Chud Running 265's fade

[Warrior-Z]

I was, but I'm not arguing with people who let themselves get bossed around by a guy with a pokemon pfp.

It's called some basic respect and decency, if he was on the 'ru not abiding by the rules, you bet your ass he'd get slapped to next month.

 

[Warrior-Z]

No true nusoiglobba fallacy.

Prove that's a real fallacy.

An image macro is not a source.

It is a source as there's quite literally a link embedded there and the definition of a term. So no.

 

[265121297]

It's called some basic respect and decency, if he was on the 'ru not abiding by the rules, you bet your ass he'd get slapped to next month.

Enraged @Warrior-Z moves to ban the users he's arguing with, but sadly, this isn't the 'ru and he has no power here.

 

[Warrior-Z]

Enraged @Warrior-Z moves to ban the users he's arguing with,

Nah, I often engage in discussions on the 'ru, and frankly, I enjoy them. So no.

but sadly, this isn't the 'ru and he has no power here.

I do not care? This place is well moderated.

 

[meijak]

Prove that's a real fallacy.

I said so, therefore it is.

It is a source as there's quite literally a link embedded there and the definition of a term. So no.

You're retarded. My source? https://www.nature.com/

 

[Warrior-Z]

I said so, therefore it is.

That's begging the question and that's circular reasoning.

You're retarded. My source? https://www.nature.com/

Justify how that source gives a basis for your claim.

 

[meijak]

Justify how that source gives a basis for your claim.

I read it there.

That's begging the question and that's circular reasoning.

Never heard of meijaks 4th axiom?

 

[Warrior-Z]

I read it there.

Prove that it is there in the first place, that's a presupposition.

Never heard of meijaks 4th axiom?

Go ahead and substantiate how that's an axiom.

 

[meijak]

Prove that it is there in the first place, that's a presupposition.

I provided you the source, I'm not gonna spoonfeed you further.

Go ahead and substantiate how that's an axiom.

Because I said so.

 

[Warrior-Z]

I provided you the source, I'm not gonna spoonfeed you further.

That's not "spoonfeeding" if the source itself is being put into question, and what you derive your claims from.

Because I said so.

Begging the question + Circular reasoning

 

[meijak]

That's not "spoonfeeding" if the source itself is being put into question, and what you derive your claims from.

I gave you a source in the same way as you did beforehand.

Begging the question + Circular reasoning

No, an axiom. Try to follow along.

 

[Warrior-Z]

I gave you a source in the same way as you did beforehand.

The source in question had an explanation for a term, you're trying to derive a premise so those two aren't mutual.

No, an axiom. Try to follow along.

How would it be an axiom if it can be put into question? That means it isn't. So no you're not tracking.

 

[meijak]

The source in question had an explanation for a term, you're trying to derive a premise so those two aren't mutual.

It's explained in my source, too.

How would it be an axiom if it can be put into question? That means it isn't. So no you're not tracking.

You can question an axiom, many people have tried to prove various axioms wrong.

 

[raepson industries .ltc]

@_73 i care

 

[Warrior-Z]

It's explained in my source, too.

Yeah, that’s what’s in question and what you’re supposed to probe or I’ll just dismiss that.

You can question an axiom, many people have tried to prove various axioms wrong.

So it’s not axiomatic? Cool.

 

[dino]

>Yeah, that’s what’s in question and what you’re supposed to probe or I’ll just dismiss that.

>So it’s not axiomatic? Cool.

>The source in question had an explanation for a term, you're trying to derive a premise so those two aren't mutual.

>How would it be an axiom if it can be put into question? That means it isn't. So no you're not tracking.

>That's not "spoonfeeding" if the source itself is being put into question, and what you derive your claims from.

>Begging the question + Circular reasoning

>Prove that it is there in the first place, that's a presupposition.

>Go ahead and substantiate how that's an axiom.

>That's begging the question and that's circular reasoning.

>Justify how that source gives a basis for your claim.