Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3164209" data-attributes="member: 3929">Your point was founded upon an erronious example. What hope left for the point?I agree that logic will not necessarily help determine what the everyday use should be, but it works darn well at figuring out precicely what things mean, if only to show that what has been said or written is meaningless.As it happens, Feeblemind has a precise meaning, and no amount of handwaving will dismiss that meaning.You suggest that language can be fallable.I agree. This is true. It can be.But because language can be fallable does not make it so.Your argument amounts to, "Humans make mistakes, Feeblemind was written by a human, therefore the spell is a mistake, and Break Enchantment works."No, logic cannot be applied in all cases. This is a case where it can and has been found to work perfectly well.Quite wrong. The original statement of yours was not "incomplete", it was False. As in, despite the actual meaning of the premise (which was that there was no other condition under witch information would not be shared besides being told not to) there existed some other condition that would prevent the sharing of informaiton.Your statement was not True.You can only add on addendums to statements like yours, or Feeblemind's, if you assume them to be False in the first place. Which is what you've been doing, for no good reason, for 8 pages.And if you're wlling to assume that the language is False, that because errors can occur they necessarily have occured, then what do you have left to build an argument upon? Turning your own argument upon you, anyone can say that because you have erred multiple times, it means that you necessarily are in error.But this is not the case; you might err, but are capable of being correct in the same way that language might be unclear, but it is crystal in Feeblemind.He attempted to produce a logical argument; there was within the argument both a typo and a logical fallacy*: don't dismiss the second because you forgave the first.*That being that in order for his example of other governmental regulations to prevent sharing, his original statement must necessarily be false. He was attempting to use a false statement to deride a true one, or imply that one must assume that Feeblemind's text to be false.</blockquote>

Verification