yeah... no. he had to assume falsely to come up with that comment, so he was wrong in assuming that. Nice try though.

You seem to be struggling with critical thinking

Him saying "if you think that" means it only applies to people who think that. If "you don't think that" then his statement doesn't apply to you. Just because the statement doesn't apply to you doesn't make it false.

i.e. "If you are North Korean, you won't be reading this internet post". <-- That is a true statement, even though it doesn't apply to you.

This post was edited by kayeto on Sep 20 2015 08:57pm

"If you think" means "under the condition of you thinking"
If you do think that, then he's right. If not, his comment is still right.
There is no assumption made, semantically.

then the comment is pointless to make to begin with and since people always are motivated when doing something, it can't be pointless. Therefor there must be an assumption on his side and therefor his assumption is false and therefor he's still wrong in assuming that. You can argue semantics, but i rather go with the message and the context.



oh i understand semantics,like pointed out above, but i use context, motivation and the actual message to reply, and not reading shit like i'm some freaking computer. He assumed falsely and therefor he was wrong. If he didn't assume, then the comment is pointless.

In the end, you said outright that the meme is accurate. So under the context of you speaking the truth and having a real conversation, it's not an assumption.
If you want to talk about context of the conversation, he's right regardless.

This post was edited by FroggyG on Sep 20 2015 10:05pm

nope, because he assumes the very extreme opposite of the meme to be in my mind and you continue the crap by not using your brain and realise that there is such a thing as nuance. I said QUITE accurate, i never said perfect representation of TWD and it was in context of someone complaining that the new show was too slow, lacking momentum. With that meme i pointed out that such a thing can also be claimed about TWD, but to a lesser degree. You jumped in thinking you had a great point and an ez won argument. You lacked context and ended up only arguing semantics. Are you here to argue for the sake of arguing?

Yes. Everyone(including you) is here to argue for the sake of arguing.


I could see that is the case. That's why I started my post with the line:



Discussions can be more productive if participants can understand each others arguments and respond to them logically. If you are interested in moving beyond the "reality tv jersey shore" type of arguing and into something more resembling debate, you could check out this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic for an introduction to the concept.

i was here to add my opinion about something, then people like you, who indeed ARE here for the sake of arguing, did just that, starting shit for no reason.


you try to set yourself up as some authority, you should look up the appeal to authority fallacy where you yourself sets yourself up as some authority on critical thinking while stepping in a conversation you clearly only responded to 1 comment out of context... You're not impressing anyone.



Discussions can be more productive indeed, if participants like you check for the context and try to get the intended message instead of going for some argument in semantics. You're ok with false assumptions, you're ok with strawmanning and stumble over some shitty semantics and then you try to tell me to look up some shit on logic?

No assumption was made.
Regardless if you look at it in context or semantically.

If anything, you're doing plenty of assuming for everyone!

This post was edited by FroggyG on Sep 21 2015 08:30am

You posted the picture that is calling walking dead "people arguing" meaning someone was clearly salty enough about the show not being 24/7 zombie killing to make it. That is what I replied to, I don't give a fuck about who posted it (although you are clearly salty about the same situation so why are you even trying to argue?).