Silverturtle's Guide to SAT and Admissions Success

[kingsize]

<p>Antonioray- My good sir, you seem crestfallen. Your deplorable act to further instigate a fruitful and meaningful debate has miserably, (and let me underscore the word miserably) has gone astray.</p>

<p>In this debate, you do not seek for any logical fallacies in silverturtle’s cluster of posts.
Rather, you resort back to your noteworthy method- ad hominem.</p>

<p>Your faux pas has exceedingly enlightened me that an intelligible debate on the World Wide Web is rare.</p>

<p>

@antonioray

OK my mistake I used mass-nouns incorrectly.</p>

<p>So you disagree because you don’t think mass-nouns can be divided; what about the following:</p>

<ol>
<li>All knowledge is useful</li>
<li>S1 is a statement offering knowledge.</li>
<li>S1 is useful.</li>
</ol>

<p>You may agree with the content of S1, but would you still disagree with that 3. must be true?

</p>

<p>^I have tried to portray the main thesis of this problem a few times now.
As I have constantly accentuated- refer back to set theory.</p>

<p>You first start with an irrelevant conclusion.
This of course results in special cases.</p>

<p>purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem); this seems to be your favorite
You sometimes use argumentum ad populum; I suggest you stop right now; this is clearly evident in your post where you depicted an online caricature of kingsize. You have also used argumentum ad baculum, but I am afraid it has also miserably failed- "heh, thanks. Are you preparing a defense? "</p>

<p>By foolishly asserting that there are more SAT gurus of the world, you have accentuated your use of argumentum ad verecundiam.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I am afraid to admit that I indeed loved your use of argumentum ad misericordiam-

"OK my mistake I used mass-nouns incorrectly.

</p>

<p>Let me end my thesis with your use of argumentum ad ignorantiam-

You may agree with the content of S1, but would you still disagree with that 3. must be true?

</p>

<p>Pursuant to the blatant, aforementioned set of irrelevant conclusion, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, begging the question, fallacy of false cause, and, on top of this, fallacy of many questions, I boldly declare that your established thesis contains multifarious mistakes.</p>

<p>Hope this helped.</p>

[eastafrobeauty]

<p>oh…my…god.</p>

<p>silverturtle, you are amazing. I can’t believe you wrote allof that. wow.</p>

[kingsize]

<p>^What do you expect?
He is the undisputed guru.</p>

<p>I suggest you get an internship with Gary Gruber.</p>

[belly]

<p>you guys make me LOL

Antonioray- My good sir, you seem crestfallen. Your deplorable act to further instigate a fruitful and meaningful debate has miserably, (and let me underscore the word miserably) has gone astray.

</p>

[belly]

<p>are you a national semi finalist, silverturtle?</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

are you a national semi finalist, silverturtle?

</p>

<p>Not at the moment, but I will be.</p>

[kingsize]

<p>What can I say- antonioray loves my writing style.</p>

<p>Hey silver, so you are eligible for both programs? National Hispanic AND NMS?</p>

<p>Have a lovely day.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

you guys make me LOL

Heh imagine the response he’s educing in me.

Rather, you resort back to your noteworthy method- ad hominem.

What attribute of silverturtle do you think I was attacking? Or attributes, since you seem convinced that my arguments are nothing except *ad hominem * attacks.

Your faux pas has exceedingly enlightened me that an intelligible debate on the World Wide Web is rare.

I don’t think you know what a *faux pas * is in 2010.

^I have tried to portray the main thesis of this problem a few times now.

3 is logically correct assuming 1 and 2 are true.

You first start with an irrelevant conclusion.

I just made up a 3-step statement to illustrate a point.

You sometimes use argumentum ad populum; I suggest you stop right now; this is clearly evident in your post where you depicted an online caricature of kingsize.

*clearly evident!*absolutely right! I defended my point about absolute adjectives with an argumentum ad populum! Can you quote it? Or did you really mean that you think people here think of you in a certain way?

You have also used argumentum ad baculum, but I am afraid it has also miserably failed- "heh, thanks. Are you preparing a defense? "

Do you even know what types of statements must be made to fall under a logical fallacy?
You seem to be under the idea that “hey honey, I’m home” is an appeal to emotions. (btw, in case you havint noticed, the English versions are actually shorter)

By foolishly asserting that there are more SAT gurus of the world, you have accentuated your use of argumentum ad verecundiam.

No it is you who aserted that there are more SAT gurus of the world by specifying that silverturtle is the one of CC; if he were the only one, the “one of CC” specification would be meaningless. Again, I don’t think you know what an argumentum ad verecundiam is. I did not use any statements from a purported authority. Otherwise, “Cleopatra once stood atop a platform” would be an argumentum ad verecundiam

Furthermore, I am afraid to admit that I indeed loved your use of argumentum ad misericordiam-

"OK my mistake I used mass-nouns incorrectly.

I didn’t use that statement to advance my viewpoint; I merely acknowledged a mistake. “I saw a leaf fall from the tree today” is not an argumentum ad misericordiam

affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, begging the question, fallacy of false cause, and, on top of this, fallacy of many questions

Can you point to anything I may have written that would fall under any one of those?

Hope this helped

Oh it did. Tell me, am I arguing with a national debate champion here or just someone who printed one too many Wikipedia overviews of logical fallacies?</p>

[Jersey13]

<p>The last few pages of this look more like an HSL thread than a pinned SAT thread.</p>

[antonioray]

<p>Well that may be, but it is not necessarily inappropriate.</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>^

@antonioray

it is not necessarily inappropriate

</p>

<p>I laughed.</p>

[belly]

<p>lol I wish you guys would delete your old posts and go make a nother thread call “Silverturtle challenge thread”. That would be more apporpriate</p>

[chaosdog]

<p>…what has this thread turned into?</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>Two people who can’t be wrong disagreed over something. Not much of a big deal.</p>

[WongTongTong]

<p>lol…I dont even understand half the stuff they are arguing about…</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>antonioray called silverturtle out on improper grammar usage. Specifically, the phrase “perfectly fine”. And you know how silverturtle is about his grammar ;)</p>

[belly]

<p>what’s wrong with that phrase?</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>Hell if I know. The argument starts with post #588, if you want to see for yourself.</p>

[LightSource]

<p>^I think there was something before that “debate” though, between silverturtle and kingsize.</p>

[ryanxing]

<p>

^ Which part do you not understand (prepositions, prepositional phrases, the objective case, etc.)?

</p>

<p>All of it. ._. Preposition, Prepositional phrases in combination with the objective case.</p>

<p>I’m confused as to why it’s objective rather than subjective.</p>