How to Get Faster using the Fridrich / CFOP Method

[jskyler91]

First of all, I would like to state that my ONLY reason for not doing this before was to avoid a full on confrontation and because I did not feel like trying to teach someone who obviously does not understand the rules of argumentation how to argue, but alas here I go:

Let us first start with the wonderful Ad Hominem that Kir has been asking for so feverrently OH wait!!! He gave me one right here in this very forum:

I truth

Now this is one of his more subtle comments since he didn't actually claim anything here, but the most obvious interpretation of ths meaningless pointing out of my typo is to say that "Hey look jskyler91 is dumb and can't right" which makes my argument appear "wrong or stupid". In short it is an attempt to degrade my character. If you disagree with my initial premise then you will not agree with the next conclusion (this will be a suppressed syllogism, which means that is assumes the fact of the minor premise to be inherently obvious or true i.e. he wrote the actual statement of question) which is that he wrote this statement to purposefully degrade my character to make my arguement in this paragraph seem invalid.

THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL. Just because a person makes a typo does not mean that their claims in the surrounding paragraphs are incorrect. What he tried to do here was employ a logical falacy i.e. a statement which is inherently flawed in its logic and therefore not valid, in order to assert a claim i.e. that I was wrong about the things I said in this paragraph he quoted. Kir loves to do this and has done this in almost every argument we have ever had, when he does this, his claims are almost always INCORRECT. ANy statement made to degrade the character of your opponent is IRRELEVANT and if done to assert a claim is ILLOGICAL.

That must mean that you are right!!!!!

You should come on IRC sometime and see if you get the same kind of reception.

Again, just because people may think you are right do to your illogical fallacies does not mean you are right.

You lie a lot of the time.

LIE?!!! Show me a single time that I have lied Kir:
lie1    [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.


Lies must be false statements made with intention, if not then it is called being incorrect, not lies

What your describe here Kir:

Last time you claimed I made a lot of ad hom attacks, after reqesting that they were pointed out, you refused to do so.

Is neither a lie or an incidence of incorrectness, it is a unfulfilled request due to a lack of a desire one one the requestee to enter into a conflict.

Claiming you have 'won' does not make you the 'winnner'. I am clearly more knowledgeable than you.

No, but winning does and yet again you try and subvert my claims by using an illogical statement: You state: Major premise: Knowing more than one person about more things makes that one person inherently more right about a specific statement, minor premise: a statement was made by you, Conclusion, you are right. This logic is flawed, first of all, to know more about things does not make a persons inherently right or the words the speak true; I can easily know everything and still state something which is wrong. Also, in the topics we have discussed you often know LESS than me about them. I AM COLOR NEUTRAL, YOU ARE NOT, I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ACTUALLY SWITCHING SUCCESSFULLY, YOU DO NOT.

I have to leave now to go to work, but I hope everyone can see (for as long as this post lasts) that Kir does in fact make Illogical statements very often.

I recommend that you avoid logic. Your progression of thought has major holes. I'm not going to voluntarily debate with you. If you really want debate, I will post more about the errors in your thought progression. Otherwise, I will leave you alone.

Anyway, my advice still stands. Please don't fight with Kir. He is more knowledgeable than the two of us combined. The way he phrases things can be jarring. Just focus on his content. Your advice to younger cubers is very thorough and you have great intentions. I think you should just stick to that instead of arguing with Kir. From an objective perspective, you will most likely "lose" all the fights you pick with him.

Wow, all I can say is no, you are wrong here, please read my long post and I would love to here my flaws here. Just so everyone knows, I am a Rhetoric and education major at the University of California Berkeley, arguably the best public school in the world and I excel in my coursework. I am not making these statements without grounds or pulling them out of thin air, I could GUARANTEE that all of my professors, who are at the top of their field in Logic and Rhetoric would agree with what I have said as far as I meant it to go. I have literally written papers on the logical syllogism and I am certain I understand them. Please do not take my words here lightly.

Also, Kir knows a lot in terms of number of things, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT NOR DOES IT NECESSARILY MEAN HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT SPEFIC AND LEARNED KNOWLEDGE SUCH AS COLOR NEUTRALITY, such logic is FLAWED. If you need me to explain that then you do not understand logical syllogisms and you are the prime example of what I described as being the person who will likely side with Kir.

TO RELATE ALL OF THIS BACK TO THE OP SO THAT WE DON'T GE THOS GOOD MEMBER'S THREAD SHUT DOWN, ONE THING THAT WILL MAKE YOU FASTER IS UNDERSTANDING LOGICAL PROCESSES BECAUSE KNOWING THEM CAN MAKE IT EASIER TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTION YOU SHOULD TAKE IN AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS SUCH AS WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT IS IN THE BACK TWO SLOTS.

BTW, If you would like to continue this discussion Kir, we can do so later tonight, in an appropriate setting as I will be making a thread in which we can discuss this and other issues of logic.

[Kirjava]

I AM COLOR NEUTRAL, YOU ARE NOT, I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ACTUALLY SWITCHING SUCCESSFULLY, YOU DO NOT.

I switched to CN with CFOP when I was 16sec. I'm now 13sec.

Also, Kir knows a lot in terms of number of things, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT NOR DOES IT NECESSARILY MEAN HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT SPEFIC AND LEARNED KNOWLEDGE SUCH AS COLOR NEUTRALITY

But, I do.

^_^

[jskyler91]

I switched to CN with CFOP when I was 16sec. I'm now 13sec.



But, I do.

^_^

Please read the above statement, I look forward to continuing this later.

[a small kitten]

Major premise: a winner is someone who is generally accepted as right, Minor Premise: I have more people who agree with me than those who dont' Conclusion: I am the winner)Now I realize that in fact more people may actually disagree with me than agree, but that only makes Kir winner because people are not understanding the logic and are being swayed by the personal attacks he makes on me.

The major problem is: you have an inadequate definition of "generally accepted as right". Just because more people have messaged you saying that they "think" you are right does not mean that you are right. This is because their opinions do not constitute the "general". They are not an accurate representation of "general".

By your logic...

Major Premise: Whether something is good or not depends on what the "general public" tells you.

Minor Premise: You have more people informing you than not that arson is the best.

Conclusion: Arson is the best.

The logic appears "strong" However, you cannot start with a fatal assumption. Your "perceived general public" is not really the general public. The conclusions you can draw can turn quite crazy. Obviously, the group of people who think arson is the best does not represent general public sentiment. I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Just pointing out that your reasoning is a bit of a stretch.

You have great intentions and your interest in helping others is very admirable. However, you are overly defensive and rush to conclusions. Just leave Kir alone. We are also creating unnecessary clutter on this thread.

[evogler]

I feel sad when people try to resolve conflicts by arguing about who is right.

Here's a wish for understanding and acceptance for everyone involved.

[Godmil]

Jskyler, I really like your videos and feel you are a credit to the community. But I have to say you did make a few logical fallacies in your big post, I won't go into big details, but you did flip a definition immediately after plainly stating it, then you used an argument from authority after criticising its usage, and other stuff that I guess there is no point in mentioning as this thread will be deleted before you get back :P
I hope this doesn't put you off trying to help on these forums though cause you really do a lot of good work.

[Rpotts]

I agree with what everyone has said up to this point (yes, even you Kir)

This is the cause of this.

Let us first start with the wonderful Ad Hominem that Kir has been asking for so feverrently OH wait!!! He gave me one right here in this very forum:


Now this is one of his more subtle comments since he didn't actually claim anything here,**Rants about how he can't accept that he made a typo which juxtaposes "I" and "Truth"

THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL. Just because a person makes a typo does not mean that their claims in the surrounding paragraphs are incorrect. What he tried to do here was employ a logical falacy i.e. a statement which is inherently flawed in its logic and therefore not valid, in order to assert a claim i.e. that I was wrong about the things I said in this paragraph he quoted. Kir loves to do this and has done this in almost every argument we have ever had, when he does this, his claims are almost always INCORRECT. ANy statement made to degrade the character of your opponent is IRRELEVANT and if done to assert a claim is ILLOGICAL.

Capitalizing certain words doesn't suddenly make your arguments correct. You're assuming a lot here. You're using this minor typo thing instead of actually showing an example of what he was asking for.

Again, just because people may think you are right do to your illogical fallacies does not mean you are right.

The first argument you brought up was more people send you PMs agreeing with you. Most PMs I've received are from random noobs too.

LIE?!!! Show me a single time that I have lied Kir:
lie1    [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.


Lies must be false statements made with intention, if not then it is called being incorrect, not lies

Your major premise: I have not lied to you.
Your minor premise: 2 of these definitions say lying has to be deliberate.
Your conclusion: I have not lied.

You're ignoring the 3rd, very common definition. You have made false claims, possibly with nothing but the greatest intentions. Perhaps you've lied.

What your describe here Kir:

Is neither a lie or an incidence of incorrectness, it is a unfulfilled request due to a lack of a desire one one the requestee to enter into a conflict.

He's not saying you're lying because you haven't fulfilled his request, he's saying you're lying that he made ad hom attacks, and probably about exaggerated claims in other threads.

I AM COLOR NEUTRAL, YOU ARE NOT, I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ACTUALLY SWITCHING SUCCESSFULLY, YOU DO NOT.

Goes to show how much you blow up color neutrality's importance and how ignorant you are about Kirjava.

Wow, all I can say is no, you are wrong here, please read my long post and I would love to here my flaws here. Just so everyone knows, I am a Rhetoric and education major at the University of California Berkeley, arguably the best public school in the world and I excel in my coursework. I am not making these statements without grounds or pulling them out of thin air, I could GUARANTEE that all of my professors, who are at the top of their field in Logic and Rhetoric would agree with what I have said as far as I meant it to go. I have literally written papers on the logical syllogism and I am certain I understand them. Please do not take my words here lightly.

One huge argument from authority / Argumentum ad populum

Also *Look here, I'm in college. I'm important.*

You may "win" in the eyes of those who don't understand logic, but that doesn't make you correct or right, it just means that people don't realize that what you are saying is illogical

Your major premise: rpotts agrees with kir
Your minor premise: those who agree with kir don't understand logic
Your conclusion: rpotts doesn't understand logic

ಠ_ಠ

[jokerman5656]

I'd say that jskyler ruined this thread with ~13 words.


I agree with what everyone has said up to this point (yes, even you Kir)

[Cool Frog]

I get far more people who message me and say that they think I am right about our arguments then those who think I am wrong. You may "win" in the eyes of those who don't understand logic, but that doesn't make you correct or right, it just means that people don't realize that what you are saying is illogical or, more often then not using an Ad Hominem fallacy argument.

Again, just because people may think you are right do to your illogical fallacies does not mean you are right.

whut?


I would also like to point out that you make some claims that are far fetched (Pokemon <3) based on one or two examples.

[jskyler91]

The major problem is: you have an inadequate definition of "generally accepted as right". Just because more people have messaged you saying that they "think" you are right does not mean that you are right. This is because their opinions do not constitute the "general". They are not an accurate representation of "general".

By your logic...

Major Premise: Whether something is good or not depends on what the "general public" tells you.

Minor Premise: You have more people informing you than not that arson is the best.

Conclusion: Arson is the best.

The logic appears "strong" However, you cannot start with a fatal assumption. Your "perceived general public" is not really the general public. The conclusions you can draw can turn quite crazy. Obviously, the group of people who think arson is the best does not represent general public sentiment. I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Just pointing out that your reasoning is a bit of a stretch.

You have great intentions and your interest in helping others is very admirable. However, you are overly defensive and rush to conclusions. Just leave Kir alone. We are also creating unnecessary clutter on this thread.

I agree to the last part, but I will have to talk this out with you later in the thread i want to make. I can't right now though, seeing as how I am feeling quite sick. Suffusive to say, your arsen example is in fact Logically sound, but it is not valid. Valid means that the claims are actually true in the real world. Sound just means that it follows logical form without any of the premises being inherently false. My claims, however are sound and valid; winning, in the general sense is the perception by the majority that one person is correct is as true as any statement made about majority of peoples can be (Everyone may not agree on this definition- you obviously don't- but the majority of people would, hence my use of the word majority). It is not a stretch, it just doesn't satisfy you because you are not part of the majority. We can discuss this more later if you would like to.