but I’m pretty sure that bit of “A Practical Study of Argument” has to do with why arguments from authority are not always fallacious.
And this makes whatever it says the inerrant truth, never to be contradicted, and therefore a fundamental basic principle of logic and argumentation?
The claim was
Well, again; note—what I’m doing here is actually directly violating the framework of the “LWP”. Also the framework presented in “A Practical Study of Argument” by Grovier
Well, again; note—what I’m doing here is actually directly violating the framework of the “LWP”.
Also the framework presented in “A Practical Study of Argument” by Grovier
The claim was later refined to: “[the] assertion that [Logos01] violate[s] the basic principles of logic and argumentation”.
By you, yes.
what I’m doing here is actually directly violating the framework of the “LWP”. Also the framework presented in “A Practical Study of Argument” by Grover This is unwarranted and petty. Nonsense. … Your claim that the response you are getting is the result of your violation of lesswrong specific beliefs is utterly absurd. So that justifies your assertion that I violate the basic principles of logic and argumentation?
what I’m doing here is actually directly violating the framework of the “LWP”. Also the framework presented in “A Practical Study of Argument” by Grover This is unwarranted and petty. Nonsense. … Your claim that the response you are getting is the result of your violation of lesswrong specific beliefs is utterly absurd.
what I’m doing here is actually directly violating the framework of the “LWP”. Also the framework presented in “A Practical Study of Argument” by Grover This is unwarranted and petty.
what I’m doing here is actually directly violating the framework of the “LWP”. Also the framework presented in “A Practical Study of Argument” by Grover
what I’m doing here is actually directly violating the framework of the “LWP”.
Also the framework presented in “A Practical Study of Argument” by Grover
This is unwarranted and petty.
Nonsense. … Your claim that the response you are getting is the result of your violation of lesswrong specific beliefs is utterly absurd.
So that justifies your assertion that I violate the basic principles of logic and argumentation?
Which was agreed to
Okay. But do you acknowledge that the quoted exchange involves a shifting of the goalposts on your part?
Sure.
And this makes whatever it says the inerrant truth, never to be contradicted, and therefore a fundamental basic principle of logic and argumentation?
The claim was
The claim was later refined to: “[the] assertion that [Logos01] violate[s] the basic principles of logic and argumentation”.
By you, yes.
Which was agreed to
Okay. But do you acknowledge that the quoted exchange involves a shifting of the goalposts on your part?
Sure.