Repinski
Guest
Your not the only one Whitey.... I think most of us are.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser
Guest
I see your main concept, but I don't think you see mine. They would be hypocrites if they are family, they are not family because they are hypocrites.
This is how the flow should go
Reasoning:
Tribe A has bashed other tribes for being family.
Tribe A has exhibited the following qualities of a family tribe: X Y Z
Conclusion 1:
Tribe A is family.
Therefore
Conclusion 2(based on conclusion 1):
Tribe A is hypocritical for Bashing what it has become.
You cannot use a conclusion as reasoning for the conclusion. It makes no sense. I don't think you have done this, but what I am saying is that people will.
Irrelevant discussion now though, so close.
Not true, as a conclusion first of all doesn't lead to a conclusion.
A conclusion is brought about by a set of premises, and if the premises prove to be true. Then depending on the parameters the conclusion is either probably true or deductively true. Now this is how the logic can go either way.
Conclusion 1:
Tribe A is a family
Premises:
1)Tribe B is a family
2)Tribe A slanders Tribe B for being a family
3)Tribe A are hypocrites for slandering Tribe B
However your methodology is also correct
Conclusion 2:
Tribe A are hypocrites
Premises:
1)Tribe A is a family
2)Tribe B is a family
3)Tribe A slanders Tribe B for being a family
The major difference is the deductive or inductive nature of the argument, mine holds an inductive approach whereas yours proves to be deductive. While yours is the more sought after approach there is still use in inductive argumentation.
File Not Found
Guest
FnF this can now be closed when you log on since the tribes in question were disbanded today. Thanks
All tribes in question disbanded?
DeletedUser
Guest
Crash is still around but the ones in question about being linked to crash were all disbanded today.
File Not Found
Guest
Guess they were all family then xP
DeletedUser
Guest
They were... that why we got the poll where we could mark them as such and they wouldnt complain and get morthy to shut down the maps like I guess has happened in the past. People just dont like being called a family tribe I guess
Btw sorry for being off topic but if you have time you should make a topic in the general forum for us to get to know you
Btw sorry for being off topic but if you have time you should make a topic in the general forum for us to get to know you
Last edited by a moderator:
hellthug
Guest
or one of you should make a topic to welcome her to w48 forums
DeletedUser
Guest
Umm... I actually did when I first found out we had a new mod but it just looked poorly thought out because i didnt know what to say besides welcome so I didnt actually post it :icon_wink:
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser91054
Guest
While i was using a conclusion to lead to another assumption/conclusion based on the first conclusion being true. This is because, as you said, in order for Tribe A to hypocritical (because it became family), it has to be assumed to be family, otherwise it is invalid. I suppose the first conclusion became a premise for the second one.
Also, in your first Conclusion I am not following the logic. In order for your third premise to be true, your conclusion has to also be true. Your third premise already implies your conclusion is already known to be true. This is circular reasoning.
All I understand inductive reasoning to be is that, even if the premises are true it only means it is likely to be true. It's premises tend to have the words probably, likely, or reasonably. This does not fit either argument.
Also, in your first Conclusion I am not following the logic. In order for your third premise to be true, your conclusion has to also be true. Your third premise already implies your conclusion is already known to be true. This is circular reasoning.
All I understand inductive reasoning to be is that, even if the premises are true it only means it is likely to be true. It's premises tend to have the words probably, likely, or reasonably. This does not fit either argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
While i was using a conclusion to lead to another assumption/conclusion based on the first conclusion being true. This is because, as you said, in order for Tribe A to hypocritical (because it became family), it has to be assumed to be family, otherwise it is invalid. I suppose the first conclusion became a premise for the second one.
Also, in your first Conclusion I am not following the logic. In order for your third premise to be true, your conclusion has to also be true. Your third premise already implies your conclusion is already known to be true. This is circular reasoning.
MY HEAD HURTS. :icon_evil:
DeletedUser91054
Guest
MY HEAD HURTS. :icon_evil:
Lol, sorry. I like logic, logic problems, etc.
DeletedUser
Guest
Well that is an example of hypocrisy is what I think you meant, not the definition.
Yes, you feel the tribe is hypocritical for being a family, and you have reasons for why you feel the tribe is family. That is logical.
What is not logical is feeling that the tribe is hypocritical (for merging or other reason), is a baby, are barb munchers/internal noblers, sucks, whatever, and because you hate hypocrites, barb muchers, babies, persons who suck, whatever, you vote they are a family.
I feel that the results of this poll will reflect much, much more of the later than the former.
At any rate, it does not matter, as the tribes in questions except Crash no longer exist.
if your referring to me lord im not saying bout Barb / Inactives is my problem here because my own Nobling record isn't exactly the best so i am not bashing nor am i stating it a problem because i dont want to be a hypocrite myself.
i voted based on the fact that Both SubV and Brave! have bashed many tribes before for merging and you have done the same thing.
sorry if this was not meant for me but as i was talking with you before on here wasn't sure if it was being continued or not >_>
DeletedUser
Guest
Also, in your first Conclusion I am not following the logic. In order for your third premise to be true, your conclusion has to also be true. Your third premise already implies your conclusion is already known to be true. This is circular reasoning.
All I understand inductive reasoning to be is that, even if the premises are true it only means it is likely to be true. It's premises tend to have the words probably, likely, or reasonably. This does not fit either argument.
That's the thing, you can make any argument using inductive reasoning. You make the arguments off of inclusive evidence but the form of validity still stands. If premise 3 were true (which was my argument in the first place, if they were fessing up to being hypocrites in that regard they are actually a family) then the conclusion is probably true as well.
Share:
