I can say green cats jump off buildings in the winter. Because the cat is green he will jump off the building in the winter. Because the premise is true, the conclusion is true. But how many of us actually seen a green cat jump off a building in the winter? My point is this guy talking about logic seems to type very eloquently, but seems pretty close minded. So if you want to talk about logic, understand what it means first.
Assuming that's directed at me, unless you're going back further, the referrals I made to logic were not applications of it but comments on his misuse of same, rather like your cute little attempt at an ad homonum there, which is both wrong as a logical fallacy and based on a faulty premise. One was quite clearly referring to his use of an apparent straw man argument in that it was so far removed from the idea it was taken from as to amount to the same thing. And that's without going into the digression about children in the street he tacked on at the end.
He's been doing that right along, using appeals to popularity for instance, etc., and his entire argument is based on flawed comparisons and reasoning yet strangely I don't see you calling him on any of it.
It's called an analogy. You know what that is, right? Planets don't have brakes or accelerators or lose control on slick patches either yet the original analogy I was expanding on still holds as an expression of relative velocity. Likewise mine was intended solely and explicitly to address the notion of imparted velocity, which it did adequately. Implied ideal conditions should've been assumed, as made explicit in the preceding example with the gun. I could add however that gravity, angle and refraction all effect light as well.
A generalization, after all this talk about logic? For some things maybe but not for all. There's nothing I used that wasn't cited from an external source.
Logic is dependent on facts. As available facts change, so does the conclusion.
Edited by Oniomancer, 20 June 2012 - 03:37 AM.