Law School Discussion

Learning Disablilities

superiorlobe

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #60 on: June 30, 2004, 12:56:52 PM »
the flaw is that i was not making any statement that was based upon supposed medical expertise, the other poster was.  you dont need medical expertise to question someone else.

Your statement connoted disagreement with her judgement about a medical condition.  In other words, you were suggesting that you hold the opposite opinion.  You then implied that unless she is a doctor she in not qualified to make a judgement about a medical condition.

But, in disagreeing with her judgement about the medical condition, you are making a judgement on that condition yourself, and then, by your own reasoning, your judgement must not be a good one since you are not a doctor yourself.

Note that your implied argument that only doctors are qualified to have an opinion on medical conditions is unsound anyway.  So you not only refute yourself, but you do so with an unsound argument.

you are really slow lobes,  i am starting to think you are full of *&^% about those practice LSAT scores...

Another ad hominem.



Only if you can't see the logic in them.

dont feed the troll

I'm sure you'll find it eventually.

Both of these responses are cop outs.

What is the logic in saying "don't feed the troll."  Are you aware that this is an ad hominem argument?  In case you don't know what an ad hominem is, let me include the following definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem&r=67

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

They give the following usage example:

"Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."

As for your remark, let me announce that I sincerely don't see a flaw in my argument and I am sincerely interested in what you think the flaw is.
Quote

nathanielmark

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #61 on: June 30, 2004, 12:59:39 PM »
here is what i said...

"sarahz, are you a doctor?  If not, what makes you an authority on such matters?"


im not sure where i am "connoting disagreement" here.  you arent nearly as sharp as you think you are, loaves.


the flaw is that i was not making any statement that was based upon supposed medical expertise, the other poster was.  you dont need medical expertise to question someone else.

Your statement connoted disagreement with her judgement about a medical condition.  In other words, you were suggesting that you hold the opposite opinion.  You then implied that unless she is a doctor she in not qualified to make a judgement about a medical condition.

But, in disagreeing with her judgement about the medical condition, you are making a judgement on that condition yourself, and then, by your own reasoning, your judgement must not be a good one since you are not a doctor yourself.

Note that your implied argument that only doctors are qualified to have an opinion on medical conditions is invalid anyway.  So you not only refute yourself, but you do so with an invalid argument.

you are really slow lobes,  i am starting to think you are full of *&^% about those practice LSAT scores...

Another ad hominem.



Only if you can't see the logic in them.

dont feed the troll

I'm sure you'll find it eventually.

Both of these responses are cop outs.

What is the logic in saying "don't feed the troll."  Are you aware that this is an ad hominem argument?  In case you don't know what an ad hominem is, let me include the following definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem&r=67

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

They give the following usage example:

"Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."

As for your remark, let me announce that I sincerely don't see a flaw in my argument and I am sincerely interested in what you think the flaw is.
Quote

sarahz

  • ****
  • 127
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #62 on: June 30, 2004, 01:01:48 PM »
I could claim that i am a medical doctor if that would make everyone happy? 

nathanielmark

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #63 on: June 30, 2004, 01:02:56 PM »
no worries, loaves is the board troll and prides himself on creating discord.


I could claim that i am a medical doctor if that would make everyone happy? 

jgruber

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #64 on: June 30, 2004, 01:03:44 PM »
I never said don't feed the troll. 

Only if you can't see the logic in them.

dont feed the troll

I'm sure you'll find it eventually.

Both of these responses are cop outs.

What is the logic in saying "don't feed the troll."  Are you aware that this is an ad hominem argument?  In case you don't know what an ad hominem is, let me include the following definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem&r=67

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

They give the following usage example:

"Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."

As for your remark, let me announce that I sincerely don't see a flaw in my argument and I am sincerely interested in what you think the flaw is.

superiorlobe

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #65 on: June 30, 2004, 01:51:15 PM »
here is what i said...

"sarahz, are you a doctor?  If not, what makes you an authority on such matters?"


im not sure where i am "connoting disagreement" here.

If you were insist that you were not connoting disagreement (which you were, but let's assume you weren't for the sake of argument) then your remark ought to be interpreted as a simple question about a fact: i.e. "what makes you an authority".  The answer could be equally simple: "I have studied the matter."

However, instead of just saying "how do you know?" or "what makes you an authority?", you said "are you a doctor? If not...." which clearly implies that unless she is a doctor her judgement should be taken with a grain of salt.  This implication in turn implies that you disagree with her judgement.

you arent nearly as sharp as you think you are, loaves.

You protest too much.  :)

jgruber

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #66 on: June 30, 2004, 01:59:23 PM »
You're missing more than you think.

If you can't see the forest for the trees, you won't know that you're missing the forest.


here is what i said...

"sarahz, are you a doctor?  If not, what makes you an authority on such matters?"


im not sure where i am "connoting disagreement" here.

If you were insist that you were not connoting disagreement (which you were, but let's assume you weren't for the sake of argument) then your remark ought to be interpreted as a simple question about a fact: i.e. "what makes you an authority".  The answer could be equally simple: "I have studied the matter."

However, instead of just saying "how do you know?" or "what makes you an authority?", you said "are you a doctor? If not...." which clearly implies that unless she is a doctor her judgement should be taken with a grain of salt.  This implication in turn implies that you disagree with her judgement.

you arent nearly as sharp as you think you are, loaves.

You protest too much.  :)

Ginatio

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #67 on: June 30, 2004, 02:31:19 PM »
so here's my new strategy for law school prep... I'm going to print out all of these million page rants/discussion on LSD, and then practice briefing them by highlighting the relevent facts, issues, and conclusions.

lol

$ones

  • ****
  • 231
    • View Profile
Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #68 on: June 30, 2004, 05:46:41 PM »
Brilliant.



so here's my new strategy for law school prep... I'm going to print out all of these million page rants/discussion on LSD, and then practice briefing them by highlighting the relevent facts, issues, and conclusions.

lol

jgruber

Re: Learning Disablilities
« Reply #69 on: June 30, 2004, 06:10:27 PM »
be sure to use multi-colored highlighters.

once you're done you can write a book about it and call it PLS II for Dummies

so here's my new strategy for law school prep... I'm going to print out all of these million page rants/discussion on LSD, and then practice briefing them by highlighting the relevent facts, issues, and conclusions.

lol