Ataru wrote:You should actually read his post as I find it very hard to do so without realizing what he meant by nature. And I wasn't answering for him, I was pointing out the irony of the situation as only a little while ago you called out Iroh in just about the same way for a similar request for clarification.
Also my response came after Sejame's, which did a pretty good job of explaining what he meant. So I don't know why you're coming across like I'm speaking for him. He spoke for himself quite plainly. Maybe you should take a little more time reading the thread before calling me out.
And your logical fallacies are as follows:
1. Appeal to Popularity (or Belief, depending on how you construe it) - Anytime you say 'most people'
2. Begging the Question - Stating that certain things are true as if this truth is self-evident. Using the fact that you have said it is a fact to make it a fact.
3. Straw Man - 'Dumbing down' another person's position to a single, possibly misconstrued, stance that you can easily pick apart as if doing so proves their entire position is incorrect. This is the reason why we are now arguing about whether tornadoes are smarter than humans and whether suns and children are like fathers and sons and not, y'know, about the actual over-arching issue of whether or not man and nature are equal as existences.
Also you've been asking for clarification of specific terms quite a bit. I'd like to name that the 'Bill Clinton' fallacy, which is avoiding backing up your stance by claiming that the statement you are arguing against was somehow unclear to you (specifically asking for the definition of specific terms being used). My argument wasn't based around the word 'equal', nor was Sejame's around the word 'nature'. I'm fairly sure you could have understood what we were trying to convey quite easily had you wanted to.
And stop using emoticons to punctuate the end of your sentences. It makes you look insufferably smug.
I always read people's post entirely. Now, before I argue with Sejame it's best to come to a full, explicit agreement on what we are talking about. I'm not about to merely infer his meaning behind the use of the term "nature". These things need to be stated outright, explicitly. Now, of course you weren't answering for him. Which is why I asked you if you will
answer for him, and tell me what he meant by nature. If you would go back and read my post, you'd see that it refers to future events, not past ones. Also, your post did not display any irony from me, as the situation was not analogous to the situation I was in. In Iroh's post, he says that I did not understand his point, and that I was wrong. But BlackInk had a response that completely encapsulated my view. So it was that BlackInk understood and Iroh didn't -- and Iroh did not say "I don't understand what your saying Archsage". Not at all. But when I did not understand Sejame, did I act in the way that Iroh did? Of course not. I asked him questions so that I can further understand. You should be able to tell the difference between the two scenarios, and understand why they are not analogous to each other. Because of that, there was no irony from me. But if you are intent that my actions were ironic, I'd like for you to make an explicit parallel between the two scenarios and prove it.
Now I never said that you were speaking for Sejame. I asked you if you would, because it seemed as if you understood what Sejame meant by "nature" but have yet to share that information with me. Either you can tell me what sejame means by "nature", speaking for him, or sejame himself can explain. Note that you haven't yet explained to me what he meant. So I have no idea why you are saying that I accused you of speaking for Sejame. So maybe you should take a little more time reading the thread before calling me out.
For list of three logical fallacies, you are going to have to point out where I made them, and prove that it is, in fact a fallacy. I'd love for you to point them out for me.
Also, the specific clarification of terms is of dire importance. If we don't know what we are arguing about, we could run the risk of arguing past one another. It would make no sense to be arguing about something, while holding a term to mean something different for each of us, due to its multiple denotative, or otherwise connotative references. It doesn't matter if your argument was 'based' around the term, what matters is what you mean when you say something.
Finally, I use emoticons to lighten the mood. But I enjoy the fact that you tell me how to post!