SkyHigh

What? I could come up with multiple examples but we'll use the big one. Using the laws of logic , people can not resurrect. The Bible is full of times God went against the laws of logic and physics

I think it's worse than that , my thought is he's just a sad little keyboard warrior with his sad little life, that can only find validation by what he thinks is "dunking on" / "owning the libs". Honestly I feel more pity than anger for these type of people (they're still fun to laugh at though. Hahahaha)

I challenge you to find anything I've said here that would qualify me as a "left-wing lunatic" but we both know that the fact is you can't and won't, all you have is partisan rhetoric and couldn't make a logical argument if a syllogism slaped you in the face.

Are you implying that I'm a troll?

Funny how you just ignored this. Your biblical nonsense is hard to square when confronted with reality eh?

The classical god of the bible is evil and that's no lie

Oh son if the best you got is to make shit up, you might as well quit now. You're just embarrassing yourself

"Darwinism is a term used only by creationists and negates over 150 years of scientific discovery, ie: DNA and using it again denotes your complete lack of knowledge on how science functions. Would you call the theory of gravity Newtonism? Or heliocentrism Copernicusism? Or course not because you'd sound like an uneducated fool but that doesn't seem to bother you If that was actually happening I would have a problem with it but it's not and facts don't care about your "opinions"

All you do is preach hate Still wondering why you care about a community that represents less than 1 percent of the population. If you're into trans people, live your truth, it's okay to be you.

You see another difference between you and is I actually have other things to do in life than spend my days on a silly little "political" forum. And trust I don't need any help dealing with low IQ partisan hacks like you, as far as a "non binary lover" I think you're confusing your fantasies with my productive and fulfilling life.

Puting the science aside, being that you've proven time and time again that you are wilfully ignorant, not only to specific scientific theories but to the very basic principles of the scientific method and arguing with someone who disregards observable facts of reality is pointless. As for the"trans" question, honestly I give it very little thought, how people choose to self identify is none of my concern. My question is why do you care? Have you ever even met a trans person? My guess is you have some deep seeded sexual tendencies you're trying to deny and given your diminished mental acuity and religious "beliefs" , hatred is your only coping mechanism. I await the convoluted justification for your bigotry.

Son I could smoke a crack rock the size of my fist, and still sound more rational and intelligent than you on your best day

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.