Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5007843" data-attributes="member: 18280">Not exactly right, but let's assume that this was accurate.So, the logical chain you object to is1.&nbsp; You cannot have B without A2.&nbsp; You cannot have C without B3.&nbsp; Therefore, you cannot have C without AThese are absolutely linked.Where you are in error is that you seem to believe the logic chain goes1.&nbsp; You cannot have B without A2.&nbsp; You cannot have C without B3.&nbsp; Therefore, D is precludedIf I have stooped, as you say, it's because there is a real level of frustration inherent in hearing, over and over, in effect, &quot;I understand that (1) You cannot have B without A, and (2) You cannot have C without B.&nbsp; And I understand that (3) You cannot have C without A, but I absolutely deny that there is a logical connection between these points, moreover what you are really saying is that D is precluded, even if you haven't ever said that, and that cannot be logically inferred from what you have said.&quot;A player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to game.&nbsp; His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible.&nbsp; However, that goal is not the goal of the game, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing a game while drinking beer.I can have a goal of making bad puns while playing chess.&nbsp; That goal doesn't affect whether or not chess is a game (although it might affect whether or not my opponent will finish the game).&nbsp; I can have a goal of blowing my nose, doing Monty Python impressions, or drinking a can of Coke.&nbsp; Again, these goals don't impact the syllogism.1.&nbsp; You cannot have B without A2.&nbsp; You cannot have C without B3.&nbsp; Therefore, you cannot have C without AYou can add any D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, etc., etc. in there that you want without breaking the syllogism.&nbsp; However, if you agree, as you said you did, that 1.&nbsp; You cannot have B without A2.&nbsp; You cannot have C without Bthen 3.&nbsp; Therefore, you cannot have C without Aautomatically follows, whether you like it or not.&nbsp; RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5007843, member: 18280"] Not exactly right, but let's assume that this was accurate. So, the logical chain you object to is 1. You cannot have B without A 2. You cannot have C without B 3. Therefore, you cannot have C without A These are absolutely linked. Where you are in error is that you seem to believe the logic chain goes 1. You cannot have B without A 2. You cannot have C without B 3. Therefore, D is precluded If I have stooped, as you say, it's because there is a real level of frustration inherent in hearing, over and over, in effect, "I understand that (1) You cannot have B without A, and (2) You cannot have C without B. And I understand that (3) You cannot have C without A, but I absolutely deny that there is a logical connection between these points, moreover what you are really saying is that D is precluded, even if you haven't ever said that, and that cannot be logically inferred from what you have said." A player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to game. His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible. However, that goal is not the goal of the game, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing a game while drinking beer. I can have a goal of making bad puns while playing chess. That goal doesn't affect whether or not chess is a game (although it might affect whether or not my opponent will finish the game). I can have a goal of blowing my nose, doing Monty Python impressions, or drinking a can of Coke. Again, these goals don't impact the syllogism. 1. You cannot have B without A 2. You cannot have C without B 3. Therefore, you cannot have C without A You can add any D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, etc., etc. in there that you want without breaking the syllogism. However, if you agree, as you said you did, that 1. You cannot have B without A 2. You cannot have C without B then 3. Therefore, you cannot have C without A automatically follows, whether you like it or not. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification