Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

I'm sorry OP, but I have to reply to Hawk.

Show me where I tried to assassinate your character. YOU are the one who started spitting venom. (my betters? wtf)

As for your muddled memory of elementary logic: argument ad absurdum involves taking a set of rules or arguments and, through logical extension, show that they have absurd results. I presented no such argument, as there were no rules or arguments to subject to that line of reasoning. Show me where I did (read the next bit first, though, it'll save you some time).

Proving the negative: it is entirely possible to prove the negative. Modus tollens. If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore Not Q. You're referring to the fallacy of negative evidence, which means claiming that a premise is true because it has not been proven false (thanks for the link, but you didn't read the first sentence very well). I presented no such argument. YOU asked ME to prove that your reputation was worthless, by which I think you meant prove that you are untrustworthy. My only claim is that such a thing is not possible in EVE. "I dare you to prove that my reputation is worthless." You are implying that you are trustworthy because I can't prove that you are untrustworthy--the very definition of the fallacy of negative evidence. My conclusion is simple: your rep is worthless, because it can't be proven, an obvious (to most) rejection of your fallacious implication.

Hawk, if you'd like to continue attacking me for no discernible reason, please start a nice, fresh thread for a face off. I've got my old debate rule book somewhere. And I've got that minor in Philosophy and my old logic textbooks. They might actually be good for something.

My apologies again OP. No more from me to Hawk in this thread.

---

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

Originally by: Professor Leech

---

Look at dem words.

While I understand that academics like selecting one opinion and arguing it until their blue in the face it is neither interesting or useful discussion.

Talking about debating rules and logic is pointless gibberish and is a poor method of communicating. Could you summarise anything useful you have to add to the discussion into one or two sentences.

---

Nope. My original post was simply an observation. And I agree that it is pointless. Strange that you don't offer the same criticism of the post that brought out the logic class.

---