J
Jed Stephen
Guest
explanation to this fallacy Hi guys, this is what we call a MATERIAL FALLACY.
**
The puke we spit if we feel nauseous is food.
Food is delicious.
Therefore, puke is delicious.
**
Can anyone give me an explanation to THAT?
***********
By the way, this is somewhat similar to the "3 guys in a motel" riddle. Its what others call "Addition-Subtraction Fallacy".
***********
Now, i really need an explanaton from that puke thing i mentioned above. Thanks. Best answer gets a big 10!
Which is why I'm asking an explanation to this fallacy...(IN YOUR OWN WORDS). In mathematics we call this transitive. Where A = B and B = C, therefore A = C.
but then, if in math that 2+2=4 and 4=8-4, therefore, 2+2=8-4. But why here, puke=food , food=delicious, PUKE=DELICIOUS?!? Explain this fallacy pls!
Yes yes i know puke is not delicious. But we have to follow the rule of transitivity. But this rule about this puke is not true, therefore, we violate the rule of transitivity. But we cant just violate it just because of that puke thing. Please explain.
According to jwilliamcostello:
The puke we spit if we feel nauseous WAS food.
Food is delicious.
Therefore, puke WAS delicious the first time, but it no longer is.
**
The puke cannot be delicious the first time coz its already puke.
**
But guys, please remember: THE FOOD BEFORE IT BECAME PUKE IS NOT ANYWAY RELATED TO THIS PROBLEM. It's already a fact that it was food. But the problem is, why in this rule of (If A=B, and B=C, therefore, A=C), we cannot follow this rule because puke isnt delicious. But, we just cannot violate it by that because it is invalid. Violating such rules is invalid. There must be an explanation.
MC Hummer, we all know that puke is from food. Therefore, it is still food. And food is delicious. So, in following the rule stated, puke should be delicious, but the fact is, it is not. Why?
**
The puke we spit if we feel nauseous is food.
Food is delicious.
Therefore, puke is delicious.
**
Can anyone give me an explanation to THAT?
***********
By the way, this is somewhat similar to the "3 guys in a motel" riddle. Its what others call "Addition-Subtraction Fallacy".
***********
Now, i really need an explanaton from that puke thing i mentioned above. Thanks. Best answer gets a big 10!
Which is why I'm asking an explanation to this fallacy...(IN YOUR OWN WORDS). In mathematics we call this transitive. Where A = B and B = C, therefore A = C.
but then, if in math that 2+2=4 and 4=8-4, therefore, 2+2=8-4. But why here, puke=food , food=delicious, PUKE=DELICIOUS?!? Explain this fallacy pls!
Yes yes i know puke is not delicious. But we have to follow the rule of transitivity. But this rule about this puke is not true, therefore, we violate the rule of transitivity. But we cant just violate it just because of that puke thing. Please explain.
According to jwilliamcostello:
The puke we spit if we feel nauseous WAS food.
Food is delicious.
Therefore, puke WAS delicious the first time, but it no longer is.
**
The puke cannot be delicious the first time coz its already puke.
**
But guys, please remember: THE FOOD BEFORE IT BECAME PUKE IS NOT ANYWAY RELATED TO THIS PROBLEM. It's already a fact that it was food. But the problem is, why in this rule of (If A=B, and B=C, therefore, A=C), we cannot follow this rule because puke isnt delicious. But, we just cannot violate it by that because it is invalid. Violating such rules is invalid. There must be an explanation.
MC Hummer, we all know that puke is from food. Therefore, it is still food. And food is delicious. So, in following the rule stated, puke should be delicious, but the fact is, it is not. Why?