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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6776856" data-attributes="member: 16814">Odd, the rules for making an attack are exactly the same whether it's one or more -- you do the same thing, and if you have another attack, you do it again, spell or weapon.Maybe not with you, but Noctem is insisting that you cannot do this.  He bases his argument on immediately after maybe not meaning right after.Actually, yeah, because you can't dispel a spell that's being cast.  Dispel doesn't target spells, so until the spell is complete there's nothing there to dispel.  Counter, sure, but dispel's now a weird beast.It's not your lists I find difficult, it's the missing parts that make them not make sense.Um, no.  You referred to fallacies, plural.  Those are fallacies.  It's not a strawman to talk about exactly what you said.  Now, if you didn't mean those, great, but that's not clear from your post and I don't read minds.  I did also go on to address the other one, so it's a poor strawman that ends up addressing your argument and some other related things that could be, but weren't clearly, meant to be excluded.This has been covered, admitted, and apologized for.Fallacies are false arguments that render a conclusion invalid.  In that case, substituting an appeal to authority in place of a (valid) argument is a fallacy.  I grant that the valid was implied in my statement, but it should be easy to figure that I wasn't implying substitution for an invalid argument.  That said, comparing a logical argument to a math problem is a bad analogy.Well, you certainly like to assume.I didn't see you address my question.  I'll go look again.Strawman? No, it's not. It was an attempt to understand your argument.  It might be a failed attempt, but it was not an intentional replacement.It was unclear that you agreed.  Probably because of the additional error, I assumed you had both wrong.  This was uncharitable of me.Dude, you quoted me, and no one else.  You didn't mention anyone.  The arguments you were making were hard to understand because they lacked any context.  You really shouldn't be pushing the burden of a misunderstanding for an out of context post that quotes that person.You can't just lampshade ad homs, man.  If you think that I might be insulted by your choice of words (and further don't care), that's pretty strong evidence right there that an ad hom took place.  Specifically, where you reference your understanding of logical fallacies by questioning the amount of knowledge I have instead of stating your particulars.  That makes that an argument based, in part, on me and my attributes.  That's an ad hom.  It may not be fallacious, but it is an ad hom.  I don't know how long you've actually spent pondering logical fallacies, but I've had college coursework on dialectic (and still not above the occasional error) and have debate experience.  Plus about 20 years of arguing on the internets.  It tends to come up.</blockquote>

Verification