|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off!
quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
Wow, no comeback. Now, if i had faith that you could respond to aaqthree in any sort of decent matter i would not brand you pathetic; however, since i am thinking you have absolutely nothing to say in response...i accuse you of being a dumb bitch who has nothing to say and tries to play it off like what aaqthree was stupid if we somehow knew what you were like in real life. Sorry to hear that someone here on jsl told you to not pay too much attention to people like us online (http://www.jusunlee.com/forums/show...;threadid=16241), i think you should to better yourself, but that is just my opinion.
She did have a "comeback", but she didn't realize that she left it in the quote block.
I'll repaste it here:
quote:
Wow! That must mean that you don't hate me cuz I'm not a child!......Well, ANYMORE! That also means that you hated yourself at one time. You were a child. I'm sure you were not an adult when you were born!
So basically her points are:
1) I don't hate her because she's "not a child".
2) I must have hated myself when I was a child.
Now I will attack the second statement, first. You taking notes, garciaas? You might be able to impress your middle (or are you still in elementary school?) school teachers if you learn how to actually be logical...
My actual words were "I hate children."
The word "hate" is in the present tense. To assume that because I feel this way now means that I have always felt that way in the past is a non-sequitur. There is no reason to believe that I necessarily hated children when I was a child.
Furthermore, even if there WERE reason to believe that I hated children when I was a child, it could easily refer to childish behavior, of which I displayed minimal when I was a child.
As to your first point...
To be more clear, let's take the statement "I hate children" and restate it as "If you are a child, I will hate you."
If your only given is that I hate children, and you're saying that you are not a child, there is nothing that you can conclude from that. The logic on this is very simple: a conditional statement is true whenever both parts are true, OR whenever the antecedent is false.
Since you are saying that the antecedent is false, then you are saying that the entire statement still holds true REGARDLESS of the truth value of the second statement.
(As an aside: I am sorry - terribly sorry - to everyone else whose intelligences I must have insulted by posting this elementary discussion of logic, but please keep in mind that this child clearly needs this lesson.)
Everything you say sounds childish. So if you ARE older than 11, your mind must have stopped maturing at that point; regardless, you make yourself appear as a child would. Either learn to communicate better or admit that you are a child.
|
02-27-2005 08:31 PM
I knew...
I knew that! I left it there for a reason (which I still cannot figure out which reason! 
You're probably thinking that I must not be good at it. I'm not saying that I'm a professional, either. 
But I also concluded (from your response) that you are older than me. 
