+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Personal Member Bullshit (https://mockforums.net/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Some Honest Therapy (https://mockforums.net/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: DO YOU CARE? (/thread-5095.html)
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-21-2011
Since I'm such a good sport I'll make it real easy for you, Tiki.
Quote:Definition #1
A universal generalization is one which pertains to all members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization does not.
Quote:Definition #2
A universal generalization involves *all* of the members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization involves *some* of the members or items of a group.
So where exactly is the inconsistency?
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-21-2011
(03-21-2011, 08:04 PM)Cracker Wrote: I never fuck with Tiki. I think that is good advice for most people.
The only way you get good at chess is by playing people who are better than you.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - BlueTiki - 03-22-2011
(03-21-2011, 08:39 PM)rothschild Wrote:(03-21-2011, 07:45 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Give it up.
You're babbling, scrambling and rewording.
It's rather difficult to respond to an allegation that lacks even a modicum of specificity.
Mudslinging, Tiki, or just lazy?
No.
Laymens terms.
Universal = absolute or pertaining to ALL members of a group
Existential = pertaining to at least one member of a group - BUT NOT ALL
"Liberal Moral Faggots" - is this an entire group or a subset of "X"?
If a subset of "X": name "X". ("X" being an unnamed population)
Jeezus . . . defend your statements with some reference to conventional logic terms and not with feeble retorts attempting to appear "deep".
Hell . . . classical or contemporary . . . I don't care. Just be consistent.
Or use a calculus equation and define the variables and the order of the steps.
Okay . . . I'm dishonest . . . I'm lazy.
It's your Hypothesis . . . you do the work.
"Liberal Moral Faggots" . . . still makes me chuckle.
I wish I could think of one!
RE: DO YOU CARE? - username - 03-22-2011
(03-22-2011, 03:08 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Liberal Moral Faggots" . . . still makes me chuckle.
I wish I could think of one!
I thought I had one in Carl Kruger but that whole trading favors for bribes kind of blew the morality part out of the water.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-22-2011
(03-22-2011, 03:08 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: No.
Laymens terms.
Universal = absolute or pertaining to ALL members of a group
Existential = pertaining to at least one member of a group - BUT NOT ALL
Very good, Tiki. Glad to see you're no longer equating "not all" as being 1. You're learning.
(03-22-2011, 03:08 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Liberal Moral Faggots" - is this an entire group or a subset of "X"?
If a subset of "X": name "X". ("X" being an unnamed population)
Jeezus . . . defend your statements with some reference to conventional logic terms and not with feeble retorts attempting to appear "deep".
Hell . . . classical or contemporary . . . I don't care. Just be consistent.
Or use a calculus equation and define the variables and the order of the steps.
Okay . . . I'm dishonest . . . I'm lazy.
It's your Hypothesis . . . you do the work.
Give it up. You're babbling, scrambling and rewording.
(03-22-2011, 03:08 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Liberal Moral Faggots" . . . still makes me chuckle.
I wish I could think of one!
How about all the libs who support affirmative action? If that isn't phony morality then what is?
RE: DO YOU CARE? - Cracker - 03-22-2011
Jesus Christ. I'm posting like a drunk. Wrong forum.
Alzheimer's sets in..