The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

I have good reason to believe that. Again, it distorts the Atlantic Ocean, and that has too much traffic for the distances to be inaccurate.

Qantas Airways have been flying out of Australia for almost a century, to 21 international destinations. You happily disregard an entire continent of eyewitnesses, but a distorted ocean is too much for you to swallow? That's just beautiful. Give me more, I'll get the popcorn.

Tausami, you really need to stop pretending you understand fallacies.

My belief that you're being ridiculous is my conclusion, not my basis.

My basis is the fact that your standards for determining accuracy are not fairly applied to both maps. You deny one based on distortion in a heavily travelled area, while you accept the other despite the same issue.

Tausami, you really need to stop pretending you understand fallacies.

What he said. Clearly he was mocking your fantasy map and its implications.

Tausami, you really need to stop pretending you understand fallacies.

My belief that you're being ridiculous is my conclusion, not my basis.

My basis is the fact that your standards for determining accuracy are not fairly applied to both maps. You deny one based on distortion in a heavily travelled area, while you accept the other despite the same issue.

Sorry, I meant reductio ad ricidulum

That's the same thing.

That's the same thing.

No, it's not. In an argumentum, the argument is flawed logically but is otherwise sound. In a reductio, one is trying to reduce the standing of the other argument. Reductio is Latin for reduction.

Quote from: zarg on January 01, 2012, 04:46:52 PM

That's the same thing.

No, it's not. In an argumentum, the argument is flawed logically but is otherwise sound. In a reductio, one is trying to reduce the standing of the other argument. Reductio is Latin for reduction.

Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Quote from: zarg on January 01, 2012, 04:46:52 PM

That's the same thing.

No, it's not. In an argumentum, the argument is flawed logically but is otherwise sound. In a reductio, one is trying to reduce the standing of the other argument. Reductio is Latin for reduction.

Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Argumentum simply means argument, and a "reductio" is a type of argument. Do you think you have invalidated my response by changing the word you used? I would have said the exact same thing had you said "reductio" in the first place.

Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

According to this page, it seems "ridicule" and "absurdity" are treated as distinct, where the former refers to fallacy and the latter refers to a valid argument.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 05:37:37 PM

Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

According to this page, it seems "ridicule" and "absurdity" are treated as distinct, where the former refers to fallacy and the latter refers to a valid argument.

You need to note that "Appeal to Ridicule" is a fallacy. "Reduction to the absurd" is a fine argument. 

Quote from: zarg on January 01, 2012, 09:08:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 05:37:37 PM

Do you think that 'reducio ad absurdum' is a fallacy? It's not. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

According to this page, it seems "ridicule" and "absurdity" are treated as distinct, where the former refers to fallacy and the latter refers to a valid argument.

You need to note that "Appeal to Ridicule" is a fallacy. "Reduction to the absurd" is a fine argument.

And this thread has officially devolved into an argument about romanic grammar.