Thread:Drew1200/@comment-5111283-20130722130850/@comment-5625448-20130730023939

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

Ihaveawiixboxds wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

Ihaveawiixboxds wrote:

Ihaveawiixboxds wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

Drew1200 wrote:

Brickmaster7946 wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

RePeat wrote: A ton.

 How is a "ton" a standard? I do not see how a unit of weight can be used to ascertain the equity of an action.

Obi. Obi. Stop with your fancy logic. :P Don't worry, that wasn't logic. It was about the exact opposite of logic, in fact. Drew, that's not even close to true. I was being literal, which is not illogical, actually. It's technically adhering to stricter logical interpretation, although that doesn't mean it's very helpful. No, you were using equivocation, which is a logical fallicy. :P Oh, DB already said that... Whatever. :P And as I was saying to DB, my post was not an argument, and therefore cannot be a fallacy. Even if it was an argument, it wasn't an equivocation- because I used the correct contextual meaning. But you still used a diffrent meaning than Peat, and you knew what Peat meant, thus it was equivocation. :P

Your equivocation isn't nullified by the fact that you were the one being literal. :P Incorrect, as it wasn't an argument. I didn't switch the meaning, I assumed logical validity and good grammar. You didn't assume, you knew what Peat meant, and you decided to be a troll by using a meaning that you know Peat didn't intend to use. :P

Furthermore, I don't see how whether or not you were arguing makes any difference at all.