal logic especially if they own no formal logic if the argument is false you should be able to explain why in English trying to make it a conversation about formal logic is literally just the same as if you tried to make it a conversation about you know quantum physics or something like this it's just here's an area I know about we'll try to make it about this area instead of actually addressing what's on the table and English isn't even that compat was formal logic to a point well I mean I don't know English I understand what you mean in terms of like direct equivalencies but that's not it's it's basically like a language it's like converting different languages it's not gonna come out but it I think I think that formal logic it's like I mean it obviously it's hard to get all of the nuance of normal language into formal logic I understand that but formal logic is a valid thing I mean it's it's how we you know truth test statements and all this kind of stuff but to suggest that you okay he's back so this law is more on do you now have volume so I talk we can kind of hear you yeah yes you're nice and clear okay so how is it possible to accept the premises and conclusion at once let me just do the okay the volume is same yeah you're fine we can all hear you so humans are more value the first premise like that could be denoted as the letter H right because that's one proposition oh my fucking god man no algebra no bullshit no avais to create something not capable of following explain in simple yeah yeah so look you have to understand that we are all savvy to the bullshit you're trying to do here okay you stop trying to have a conversation on in a language that I don't speak I don't speak formal logic I don't know how to follow why if you start talking about H or if you start talking about inference rules I understand common sense and I understand the English language if there is something wrong with my argument explain it to me in simple English hello we're just waiting for you to respond hello I'm like oh here you we're waiting for you to respond okay okay I'm trying to explain it in English right but yeah just keep putting off and let's say like appeal to some some formula whatever do you find that is way that is what you're doing you keep trying to divert the conversation I can't even say like what it's possible yes because because what happens is when you start going down a red herring I just got no back to the point dude so without hearing a big derail into formal logic let's get the simple English explanation of why the argument is for you explain how possible to not reach the conclusion given the prize okay so you set H the first premise you set it to two you must come help me I don't I don't I don't want to hear H I don't want to hear oh it's just wrong - like he's asserting my set you're wrong just just one set we don't want to gang beat them right now I don't want to hear H I don't want to hear logical algebra is yours so okay you don't have to say H just say that that's the first premise right okay so there was a first is saying speak simply and quit that swamp proposition that's one proposition and then the second premise is also can be denoted into one proposition right so what you're basically saying is the argument that game or philosophical we go for them you're basically saying two premises that if they're true because you're assuming they're true right when you turn on assuming they're true no it's the it's the it's not an assertion of truth value like what the fuck it's conditional so sorry don't keep going sorry go on sickly thing is the argument I showed on the forum basically you're not saying why the conclusion is inferred so basically you that conclusion part that can be true or false so if I could just said it because it's it's consistency it would only be false if the person that's so stupid so even if the premises are true like the conclusion and the most having more value it can be it's it can be true or false like that's that's an assertion if you're saying that humans have moral value and you're saying that there is no trait you could switch every single trait they would be the same being - now say as inclusion does not have moral value that directly contradicts the first premise that it does not confusing the contradict the first because you said humans have moral value basically the animals or humans which is like if you if you swap them for you you know if I swap if you swap enough traits they are start with that bullshit all objects in the universe are constellations of traits if you switch all the traits in one object to match another it's the same object okay you don't understand just just basic basic philosophy if you don't understand that so obviously you understand that everything in the universe can be described in terms of its qualities right so if you want to describe me I'm on my name's Isaac born in Peterborough six-foot-three not retarded so there's a ton of traits that describe me correct yeah and there's a ton of traits that describe you absolutely intellectually dishonest doesn't speak good English can't operate discord won't accept basic so there's a set of traits that you have perfect you don't making you you come on so there's one sec you're not you're not if okay so there's a set of traits that describe me there's a set of traits that describe you you agree that both of those sets of traits exist surely yeah but there's a finite amount of the offense if you make all of the traits that I have the same as you you'd be looking at two descriptions of the same object the only way to resist that dishonest one is to actually reject the first law of logic which is the law of identity and claim that one of the qualities comprising that being is actually two qualities you understand that the law like then issues in sets I don't know what the luggage my identity is B yeah and that's using sets like in there when in the I don't know what yeah you can I sense it's an ecological a I don't know what you mean by sense identity but the thing is what it is it's not two other things it's not one other thing it is itself yeah but you don't apply that you can't apply that to the real world in our standard wait in a formal way that's what it of course you talk about what are you talking about you think that you're so stupid okay no you look look this is very basic okay every object is composed every object is composed of a set of traits it's not hard to understand every one of those basic qualities at the fundamental level is an example of the law of identity you know so if the train is tall tall equals tall tall is halt all is not short so it's the only way to resist the notion that if you equalize two objects in every single respect that they are the same object is to claim that something composing that object it violates the law of identity and is saying you don't think I paid if you're saying you don't they may trade and you say late that you can switch it switch the traits in between I don't even understand what you just said this is exactly what you said you're saying well I mean you're implying that if I can't name a trait then you can switch the traits in between the human and the animal or whatever you wanna no no no no like if you're saying that there is if you're saying that there is no trait then you could switch all traits and it would still retain value as per premise one but the conclusion is that it doesn't have value yeah I have someone it might do or something I need to say this and then dip it so this is not confusing okay so if you're saying if you're saying that something has value right you're starting from the premise that humans have value then you're saying there is no trait okay so there is no trait that's true of the animal that if true of the human would cause it not to have value we which every single trait to match the animal and the thing will still retain value but then you conclude by saying that the thing does not have value that is a direct logical contradiction I'll be back in just one second thing someone just take over for now I'll be back somebody does not assume that they're the same thing but that's the contradiction part right that's what you're implying no no object it would still be a human which would directly contradict premise one like even if it's not like the exact same one as before I mean it's still a human like if I take you and duplicate you and put you in my house that's still a human yeah if you had the word cat and you had the word dog and you switch every letter in the word cat to be the same as every letter in the word dog you would have two words dog not one that I mean it's not like the other one still has any ties to being cat it's it is the word dog male yeah so if you were okay is the fact that what go ahead yeah I mean that it's that if you don't if you say this no trait right if you can't name a trait it's the fact that animals have more value as well no he's not saying if you name a trait he's saying if the trait you name is that there is no tree - okay okay I think we're going like on a good path down right so your answer to name the tree is no trait not if you just can't name a tree yeah exactly so if you answer is no trait then this implies that animals have more value as well right this like informal idea of like switching traits right but I don't think you like I like this is obviously not it like this is not inference rule like this is like implicit philosophical like assumption right but it's not like valid like you in terms of formal logic like in terms of like an informal argument like I mean I don't know how that would even look like like like I mean I understand if the question is name the trait that if that's present in the animal that if if it was present in the human it would also justify killing a human but if you say this there's no trait that exists in the animal that would that if you switch to the human then you're just arbitrary then you're just basically admitting that you're arbitrarily killing one because you're saying that there is no difference is that not I mean it's not yeah yeah but that arbitrary that's not necessarily wrong or like a contradiction or elective policy like value and you switch every trade that will be a human so if you say like if you would say if you kill that human then like you're directly contradicting premise one yeah that's assuming that there would be the same thing but I mean that I mean well yeah they would be the same all the traits would be the same one yeah yeah but and also it doesn't necessarily a suit for there to actually you know be not rate it doesn't actually have to assume that it's a that they have the same thing it's just that there's no relevant difference that would actually justify the difference in treatment correct and that you're doing it arbitrarily if you continue to do it do you wait I got asked do you think the Socratic method or is or oh no don't don't go down that road that's a water road right now we can we can do that now after let's just stay on name the trade rate all right we got to I think he was talking about if you can't name a trade but we were talking about if the answer was no trade yeah well I mean if you actually accept the second premise that there is no trade yeah he was thought he was saying something about if you just give me a yeah if you just can't name it then the trait becomes a being is not able to name the trade and if you'd not accept that as justification for murder you can find the contradiction there too but that's maybe even harder for him to wrap his head around so let's just stay at the basic level because what he initially said was that it's possible for the conclusion not to follow from the premises so he's tried to make this a big derail and to form a logic we've pushed him off that and we're asking for the simple English explanation so I've pointed out to this very stupid person that if you accept that humans have moral value and you accept that there is no trade then you could switch all of the traits that would actually make the human into an animal it would now be the same thing as an animal but you said that it would retain value so if you then conclude that it doesn't have value that's a direct contradiction you're directly contradicting what you established in the first premise you say like why it's a contradiction like simultaneously singdam this he hasn't doesn't have value but why is it why is it the same thing why is it the same because you may find all traits so the only way to regen and is and the same thing would be to the law getting stumped a lot here today a little bit the dangers of being too cocky on the Twitter yeah so anyway um I mean I don't know what else to say so if you're it's it's pretty simple so if you agree that humans have value this is my fifth time saying this fifth six I don't fucking know if you agree that humans have value and you agree that there's no trait you're saying we could switch all of the traits there's no trait that would cause the thing to lose value we could switch every single trait to match the animal and it would retain valley but then you're concluding that it doesn't have value that would be a direct logical contradiction and the only way to resist that that I mean if you're if you're gonna try to say oh equalizing all the traits wouldn't make it into the same thing at that point do you try to argue actually against the law of identity ask yourself spheal you said about like making traits and switching traits right you have to add this in the premise as well I'm not I will not add something to an arc directly from the one because it's implicit it's implicit to it like it is not returning okay you don't have to add add it's something that follows directly from the wolf identity do you disagree with the implicit premise hey also before before you continue this retard who thinks that there's there's no one who's philosophically or logically trained in here what exactly is your deal jhzr die doctor did you actually study logic well I have a PhD in philosophy oh what's that dishonest moron I guess everyone who listens to fucking retarded it's really obviously butthurt you know because we were not haha I think you're able why don't you answer a juicy one like Philosophy PhD who's talking you right now sorry go ahead JHD question is if you think the argument but if there's two ways for an argument to be false right either it's formally invalid or one of the premises is not true and it sounds like you're saying it's formally invalid because there's an impressive premise so I guess my question is do you think the implicit premise is fault I mean it's not there right so it's not know if it is is the implicit premise that it that you think it requires is it false well it's very like quasi you know like is switching traits and I'm not sure actually if I say moral value moral value is because of some trait humans have this trait and then I say it seems like animals have this trait and you say no they don't somebody can just ask you okay well what is it right and then I understand that's not formally valid but you understand what I'm getting at so I'm asking we can kind of go around it doesn't really matter what the implicit premise is I think you understand what the argument says so I just want to know if you actually think that there is a trait or maybe you think that moral value isn't because of some trait but because something else like maybe divine command or something yeah I just a little a little thing on which is that I don't actually accept the lang implicit premise because I don't think that things at that level of simplicity need to be stated you don't have to claim that reality exists or or you don't have to adjust their computer quality but but sorry respond to GHz I just want my view to be clear there for anyone listening I just want to make a quick response to that that if it's not true that if I don't agree with that implicit I mean you can say that it's obvious and stuff but I mean it's not necessarily like true but so very hard but answer Jesse no I mean if you go to surah logic London yeah but okay no no Jay yes that's your argument basically thing where okay Brad so what was there is a you said like you asked me there is a trait that I believe that let's say the argument name the trait is a valid one and like the conclusion follows right so you asked me if I think there is a trait that's correct yeah I mean I've been about like the other Isaac and I mean I think like the human DNA or like something that's essential human that's not that's the trait that's in within humans but not within the animals the any of these traits can be used so like human DNA is essential to what is being human like it's not essential to a really strange wouldn't it be really strange though if just because something didn't have human DNA didn't have moral value like what if I found out that something didn't have human DNA but it actually suffered twice as much from pain important yeah because this kind of strange it is super strange and you also gotta point something out that you can name any trait and be consistent about it you could name the the trade you know fucking I don't know having clause or some shit you could you could name literally anything and be consistent about it if you want so if you want to name the trait as human DNA you have to bite the bullet on saying it's fine to just stab to death if they don't have human DNA s so easy ways like just little intuition pumps to get you to realize what's wrong with that I mean for example picture if your consciousness were transmitted into some kind of artificial biological life-form that just like j j-- c said it has double the suffering capacity of a human but lacks human DNA or you're uploaded into machine substrate same thing you'd have to bite the bullet on saying it's fine to just murder those beings if you're really going to say DNA great I'd also suggest that no human DNA is identical with each other so there's gonna be a really weird conclusion that you're either gonna have to build some kind of abstract DNA strand that nobody has because of random mutation a set of DNA's a set of basically all the basically all the people in the world right the set of all these DNA's and this I mean but what about future humans that have maybe some extra trait that we don't have right now and let me throw this in what if you either through actual evolution artificial selection genetic modification whatever the actual measurable mathematically measurable genetic gap between current day humans and those future humans becomes larger than say the gap between us and counts is it now fine to murder them the laundry human DNA though you would have to say yes it would change then you would like change the fate right I mean then they're not that well that's what you would do well again it's you're not even addressing what's been said I'll just say it again if you're saying the trait is human DNA and you know there's what exactly is human DNA is a bit of a weird area that's kind of the thing GHC was just getting out but we can agree that for example a cow isn't a human and there's a certain actually mathematically quantifiable genetic gap between account of human and someone in what's that field like Molecular Genetics they'd be able to actually give you the size of that gap in whatever measurement they use your by your logic if human DNA is the trait if future humans either through natural selection artificial selection gene modification whatever get to a point that the genetic gap between their DNA and the DNA of modern humans is larger than the gap between us and cows then by your own standard it would have to be fine to murder those humans well obviously if we get to that point when it changed so much this DNA structure then you would say okay well this is the trait when you get to that point right like it sounds like you're willing to change the trait just in order to make sure that humans have moral value but the that just begs the question right because we're trying to figure out what it is that makes human valuable and you're saying it's this thing and if it changes then we'll change it to a new thing well then you know why even change human seems because the ideal human change I mean if they're human things don't change we don't need DNA anymore what is that thing then that groups humans together since it's not DNA anymore what is it sorry and not another thing to point out there is that you can say oh now I'm redefining human DNA at what it is currently now in this hypothetical future world but I would violate your initial claim that that when you're talking about modern-day human DNA so you're actually changing what you consider human DNA to be they're just changing your terms to try to remain consistent does that seem drastically more sensical to pin moral value not to DNA but to whatever it makes human I mean right if I just say like whatever the idea of human rights like you know but that trait is right that's the thing there isn't a trait though that's the thing like cladistics is used for scientists to practically split up the animal kingdom it's not some philosophically like sturdy concept we share over half of our DNA with bananas 16 1/2 or 1/2 yeah over over half of our human DNA is shared with bananas so that means that they should have 60% the moral value of humans not necessarily I mean let's not go there are too many different roads at once right now though let's let's keep it on the line of questioning that that jhc and I are getting out right here so here's the question for you do you think it's better do you think it's better to have less suffering or more suffering which of those two is better I mean it seems like it has a really straightforward answer for me I mean yeah that's for me Hughes yeah you were saying well yeah if it turns out if it turns out the animals have the capacity to suffer wouldn't it doesn't it just logically follow that it would be better to lessen and reduce human suffering per THC spell out the inference rules because I said to humans right or me I'm asking you if you think it would be better to minimize animal suffering given that you already think that it's better to reduce suffering because all I'm doing is I'm making a more specific claim which is included in the previous claim you just granted which is it is better to reduce suffering adding the word animal to it shouldn't change your answer it's just getting more specific okay yeah well I I thought you meant like something more like no just suffering just suffering because I mean the idea if it's better for something to suffer than to not suffer well I'll let you just let you think of it and instances of suffering that you think is better than them not suffering and of course I'm I'm considering cases where with some ways in the hole or something you know obviously some suffering can be justified but usually there's some kind of greater good so but but forget that for a second just in general what's better more suffering or less suffering yeah just in general that's like hardly I know we let's take two possible worlds okay you're familiar with philosophy so you understand possible world if you have to pick between two possible worlds one in which there's more animal suffering or one in which there's less animal suffering which would you pick which do you think is is better off do you think in case is there consequence for choosing one or the other there are equal in every respect except for and one there's more suffering for animals the one there's less suffering for animal okay okay so there we go that's the trait that's the trait that's morally significant and we can agree on that correct that's the morally significant trait now you know just point out straight like technically if you can name obviously anything to be the trait but yeah I would say for any reasonable trade if it's for any reasonable person would be something along the lines of like sentience capacity for well-being suffering something like this well I wasn't kind of if I say like something that's essential to human right like I know like this idea of the iDEN argument right like if I say human they like the traders human what would you say what would the path I'll answer that one actually if you say that the trait is human then we say okay so if your consciousness we're transferred into something non-human is it suddenly okay to murder you then I'm not human I mean if you answer so so the answer would come at a form of a yes or no but it's false there's no that's just an answer also if you're saying that one sec one sec if you're saying that the trait is humanity that humanity is the trait that animals lack that if lacking for murdering them okay so if we take a human and we remove the trait humanity so we do we can do that in a number of ways just use your mind come up with a thought experiment let's say we have you know we transmit your consciousness into an artificial biological life-form that is not human it's got separate DNA is it now okay to murder you you can still suffer you can still experience well-being is do you now think it's fine to murder you in your personal subjective view let your premise in the name of faces if it's applied to humans right just I'm just wondering like Chris realize that everyone in here can see you dodging the question right why why bother dodging yes sir and just kind of yeah what that means we're just yeah yes or you said you're because you're you're proposing human as the trait right you're saying so how what's the name the trait response that it's pretty fucking easy if the trait is human then if we take a human and we remove that trait whatever thought experiment you want to use let's say let's do consciousness transference to a machine substrate that has higher level sentience than humans just to make it extremely obvious that there's a problem with what you're saying if we were to transfer your consciousness into something non human that can suffer to a greater degree that can experience well-being to a greater degree it just has far more expansive consciousness in general do you think that it's fine to murder that being because it's not human just yes or no no big ramble just start with a yes or no it doesn't matter what else I can flip a coin and like it like it has but just wait so I just want to get an answer I just want not a dodge just an answer man like I don't have the patience to be as fucking polite with you as jhc is because I've been putting up with your bullshit for too long so when you're saying is what what do you respond what's the name the trait response to human being the trait this the fourth time I think now that I've had to answer this so if we transfer your consciousness out of the human body we put it into something like let's say again machine substrate is it now fine to murder you okay so that's it fine tomorrow yes yes okay so that would be a consistent position because you're breaking your premise and this is what one to see but you keep like nothing doesn't doggy the question right no it doesn't break the premise at all it's a consistent if you're going to accept murdering anything that lacks human DNA or that's not human that is a consistent position Hannibal Lecter has a consistent position nobody will get on then and then coming so in your second like the second premise we have is that if it's applied to humans right so then you have to reformulate you have to add this idea to that you can transfer consciousness right you have to add this premise animal argument otherwise you're going outside of all good oh no you don't have to add it's like the demons yeah the thing like you can though so if the trait if you're saying the trait is human if I'm a robot right yeah no you're not not anymore you've changed all the traits it becomes an animal that faith in the name the trait you have to change your second premise there that and to include this idea we can't that apply to you them because you know that is the most romantic bullshit I have ever heard when it says humans have moral value that's a starting point you're gonna try plugging in various traits which will alter that humans that's not even actually that's another thing that's you say humans have moral value so if I'm if you're transferring my consciousness to something non human right and then you can kill me then then it's not then I stop contradiction because not humans have more value and humans are not worried about you when you said this ideal by switching traits right so it's not even then you have to be very if you're if you're saying that humanity is the trait you're willing to bite the bullet on killing anything that's not human because it's not you that's a consistent position that's evil but it's consistent that doesn't that doesn't break down the argument that just if that's how the argument works one sec the whole point of name the trade that it reduces the person arguing against veganism to either inconsistency or absurdity as I've said for a long-ass time so if you try to say something is the trait and then you won't bite the bullet on on discriminating against beings who lack that trait then the position is just going to be inconsistent if you wait one second if wait wait wait who do bite the bullet it's gonna reduce your position to absurdity because the thing that we actually really value humans for obviously is something along the lines of sentience and well-being so if you if you were to actually bite the bullet on rejecting human moral value based on you know oh if it's not human or if it doesn't have a certain intelligence level that would be it would reduce your position to something pretty absurd that no one would get on board with so that's the whole point of name the trait it reduces you to either being inconsistent using a trait in one context rejecting it in another or absurdity biting the bullet on something like Oh humanity is the trait and I would be totally fine stabbing a sentient being of far greater sentience than the combined sentient power of the entire human race by an order of magnitude I hear you talking over me and not listening so just to be clear I'll say it again knocked over me it reduces your position to either inconsistency or absurdity so if you bite the bullet on something like humanity being the trait I mean that is a consistent position but everyone any rational person will say I won't buy into that moral system because I think there's something fucked about the notion that we could have a being that lacks human DNA which has consciousness equivalent to the total sum of all human consciousness on earth to the power of 100 and that it's fine to stab that thing today so I get this that you talk for like to minister saying the same thing right yeah because you kept cutting in which was very frustrating I like to get the point across yeah yeah I mean I get this I did but what it doesn't this thing about absurdity as well you know you understand that that's like yeah I'm not sure what you have to throw it in there that it's an absurdity like for yeah it's it's absurd it's consistent but it's absurd that's the whole point of the argument it reduces you to inconsistency or oh I heard some everyone died oh yeah like once you switch to trade so that it's no longer human you no longer contradicting p1 but p2 clearly states that will deem our cost us to deem ourselves valueless so you're still contradicting t2c well last time I checked it was they were human in there yeah yeah he was talking yeah sorry well that's that's him him trying to play semantics games yeah it's because we start from a human has value that somehow it has to mean identifiable as a classical human throughout whatever you do but it's obvious that if you're talking about trait switching certain traits if you switch enough the mo you'd actually reach something that nothing would recognize no one would recognize as a human for example as I've said many times if you swap out all the traits you're going to change it into an animal well the thing is it's not about the semantics like it's a it's about like you're changing the premise right but I don't know what necessary want to go down the road like I know what you're gonna reply with that right but I want to ask like if I go to a store not right in my human body and by means is that a contradiction cutting up for anyone else yeah he did you know he just said goodbye meats and them yeah yep yeah we can hear you now yeah yeah we heard by me - by me okay we can't hear you again okay wait let me try something can you just switch to like push-to-talk or something guys hey I can hear you okay I have another laptop I should enough to when other assignments Chris did you do the voice settings on this laptop so that the voice see that you have automatic determine input of sensitivity off and that you have it turn to the LUT the decibel think you should just put push-to-talk on so it's just not an issue at all at all there or I wouldn't talk but I've download something for that mr. talk side of discord isn't it okay well I might be more reliable if he does use why why are you guys trying to get him to use pushed it why is that a thing right now she keeps cutting Wow because assuming he's able to hold the button down it will at least not like I just I how will it not cut out on Oh cuz it's it'll if you push the target it registers anything you're doing oh yeah yeah that's a good if you go to user settings like and then go to voice and video you can change this to put talked it's right there pushed at all he's on a laptop table Oh HAP table someone just send him screenshots of how to do so so he can figure it out easily seconds to data you should just if he downloads it is this all gonna be come with maybe she was down at any motors a browser version I didn't even know that existed yeah I mean the app is so it's not not much space it'll take you like less minute yeah but it seemed pretty clear that he was talking I'm that he was talking about because it's named the trait present animals which if President and humans would justify killing the human but if if the trait is that involves you no longer being human then it doesn't make any sense that it would justify killing you because now you're not a human that's what he was saying which is semantics guys I'm gonna fuck my iPad no no justjust you don't have to keep switching you should what you should do is just download the discord happen no it's you know like have you heard of this older Wi-Fi like the high frequency one or low frequency one is that what you mean yeah exactly yeah I have it on my iPad that's why I think it would be but I live like in a student house you know with like 12 other students which ones it's like everybody's gonna say yeah so I'm coming in with that one okay well we can we can hear you right now I just have frequency why is there now two of him in here I just see yeah the second one is me it's on the other it's on my iPod so yeah we'll try to join with that one need to give you a roll okay if you join with one it should automatically sign you out on the other you've got to count like I said to only have one you stop yeah so you might have to reject the links here science I can't you know this the other unethical vegan on how do I close this buzzer for like the the first one doesn't go in because it's what you should do is is download the app oh yeah yeah there's a desktop client just just consump connote can someone just send him a link to download the app for his computer computer gives you the most control its easiest to navigate someone just send him the liquid down escort act well I mean I I see it I just google it okay so just just download that and then come back [Music] I'm studying a AI in my in Gothenburg so we can go into this for like videos and AI as well right like that yeah like you do we don't want to get into a sidetrack huh right now we're taking a break from the debate to resolve the technical issue do you want to resolve the technical issue or do you want to just proceed as is no I because okay so just I just need the app and then come back okay yeah go take your time as I hope you don't leave this conversation by hitting disconnect button I just like your exit like yeah just go go for it just download it yeah jesus fucking christ oh um opinions insights buddy hmmm I don't I'm trying to think he's actually just not doesn't get how to use discord yeah just tell him oh well I mean that was pretty ridiculous I I mean one of the funniest things for anyone who doesn't know this guy is actually a V weirdly enough he just has some strange egoic needed to to debunk me and I'd I'd don't comprehend it I think it's cuz I own him in one of his comment sections and he's still salty it's what all these filiform idiots are you own them in the comments and they persistently troll you for the rest of your life on YouTube there's a lot of you guys in this chat right now holy I have an idea what it is so the Philo forum if the CIA operatives in to fool the masses with the brainwashing and it all is all gonna go back down to the Jews just a slab it oh yeah I'm sure it's it all comes down to the Jews isn't instill in here I felt bad for muting him I didn't even want to like bringing him into this conversation would you take it to a whole new level of crazy yes well it's also he doesn't seem to often have the awareness to pipe down when there's like a a you know discussion that has a specific direction why I'm aware oh and uh I'm trying mine nagger what's isn't do my meager Negar an e GE owner okay this is just degenerate list yeah yeah all right get her I don't know does anyone have any actual thoughts relating to the disc anything else besides our cutting you off there will you should totally you can go and talk about that Socratic method stuff it just feels like the root of this problem though because it's just well I mean does he does he think that that is invalid did he think that Socratic method is invalid does he think it's wrong oh really that's pretty funny well I mean you can gradually maybe comprehend what's going on yeah long story short just a guy who is convinced that in him the trait is false and he's just getting roasted by everybody I mean he's consistently shown that he's not even able to deal with just the most basic expressing both expressing and comprehending the English language so how are we supposed to expect him to be able to take name the trait and convert it into formal logic if he can't even Constantine but on a constant basis like I actually you know you have to spend like 30 minutes explaining just simple concepts to him linguistic concepts know why he's a vegan I'm not sure but he is he's one of the like kind of UV Tom type and is he actually a vegan or is he just like plant-based I think he's a vegan but we can we can ask I don't know I kind of want to deal with this crazy retard right now but way way earlier in the conversation it sounded like he was something like name the trait if you name some trait it wasn't implicitly wrong because the person could just accept the the consequence I guess that's that doesn't understand that's like our future yeah exactly that's what that like one of the first times that I spoke up that seemed to be that like that's what I was gonna say that's a no I was saying guys guys look at look who's in general - oh boy well I just want to say this that this is seemingly to just play oh exactly as I predicted before he had even got into discord when it was just just a few of us in here I had said that it seems like the overwhelming majority of them think that it was that Prop the people that just like sprog out about name the trait Oh excellent yeah exactly um the majority of them almost always the problem at least at the start seemed to stem from the fact that they thought name the trait was like a propositional argument trying to assert veganism as the conclusion and not just a consistency test in in which that there you you could demonstrate if there was a trait you could name it so if there is a justifiable difference and and they also sometimes just they either don't understand that fact or they they don't understand the the fact that you're you're not asserting the premises to be true they're conditional statements well yeah that's the thing you should you should understand that it's not some trying to cross the is odd gap by the fact that the the moral statements in the premises are their conditional they're not actually truth claims about the nature of reality so I mean that would just be an autistic failure of and I mean that the whole like he all you know all humans are mortal blood you know name this human and well obviously he's he's uh he's mortal but it could also be wrong that they we could you know invent a way to make a human immortal and that will be no that I would just be wrong well then it would just be that one of the premises isn't sound anymore there aren't still be valid but yeah are you here as a conditional statement but it's that you know it's no longer applies to reality I mean oh yeah like soundness is has to do with like the argument being valid and having so if you were to take the just the basic like all man is village ism but whatever it is if we we find a way to make people in more then if the argument is still valid it's just not sound anymore one of the premises that's that's just like I mean even a boy yeah but it's internally consistent yeah yeah firms right one second sounds that you have it wrong if an argument isn't sound that does not entail that it's not valid the prep one of the premises could be false yeah that's what I was yeah I think those Jacy who are you talking to you Agni us whoever confused validity and sound yeah cuz I what I'm just I could look the terms up but I understand soundness to refer fact that it's it's valid and the premises are actually true and validity just refers to whether the structure is correct if it's wait one sec if it's sound it has to be valid if it's valid it doesn't down correct yeah you get you get that the soundness contains validity so that's validity plus true premises Lydia itself doesn't contains down this so it's possible for an argument to be valid but not sound it's not possible for an argument to be sound but not valid just want to point out I know nothing about formal logic so the fact that I know this and you don't know this that makes me highly highly skeptical the point been harsh that's not quite what you've written right there harsh is not quite right so that basically just goes to two places if you are willing to bite the bullet on that then you'd have to be willing to for example as sorry as he's still in here I I need to just find his name yeah so if you're naming humanity as the trait then there's two options there you can be consistent about it and you'd have to bite the bullet on for example it's fine to if we have a being that is greater in consciousness than the entire sum of humanity combined to the power of a million we have that being it's fine to stab that being to death because it's not human if you bite the bullet on that that would be a consistent position most people would agree that it's absurd and evil and then if you don't bite the bullet on that then humanity can't be the trait and we're back to Nana trade hmm [Music] okay gets there me we can hear you so okay I thought remember but I would come back to the doctor with the soundness you said that at there that our argument can be sound and not valid no well then what did you say sorry miss you initially said that you initially said that sound arguments could not be valid they didn't have to be valid and that's what we were saying you said something weird and that's I mean I at least heard that the same way ask yourself heard it the order that's not true okay and also sorry yeah and sorry I just I'm reading what harsh said here maybe I misunderstood just because of the way you've written it here but yeah if it's sound it has to be valid if it's not if it's not valid then it's definitely not sound can't be sound and why I wanted to add to this if an argument is not sound then it's not valid and this is the contrapositive wait if if an argument is not sound that no that's not true wrong yeah so just go up go look up validity if this one to positive it's the contrapositive someone post likes the SCP entry if an argument has not sound one of two things has happened either it's not valid or one or more of the premises are false does not have to be the case that it's not valid mmm sound arguments unknown arguments Tommy sound arguments one of those two things has failed not both doesn't have to be both yeah I mean it's just it's just a tiny point like just go I mean just go look at stanford encyclopedia of philosophy look up the SE entry levena soundness I'm pretty sure it's the contrapositive of sonnets like if an argument is not sounded okay we don't have to like harp on this but no we do because whenever you're wrong it's all we don't have to harp on this yes we do is the contribution do you know the internet encyclopedia philosophy with a peer-reviewed Internet resource for these sorts of things I'm gonna paste a link in the second paragraph I'll post the sentence here a deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid and all of its premises are true so if a sound argument has is false one of those two things or both has gone wrong but not necessarily both of them if you understand that and just a point of process here the the amount that you resist accepting things when they're pointed out to you that is why it turned into food a conversation with puffins just pointing out basic shit to you on Twitter yeah sorry harsh I didn't understand what if you are in fact saying what we're saying harsh then yeah okay you see yes we're what can I search for here in the text to what the decision just it's just the second paragraph it starts here with a deductive argument is sound if and only if and if you continue reading you'll see you said something that's the opposite so admit error when you said that look we're not gonna forget what has been said well if you're saying that a sound argument is by definition not valid that is not true we're not sorry I spoke wrong forget that forget that if you're saying that because an argument is unsound it's also invalid that is not true crap okay where does the save here we posted paragraph it's in chat and it's just the second paragraph this is true but like the differencing let's just process here um are you currently on a computer Chris oh no where yes or I couldn't hear you yeah okay can do you have the general text chat open alongside the voice yes okay I'm on the browser but you meant like the yeah so you just you just want to scroll up to the tax channels because when we're all talking here on voice there's also a text channel that's running at the same time that's where jhc is posting yeah I see this and I agree with this this is was the second paragraph right okay so you so to be clear to get the concession you agree that you were in fact wrong when you made the statement that if an argument is unsound it is invalid no that would be the contrapositive okay listen this does not say if say if a then B a then B okay is that a valid or invalid argument with the deposit is a no I'm just telling you it's just modus ponens if a then B a then B is that is that a sound argument a then B and you give an eight come out different be right correct is that a sound argument you don't know because you don't know the truth values exactly not enough to satisfy soundness so if an argument is not good sound it does not imply or entail that the argument is also invalid because it could be valid and one or more of the premises could be false correct correct correct its internal consistency okay it can't be internally consistent might also be wrong well let's just see I think he might have been about to be that you you said that if an is unsound it's also invalid oh you're saying this the first premise a I'm posting in the chat because it's easy I mean you gotta understand like I do not study formal logic and I know this this you keep making statements like one sec just a sec you keep everywhere that you're talking and you're getting so chirpy with me and my viewers making references to you know a first first week in a logic or in a fucking logic course you would learn the meaning of validity and soundness very very quickly and this is validity point you just asked a question and I answered it soundness is validity plus true premises does not make sense argue this with jhc I'd like to hear you try to expose I mean I think yeah let's let him in JC ok I think you're you're just missing the accepted definition of what sound misses if if soundness and validity were the exact same thing then why have a second word for it anything soundness deals with the truth values of the propositions while the validity yeah I mean it did we have the if and only if they right because validity means that you can you don't necessarily have to know the right if I say if I say this if I save this argument if I say some argument to sound and you say no it's not you can say one of two things you can say it's invalid or you can say one of the premises is false correct the argument is not so if the argument oh but it can be valid yeah okay so I'm saying what I said from the beginning is if an argument is right that the premise is are true and the conclusion is false this is this is this means that the ordinance is not sound like that's an invalid argument and also not sound by extension yeah exactly that's what this was a point if an orange by not song but Chris did you see the example I posted an example of an argument that is valid but not sound is all humans are blue Chris is a human therefore Chris is blue that argument is valid but it's not sound correct that is a hot sound it would in the first five minutes to philosophy class the reason that is that sound is because one of the premises is false not because yes you see it's by lab-grown foreskin that hasn't mics on it because it demonstrates your own and mmm we heard you say this twice you can't really just scapegoat of it no on something that we said that was correct and now you're doubling down on it yet if you're going to school just ask your logic professor just say if I've shown that an argument is not sound have I demonstrated that it's not valid and he's gonna say fuck now on composite ago saw theories on this I mean but do you understand the court do you think that your logic will you just do me the favor of asking him does it is it does it logically follow is it logically entail that because an argument does not sound it is also invalid the answer is going to be now called the positive is the contrapositive through songless i'm asking you like a yes-or-no question i love you from that course how did this and you learned that all unsound arguments are also invalid that's what you learned in what is this person's first language hello strange fucking language what are you talking well fucking something even Swedish because he's obviously never going to fucking sound in English Google fucking translator in here let's just fuck put it across here go and Swedish bibbidi bobbidi fucking you understand I'll tell you what the Swedish only understand if you're a fucking fucking have sex with his fucking sister you'll understand then this guy's taught that a to say together is called the contrapositive it's the contrapositive asanas theorem like I began organizing multiple links that demonstrate that they're different ways for sound arguments to be false for it for it to be false that an argument is sound either or both is it is it the first-order logic or like the with the informal this is like the syllogism is just logic this is just modern propositional logic okay they're very fundamental stuff basics right here and that feeling when someone chirps you've forgotten basic logic and enters your discord server and gets crushed by a philosophy PHP on the most basic concept in logic I can't get JC JC you know what the the contrapositive yes so like this on this right it's if an argument is valid yes did you say if an argument is valid then it is also sound you this is really bad I'm gonna I'm gonna reboot my computer I'll be back in a minute I think you I don't know isn't it better not oh it is better now yeah okay it was just discord okay sorry so mind broken by common sense are you still there Chris do we still have you okay so okay so we left off at ask too like if argument is valid right in its own okay well jhc left out of here but I can answer for that no no it's not unless you're using the the informal usage of valid which just means like a correct argument but no using like proper terminology the fact that it's valid does not mean that it's sound release is probably using basic terminology that well this is who rips on us constantly for not using the logic terminology so let's just let's just not all dogpile so up mind broken by constants unders do you know what it means necessary you're in here no like do you know what it means the somnus yeah Sam this is political program
Last edited by NonZeroSum on Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by NonZeroSum »

okay mine broken by common sense what do you think that sound this mean the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true no no if the premises are okay you should understand why that's first of all wrong if you have premises that are true and they're not aligned in such a way as to produce a conclusion then of course the conclusion doesn't have to follow if I say the sky is blue Isaac is a man therefore you fucking in unicorns and habit Saturn that's it's I mean that is the well I guess the conclusion is a trubin the premises that are true but the way that I know what's happening is those computers Cal did you're confusing sound with the theory of soundness if I say the theory of samus that means if an argument is valid then the then the arguments sound you know who this fucking guy's like it sounds like a theme fuck it I don't I don't fucking know thing is like I think he was I think he was in the middle of saying some things okay yeah good good so you want to complete daughters you have more yeah okay good good good this the contrapositive soundest okay can you define well one sec Nikki don't don't go in crazy directions right now so with with these these words have very basic definitions in logic okay so valid that refers to whether the structure of the argument is true soundness that refers to the argument being both valid so correct in form and having true premises this this is the standard definition of the terms this is what you would learn in any philosophy or logic class that deals with validity and soundness this is why you come into this server and you get a logic PhD Philosophy PhD explaining this basic it to you I know this okay no we do because you're wrong and the second thing it's something you're wrong about it's oh we don't have to harp on it your look man just I'm just gonna be real with you you're speaking to someone right now who is a lot smarter than you and who has far tighter argumentation okay you are looking like a completely it's called one second one second you're looking like a complete retard in front of 60 people who can go and look up the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy you can go look up the online encyclopedia of philosophy or whatever peer-reviewed source at one that GHC winked earlier anyone who has access to the Internet can go type in validity and soundness and they will see that validity refers to the structure of the argument being correct soundness refers to the combination of correct structure validity and truthful premises is not confusing this is the absolute basics of logic so are we just if the contrapositive oh okay I'll give you an example but I can't believe you're trying to argue this you should take the advice of the philosophy who just told you next time you're in your logic class go to your prof. and ask him if it's possible for an argument that is not sound to be valid he will tell you of course it is possible it's possible I'm talking about the theory of the terms what the hell do you mean Yuri of soundness link link us what you're talking about put it in the chat I'll actually look it up real quick see if I can find anything on it I say that valid because of this whole other thing that is not what we're talking about he's just trying to shift around and I have a feeling even the thing he's talking about it's gonna prove our points so why don't you link what you're talking about because there's not going to be any use of the words soundness in logic that's going to not refer to the combination of validity and correct premises like I mean you have literally man you have people posting in the chat basic definitions of logical terms to you and you're not accepting the facts it's cringy so are we just stuck on the cycle we can find you every time you come into a discussion I'm asking if this generally just comes down to him not accepting definitions or it's not I'm Isaac's fucking special definition this is him not accepting the standard definition of validity and soundness that you will find in any logic course on any resource that talks about logic whether it's the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy whether it's the online encyclopedia of philosophy the peer-reviewed resource that jhc the philosophy prof. just linked to our professor a PhD not prof. this is the standard use of the terms this isn't some special Isaac bullshit I actually wasn't saying that but are you I will give you a medical vegan why don't you just argue from the definitions that they're laying out like that simple right right see it's not too it's not right that's not what I'm referring to well I think you need to demonstrate that the laws of logic that they're proposing to you are flawed which I'm open to right so Jason do you concede that what we're referring to is true I said originally I was talking about factories not sound then it follows that it's not valid and this is the what you said that is such a shit there cuz wait wait wait wait because you did this you brought this up twice on two separate occasions we we held your feet to the fire and then you did it again where you said something if it is not sound then it is also not valid which is not true because I found this is either or or both the truth value and and and validity internal consistency it's it it doesn't necessarily equate to both otherwise they would be the same word once like they do not get okay I posted a picture now from from the book okay is this guy even following along like are you do you think kind of slow bro like you should kind of pipe what the fuck is as they posted I don't know what I'm reading this other retards in this conversation that is actually equivalent to what was on the Wikipedia thing I posted though just that it's like the fucking angle symbol instead of a or whatever they used on Wikipedia because they literally use the same definition of soundness and you're still arguing yeah what I'm looking for is one thing make me a definition of soundness from any reliable source in logic or philosophy that says that soundness does not enable it I will actually say yeah we want to see you actually link to a resource here we don't want you to read something we can't all verify for ourselves it needs to be something we can all verify okay what I posted is now like that exact like formal logic is equivalent to what you posted and it immediately after it explains the whole thing about valid but okay let me explain this to Chris you understand if I if I make the argument one second Chris Chris can you hear me can you hear me I can't I can't tell if you can hear me can you hear me speaking right now crit I'm reading as well duh okay I'm asking I'm asking if you can hear me talk I hear you talking chargon okay you can sorry can you hear me right now hello Chris can you guys hear me okay Chris just one second Chris can you hear me talking or not it's just answer yeah hello can you hear me talking here my voice okay Chris if I make the argument Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple is that a valid argument okay now I'm realized okay this is it's a syllogism right I'm referring to proposition logic in the welcome back the red herrings no Eva will answer the fucking question listen to me okay Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple is this argument valid or not yes or no religious a man but not in position wait wait wait wait shut the fuck up shut the fuck up did you just say yes or no I did not hear you is that a valid argument you're referring to the luckiest computing just listen to my words Prince okay I know what happened here I know dude Chris when you're having a debate when you're having a discussion you need to actually answer what is being said to you now Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple is that valid yes or no as I said yes okay is it sound over the propositions fucking answer answer the question you dishonest fuck in a touchdown is it sound yes or no stop dodging okay you can it afterwards just answer the question do you answer the fucking question is it sound the argument didn't make you pee there right is no the only thing I was pointing out like if you look is the exact same formal logic except that it uses different symbols look that's not what icing was saying okay shadows a little it's getting a little too like high maintenance and and it does seem like you're does seem like this guy is avoiding answering the question so you are kind of though you have to like engage with a question honestly so like but if it's a valid argument yes or no not irrelevant because it displays your dishonesty dude what the fuck - you just - what if you just hate that it's not sound is valid just admit that it's true doesn't refer to the thing I said earlier I said about in propositional logic which even posted the picture there right we're talking I'm talking about first-order logic also known as propositional knowledge right - I'm not talking about syllogism because then you can't even evaluate that is exactly the same thing as the one I posted afterwards I can't trust your ability to understand these symbols because you're just playing you understand what they mean ain't got the picture are you guys looking at the picture yes and in your picture the variable names are like that whatever like symbol instead of using a everything else is the same they use the same though fucking deviate derivation and talk to logical entailment Seville I have to say though an ethical vegan I find it hard to believe in this conversation that like most scholars and most people are actually like mired in the subjects and like limit accept these definitions yet like you have some sort of different definition that offers something like better I I think that's a little far-fetched so like I don't know why you don't engage like even if you think that it's not valid can you construct an argument with with the with the definitions that they've given that the name the trade is invalid because if it is truly invalid I think that you can demonstrate that with these definitions and also if it's wrong why don't you just go correct the Wikipedia page and source it and and see if it stays there yeah yeah write a thesis paper out as to why these principles are not sound well no we're not going that far this guy is just an autism that's going when it he is basically saying that we don't understand the formal logic enough so which he's using a he's basically appealing to formal logic as is and to make his point he's having to redefine logic and logical term yeah it seems like he has reached this conclusion from probably like a misunderstanding of the symbols themselves yeah rather than actually having a point it doesn't seem like this guy really has like it sliced as far as I wouldn't it doesn't seem like you're presenting much of an argument aside from just arguing the definition so I I don't really see a point he's not even arguing the definitions he's saying that we understand it incorrectly so who's this you're showing up as three dots who is this the thing is like if you can't explain your argument a person who doesn't understand the Lhasa fee that's a bad argument like why do you need to refer to fucking thesis is or whatever you're trying to explain like what what's the point of that like if I can if I can't explain my argument to a fifteen-year-old kid who knows nothing about no come on man like but that's true though like what white white why do you need to define these definitions at all well because what I mean definition the definitions are interested in accommodation secare legs icon said it doesn't like it we can define them here what what's the point of drilling two different definitions over again definitions we're using this like an ordinance that you will find on any like any resource for what some are yes I will say this exact thing I understand that actually searching okay so I just posted a link in the chat right this is exactly same and I don't know to get like if the contrapositive Santa's right wait are you referring to completeness completeness and soundness are not equivalent you know that right yeah of course it's the other way it's the reverse way I'll talk about you call it's the other way I'm not sure if you know what if you know it's or just I don't I mean like when you have a predicate that is a and B for it something to follow to be like a and B implies C then either now again I know it's free its sound then it's valid as well that's the completeness yeah all the way yeah that's part of the definition sound thing yeah sound is theory of some the sound is defined that as something that is valid and something that is where the premises are true of course if something is sound then it necessarily must be valid because it's in the definition but the reverse can is not the same thing like it's the sound they're not intertwined as if like if one of the mates the other one wait I'm not sure which like my what I said from the beginning if I not sound then it's not valid this is the contrapositive it's trying to say that if something I had to as in bathroom is he still saying that if something is an argument is not sound that it's also by definition invalid is he still going on that same retardation or as he chanted now I think you might be flip-flopping and just about I can't even let's get the clear answer that I was going for before I had to take this okay so Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple you agree that that is a valid argument correct like in the Wikipedia article no man please stop I'm gonna ask you the question again Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple is that a valid argument was that him or someone else who just said yes someone else someone else okay irrelevant so let's line up broken by comments no you're saying no says your eyes oh you're saying yes you understand that's a valid argument Socrates says cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is the purple is that valid or not just these just man come on everyone sees the dishonesty just give an answer just say I screwed up today please I'm honest I'm honestly begging you to just give a straight-up answer Socrates is a cat all cats are purple air for Socrates is purple is that a valid argument is it correct form sorry it's valid yeah good good okay everyone heard you say that's valid okay is it sound know what that means what that would have to no no no I mean is it sound like yeah just no no no just is it sound is it sound those he's trapped that's why he keeps trying to go off point is it yes or no you don't know because you have to I'm asking you right now do you consider that argument sound is it sound okay here guys no no I said here guys but man Chris shut the fuck up and just answer instead of trying to derail I know that you've been sitting there thinking oh I'm so much smarter than Isaac Isaac's an entity that Oh blah blah blah boy you don't know basic logic for months then you roll into my server or desolated on the most basic shit about launching line on you go now you're saying here - guys just be quiet and now you're sitting here not wanting to accept basic reality because accepting basic reality means going hmm shit ask yourself just fucking school you so answer the damn question I have put the argument to you Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple you have confirmed in front of everyone that that is a valid argument which it is now I am asking you is it a sound argument yes or no no derail give an answer Chris okay so so if the argument is valid but is not sound then it is not true that all unsound arguments are invalid you have been debunked okay so you understand so shut up you you understand now that not all at one second one second you understand now that an argument being unsound does not mean that it's invalid by your own admission because you have just said Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore stop cutting in because you know you're wrong okay I have just asked you I've put the argument to use Socrates as a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple you have confirmed that that argument is both valid and unsound therefore you cannot say that all unsound arguments are invalid you have just confirmed that an unsound argument is in fact valid so do you now accept that you were wrong to say that all instruments are invalid no don't ask me a question don't do passionately question answer the question answer opti railing the bus syllogism and this is what shouldn't I'm feeling okay well yeah absolutely well just logon I I want to ask everyone in here every single person with a mic please turn on your mic and answer this question has he answered what has been ask to him no no so no one thinks you've answered the answer the damn question Chris but all of them doesn't bargain valid yes or no like is this the conversations gonna go that you asked you were wrong look Chris in this direction if you want to keep just being rude and trying to act like oh they're being rude and then eventually Chris Chris Chris answer the question wait wait wait don't talk Chris answer the question everyone sees that you're dodging okay do you accept that not all unsound arguments are also invalid yes or no don't give me a sentence give me a yes or a No oh not derail answer the question if I hear anything other than yes and no I'm just going to talk over you and tell you to answer the question though I will put it to you again and you're just gonna have to keep hearing the same fucking question over and over and over until you give a clear answer again I have put the argument to you Socrates is a cat all cats are purple therefore Socrates is purple you have confirmed that that argument is valid but not found so it follows from that that not all unsound arguments are also invalid contradicting your initial statement do you accept this yes or no no no because I never said oh oh my god no ironically y-you just don't admit that you're wrong on this movie can I just talk to that thing yes but look pre-pre really yeah HP talk i like JC you order to be sound an argument must meet two conditions must a be valid and B have all true premises an unsound argument is any argument that fails to meet one or both of these conditions perfect thank you very much yes I think it's like a moral horse the horse thing you know they just want to feel good I can't when they post pictures I go then why do they eat dogs in China bla bla but I wouldn't say that they were actually when the vacant post pictures or now this is a vegan more like even meat eaters you know like if the closest picture so I think like what would what do you mean when I first pictures like I basically when they post pictures of like people eating dogs in China you know or like people in China eating dogs right like yeah like the feels bad not even they might not even object to the um so the killing of dogs but I bet that object to the torture of dogs that object is torture of all these animals and killing of mystery you know you can add you can add to this like humans have more value and you cannot you can add premises people can have like premises in their belief system so they can say like it's wrong to kill a dog you know or like it's wrong to eat dogs and but it's okay to kill them like I mean and you must have more value so they can have like is extra this extra set of beliefs in their belief system right I mean this what so people you think everyone how not understand your argument quite I mean since you said that people wouldn't accept eating dogs or like treating animals bag like certain types of animals right if they're in the set of beliefs like humans have moral value and the trait is and the animals like dogs cannot be treated this way like premise number 34 you know we're like do you understand you can add its premiere looking you can add a set of premises to make your world justified but they okay maybe that was too like we get too far right but let's just start with like you can still have the trait as humans and set or premises in your belief that animals it really this way X Y Z right the color well yeah and people could add the premise not to be treated in a bad way like dogs shouldn't be treated this way right they can add this to the belief system and other to every other animal that they care about arbitrarily I mean if we if we're going to talk about logical consistency and kind of like this is my pointer like we can also talk about the good things in veganism I mean later on well if it was just so let's see no it all goes together right okay people would rather live in a world where unnecessary killing okay doesn't occur I mean torture doesn't occur if all these people agree with that the thing is is I think and this is my personal my personal thought I think that if you can put say X amount of premises and and you first meet and you first are concerned about making logical consistent system logical consistent model system do usual a premise that that would say it is wrong or is forbidden to cows unnecessary killing to conscious creatures so that you then will not be able to add another premise that it's okay to kill cows or if it's okay to kill pigs you know so unlike if you believe you if you are saying that you can add X amount of premises then you need to make sure that all that premises are consistent with each other and and in in a logical conclusion oh yeah you're talking about like all the premises you mention but the thing is like if one of the premises is true then the whole argument becomes not it doesn't have to the conclusion doesn't necessarily have to be followed right it's false if one of the premises collations not the curriculars inclusions not set depending on what people say in your argument okay leaves I mean if you can have the person believe and this is actually now I just figured out like a very easy way to just like deplete this whole thing right away is that if I just have the belief that and as a premise that animals do not have moral value then the conclusion can never be deduced to animals hammer value like that would be like you believe it I don't know if yeah if you if someone wants to bunt the ball on the fact that animals have no moral value okay and that's fine you know if they're wrong if someone wanted to say that every non-human animal doesn't have moral value that's that's perfectly consistent to go and eat meat after then I mean so I mean yeah what is the inconsistency here like I mean what is that there's not inconsistent but I mean I'm saying the vast majority people don't agree with that yes because it's like a terrible position to hold an honorable position to hold let's say you have another like I just add the premise why wouldn't they hold this can you like mention why wouldn't they need to be doing well why do you think there was a because because they know because because people don't intrinsically care for animals okay the whole planet that there's a vast majority people care for animals okay they believe that they do some kind of low value and most really confused about how much more value they think they should have I think the answer is in more value in the sense that wait what did more about innocence that you cannot eat them or stop them all you mean like yes so if I say that a person has the belief of that it's that this is false that you cannot do this to animals right sorry you have to survive again forever but if a person would say in the premise that it's it's a date to do this tournaments wait no no no no no because then you are making an argument no because the name the trait isn't an argument it's just a consistency test to see if you actually adhere to the beliefs you already have your naming premises right like each premise there like premise number one is a belief that you must have moral value right over so yours and comes up with the premise the person you're talking to a top of the premise exactly exactly wait they have a premise that this is not okay to do two terminals they keep them at suburban and zoo right if they have this as a premise as well then there and if you don't trying to like appeal that like wait this way they can never come to the conclusion they will be contradictory week from ms rich promised if they can't see like it's bad or it's fine that it's bad fat okay then their walk not the ecosystem if you trying to like to apply there this each one apply the name trip to for example me right where I hold a belief that a human some moral value this one and premise two it's bad to a boil dogs right yes or like a set a set of things that you would believe would be inconsistent about right then like the the premise of like trading differences trading their traits I mean sure I'm not sure actually there's an implicit thing going on but master we sure we don't have to go down down that path right but if I had the premises which used income inconsistent I still bought dogs I still like eat chicken and while having well the fact that you human some moral value that I have this set of premises for you think I'm inconsistent right do like good try I'm trying to work out what your time trying to work out where you trying to say okay are you saying that if if you had if you thought that boiling if you thought animals do have say animals do have moral value or don't in the premise humans draw humans time you're saying only humans do okay so you say yes the original answer the question is the person says only humans have moral value okay you know in DNA okay um from day are you saying what you're gonna add the person can add an infinite number of caveats to that premise yeah I mean to the situations where you think the person would be inconsistent for example that well treating animals badly okay I also think treating it up exactly so you would come down to the you cannot treat an animal look bad humanoid have moral value right and you would apply the whole law of identity do you follow so far if you have to give a justification for why you would you would give them that treatment you believe my mom should not date what if you're rich if the original answers the question about using humans what do you think humans have more value is I only think human DNA is valuable okay you would have to explain why the animals then would get some special treatment or some animals would get some special treatment does the blush rate was human DNA try to try to give those humans or human DNA okay you can't then go on inside but we also don't like mistreating dogs so we'll just add that in that has nothing to do with human DNA but say that you can apply law identity and this would be the same the object of human and the object of dog would be the same object right human DNA was present in the dog okay then I would be immoral to kill the dog then you will be taken world to kill the dog okay yes so if I had if I had that rice or so I think so if I had an extra premise saying that it's okay to do XYZ to dogs right this would make one of the premises false right listen the premise although just I got7 again yes yep is human right yes and then you say I'm being inconsistent to dogs because they deny human right you would say I'm being inconsistent in for example with boiling them okay yes why don't you know if if the human if the trade of human DNA was applied to dogs okay and this mizzen it's hypothetical okay the dog now possesses human DNA of some kind okay it would be then unethical it would be wrong to mistreat them dog but it would be wrong to mistreat the dog sorry you have to start again you robot a little bit by say that the trade is human right yes so then you would say that it's income get it done to do XYZ to dogs right yes perfectly fine to kill the dogs yes if I add to my belief to the to the set of premises it's not fine to do this to dogs right there like a phallus okay right then their worldview is justified their worldview yes now justify why you why you valid dogs like there's no if the trait is human DNA you can't wait I can't then we're back in dog do you know there's nothing dog DNA and human DNA don't have that's the trait in between them yeah so I said you know that gives moral value it's also it's it's dog DNA what this is anything that it's it's alright to do it's not a right I mean to do this to dogs right I had this as a premise as well in there by in my beliefs right and now with so I think you would say that I would have to justify why I can't do this to dogs right why I can why I don't want to mistreat dogs so you add not meeting listen you'd add dog DNA to the human DNA as the baseline as people it will become a one of the premises you have in your beliefs right so doing this like every situation you you bring up that you would say is people would bite the bullet on like having to boil the dog right well I would just say what people think then that it's like having a like advocacy belief in there like in their beliefs the set of beliefs so d then the conclusion can never be the fact that and and you don't have in the cerebral Easter animals some more about it like you really want to be consistent on the fact that you want to do this to animals but you don't want to do this to humans right will you do like simple is that you can actually just say as a as a set of your belief that animals do not have moral value that could be like premise number so if you like in the name to trade the first part what you want to deduce this animal samwol or value right you want to have this as a conclusion am i right not you not necessarily no you just want people to be consistent sorry whatever they choose the fastest to be okay yeah so yeah sorry that's true so but you wanna show is inconsistent if they hold it purposes to be true the conclusion to be false the fact that animals okay I capably I keep losing you over the the robot enos okay what did you say this thing so if a person would hold the both the premises actually okay if a person [Music] the set oh but they believe in right so the human some moral value and most on time or they just have it as a is one of the premise in their beliefs right their beliefs they have animals do not have moral value right one of the premises in their argument in there if if they want to derive a more logical framework over what they believe is right or wrong right you you it's got to say well retard is gone you guys have a level of patience that I will never achieve in my life I'll also has been debating since he left your server you're honestly crazy I mean I don't I don't what motivates you to talk to someone this retarded you really still trying to say that the argument is valid still here I I don't even know like if this is gonna go down if this discussion still go down and you're just gonna like cut me off that's like I should I don't know is this your server or can you amuse me okay oh my Holland I disconnected for a bit okay what I was saying before I disconnected was and you might have said something that that already addresses this but I don't know what I was saying was you can't appeal say human DNA is what gives moral value and then also say also dogs DNA also has some moral value as well okay it can't be won and then tacked on to the other okay that means either you're lying about the dog being the what gives moral value and saying it's just a human or you're saying neither of those are what gives moral value if you're going to appeal to say that multiple different species deserve treatment and moral treatment of some kind okay you have to give a trait that applies to all of those species not just tack them all on individually okay you're not naming one trait you're just naming a bunch of arbitrary chosen things so then your trait would become arbitrarily chosen this is not necessarily like false to do that because I'm retarded ask yourself would say like well if if an arbitrary with the arbitrary traits would be applied to you go down that path again but it requires re the last point was you know that if I have in the premise if I have in my belief system do not have a moral value like this is a thing a believe right okay yes if they don't if they think that animals or animals don't have more value and only humans yep okay keep going yeah conclusion over can never be animals have moral value this is yes yep it wouldn't be why would why would a bid false doesn't have to be false but it can be false and you cannot it can't it can't be ever you can't ever say the animals would have a more well because they lack the trait that you have said originally that gives moral value okay the point is I mean you're trying to show the like the color if if all the premises are true right yeah if you've said that you believe in human value and you believe that the trait is human DNA then that means animals have no claim to moral value at all yeah yeah they're obviously then the Conchas our signature as well I mean the conclusion the fact that on the most hammer evaluate only if you accept I think something like sentience would be even more would be the trait okay if you said they will be inconsistent or for example stab an animal right no not not if not if they believe that only human DNA is what you can also value yeah okay yeah you're good are we all good okay we got we do we understand that we can't just grab a whole bunch of different animals and say I think these guys should have more already and these go I should have moral value and that's my premise okay you're not naming a trait then you just arbitrarily choosing thing okay this is not like here which does not make false and do that but okay but okay no it's on the computer you don't name it anything yeah not specifically but okay well I think look we're in agreement on a vast majority of things here okay if you can if look that's why that's why people think that sentience is a good thing okay because that's what casts the net over all these different animals without justifying the slaughter and mistreatment okay of all these different animals okay and any attempt to name a trait other and sentience or something similar to that okay ends up justifying the mistreatment and slaughter of all these other animals that a lot of the public care about but their actions aren't consistent or their words aren't consistent with their actions okay that's what name on the trait makes them realize okay and even if you think it's a bit of a sneaky bit of argumentation at least to get some thinking about the topic okay yeah but there will be one of the things that if we say if you don't mention says it you cannot say these two of the premises that then you go like I'm actually referring to ask yourself because he came in here and they go was on the masters spiel in a row see I used to me recently implicitly like you referring to things know that you can like objectively say something about the universe right if I know it's soon as there's nothing don't worry this has nothing to do with objective beliefs about the universe okay this is you this is when you deploy this system of consistency test you're asking an individual what they think okay how they think the world should be run and whether they are consistent with that in their action okay it doesn't require human it doesn't require an objective or subjective belief in universal things well that's completely irrelevant to the point I'm not like you I don't want to interrupt it you know I'm actually yeah frustrated with ask yourself - no because kept cutting in on this very point that he's assuming I think it had been a long conversation and everyone was a bit okay I think no one really wanted to keep covered because implicitly assuming the fact that you know this idea that he can object only like see the trait about like the objects right and then he wants to apply like the law of identity and this is one money to get to money but I never got to disappoint them because they just kept like commuting the movie is doing do we agree do we agree now a despite all this law of identity carry on okay do we agree okay so I would say the trade argument okay it's it's it's it's not hiding things that make it inconsistent okay the premises if you're saying that can the parentheses are decided by the person you're talking to okay it's up to them their conclusions follow their premises but he cannot there then implicitly assume things about the universe or the way that the person is doesn't matter if anyone's impressively assuming anything about the universe or only humans okay we don't need the universal universal human knowledge that everything in the universe all right we don't need we don't need to talk about he wants to apply the his funny make this retarded the method of applying like the law of identity to real-world physical insight look okay if you say this will make the example like the DNA thing okay we were asking about okay if you said that human DNA was the trait okay the law of identity thing was sort of saying if you have dog then that assumed that trait and all the characteristics that go with that human DNA trait and they would also have moral value okay they would be the human they would be the human human that also has moral value just like the other human okay that was sort of the idea of that whole point there's also a relevant why I've got we've got to run it look I think we've made some progress here okay I mean you would say that if I can't name a train they're different in animals then you can switch their traits right well this is a where he's been it's all premise to right if I can't name a trait then Danny applied the law of identity switching traits in between therefore it's the same object and if this object does not have still facing is right hold on you're naming one straight okay and things and beings that have that trait then according to whoever says it they should have moral value okay that's the consistency test oh yeah I understand mom this is because of the law of identity right okay a lot I like it this is what I tried like 20 times telling that you cannot you don't give a fuck about the law of identity okay like yes I have the trait okay then and I have now I use it so people don't do this okay uh-uh look I think I think we agree I think I'm pretty sure we from really great mother right I mean you know not the fact because he he really thinks and I think the person you're talking to whether they're hiding whether their argument is valid or sound okay well he believes this is a value a potency but now he doesn't believe it's um he doesn't mean to be something believes it's valid this is all true then the conclusion which is there animals have to have more value if the premise is true if you believe in human moral value and if you believe that you cannot name a trait different in the animals you cannot name the specific difference done more of value am i right no you have to serve it again basically he says that if both of the premises are true then the conclusion have to follow right yes and this is a logical consistency right and I would say no this is not the case you know then I will go down this route of that he has like implicit things I don't give me an example okay if someone says that human DNA is the trait okay they give some moral value okay then how then what what tell me a system where that wouldn't reach a conclusion that's true necessary mean there's no inference rules that you can apply to reach the conclusion right we can that we have to also define like what because yeah there's so many interesting things here about if you must have moral value then you have to make much trade no but the person doesn't it doesn't matter if they're really objectively you know actually have okay it's up to the person you're talking to okay if they say only do only human DNA that is the trait that gives moral value okay I have that DNA therefore I have moral value okay that's a valid statement okay they can also say if they truly believe that if they truly believe that human DNA is what gives more value they can also make the statement okay human DNA is what gives moral value that peak over there doesn't have human DNA therefore that peak doesn't have any moral value I can treat it however I like it's a morally neutral action okay I mean I understand this name to treat this you know the why he thinks it's but my problem with this is that it's just linguistically stating you know and then like sneakily trying to apply like the law of identity which it does not make its sense unless you wait one second when you're talking to people on the street about this topic you're not going to have to explain the law of identity to them okay cannot live consistency built and applied if you had like implicitly more implicit stuff but I mean then you could like retweet me in the trait and like make the conclusion follow but it's not it's like underdeveloped right and that's not that that's like a minor issue don't it the major issues I'm gonna try okay wait yeah even if you like linguistically state this these implicit stuff than you have to show through the process like one year prior like like the inference rules you have to so step by step there's a conclusion yeah you might have you might have this conversation it wasn't you might yeah if some if someone has a real trouble understanding you might have to explain the world by the energy it doesn't have to be in the first sentence of what you save them okay that's why I don't stand is massive listen this message like right that people have with the argument is that ask yourself think that name d'etre is a valid argument right that inference rules can be applied so so what he's saying is okay this is about the argument inference rules can be applied BAM now if the premises are true then their conclusion has to be true as well and it's up to the person making the claim that this is right and then he's gonna go down the routers like law had any double dot which I would say is like law of identity like the fact that you're switching traits if I name which I can't imitate you know someone came if someone came up to the original conversation with Isaac or someone and bit and said I've only believed human DNA is what gives moral value and was consistent in all of those point there's no grounds to say that person's and even if I even if I named I could say that like I believed Jimmu some more value right I say that this is an invalid argument therefore I can believe that you must have more value and the second premise actually I don't even think people would accept that the second premise is like fundamental truth like he thinks that the second premise if you cancel a premise therefore it's a contradiction you know the second premise over if you can't name a trait that's different between animals but that's a human cell that's a if you can't be mature what are you talking about we're talking about one that did we did answer that question if you said that human DNA was the trait okay animals don't have that trait okay so it would be consistent for that person to kill those animals okay it would also be consistent they would have to bite the bullet I live in a world where torture and all that was okay okay this isn't it this isn't an argument for veganism necessary you it's up to the person okay to decide the premises it's up to the person to decide what they think gives human life moral value understand Byron thing then we work from there okay know that like yeah premise two is like fundamentally true like yeah what's fundamentally true the humans have what what do you mean often really true the that if you can't apply a treat if you can name achieving then you can switch these and there is no trait living in the Wild West okay believe like this is a true premise like fundamental troopers because he will go down the rafter like like the china pile of identity to like to think it's quite absurd you know that stuff so party law but it has nothing to do with the original argument it can go there but it doesn't necessarily have to okay right the person I don't but I'm trying to show that okay the gripe with the argument just seems really really petty when it's up to the individual who's being talked to to come up with the premise and defend it and be consistent okay when veganism isn't even the necessary result of it okay do you understand that I think that name the trade is invalid that even if I say the premise one and premise two is true even if these both premises are true do not think do you think was okay okay okay okay okay so let's go the DNA thing again and go with that all right someone says that that someone says that human DNA is what gives moral value okay I have moral DNA therefore I have more value okay why is that an invalid argument wait so can you repeat that if someone comes up to you and says okay I think the trait that gives moral value is human DNA I possess human DNA therefore I possess moral value why is that not valid great one sec right hello yep I'm still here I'm still good okay honey okay I don't think yeah so what I said before is I did not think this is a valid argument right and you ask me why you don't you don't think that's a valid argument well you do yeah go down this the path you know like a signing proposition but I really don't want to go down that path I just want to say oh it's like I've nothing to open like I can just say that's out in the open because because I it has not you don't apply any inference rules to the premises to arrive to infer the conclusion so by guarantee that it's out in the open whether it's valid or not right you don't necessarily but can also go down the path of saying it's not valid that would I would have known that we can't listen you said before it's not necessarily valid so I have to tell me why you have to tell me why if you tell me why it's not necessarily valid this is because no this has been shown France has been shown that can guarantee sorry after sorry go again right like Isaac does not even try talk to me talk to me talk to me forget I forget it forget it okay talk to me why is the argument invalid yeah yeah well well I mean let's just first let's just first talk about it's out in the open right it's not necessarily true right like it's it's in this no it is true in the end in the okay the salt in the high in this isolation of the statement itself okay okay you're asking what what gives moral value okay I believe that human da gives moral value I have human DNA therefore I have moral value okay that three statements are valid but the premises are valid but the argument does not necessarily have to be value right and this is my kind of my point it's not a man it has to be valid you have to say why why that's a man's invalid I don't want to go down that path to know because I'm not to go into like laughing like defining propositions you know we have to define each word in the in the premise you know and I mean and actually I don't want to necessarily 100% guarantee this not go on give me the hot tie cover okay okay I can guarantee like like two hundred percent that it is like it's not the guarantee to be true it's Ella it's not guaranteed to be valid don't show their you don't show any it's out in the open right now right but I think what I ask yourself is say if this is necessarily it's not necessarily sound okay okay but it's a valid yeah no no yeah I mean you okay you're saying it's valid then then I would expect to see some type of mmm the whole process of not to just the doctor will just apply inference fook you prove an argument to be valid I mean just saying like Isaac retarded ask yourself says like valid though or fundamental truth that does not apply the understand desire plays a fundamental truth has no bearing on it being valid I mean you're basically saying it's valid by is it valid because the two premises lead to the conclusion okay why is that and then you will go down there then you will go down like them no cuz no that's that's as far as it goes for valid for diddly then I would say okay you then work from there you'd then work are the premises correct okay then you work out the soundness of the argument no yeah but then I would expect you to show Hey showing this right like you're not you here now and this is why there's so many like interested things going on big is because either the the fucking will four-year-old retard you know things that you can linguistically state and this is and then like you're trying to like fucking sneak in and then like implicitly assume things about the like reality and like do you know suddenly you implicitly assume all this talk and then therefore the conclusion right so I would say that this is majorly stupid this is nothing to do with the weather the weather whatever the trait is is valid you're talking about soundless you're talking about exploring harnesses if you say that the okay then I would expect and you've seen their premises are true and it leads to the conclusion also being true like like the listener is a set fire what you mean by inference rules okay you need to give me a 30 second thing why what do you mean by inference rules about the valid rules that you can use to derive new propositions like new claims like a claim that human have more value or animals don't have more about these or propositions right what that would that get and that doesn't sound like it would affect the validity of an argument okay I can make a valid argument about something that's objectively false okay well if you if you say like your argument is valid I the inference rule and then you would lead to the conclusion right then the man then if the premises are true then the conclusion is true as well claim that our argument okay let's ignore the fact that doesn't mean the content is true if the prayer if you see an argument is valid then the conclusion has to be true as well right no the princess have to be true themselves yeah yeah exactly if the if the argument is valid and valid or not valid okay true sound if the whole argument is about its aha if the whole I glanced valid doesn't mean the converse is true I agree I agree with this however if the argument is nothing emesis are true then the island is sound yes exactly I agree I agree yes so okay yeah witness like before okay yeah forget after yourself talk to me so basically the same question rate is clean for example the the sky is round right please draw blue or round round yeah the earth is round and the sky is blue for council one and the lake premise number two two premises are true right you've been agreed earth is birth is rounding the skies blue okay yes come on you've been like is something I know okay so therefore I'm gonna explain this I have a no no no Paulo from the second thing like the premises has to follow the conclusion right and the whole point you know there I've been kinda like for actually months in an arc in order to infer the conclusion you have to show the inference rules like the rules of inference like these are the valid way conclusion like going on like I feel you know about know you just know you just have to improve your premise you know you just have to prove the premises are correct and okay this is what ask you stuff would say you know you just have to prove that the premises are correct right and okay so would you say that my argument about that penny swamp the earth is wrong premise two premise to the sky is blue therefore meanings for getting no no the second premise would have absolute have to have to do with something to do with the earth being round the scar being balloons one Stratford's would mean the truth but you can actually have like a whole of the structures two arguments right no because you know an argument that your thing would have to be something like the earth is round this is Earth I thought what I'm standing on his round okay but every something like that the two premises the earth and the skies wouldn't follow each other and I mean you can show this weed soundness you know right but my point is that name d'etre is basically in that format you know that even thing is in that format may be true the premises doesn't have to be also you know it's not it's not because you ask the person you ask the person what they think the trait is okay yeah but the first they are coming up with the first premise okay they are coming up with X has X gives moral value okay then you'll have yeah I understand this basically that ask yourself is there linguistically explanation right however however I'm telling it like even if you don't have to explain this to someone you're talking to now you don't have to explain this no I mean basically even if the premises are true as long sir although they don't matter I want to go back to the he's missing that they claim is valid right so if the premises are true then the conclusion is true like you saying there did you follow if you're trying to say that the argument is valid then I'm assuming you can apply the inference well go yes go on well I you know like this actually Falls like using soundness I don't wanna we can actually leave that like there on the Shelf right the this is where even person in their forum right is the fact of the validity by piece claiming he said this a lot of times it's a valid argument basically if the premises are true to be true as well and this is my then adamantly basically this is why I'm storing this hash tag name the inference no because okay then if you're just claiming out of thin air that this is oregano then I can as well just claim that if my if I had the premise the sky is blue and the earth is wrong these two premises like ask yourself is retarded they're likely the statement is true no you said no don't say the whole say the whole argument you were gonna say they're good so you would in the skies blue then what I miss a move on premise to the earth is wrong premises you basically ask yourself is like yeah Oh get on topic boys let's get on topic be a problem with not having influence like in or like a formal way of saying why argument is done issue you okay that made me like that or something this a hashtag you wanna well I bring that like inferences is not developing in the trade and showing why the argument is valid valid or fundamentally truth and then he's trying to bring up an example like the Wikipedia like all all men are mortal Socrates is a man but all right and saying that this is a fundamental argument and so is made the trade you know but completely missing the point that you can apply inference through the inference or implication elimination to the Socrates example right do you get it a little bit this is John so you're saying name the inference if he claims they said valid argument then he's supposed supposedly they can't apply in the inference rules it will divide the conclusion so you want him to basically name a conclusion as well friends the rules of inference I mean there's a there's a lotta like there's actually infinite yeah because you can derive new inferences based on which I right but but the point man at the point a me it's a valid argument without just out of thin air and this city this is retarded this is anything can be valid argument of sinner okay this is what he's a basically see because he is refusing to be there like the inference know you can say ridiculous things in make a value argument okay so what was your bearing a whether it sound so what's the inference in your eyes tree I mean you I think he's it is implicit there is love implicitness going on no and but I mean did you guys get the point like like I cannot make any argument up and say that this is valid obviously okay my is valid as long as the decision follows from the two premises has no bearing whether it's actually any of its true
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by NonZeroSum »

okay but it can resolve it well yeah I mean I cannot come up with any argument in claiming its value without showing some type over this work would be applying inference in a step by step and this whole process like what you've described me you've described to me is applying inference sounds like you deciding whether it's sound or not okay it's standard it's standardized this standard rules the inference was so like standard formal they don't they it's not like they have a completely informal whether you work you have sleep well then you have to give me exams you have to you have to give me an example then okay you have to give any example of then to correctly if let's use the modus ponens one right so if the implication it's raining therefore I'm going to get wet right no that's what you don't even name enough parts of the argument there you'd have to say it's raining outside therefore if I go outside I will get something missing a part of the you don't even name two premises another implication wait dude premise one it's raining yes you have to say if it's raining therefore I'm going to get wet so far so good depends on your last part it could be valid at this point okay so the completion is on with their puller because it depends where you are no you're missing out a part of putty promise okay I'm seeing the implication they were clear meaning then okay that's that okay this is why it's retarded to actually because you know it's not even valid because just one second one second and this is called implication elimination right so therefore I know this whole argument is invalid like format if you will right true then the conclusion always will follow like man I like I hope to god ask yourself will like one day like no because you since it's round it's harder to parts you said it's raining therefore I'm going to get wet yeah okay I'm one premises it's raining no one no you didn't you didn't it's not valid yet those are the inference for implication elimination you can eliminate the the what's called a conclusion in the implication in this case right so I can show any I I can tell you I'm being honest I don't know any any inference rules at all but tonight I could tell you that that's not a valid argument these sort to repeat I have a premise an implication like this implication is okay it's raining therefore I'm going to get wet okay this is one premise okay no that's not a promise you just gave a solution you have a conclusion in that premise no but you can have implications in the premise right okay I will give you another inference rule if that's I mean okay I'm like I'm rich form premise yeah this up is retarded that's one premise second premise okay didn't have anything to do with the first premise okay right okay conclusion I'm rich and ask yourself is retarded so I can use the and conjunction there and the conjunction inference I don't because your second your second thing didn't have anything to do with the first thing it's an and implication okay I can show like the conclusion I am rich and as we stop is retarded because at the end and conjunction did you get it like I can show an inference rule to show why they're the argument is valid no if you had said okay you know you'd have to say like all rich people are retarded ask yourself is rich therefore ask yourself is now okay doing this you can do those well use it wasn't your saying two different things you're saying like it's raining outside and it's cold inside there are two separate things you're lumping them together do something to do with the first one and that's what perfectly first of all create the conclusion do you understand that implication can be part of the premise like I can have the implication unplug my computer it will lose charge I can have this implication in the premise right I mean you're having like I mean you couldn't have an appreciation but you were saying before you're arguing for inference yeah and I'm trying to show a bad example of a valid argument unlike you can't give a valid argument because not do this it doesn't show like the inference it doesn't name the influence of why it would be valid okay then displaying that I don't get I don't get how you're applying your inference references to name the trade okay so ask yourself ups consistently said that this is a valid argument right oh yeah logical yeah so what he means like in like basically that you can apply like an infant fools to show that the conclusion has to always be true when the premises are true like this is the idea of emphasis is like fundamental within logic right now he doesn't want to do this right he's just he's just like but well it's rather it's like it's like so obvious story like a throwing out retarded things and I'm like this idiot you know so I'm saying them that okay if you say it's a valid argument then show the inference rules applied to make sure that the conclusion is true whenever the premise is actual as well if it's not valid which I mean we can I don't want to go down that route you know when I'm not necessary that snot even like a point we can just you know that completely is saying it's a valid argument right period he should show but inference rules it's valid otherwise if you're saying that well it was obvious to me not then then then really then I can just come up with any two premises and derive anything then I can just say blue no well yeah you can you can't come up with any premises and call it a value a valid argument that's what basically ask yourself is doing because he doesn't want to name the inference window he stays valid however he doesn't want that I named the inference from do you understand that that's retarded study the logic so does every argument you're saying every argument needs an inference rule does to be formal we know yeah otherwise it's I don't even know what to call it you know it could be like informal based not logic you know I don't know morons so what so go through name the tray me where you're missing your you're missing it you're missing your you're missing pieces that you need to call it a valid argument tell me that well I will just repeat you know that so well I mean this is then I can go down the road to like showing why name the train is like invalid it's an invalid right we can put this on the on the shelf because that could be like advanced and we can misunderstand the children right however I I want you to guess to get the point if me if I ask yourself is saying that's a valid argument which you guys believe as well right you believe it so now the argument no but it's not an argument in ER of itself well you're saying it's valid in the sense that that if the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true right are true then it is true yes but the process is by the egg in the original name that's right your furnaces aren't even really there yet and you can set the premise to be true or false I think this is what you mean you can set that the kima's does not necessarily have tell more about it you can believe that you must don't have more of the value right so that would be a false premise right you get you can set the premise to true or false right this is true you know that you have all moral value and then then that right wouldn't wouldn't like tell you that that's wrong you would just you would expose whether you actually believe that or not that's all what would do yeah I agree like but I'm not really how like pointing this out you know I'm pointing out the fact that if it's a valid argument right which as you say is claiming you're saying if the premises are true then the conclusion is true right oh yes okay so can you get in his head norther for it to be valid he has to apply inference rules otherwise what he's doing what I can do with the earth is round and sky is blue example like I can just I can just name anything it doesn't matter and infer like any type of conclusion right so there's rules then you know for certain that the argument is valid again no but isn't he inferring that animal rights are stemming from not stemming from but animal rights are follow human rights that's the inference right there all the rights inferred from humans rights yeah I mean he is also with the second premise that if you can't be much trade then therefore there will be the same object like all this talk you know he did you know that's not inference you know that's a further implicit like further into implicit premise is you just say he doesn't even want to add these you know so it's like really confusing this is like and such underdeveloped like argument you know like I mean in in the sense you know I'm looking at the definition of inference saying a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence a reasoning so when I say his inferences animal-rights them from human rights that's what his inference is they largely follow his humility the fact that humans have rights therefore animals are moral rights as well is this what you said yeah saying that uh animals have like the law they logically follow human rights if you only because of dance okay and this is like my objection would lie you know that is claiming that it's follows right then I would expect in to apply or show the inference rules usually can use several in his inference was right as long as you showed that the sequence of these rules to apply in order to end the in order to infer the conclusion right if we take the I'm rich and ask yourself is retarded example I have two premises right there will be just one simple impress there which is called so they did it where I can conclude that I'm rich and so that would be one case of an inference rule shown to the argument with confidence say that this is a valid argument so so yourself role would the inference rule would just tell you that the two premises don't follow each other that I'm talking about each other they have nothing to do with each other this inference just like skepticism of the premises I mean it's the proof of showing why an argument is valid if you if you don't they actually solar it's just each step right natural deduction you can search that associative in Google as well it's the whole process of showing you why a conclusion is true from the premises so a conclusion that valid two different things I mean they inferred from the premises like that the argument is valid so if the premises are true has to be that the conclusion is true as well this is on top in your example I am rich and ask yourself is retarded what is that equal inclusion in that okay so my argument to you and just throwing out an argument now and I'm also kidding it's adalat wait okay okay I'm telling you my premise is I'm rich and that's what's up is retarded these are true premises right to premises yeah yeah then I will tell you this is a therefore a Swiss Observatory like premise one I'm rich premise two as a service for target conclusion I'm rich ask yourself is your target right this whole logic formula or I'm rich and ask yourself is retarded the conclusion I can prove this with the inference rule and conjunction to you I can infer that inference rule then and I so that the conclusion leads from the premises okay I mean that that makes sense on like a almost like a mathematical basis like yeah it's like starting to feel like you're my point like doing at least understand yeah I mean but it's very it's very loose you're just saying like you're basically saying I am rich plus ask yourself is retarded even though I embrace you argument and you're just masking it I can show that that already claimed was valid it's not a single valid argument I mean I could show the validity of the argument with different sure no because you have to make it a claim in the first point then if the premises or if the premise if one of the true premises is false for example I'm not rich right then the conclusion does not necessarily have to follow right because validity means that the premises are true therefore the conclusion is true this is relative if one of those is maybe not I don't have to be true that you think follow logically from one another yeah exactly how do you showed up how would you shoulder that's when you go further it can be a valid argument until that point well it's not know having it not necessarily I mean yeah it could be about algorithm necessarily and that valid argument as as we said claims because I asked him like do you think that the premises follow from the conclusion to inclusion as a picture I asked him this and he said valid it's invalid form and you but you trying to be like trying to say that oh are you missing reference bah blah blah I just is just an obviously object obvious fact no valid although the obvious story not like during a retard is talking about an didn't keep the air clean in class because I was just laughing my head but this is my whole objection you know and if the father I ask this you know like he obviously thinks that English trade is like I mean valid the link to trade is valid because his second premise follows from his first press and talks about her first what is the what what what inference rule like it's hard to grasp like well well I know what he's trying to say right like um I know it's trying to say I would say that it's not like he said this is why this is all so in your example here you're saying well humans not might not have moral value p1 okay and then but his second his second point still addresses p1 okay this is derived like about it informally right we're saying that and now the ideal implicitness can they come in because I've just you know in the sense of like it's showing the traits and all this type of stuff right I mean like obviously you understand this like implicit premises or implicit claims outside from the argument right there is implicit things that honest not necess I mean already but without it like is outside implicit things are fundamentally true or not like a tautology like always true right but that's another discussion I my my like main point as well which I want to ask ask yourself I I kind of nobody's gonna say but like I want you to really sit in the cell where if you get it but my point is it can make a claim that an argument is valid you can apply inference rule to it right and if he does not want to do that today argument valid then you can apply inference rule yeah that's the whole conversation that follows the first stage of the argument but he doesn't want to apply the rules inference like he's just so it's valid I don't thin air right yeah I think you can still apply inference rule to it to his argument that's the whole conversation that follows the start of start of Isaac's conversations with other people Thanks I don't know what inference rule he's trying to apply though here like he's he obviously he said this a lot of times he doesn't know like formal logic in the oven we would think he knows where in principle or I mean he has it somewhere a literal concept of like what validity is you know like if the premises and argument is true therefore the conclusion right like he gets this way and I'm asking him you claim that this like you're claiming that this is a valid argument then you can apply the inference rule to show that it's a valid argument otherwise it's like me singing and throwing out spewing out any random argument such as the sky is blue crystal earth is round in the sea therefore like anything basically audience you keep saying inference rule and I'm not sure and I don't know how you're applying it to the argument okay I'm not saying back there I mean I don't want to go down the road to like actually say it's saying that name the trade is actually like because then we have to like define what we mean in the premises you know and that's like that's like massive amounts of work but ask yourself is laughing is showing the inference rule like to guarantee that this is a valid argument right because when your argument with the firt where the person he's talking to his already accepted that humans are of moral value small penis okay retard what you saw okay all right so for inference rule applying it to a name the trait you could say humans have moral values and animals have moral value therefore humans and animals have moral value that's using an inference from your equation to name the trait we say this this is true okay yeah a second premise is true yeah conclusion is true there you go now I would ask you because now you're claiming that this is a valid argument right Amy then I would ask you the inference rule to guarantee that this is a valid argument otherwise I can throw out any retarded argument such as the sky is blue and this premise one disguised blue prints to the earth is round therefore anything ask yourself is retarded you're a mama you know di do you get it like I can throw out anything this is valid this is a valid argument without if I don't show your principles then it's not in a standard guarantee that it's valid right then just throwing out arbitrary argument and claiming the validity yeah but the thing with your inference rule is then it's either it's never valid then with inference rule because you could say whatever you know be part one camera whatever part two and then this one in part two obviously there is I mean obviously there are valid arguments right this is white post up in management but so in the trade okay give me an example of a valid inference rule like equation I mean I can do a new one like I already do the hand construction so let's do the implication right okay I mean one chemistry okay so the earth is wrong right this is a true premise okay clusion earth is round any any claim ask yourself is retarded that doesn't have to be true no no I'm asking you to use the equation that you're providing and give me an actual valid argument that we could all agree a model like a example of inference rule but yeah it hangs yeah exam prints of a inference rule that actually you know makes sense to everyone here of course yeah let's do that okay do you know like the modus ponens No okay so there's an implication there okay premise one tear up or I'm gonna get wet this is a true implication right promise 1 therefore I'm going to get wet actually it doesn't have to be true but this is a premise right this is an implication right I'm saying that even this premise this premise which is the implication oh it's raining therefore I'm going to be wet and premise 2 it's raining on what okay you're not you're not answering my question I'm giving you like if you follow like am i right I know but I just didn't I just gave you the same thing I just said humans have moral values and animals have moral values therefore humans and animals have more valuable you're like well that can't be proved that you know so why even bring about your transferable no and then I would say like the the premises doesn't have to be true there like I could just came like the animals don't have to point I don't get what your point is there but it's not even valid I mean it's not it's if he's claiming that's valid then he can apply the inference rule to show that it's valid that the argument is valid like simple because otherwise he just arbitrary from the other argument yeah but you can't even provide me you can't you can't repair on me an example of inference rule that's valid I already told you like there's tons of inference rules like implication elimination and the consumption like yeah but then I'll give you that the premise is invalid talk about like if the premises rather not I'm talking about the validity that and validity again is if the premise is true then the conclusion is true right I'm in the same order so I'm not talking about if the premises if it's set to false and obviously it's not then you don't even go down the path to validity right and we're doing it but if the premise is true and the conclusion has to be true after premise is false the term Harris is a tree that means we have to be sound the arguments sound then depending if the premises and the conclusion can be true or false like who doesn't it doesn't it can go either way right but if the premise is true and argument is valid basically when you apply the inference rules through the argument therefore then you Karen T the validity which means that if the premise is true I mean okay but you understand that I just said that I did that name the truth yeah I did that for name the tree was the inference rule it was humans have more values and animals have moral values therefore humans and animals have moral values so seemed that [Music] that yeah yeah that argument is valid right so what if I reject one of the premises so then that brings me back to my point that using inference rule according to you then I can reject anything in any inference rule and make it invalid premises are true then the conclusions too as well but I can say that I could say that they're not true well no I mean if you the inference rule to the argument shown that the premises is true then the conclusion has to be true yeah but I asked you to do that and you can do that I asked you you name it any argument where that's true and you couldn't provide me an example of that well I did I mean okay that's I mean we saw one go to the end the am conjunction it's true like it the argument okay and this one premise one let's say it's true right okay it's also true the premise one on which premise two as we saw this rhetoric and so my conclusion and ask yourself is this is my argument right so now what you would say that okay why is this argument why is this argument valid or revised the conclusion to write it to show validity I can just show the inference rule like you also want to know we also want to know yeah we talked about this I mean I get what you're saying but I could also just reject what you're saying because you're rejecting since you're rejecting the name the trait formula and I'm just rejecting your formula so just bring it up at the image rule you're just kind of going in so you don't really if I show that an argument is valid and the premises is true you know I can show that their argument is valid I think this is what that the premises can be true or false right but remember if I'm talking about if the conclusion is true as well I mean number one algorithm is valid number two the premises are true in first the party the conclusion is also true I mean I mean you're up yeah I don't know what your point like how do you expect to put all this in the premises of an argument you're asking like God like the proof of the premises in the premises that's enough the premises just that the argument is valid the fact that you're like if you could call it then you have to discuss whether the premises of a know if anyone is valid but then my example of like premise 1 sky is raw sky is blue no what I meant was a argument that that logically follows from its two premises can be valid whether whether that it's focus or not I would you show that how would you show that there's a formal way there's a standard way of showing that and I mean hopefully the inference rule has been making like drill into it like you thought you'd ask yourself you don't like this is idea of interest rule 8 if I claim an argument it's valid right then there's a formal way there's a standard way of showing this and the whole process is called natural deduction okay the two words are natural deduction like these are like the key concept here that my whole objection we ask yourself like throwing out that in the chain is about it without any type of backup you know and we back up our simulate who's and deny the whole process of natural deduction right wait see we just want to say that you could have you couldn't have a valid argument that's not true you couldn't have a rally what do you mean with truly the premise is true or the compound with that you mean that the premises is true and the conclusion is true right you know you couldn't have a valid argument yeah you couldn't you couldn't have a valid argument that the conclusion wasn't
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by brimstoneSalad »

unethicalVegan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:10 am ...
Isaac claimed on twitter to have annihilated you on his discord... I can't find the video of it, though.
Challenge.JPG
He also thinks you're "one of my guys" :lol: I didn't know I had guys.

He's challenged me to the same. Can you tell me a little about what happened?
Also, who is this supposed philosophy PhD he's referring to?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:18 pm He's challenged me to the same. Can you tell me a little about what happened?
Also, who is this supposed philosophy PhD he's referring to?
See the video linked and transcript (wall of text) in the posts above Brim, and quoted below:
NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:46 amI only caught an hour of Ask Yourself talking over you, and then an hour of the convo in the vegan death squad server. You can listen or read back and give us a synopsis if you like of any useful exchanges:

Ask Yourself vs. Unethical Vegan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAZn2a8YCA

Transcript:
Oh I'm sure he's actually too retarded to. . .

______________

Okay part of it's up on his channel now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tnrg6wWKHQ

It's the end half of the part I have of convo in his discord. I had vocaroo recording through my stereo mix, but wifi would flicker out and stop the recording without telling me, so only got part on his channel and part on the next channel Chris went to in the Death Squad Server.


_______________

"_jhc" is the guy saying he got his phD in Philosophy, you can @search for him, then message if you're in the same server. "V for Vegandetta" & "The Philosophy Chat (https://discord.gg/kK8w3N)" would work.

AskYourself booted everyone out of his voice chat in his server and sent them to "V for Vegandetta" just to see some guy talk to me when I joined, so I'm sure would do it again with you.

He's probs going to want to stream it or record, so something like this Vegan Gains stream would work: https://youtu.be/yHP7m-7xYzw?t=1h32m3s

"Debate Colloseum - https://discord.gg/suqs9A7" server with Lox as moderator might work. The two of you and a mod in a private permissions voice channel. Then a period with _jhc and a few other joining in if they want to, then a few more in a question and answer section. Otherwise people are just going to be shouting across saying "holahoax" and "niggers aren't people" and shit.


---
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
unethicalVegan
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:09 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by unethicalVegan »

NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:46 am I only caught an hour of Ask Yourself talking over you, and then an hour of the convo in the vegan death squad server. You can listen or read back and give us a synopsis if you like any useful exchanges:
The debate started out with the idea of inference rules and how NTT is lacking these to begin with. Then somebody gave an example which caused the whole "soundness" confusion. Looking at the video, I clearly misspoke and when I said

"If an argument is not sound then the argument is not valid."

This should have been phrased as "If an argument doesn't semantically entail, then the argument is not valid". However, this was far off point and the whole idea of NTT claiming validity without referencing any inference rules.
vdofthegoodkind
Newbie
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:59 am
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: Name The Trait ? More like #nameTheInference

Post by vdofthegoodkind »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:18 pm
unethicalVegan wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:10 am ...
Isaac claimed on twitter to have annihilated you on his discord... I can't find the video of it, though.

Challenge.JPG

He also thinks you're "one of my guys" :lol: I didn't know I had guys.

He's challenged me to the same. Can you tell me a little about what happened?
Also, who is this supposed philosophy PhD he's referring to?
If you do this, please just make it about my 'driving-ntt' and 'no moral obligation to go out of your way to prevent others from dying -> hello retard holocaust' arguments.
Post Reply