Fallout 76

its not a final determination unless you cut it off

 

That's why you wouldn't be. Terrible parents don't care. Those who care aren't terrible. Bad maybe, but not terrible.

 

The same as everyone else who spends an inordinate amount of time on Internet message boards, I'd assume.

Edit: I definitely quoted the wrong post here, and I'm way too lazy to correct it. So this was @ you, Indy.

 

I was really perplexed, haha

 

I think fl0at could be among the best turtles I've ever met.

 

Thank you. That means a lot.

I mean, I could do better at falling off a log when startled, but, everyone should seek improvement.

 

You think those falls are accidents? That's a masterful stratagem earned over millennia of evolution to fall off logs like that.

 

Evolution isn’t predictive. It was an accident that caught on.

 

Cool non sequitur.

 

I wasn't being serious.

I intend to have children at some point, and I'm sure I'll do just fine as a parent.

 

You wouldn't fall off a log. You'd plow through a log in under a day. Then trek to Shell and pick up another.

You'd make the finest turtle there's ever been.

 

And spend hours a day debating the definition of "slow"

 

Please explain how me saying it was an accident, in response to your doubting that it was an accident does not logically follow from the previous statement. Then please explain how a "masterful stratagem" isn't an attempt... to create... a masterful strategy... ie: be predictive.

Then please explain that you do in fact know what fallacies are, and that you do in fact know how to accurately apply them.

Because I don't think you do.

 

Exactly what a fantastic turtle would say.

 

They aren't just falling off because they are clutzes, they are sunbathing in those spots from which they can access the water rapidly as a means of escaping predators. Therefore, an event of them entering the water isn't an accident. It is a product of evolution. It is not uncommon to refer to physical or behavior adaptations as "strategies" or one being a "stratagem." Example: https://ethology.eu/evolutionary-strategies/

I never claimed evolution was predictive, or guided. Therefore, you informing me that evolution is random in response to me saying them perching near water is a product of evolution "did not follow." If any behavior that is evolved gets to be considered a random event each time that behavior is exhibited because evolution itself is a random process, well shit I guess everything is random and nothing is predictable. I'm sure my dog will whistle like a canary any minute.

It's a simple misunderstanding of intended context. If you want to e-rumble over it, so be it.

 

Very little of this is true, but the most egregious is your defense of the use of non sequitur. If all disagreement “does not follow,” then all debate is a fallacy. And that isn’t true, because then fallacy has no meaning.

Yea, those falls are accidents. All evolution is random. Everything is random.

You may still measure what you know, but your prediction has a level of error, and should.

You may predict your dog will not sing like a canary; and then I come along and modify a gene or two. Now what?

 

All of it is true. Your response did not logically connect to what I said. That's the definition of the phrase.

You're wrong. You are digging for an angle. You aren't going to find it. That you are throwing in gene editing in a conversation about evolution demonstrates how feverishly you are pawing for a way to get on top. But you don't get on top by digging.

Float: "But what if I dig through the Earth and emerge on the other side!"

Good one.

 

Individuals don’t evolve. Populations evolve. So discussing your dog, an individual, during a discussion of populations “does not follow.”

But gene editing does.

There is no digging. Evolution is not predictive, it does not deal with individuals, it is completely random, and it is observable, thus can be described. A human attempting to “predict” the next step is nothing more than a description; and those include error.

The response logically followed; you are still defending an argument that deals with prediction, and piling on by adding in individuals.

Not only did it follow, it still applies.

 

All men die.
Mike is a man.
—————————
Giraffes eat leaves. (Mike will die.)

Giraffes eat leaves is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

That’s a non sequitur.

That something “does not follow” is not a non sequitur. That you follow a discussion of populations with a statement of the individual is not a non sequitur, it is simply ignorance or carelessness.

Because no conclusion was made.

You have convinced me. You have no idea what fallacies are.

 

I’m like 90% sure the adjective form of phallus is phallic.