XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.health, misc.rural   
   From: usenet.email@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:20:05 GMT, don'tgo@there.com (The Watcher) wrote:   
   >On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:24:10 +0100, Derek  wrote:   
   >>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:28:51 GMT, don'tgo@there.com (The Watcher) wrote:   
   >>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:16:13 +0100, Derek  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>(snip)   
   >>   
   >>Yes, of course you would.   
   >>   
   >>>>And below is where you swap from accusing me   
   >>>>of using circular reasoning to using the persuasive   
   >>>>definition fallacy AFTER being shown that your   
   >>>>initial accusation was wrong, and that you clearly   
   >>>>don't understand the term;   
   >>>   
   >>>I'll explain it to you once again, and I'll type it slower this time, so do   
   try   
   >>>to follow along. The Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS a form of circular   
   >>>reasoning.   
   >>   
   >>No, it is not a form of circular reasoning,   
   >>dummy, as I've shown. Circular reasoning   
   >>is where the premise is restated as the   
   >>conclusion, and my argument doesn't do   
   >>anything like that. You're incompetent.   
   >   
   >Apparently you don't even know what the Persuasive Definition Fallacy IS.   
      
   I've told you what it is and supplied a link to a   
   page dealing with logical fallacies to support   
   the definition I gave you below this line. IT   
   IS NOT a form of circular reasoning, as you   
   stupidly keep insisting despite that evidence,   
   so learn it and stop wasting my time.   
      
   >(snip)   
   >>It's a subset of the compound question fallacy,   
   >>and though you might not want to accept that   
   >>fact in light of the solid evidence I've brought   
   >>here to show your error, you have no option   
   >>but to, so deal with it and stop sniveling.   
   >   
   >There you go again.   
      
   Then read it, dummy.   
      
   >(snip)   
      
   Of course, because you simply can't deal with   
   it.   
      
      
   As pointed out to you earlier, when Darwin argues   
   that his dog experiences emotion based on his   
   observation of the dog, he invokes the fallacy of   
   affirming the consequent in the form;   
      
   1) If the dog is disappointed, he will do x, y, z.   
   2) He does x, y, z (affirms the consequent)   
   therefore   
   3) the dog is disappointed.   
      
      
   >>Done, so now deal with the syllogism you   
   >>keep snipping away. You won't because   
   >>you can't.   
   >   
   >Wrong.   
      
   If you could deal with it, you would have   
   done so and defeated me. You won't   
   because you can't, so you just snip it   
   away in every reply.   
      
   >>>>Your efforts here imply that you believe   
   >>>>animals can experience emotion, and while   
   >>>>relying on the absence of a quote to give   
   >>>>you wriggle room, you are certainly free to   
   >>>>use it and recant.   
   >>>   
   >>>And you are certainly free to continue to LIE   
   >>   
   >>Rather, it's you that's been caught lying.   
   >   
   >Feel free to provide quotes.   
      
   I've done so, many times now with dates to   
   put it into context, yet you snip it away in   
   every reply and then go on to declare I   
   haven't shown you your lies. I rest my case,   
   but if ever you want to put your case forward   
   that animals can experience emotion, be my   
   guest and be the first to make scientific   
   history.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)