Appeal to ridicule again.
The syllogism is:
- Taylor claims that Oz's labelling of fallacious arguments needs to by made as a syllogism to be true.
- Taylor makes the fallacious argument look ridiculous by misrepresenting it as asinine.
- Therefore, Oz's claim about a logical fallacy is false.
Oz
Several problems...
1) You're conveniently ignoring my original request to make my previous statements, the one which you originally accused of being appeal to ridicule, a syllogism.
2) The syllogism you provided makes absolutely no sense at all. There is no logical connection between the two premises, and no connection between the premises and the conclusion. In fact, what you presented is not even a syllogism.
3) I asked you to put
my argument into a syllogism. Instead, you provided your own syllogism if your own argument (which, again, is not even a proper syllogism; it made no sense). However, because I made no argument at all, which is what I said before, you failed to do so, as I expected you would, again distracting from what you have been asked to do and the topic at hand.
You keep portraying yourself as some master of logic, yet you have failed do form a simple syllogism. You have again proved your statements to be asinine. Again, it is more than clear to me that, as Jimmy said, you just want to be obnoxious. And you are good at it because, again, you know that it prevents you from having to actually engage the topic at hand. It has worked so far.
You are making yourself look more and more foolish, brother. You cannot even correctly wield the "logic" you are so desperately trying to use, you have made accusations that, when called out, you ignore and move on (e.g., that I am the one that brought up hyper-Calvinism, for which I nailed you with truth and evidence), and you have completely ignored the topic at hand.
