A Toy Windmill
Junior Member
I suspect this post is another waste of time. Unlike Angra Mainyu, I don't think anyone is reading these posts other than thread participants.
One of my first posts to Speakpigeon gave the definition of syllogism, and explained how, by definition, there are no syllogisms with contradictory premises. Speakpigeon responded:
In this post, I showed how weakening and modus tollens lead to contradictions entailing everything, via a detailed proof. Speakpigeon responds:
In a different thread, Speakpigeon writes
One of my first posts to Speakpigeon gave the definition of syllogism, and explained how, by definition, there are no syllogisms with contradictory premises. Speakpigeon responded:
This was the extent of their rebuttal. No attempt to formalize an argument as a legal syllogism. No engagement with my post. Just a bare assertion.Arguments with contradictory premises, or generally false premises, are easily formalised in Aristotelian logic. Such arguments are not valid. And intuitively, they are not.
In this post, I showed how weakening and modus tollens lead to contradictions entailing everything, via a detailed proof. Speakpigeon responds:
That is the extent of their rebuttal. No attempt to show where my proof is invalid. No engagement with my post. Just another bare assertion.I accept Modus Tollens and weakening. But, no, that doesn't imply that contradiction implies everything.
EB
In a different thread, Speakpigeon writes
This completely contradicts their earlier claim to accept weakening. Angra Mainyu seemed to have some fun pointing out this blatant self-contradiction, and finally, Speakpigeon responded by changing the definition of "weakening" that I had originally providedLOL. This shows you are just ignoring two of the premises. Sorry, you can't do that.
By this time, I concluded that Speakpigeon's idea of debate is to just say "nuh-uh" without engaging with people's arguments and that they get confused easily over proofs and definitions. I wanted to debate weakening. That's why I brought it up! I gave Speakpigeon an opportunity to engage in a discussion about it, but all they did was reply "nuh-uh" and then later, when caught in a contradiction, changed their mind about what was meant by "weakening" all along. This is not good faith debate, and I gave up trying to engage Speakpigeon in debate from then on. They are anti-intellectual and a crackpot.I do accept weakening but only as A implies A or B, as I indeed explained somewhere, and not as A implies B implies A and C implies B.
Last edited: