What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Are you friggin kidding me?

No, I'm expecting you to lie. And you will not disappoint me.

Roy, you both did more than just use A and B. What you wrote in #1834 is absolutely no different than saying:

B implies A.
A, therefore B.

Transposing the two makes no difference...

True. The form is the same.

which is exactly what hb wrote, in shorter form:

No, Steven, that is a lie. You are LYING AGAIN. That is indisputably NOT what hb wrote.

A, therefore B., only he put it in shorter form, leaving out the "If A, then B" part.

That is not a "shorter form" of affirming the consequent, it is an entirely different thing -- an ordinary entailment premise -- and it is NOT FALLACIOUS. You are either a total logical ignoramus or a lying sack of $#!+, and I certainly do not rule out both.

You just transposed A and B, and added the qualifier at the top.

That is not a "qualifier." It is the major premise. Without it, there is no fallacy. You are just telling stupid, outrageous lies. As usual.

But even that was incorrect,

No, I was absolutely and indisputably correct as a matter of objective fact, as usual, and you are just spewing absurd and outrageous lies.

as it's not "A implies B".

Yes, in fact it is. That is the same logical form as, "If A then B." You know nothing about logic, and are lying about what I plainly wrote, as usual.

That's your goofy-loose interpretation,

That is your idiotic lie.

which leaves out the even longer, but more accurate form: "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true." Or, in shortest form: "B. Therefore A."

That is not a "shortest form" of affirming the consequent. It is a completely different form: an ordinary entailment premise. There is no inference, and therefore no fallacy. Every logician in the world will tell you that you are a total ignoramus and are telling stupid, sickening lies about what I plainly wrote.

He provided a link to his source,

Which proved him wrong.

which clearly states it properly, and puts his reference in context.

And indisputably proves him wrong.

Other than that, where is the substantive difference?

You mean other than hb's form being totally different from the real form?

You're acting like a child playground nerd who thinks he has a bona fide "GOTCHA!" on a stupid technicality that is easily resolved with an iota of critical thought when read in context.

hb was objectively wrong. But rather than just admit it and move on, he is trying to brazen it out, pretending he knows some logic when he clearly knows none and presuming to lecture his moral and intellectual superior when he has indisputably been demolished and humiliated.

But you don't like paying attention to context or the spirit of intent when it's not yours, do you?

I don't like lying ignorami presuming to lecture me on subjects of which they are self-evidently hilariously ignorant.

[Roy L]

By the way, HeavenlyBoy is absolutely correct in pointing out that empricists commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

No, he is not. He is a total ignoramus in logic, and so are you.

Here is a great, and easy-to-understand explanation of how atheists commit this fallacy. It's blistering:

No, it's cretinous.

A Gang Of Pandas
by Vincent Cheung
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/gangpanda.pdf
About scientific experimentation as a basis for "truth":

More cretinous nonsense.

What about the argument of the "success of science" (as RoyL made many times already in this thread):

More cretinous nonsense. Vincent Cheung has exactly one "argument": blank refusal to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

[Sola_Fide]

No, he is not. He is a total ignoramus in logic, and so are you.

No, it's cretinous.

More cretinous nonsense.

More cretinous nonsense. Vincent Cheung has exactly one "argument": blank refusal to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

lol..."cretinous"

Well, as usual, you don't care about what I post so I don't know why I keep doing it. You said that all information comes through the senses. If that is the case, how can you ever know what the "objective world" is, or if there is an "objective world" at all? What are you going to test your sensation by? Another one of your subjective sense perceptions? If your sensation is the standard of obtaining information, then you can never know what the "objective world" is, because all you have are your subjective sense perceptions.


When you try to make a statement of universal truth based on your subjective experiences, then you commit the fallacy of induction. All inductive arguments are fallacious.


When you argue that assumed hypotheses are "true" because they are confirmed by favorable experimentation, you commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Correlation does not imply causation.


But anyway, I know you don't understand the inductive fallacy. I know you don't understand how scientific experimentation cannot yield truth statements because it asserts the consequent. I know you don't understand it Roy. That is why this last post of yours contained no substance, just name-calling. But, hopefully some other people here will look in to these things. Logic is a hard master...most people run from it into their existentialistic fantasies as fast as they can, and they never look back.

[Roy L]

You said that all information comes through the senses.

No, I did not.

If that is the case, how can you ever know what the "objective world" is, or if there is an "objective world" at all?

By not being as stupid as a bag of hammers, or as dishonest as a lying sack of $#!+ like Vincent Cheung.

What are you going to test your sensation by?

Consistency.

Another one of your subjective sense perceptions?

A lot of them.

If your sensation is the standard of obtaining information,

It's a means, not the standard.

then you can never know what the "objective world" is, because all you have are your subjective sense perceptions.

Wrong. I also have a brain, and I am willing to use it -- conspicuously unlike the execrable Vincent Cheung and his grotesquely anti-rational disciples.

When you try to make a statement of universal truth based on your subjective experiences, then you commit the fallacy of induction.

No, what you call a fallacy is not a fallacy. It is the human method of reason.

All inductive arguments are fallacious.

No, they are not, because they do not purport to be deductive.

When you argue that assumed hypotheses are "true" because they are confirmed by favorable experimentation, you commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

No, I do not.

Correlation does not imply causation.

What does? Are you going to follow Hume off the epistemological cliff of denying there is any such thing as causation?

But anyway, I know you don't understand the inductive fallacy. I know you don't understand how scientific experimentation cannot yield truth statements because it asserts the consequent. I know you don't understand it Roy.

I understand that such claims are nothing but anti-logical garbage.

That is why this last post of yours contained no substance, just name-calling.

Lie.

But, hopefully some other people here will look in to these things.

Hopefully you will come to your senses before it is too late.

Logic is a hard master...most people run from it into their existentialistic fantasies as fast as they can, and they never look back.

The guy who claims empirical science is a fallacious fantasy world but the Christian theology of a despicable, lying sack of $#!+ like Vincent Cheung is indisputable truth is presuming to lecture me about logic.

Sorry, but you are making a fool of yourself, Buddha, and everyone reading this knows it, including you.

[Steven Douglas]

Sorry, but you are making a fool of yourself, Buddha, and everyone reading this knows it, including you.

Must be true, I looked it up.

everyone, pron. - See Roy L.; syn. with you, ex.: You have been assimilated by Roy L. All your identity are belong to him.

[eduardo89]

I have a feeling Roy L's alter ego is JuicyG

[Roy L]

Roy L is an obnoxious, soft, easy target that I use for practice and amusement.

Who has crushed, demolished and annihilated every substantive claim you have made.

I'm pretty sure others around here feel the same.

Feelings... nothing more than feelings...

[Roy L]

Here is a great debate that employs (a lot better than I can do) the Scripturalist apologetic that I am using in this thread. It is a fascinating read: http://www.vincentcheung.com/biblica...-assertionism/

BTW, here is your hero, lying his fool head off:

Derek:You aren't going to attack the senses, using your senses, are you?

VINCENT: No.

That is self-evidently and indisputably a flat-out lie, as Cheung has indisputably used his senses to attack the senses, and he knows it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Who has crushed, demolished and annihilated every substantive claim you have made.

He loves his delusions too, see? ^^

[heavenlyboy34]

I have a feeling Roy L's alter ego is JuicyG

That would explain a lot.