|
|
|
A syllogism has three parts Therefore, this is not a syllogism.
34 responses total.
Unless it is part of a syllogism.
All items have a proper conference.
Agora is a proper conference.
Therefore, this is an item.
(Enigma is also a proper conference, so guess where this is gonna
get linked...)
This h'yar item is now linked tuh Enigma as item two hunnerd an' twenny-four.
U meen "twenny-fur"?
I don't follow the syllogism in #2. Isn't that the same as:
All cats are mammals.
A dog is a mammal.
Therefore, a dog is a cat.
(Or similar, at any rate?)
All syllogisms have three lines
This is a syllogism.
Therefore, this has three lines.
Re #2: I hate being anal, but I'm afraid I just can't shake it. I don't think that syllogism is correct; I think the first line should be "Everything with a proper conference is an item."
No, that would make:
Everything with a proper conference is an item
Agora is a proper conference.
Therefore, everything with Agora is an item.
We need:
Everything within Agora is an item.
This is within Agora.
Therefore, this is an item.
We could of course generate a four-line syllogism as follows:
Everything with a proper conference is an item.
^--- in
Agora is a proper conference
This is within Agora
Therefore this is an item
but that would be getting silly, and we wouldn't want to do that, now, would
we?
No, brighn, I meant that if you just replaced the first line like I said, and didn't touch the other lines, it would be correct.
And I'm saying that's wrong. You want:
Everything with a proper conference is an item
Agora is a proper conference
Therefore, this is an item
Which is wrong, because you haven't establisshed that this is with Agora,
whatever *that* means.
This hyar is a syllogism.
Thet thing over there, it be a syllogism too.
Tharfore, they done both be syllogisms.
whatever. <Aruba concedes that brighn is more anal than he is.>
That's sillygisms to you, buster. <g>
<brighn ismproud to be so anal.>
A syllogism is a syllogism is a syllogism.
I am not a syllogism.
Therefore, I am Gertrude Stein.
Now that is a valid syllogism.
But one can clearly see that you are Western Snord (it says so), therefore (reductio ad absurdum) your initial assumption must be incorrect, and a syllogism is thus *not* a syllogism. Q.E.D. I hope that clears *that* up once and for all.
Oh, but the statements "a syllogism is a syllogism" and "a syllogism is not a syllogism" are mutually compatible, by analogy with "a pine is a pine" and "a pine is knotty pine".
ROTFL
I wouldn't go *that* far...besides, a pine is a mail. Some pine for mail.
#14: very interesting!
Re #17: I guess you're right. That could've been a knotty syllogism indeed. I need to reboot now.
What in the *Heck* does ROTFL mean!
R(olling) O(n) T(he) F(loor) L(aughing)
CUTE!!
Thankyou. So, where exactly is the Brighn machine from, anyway?
Why do you want to know? <brighn looks at nephi suspiciously>
If you don't want to tell me, you don't have to. I just thought that with such an isoteric name, phonetically spelled, no less, that you might be from somewhere interesting that you would like to tell about.
This response has been erased.
"Isoteric"? Surely you mean esoteric. :-) Ah, Lansing, MI, is fairly boring. It's my community Craft name. I'm a Witch, don't you know?
Ah, Lansing, MI. I used to say the only culture in Lansing came out of 12 ounce cans... ;-)
<brighn did NOT come out of a 12 oz. can>
Therefore brighn is not a culture! I think we have a syllogism! :)
<brighn bops aruba with a Glinda the Good Witch fairy wand> <brighn spends WAY too much time on party>
WHAT? Back to the item-topic? Heavens to Betsy, how socially in- appropriate of us .....
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss