Where's the flaw in logic?

Just a bit about me personally, something that I usually do not share on an open forum, but it seems necessary. I pick on/ridicule my family, friends, and acquaintances. That is especially true of the ones that I'm fond of. We all jested with each other - in good nature and we all knew that nothing negative was meant by it. That was an element of how I was raised. We kidded with each other. It is not widely accepted to be a form of endearment, especially from those kind of people who grew up differently, i.e. with codes of conduct that forbade such things.

Thus, as I've come to be more aware of that fact, I've attempted to act accordingly.

Some people just look to be offended as well. So, it is not quite so cut and dry as you imply.

I'm gonna have to leave that answer for you to discover.


Have fun in your search...

You made the claim. The burden is yours. I suspect that it cannot be shouldered, because the flaw was not extant, as I've already shown.

A mistake is a breach between thought/belief and reality.

When we think that things are a certain way and come to find out that they're not that way, it affords an opportunity to leanr something or other. We must first be capable of accepting the fact that we can be wrong about things. That requires our acknowledging that we are prone to hold false belief about the way things are. If we deny that we hold any belief at all, then it becomes very difficult to be able to come to terms with our being mistaken.

OK then, substitute "I" for "we" and get back to me in a few years...


I've shown you numerous times the flaws in your logic. You won't trust anything except for your own "logic/reasoning", so get to work and find your own flaws...


Just let it go....

All hot air. You've shown nothing and are bragging about it.

There is a breach between what you think/believe has transpired and what has. All I'm asking you to do is support the claims you're making about my supposed 'flaws in logic'. The more you refuse to support your own claims the less reason there is to continue this series of gratuitous assertions.

Stop hand-having and add some substance.

I know, right?

And you totally missed the point...


I have already shown one example of improper logic which you confessed to taking part in.
Sure, you may deny that you did that in this thread (ridicule), but the facts stand. The mistake is obviously yours by your very own definition.

You make assertions about what people think and believe with total disregard for the other poster's thoughts and explanations.


So now, you appear to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that your logic contains no flaws (in spite of logic and reasoning)...

And you also avoided the issue of what constitutes "Good judgement" by saying it comes from "accurate understanding".

Accurate according to who? I bet your answer would be yourself...



Really man, just let it go...

Ridiculing another is not improper logic Pan.

--

What are you talking about "Let it go"? I mean, are you saying that I ought let something in the past go? You are the one talking about some past conversation or another. In fact, it certainly seems to me that you're entire conversation has revolved around this, whatever it is.

--

If I said that you're being hypocritical because you're accusing me of ridiculing another - which is to talk about the person rather than the subject - would that be ridicule or simply accurately stating the way things are? How many posts in a row now have you been talking about me personally.

Where's the flaw in logic?

Show me, anything less does not satisfy what constitutes being the rules of philosophical engagement. Justify your claims.



Appearances can be deceiving, especially if there is a lack of accurate understanding. Do you have anything to show that backs this up? Can you justify this claim?



I've already answered this question Pan, Ifind no reason to answer it again... and you'd be wrong.

Are we both not certain here Pan? One of us can justify their claims... can you?

I have justified my claim. You affirmed that I was correct.

The proof of my futher claims are also justified if you would take the time to re-read this thread.

It's not my fault you lack "accurate understanding"...



When I say "let it go", it's because you keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.


I've been charitable here, I assumed you speak the same language and have a rudimentary grasp of logic. < *an example for those with lack of understanding...



Just let it go....

I'll take that as a "No".

What is that supposed to mean? I mean, I participate in philosophical discussion on a daily basis, and I've never read nor heard anyone talk about proof of claims being justified. Do you understand the concepts regarding the terms that you're using here, because I certainly do not find that they are being used in any way that I'm familiar with.

And that justifies my claims even futher.

If I have justified my claims, and even told you where they are justified, why would you assert that my answer means "no".



Care to deny this one too? Perhaps the goalposts need moved? Maybe we can argue semantics some more?



I said "So now, you appear to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that your logic contains no flaws..."


Notice the key word here... "appear".
Now, if you say I'm incorrect in that claim, confess where you think your logic may be faulty.



Deeper and deeper you go....

I have no idea what in the world you're talking about Pan. Do you know what justification is? It certainly doesn't seem like it.

--

Show me where you have justified any claim you've made thus far.