Nope. An invalid argument may be true, or not true. The lack of validity in the argument has no bearing on whether the conclusion is true. You should use "in/valid" to talk about arguments, and "un/true" to talk about reality.
leave out:. and it's 100% true. When dealing with humans, that's sufficient. It's not the black pants that made Clinton president. It was the unstated premise that the set of Presidents included Clinton (and others). Isn't that begging the question? Stating a premise as the answer? Clinton was a president who wore black pants is the question begged in this case. A fallacy, but still 100% true.
Arguing about how you get to a proof doesn't change reality.
That's what the logic form Nazis never seem to understand. They are stating that pizza isn't pizza if there is an uneven distribution of pepperoni on it. The rest of the planet sees their point and thinks them idiots, but they are happy being wrong idiots, so long as they can prove they are right using rules nobody else uses or cares about.
And people don't work on proofs. I don't need a mathematical proof the my light switch turns on my light. B follows A. That correlation, strong enough, is a "proof" for all I need to be a functioning person. The "Truth" of the matter is irrelevant. I believe it to be so, based on the available evidence.
And the great thing about the human minds is that once a decision to believe is made, facts are then irrelevant. The light burns out. I can now "prove" that B does not follow A. But I'll still believe that A causes B, and operate under that assumption, repairing B and seeing the result.
Appeal from authority is a fallacy. As is argument from ignorance. There is little that can be said that can't be argued to be a fallacy of some kind. Just because it triggers some arcane rhetorical rule against it doesn't mean it isn't true. Arguments aren't logical proofs, nor should they be held to those standards.
Just because you agree with AC that you don't like my message doesn't mean it was a false dichotomy. I said it was silly that the gun-nuts are more interested in things that increase the crime rate, while complaining about it, rather than reducing the crime rate.
I never said it was either-or or a single choice. I was pointing out priorities. Nothing more. But hey, make up anything you want. The next on the list is "strawman". Go on. Beats having to think about what others say.
"Nearly every major printer manufacturer is in on the scam. HP saw an opportunity to increase incremental sales and staked out this territory in 2004. This brave new world of customer-screwing was followed by Lexmark, Canon, Epson and Xerox -- none of which saw anything wrong with illogically restricting ink cartridges to certain regions. "
It is illegal in many countries. So no, it's not a random thought. It's a basic human right, protected in countries that protect their citizens.
You, as a customer, can take this information (its free)
What information? Where did Xerox publicly disclose this? The implication that something isn't done, unless stated makes this fraud. The CEO should be charged with one count of fraud for every cartridge with this feature. After serving a few million years in prison, the problem will sort itself out.
Why is it that all the fun nuts *like* crime? They want an excuse to haul a gun everywhere, and lock up everyone they don't like. An actual ordered society with mutual respect and such is inconceivable. You choice is, you get raped every night, or you carry a gun. Yeah, great false dichotomy there. Why not crack down on the causes of crime, rather than encouraging crime so we have excuses to throw so many in jail and run around armed for our own safety?
Great, so an act can define words in the Constitution. All they need to do is pass a law that says "shall not be infringed" can require a $1,000,000 payment to me, and a $10,000,000 insurance bond.
Or did you fail Constitutional law? No you didn't. How could you have, you never took it.
"Because an adult population familiar with firearms is necessary for the free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There, is that too confusing? "Well regulated" means trained, even self trained in the absense of standards. Today "regulated" means "meeting regulations". That is new. The "regulations" to meet are new. Before, it just meant capable.
I suspect it doesn't even claim in the article actually that being fat wouldn't be a result of eating more energy than you burn,
I've never seen anyone argue against that. The points I've seen argued are the liars who assert that the amount burned is fixed and constant between similar people (like BMR calculations).
Satiety is strongly affected by hormones and genetics - some people can "eat whatever they want" and maintain their weight while some people can't. If you're really strict about observing these people (who often claim they eat 3000+ calories a day and don't exercise), they eat far less than they think they do. I've observed a number of those people, and counted calories on them. It never fails.
And I've done the same and found the opposite. They actually burn far more calories at rest than BMR would suggest. The basic metabolic rate of people varies largely.
the obesity epidemic is not caused by differences in BMR.
Nobody ever said it was. Seems you are ignoring all the science, so you can support your personal opinion about the obesity epidemic. Processed food changes the content of the food. This causes obesity by triggering over-eating in those who aren't eating things required by their body. If you are iron deficient, you'll have cravings. Often for iron-rich food. If your food has the useful contents purged from it, it'll cause over-eating. It's not a "willpower" thing. It's a malnutrition thing. We are eating the bare minimum to not be malnutritioned, and it's making us fat, because the food doesn't have food in it anymore, just flavor. That's what's causing the obesity epidemic.
BMR varies wildly. Only those with an above average metabolic rate cling to a universal answer for all.
For me personally, I went from reasonable calorie count and low activity and being 20 lbs below "average" to fewer calories, and the same activity and being 20 lbs above "average". Cutting calories has little effect on my weight. It just makes my body hold calories better. The less I eat, the more efficient I get. BMR is wrong, because it doesn't take into account so many proven effects like that.
You are a lying sack of shit. I copied in more than the minimum to make the point. You are using the context I'm expliclitly said is not what I was referring to.
THat you insist you know what I meant to say better than I did makes you a larger idiot that I took you for.
It's possible to have a valid out of state license and be a local resident for voting. You lyingly said the opposite.
Now you are mad because I called you a liar, then proved you a liar.
Claiming you're right and the federal code is wrong, or claiming you didn't say what you just said,
I'm claiming that your tangent is irrelevant to my initial point, and no out-of-context quotes will change that. It just makes you more a liar.
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID.
You can assert that all you like, but it's contrary to law. That is my sole point. Anything else from you is a lie, designed to distract from the FACT that you know you are proven wrong, and are whoring out your lies in an attempt to make sure you win every arguemnt on the Internet. You lost this one. You'll post again, claiming you won. Another lie. I won't read it or respond to it.
I think it's all a loophole game. The Generals want to fly around in their Gulfstream or Cessnas without AF oversight. So they have some transport craft. But you are right, I have no idea who flies them. There are plenty of fixed wing certified Army people, but that doesn't mean anything. The flight levels don't even match. Army pilots are almost all WO, while the AF pilots are almost all commissioned. If an NCO flew a fixed wing craft, it'd fall out of the sky.
No, it's just a really good example that everyone knows about. The actions were not atypical. With all the coverage of Sandra at the moment, I can't find the one a few years back where the cop pulled a woman out through her seatbelt. She was 100% compliant when he assaulted her. It got notice because he was so insane and agitated, he couldn't even get his gun put back right. She was also a black woman stopped in the south, treated poorly by a white cop. She didn't die, so nobody cared. The problem continued until Sandra died before anyone cared.
But that stop was not atypical. The police cause the confrontation. The police charge in and make it worse much much more than they make it better.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkkLUP-gm4Q The cops waited until after that guy was subdued before tasing him, as punishment for not shutting up. They didn't try to talk him down, or escort him out. They argued with him, then attacked. He didn't touch anyone, he was just being loud. Arrested, then tased in custody. Or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I could go on for hours. Police attack people who are no threat and no danger to them. All the time.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but it makes your argument untrue.
Nope. An invalid argument may be true, or not true. The lack of validity in the argument has no bearing on whether the conclusion is true. You should use "in/valid" to talk about arguments, and "un/true" to talk about reality.
leave out :. and it's 100% true. When dealing with humans, that's sufficient. It's not the black pants that made Clinton president. It was the unstated premise that the set of Presidents included Clinton (and others). Isn't that begging the question? Stating a premise as the answer? Clinton was a president who wore black pants is the question begged in this case. A fallacy, but still 100% true.
Arguing about how you get to a proof doesn't change reality.
That's what the logic form Nazis never seem to understand. They are stating that pizza isn't pizza if there is an uneven distribution of pepperoni on it. The rest of the planet sees their point and thinks them idiots, but they are happy being wrong idiots, so long as they can prove they are right using rules nobody else uses or cares about.
And people don't work on proofs. I don't need a mathematical proof the my light switch turns on my light. B follows A. That correlation, strong enough, is a "proof" for all I need to be a functioning person. The "Truth" of the matter is irrelevant. I believe it to be so, based on the available evidence.
And the great thing about the human minds is that once a decision to believe is made, facts are then irrelevant. The light burns out. I can now "prove" that B does not follow A. But I'll still believe that A causes B, and operate under that assumption, repairing B and seeing the result.
Appeal from authority is a fallacy. As is argument from ignorance. There is little that can be said that can't be argued to be a fallacy of some kind. Just because it triggers some arcane rhetorical rule against it doesn't mean it isn't true. Arguments aren't logical proofs, nor should they be held to those standards.
No, you should be more polite to him because anyone who has a gun is a murderous thug. At least that's what the background of the quote means.
Just because you agree with AC that you don't like my message doesn't mean it was a false dichotomy. I said it was silly that the gun-nuts are more interested in things that increase the crime rate, while complaining about it, rather than reducing the crime rate.
I never said it was either-or or a single choice. I was pointing out priorities. Nothing more. But hey, make up anything you want. The next on the list is "strawman". Go on. Beats having to think about what others say.
What dichotomy? I didn't make it an either-or.
An armed society is a polite society- Robert Anson Heinlein
"An armed society is a polite society" A character from fiction
Seriously, when the only support for your insanity is fiction, shouldn't that give you a hint of reality?
Except that NO other companies do this.
According to TFA:
"Nearly every major printer manufacturer is in on the scam. HP saw an opportunity to increase incremental sales and staked out this territory in 2004. This brave new world of customer-screwing was followed by Lexmark, Canon, Epson and Xerox -- none of which saw anything wrong with illogically restricting ink cartridges to certain regions. "
Care to revise your statement?
You, as a customer, can take this information (its free)
What information? Where did Xerox publicly disclose this? The implication that something isn't done, unless stated makes this fraud. The CEO should be charged with one count of fraud for every cartridge with this feature. After serving a few million years in prison, the problem will sort itself out.
I make lots of foes. My politics are questionable.
What do the commandments have to do with it?
https://xkcd.com/705/
Why is it that all the fun nuts *like* crime? They want an excuse to haul a gun everywhere, and lock up everyone they don't like. An actual ordered society with mutual respect and such is inconceivable. You choice is, you get raped every night, or you carry a gun. Yeah, great false dichotomy there. Why not crack down on the causes of crime, rather than encouraging crime so we have excuses to throw so many in jail and run around armed for our own safety?
Close quarters combat, urban warfare, indoors. That's the military reason I've seen listed for them.
The Militia Act defines the Militia.
Great, so an act can define words in the Constitution. All they need to do is pass a law that says "shall not be infringed" can require a $1,000,000 payment to me, and a $10,000,000 insurance bond.
Or did you fail Constitutional law? No you didn't. How could you have, you never took it.
"Because an adult population familiar with firearms is necessary for the free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There, is that too confusing? "Well regulated" means trained, even self trained in the absense of standards. Today "regulated" means "meeting regulations". That is new. The "regulations" to meet are new. Before, it just meant capable.
I suspect it doesn't even claim in the article actually that being fat wouldn't be a result of eating more energy than you burn,
I've never seen anyone argue against that. The points I've seen argued are the liars who assert that the amount burned is fixed and constant between similar people (like BMR calculations).
Satiety is strongly affected by hormones and genetics - some people can "eat whatever they want" and maintain their weight while some people can't. If you're really strict about observing these people (who often claim they eat 3000+ calories a day and don't exercise), they eat far less than they think they do. I've observed a number of those people, and counted calories on them. It never fails.
And I've done the same and found the opposite. They actually burn far more calories at rest than BMR would suggest. The basic metabolic rate of people varies largely.
the obesity epidemic is not caused by differences in BMR.
Nobody ever said it was. Seems you are ignoring all the science, so you can support your personal opinion about the obesity epidemic. Processed food changes the content of the food. This causes obesity by triggering over-eating in those who aren't eating things required by their body. If you are iron deficient, you'll have cravings. Often for iron-rich food. If your food has the useful contents purged from it, it'll cause over-eating. It's not a "willpower" thing. It's a malnutrition thing. We are eating the bare minimum to not be malnutritioned, and it's making us fat, because the food doesn't have food in it anymore, just flavor. That's what's causing the obesity epidemic.
BMR varies wildly. Only those with an above average metabolic rate cling to a universal answer for all.
For me personally, I went from reasonable calorie count and low activity and being 20 lbs below "average" to fewer calories, and the same activity and being 20 lbs above "average". Cutting calories has little effect on my weight. It just makes my body hold calories better. The less I eat, the more efficient I get. BMR is wrong, because it doesn't take into account so many proven effects like that.
Eat Less.
Yeah, that's what all those with an above average metabolism say.
THat you insist you know what I meant to say better than I did makes you a larger idiot that I took you for.
It's possible to have a valid out of state license and be a local resident for voting. You lyingly said the opposite.
Now you are mad because I called you a liar, then proved you a liar.
Claiming you're right and the federal code is wrong, or claiming you didn't say what you just said,
I'm claiming that your tangent is irrelevant to my initial point, and no out-of-context quotes will change that. It just makes you more a liar.
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID.
You can assert that all you like, but it's contrary to law. That is my sole point. Anything else from you is a lie, designed to distract from the FACT that you know you are proven wrong, and are whoring out your lies in an attempt to make sure you win every arguemnt on the Internet. You lost this one. You'll post again, claiming you won. Another lie. I won't read it or respond to it.
I'm saying 95% or more of police confrontations don't lead to physical violence,
Agreed. Cops don't beat everyone they talk to, or we'd run out of citizens.
and I've just as often - if not more often, seen the "citizen" being the instigator.
The cops assert 100%, the citizens assert 0%. The truth is (likely) somewhere in the middle.
I think it's all a loophole game. The Generals want to fly around in their Gulfstream or Cessnas without AF oversight. So they have some transport craft. But you are right, I have no idea who flies them. There are plenty of fixed wing certified Army people, but that doesn't mean anything. The flight levels don't even match. Army pilots are almost all WO, while the AF pilots are almost all commissioned. If an NCO flew a fixed wing craft, it'd fall out of the sky.
No, it's just a really good example that everyone knows about. The actions were not atypical. With all the coverage of Sandra at the moment, I can't find the one a few years back where the cop pulled a woman out through her seatbelt. She was 100% compliant when he assaulted her. It got notice because he was so insane and agitated, he couldn't even get his gun put back right. She was also a black woman stopped in the south, treated poorly by a white cop. She didn't die, so nobody cared. The problem continued until Sandra died before anyone cared.
But that stop was not atypical. The police cause the confrontation. The police charge in and make it worse much much more than they make it better.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkkLUP-gm4Q The cops waited until after that guy was subdued before tasing him, as punishment for not shutting up. They didn't try to talk him down, or escort him out. They argued with him, then attacked. He didn't touch anyone, he was just being loud. Arrested, then tased in custody. Or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I could go on for hours. Police attack people who are no threat and no danger to them. All the time.