This is a logical fallacy
Logical fallacy
Sorry but this is just a logical fallacy.
this is a total logical fallacy.
Fallicus Logicus
This is a logical fallacy.
This is a fallacy of the logical variety.
you can fallacize logically however you like about my posts but again they merely reflect logical fallacies, as do most every fallacy you make in a logical fashion, your fallacies are merely logical errors this is plane to see, and every logical fallacy you use to shout me down for imagined errors of reason that didn't exist, you commit logical fallacies more and more fallaciously.
Logical Fallacy. False accusation. Fallacy fallacy fallacy.
The problem is that if you would stop committing logical fallacies for one second, you'd realize what a crapass criterion that is. According to your logically fallacious criterion (that is, I might add, a logical fallacy), a practically ******** person who nonetheless saw value in intellectual persuits (but who was too dumb to add 2+2) would still be an "intellectual" which is absurd. This is such a huge logical fallacy. logical fallacy, logical fallacy.
Logical fallacy.
This is a logically fallacious logical fallacy.
Logical fallacy
Grow up, you got caught in false definition now your crying like a girl if you don't want to back up your arguments don't but you've done nothing but insult me since page 2 and you still haven't proven that your definition is acceptable?
So come on what is the definition of intelectual- I thank you, now go away and bother someone else, or make a decent argument, because if I'm average and this is the sum of your worth then you not even on the scale. And I want a detailed explanation as to why everything above is a logical fallacy?
But first I want you to admit you were wrong, the defenition of intelectual according to everyone except fifty is not what we're talking about, either concede the point or stop putting up fascile crap and spamming up the thread please.
And don't start spouting your usual drivel and basically flaming me, let's stick to the argument why is your definition only used by you and no one else a valid definition? Answer this and only this, if not don't open your mouth again and remove all doubt.
In order to be an intellectual, you have to be at least something approaching an expert in at least one field. Heck,
Non sequitor and wrong.
you aren't even one of the most knowledgable persons on
OT in any given subject
irrelevant. How about LoTR, or religous mythology particularly Celtic?
Also, if you were an intellectual you'd understand that just because you don't or aren't capable of understanding someone's argument does not mean that the argument is incorrect, especially when the argument is articulated clearly and logically (as Fred's was).
Also wrong, because someone misinterprets someones meaning has neither any bearing on the term intelectual or any meaning in terms of anything other than the fact that you have misinterpreted the authors intent, this is a classic and patent non sequitor.
And you also have to be able to articulate sentences and arguments clearly in your native tongue at least, which you thus far have shown yourself to be utterly incapable of doing.
Also wrong another non sequitor. And you haven't porven that I don't, only that I can't spell so wrong.
On the larger subject of whether any CFCers are intellectuals, I'd say Fred is the closest thing in CFC to an intellectual. What you seem to see as some sort of sophistry and word-play is really usually a nuanced and logical argument.
You two need to get a room
I'll grant that there may be some intellectual types that are less well known (some of the math people perhaps, as well as maybe few of the History forum regulars). And there's also a certain geophysicist from Plano, but apparently his work on earth is done so I don't think he'll be posting here anymore anyways.
Another error based on faulty definition. Non sequitor
But declaring yourself an intellectual despite what anyone (in fact, probably everyone) may think smacks of arrogance and an over-estimation of your abilities.
Resort to the popular, or it would be if it wasn't also a non sequitor.
I confess, calling Fred (and Garry) an intellectual is the only thing that brings comfort to me
Really get a room.
My general criteria are:
1. The ability to clearly express themselves in the language of the field in which they are an intellectual (so e.g. Saul Kripke is still an intellectual even though his speaking style is very strange, because he communicates his logical and linguistic ideas very well).
2. Solid knowledge of the field(s) in which they are an intellectual. This almost ALWAYS amounts to graduate training in the field, or at least in a related field. This is because many amateurs tend to vastly overestimate their insights into the field when they've had no formal training.
Also based on an erroneous definition, clarifying that you have no idea what the word means and thus have been comitting a logical fallacy ever since your first post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
Thus non sequitor.
Sidhe, you, and quite a few others around here, should learn actual logic. If you're going to point out logical errors in somebody's posts, why not do it using logic, instead of a single statement with no justification?
That said, I think you entirely misinterpreted Downtown's statement anyway. Descartes was considered by his peers as a great intellectual because of what he did, not because he felt the need to convince them he was one. It's just another type of respect. You don't earn respect by trying to argue with people about how much respect you deserve, you earn respect because your actions, your thoughts, your words, etc are respectable.
I think of people as intellectuals because I respect their intellect, not because they tell me how clever they are. Feeling the need to repeatedly tell me how clever they are can be a sign that their intellect isn't worthy of respect. If they can't earn my respect by actually demonstrating their intellect, then they can't earn it by arguing about how clever they are. Which is what I think Downtown meant with his statement.
Using 'intellectual' in the sense of 'somebody whose intellect I respect', some people at CFC are intellectuals. Most are not.
A the logcial fallacy is one of making out that you must not be an intelectual if you cannot convince someone you are,so case closed, I even put up the definition of non sequitor, but sadly downtown chose to play dumb.
It doesn't matter what he meant, it's a logical fallacy to assume someone isn't an intelectual just because someone else: fifty says so or he thinks you need to be able to convince people or you need to be able to spell, Mob Boss's entire contribution is essential a matter of his opinion, thus it's pinch of salt time, not to mention the swathes of logical fallacies such as redefining the word intelectual as meaning someone who reads books, where to begin.
I think I've made a solid case in defense of the word intelectual and myself as one, and frankly since I made the assertion I have seen no reason to be disuaded from it, other than fifty acting like a five year old as usual.
And Sanabas as long as you make it clear your defintition is false I couldn't care less, really.
Under the definition I am an intellectual. That is all there is to it. This is sophistry and fifty's contribution isn't even worthy of that term as by assosciation we'd be making equal to a sophist which as far as I can tell he doesn't warrant from the contributions on this thread.
Now can we proceed with the most widely used definition or does someone else want to redefine the word?
EDITED: because I damn well wanted to
