DO YOU CARE?

[rothschild]

Since I'm such a good sport I'll make it real easy for you, Tiki.

Definition #1

A universal generalization is one which pertains to all members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization does not.

Definition #2

A universal generalization involves *all* of the members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization involves *some* of the members or items of a group.

So where exactly is the inconsistency?

[rothschild]

I never fuck with Tiki. I think that is good advice for most people.

The only way you get good at chess is by playing people who are better than you.

[BlueTiki]

Give it up.

You're babbling, scrambling and rewording.

It's rather difficult to respond to an allegation that lacks even a modicum of specificity.

Mudslinging, Tiki, or just lazy?

No.

Laymens terms.

Universal = absolute or pertaining to ALL members of a group

Existential = pertaining to at least one member of a group - BUT NOT ALL

"Liberal Moral Faggots" - is this an entire group or a subset of "X"?

If a subset of "X": name "X". ("X" being an unnamed population)

Jeezus . . . defend your statements with some reference to conventional logic terms and not with feeble retorts attempting to appear "deep".

Hell . . . classical or contemporary . . . I don't care. Just be consistent.

Or use a calculus equation and define the variables and the order of the steps.

Okay . . . I'm dishonest . . . I'm lazy.

It's your Hypothesis . . . you do the work.

"Liberal Moral Faggots" . . . still makes me chuckle.

I wish I could think of one!

[username]

"Liberal Moral Faggots" . . . still makes me chuckle.

I wish I could think of one!

I thought I had one in Carl Kruger but that whole trading favors for bribes kind of blew the morality part out of the water.

[rothschild]

No.

Laymens terms.

Universal = absolute or pertaining to ALL members of a group

Existential = pertaining to at least one member of a group - BUT NOT ALL

Very good, Tiki. Glad to see you're no longer equating "not all" as being 1. You're learning.

"Liberal Moral Faggots" - is this an entire group or a subset of "X"?

If a subset of "X": name "X". ("X" being an unnamed population)

Jeezus . . . defend your statements with some reference to conventional logic terms and not with feeble retorts attempting to appear "deep".

Hell . . . classical or contemporary . . . I don't care. Just be consistent.

Or use a calculus equation and define the variables and the order of the steps.

Okay . . . I'm dishonest . . . I'm lazy.

It's your Hypothesis . . . you do the work.

Give it up. You're babbling, scrambling and rewording.

"Liberal Moral Faggots" . . . still makes me chuckle.

I wish I could think of one!

How about all the libs who support affirmative action? If that isn't phony morality then what is?

[Cracker]

Jesus Christ. I'm posting like a drunk. Wrong forum.

Alzheimer's sets in..