Post by jazzyjess on Mar 6, 2010 20:51:58 GMT 10
Title: 4. Modus Tollens
Rating: G
Length: 223
Competitor: Raoul
Round/Fight: 2/A
Summary: The application of the method of denying.
Note: You may blame my philosophy exam for the following series. In fact, please blame that exam with every atom of your existence, enough so that it will award me an A out of guilt. Thanks in advance.
-
Lesson Three: Modus Tollens. If P then Q; not Q, therefore not P.
You have not raised any objections as of yet – none, at least, that I have heard – and so I am assuming that you accept my reasoning. Do you see why I love philosophy so? These are perhaps the simplest form of argument and yet they are bringing me ever so steadily to the conclusion I seek to prove against you. No, this is not an inquisition. What would even make you ask a thing like that? Of course I believe in your happiness. With your permission, I will continue. Thank you.
The next step in the logical sequence of determining your affairs was, of course, to apply the method of denying. Until that set of particular circumstances had come about, I had been wanting of a good example that must necessarily make sense in a given situation, but that problem was solved as soon as I caught on to your game. The method of denying is quite simple – continuing in the assumption that if you had been sneaking out then you had been meeting someone, it only makes sense that if you were not meeting someone, you would not be sneaking out.
Ah, there we are – I see it’s putting a bit of colour into your cheeks. You will see, my dear, that though you may wish to, you cannot argue with me.
Rating: G
Length: 223
Competitor: Raoul
Round/Fight: 2/A
Summary: The application of the method of denying.
Note: You may blame my philosophy exam for the following series. In fact, please blame that exam with every atom of your existence, enough so that it will award me an A out of guilt. Thanks in advance.
-
Lesson Three: Modus Tollens. If P then Q; not Q, therefore not P.
You have not raised any objections as of yet – none, at least, that I have heard – and so I am assuming that you accept my reasoning. Do you see why I love philosophy so? These are perhaps the simplest form of argument and yet they are bringing me ever so steadily to the conclusion I seek to prove against you. No, this is not an inquisition. What would even make you ask a thing like that? Of course I believe in your happiness. With your permission, I will continue. Thank you.
The next step in the logical sequence of determining your affairs was, of course, to apply the method of denying. Until that set of particular circumstances had come about, I had been wanting of a good example that must necessarily make sense in a given situation, but that problem was solved as soon as I caught on to your game. The method of denying is quite simple – continuing in the assumption that if you had been sneaking out then you had been meeting someone, it only makes sense that if you were not meeting someone, you would not be sneaking out.
Ah, there we are – I see it’s putting a bit of colour into your cheeks. You will see, my dear, that though you may wish to, you cannot argue with me.
Maybe once we'd have seen it during Smackdown!