SkyHigh

You can't use the french language as an example because if the sovereignist movement cared about french the wouldn't have abandoned the other francophone nations in Canada particularly the Acadians. I to have lived all over Canada and have never found one issue, concern, inquiétude, that is specific to Québec and nowhere else in the country, but have found many ,"distinct societies" But if you know of an issue that would warrant independence I'm all ears. Remember independence means your own currency , military and infrastructure all things provided by a proper confederation.

Those that want full on independence are literally dying out, the reasons that existed back then simply don't now. There are still people talking about decentralized government and provincial autonomy but that's not exclusive to Québec and can be resolved with establishing a true confederation. No distinct society needed.

René used seperation (he actually never talked about "seperation" at all, he spoke of sovereignty association. Very different) to polarize a population that was basically coming out of a theocracy. He called a referendum knowing they would lose just to appease the hardliners. I personally don't think he was actually for seperation just used it as a tool to effect change ie,: campaign finance laws Lucien admitted explicitly the referendum was just a negotiating tool, and implicitly that he was never really for an independent Québec. Paul is just doing the same, the nationalist movement (which is not even sovereignty association) are disillusioned with Francois, so the PQ is just trying to bring over the never Liberal crowd. There probably won't be another referendum because no one is really talking about, but if there is it will just be to placate the die hards to prove the PQ is still relevant. You know why the Newfies want Québec to separate? That way they'll be that much closer to Ontario. Hahahaha

Sir your interjections are analogous to you having run on to a basketball court with a football, in the middle of a game, spiking the ball behind the base line and claiming victory, when in reality you don't understand the game, and you sir, are playing on your own imaginary field.

Ok big guy, you tell yourself that

I asked him to support the claim being rich meant being a successful business man, nothing to do with Trump specifically First, it's funny that "career section" didn't mention the businesses he's had that weren't successful, ie casinos, water, steaks, Trump university etc.. but none of that logically follows that he's a bad business man either Second,all it says is he claimed Obama wasn't really American, he owns property, was on a scripted T.V. show and dislikes Rosie O'Donnell , which is inductive at best Third, I never claimed to understand logic, in fact I mentioned I was new to it, but if you think that his post even resembled an argument presented in formal logic, you know less than me.

To this you wrote "It's called a logical conclusion." Since you've invoked logic, could you please write this out as a syllogism, that is both sound and valid. Cheers This was the actual quote I wanted you to present in formal logic ( we now know you can't because you don't know what logic is) but since you didn't I just pointed out where another argument you had made was fallacious. So do you want to try for real this time, since you know what a syllogism is now?

Apologies I missed that, all I saw were some YouTube videos and some biography about Trump. None of which are anything like a syllogism But honestly if I missed it say it again please. Now who's projecting? Do you seriously find this type of conversation interesting? I asked a legitimate question with no undertones, to have a discussion with an educator about critical thinking skills, something every one thinks we lack, and instead of having that conversation you need to resort to silly partisan talking points. Why?

I didn't and even if I did my views are irrelevant,this was a conversation about logic He said the fact that Trump was rich implied he was a good business man. I asked him to put that in a syllogism. Nothing more He couldn't so started saying I have Trump derangement syndrome, because when asked to justify his claims logically he couldn't But think what you wish

You literally admitted you didn't know what a syllogism was, therefore you can't know what it means for an argument to be valid. Here's how it looks Premise 1) Validity and soundness are essential components of a syllogism. Premise 2) to understand a component of a whole one must be aware of the whole. Premise 3) you stated that you were unaware of what a syllogism was Conclusion) You do not know what is or is not valid That's logic Seriously though there's some great books, read some and you won't have to rant about pedofils and such

Except you did, it's literally written on this very forum

Personal insults the last refuge of the ignorant. I was hoping to have a conversation about logic with someone who says they're a teacher. I obviously come to the wrong person. You don't know what valid means, read a little about logic and come back to me.

Never said Joe was fit for anything, but that doesn't follow that he's not the legitimate president either. I could tell you Trump had to claim bankruptcy on a casino (which would be evidence against him being a good business man) but that doesn't logically follow that he is a bad business either. You claimed your propositions were "just logic" but can't support that. In fact you seem to be completely ignorant to what logic even is It's like creationists talking science.

Prove otherwise? That's not how logic works. It's called burden of proof, real basic logic Do you think those were proper syllogisms? Do you know what valid and sound mean? I've literally quoted you twice

Are all tall people good at basketball? No Are all rich people good at business? No Same fallacy, what's funny is now you're arguing logic when a few hours ago didn't even know what it was.

Neither of these propositions are valid or sound. I may be mistaken but don't you claim to be an educator?

So you admit you used logic without knowing what that meant My example was terrible, I was pointing out the fallacy you were using. Since you couldn't provide me with one Honestly you should look into logic, it's a fun way to understand why you believe what you do. Read about epistemology. It's amazing the amount of things we believe, that if we tried ,couldn't even justify to ourselves.

Ypu made a claim, then said it was based on logic. I simply asked you to write your argument out using a logical form. All of this other partisan stuff is just you trying to obfuscate, and this last one is moving the goal posts. Logic is logic no matter what side you're on and both sides should try using it more. Serious question do you know what a syllogism is?

I haven't said anything about Trump and don't particularly like Biden. Honestly with the state of the US government I don't really care who wins, I don't think it affects me either way. Now, by the fact you have to revert to partisan politics just proves that when you spoke of logic you were out of your depths.

So no?

Perfect example, calling me a démocrate. A) I'm Canadian so don't have any party affiliation in a foreign country B)it's irrelevant to the topic. Logic doesn't care who you vote for . Do you know what a syllogism is? Seriously?

I have made no claims, all I did was ask you for a syllogism based on the fact you invoked logic. But it seems obvious to me that you're looking to argue and not present actual arguments. So I'll let you argue with the other trolls here Take care

I don't need to be here you're literally arguing with yourself. But since you have no real arguments I'll leave you to your "logic" You think a YouTube video is equivalent to stating an argument in formal logic? Sad

Ya because Aristotle was degenerate , with a warped sense of thinking.

Still waiting on the "logic" behind this proposition in a syllogism