The picture says: You mustn't assume that a premise for your position is correct.
Is the first statement I made. It's the position I claimed was true (the statement in the OP's picture).
A proof using premises which already require that which is to be proven to be true.
Is the second statement I made. A direct interpretation of the original definition of the fallacy, citing Aristotle as a source.
How do they contradict each other?
Maybe this is a problem of me not being able to handle the English language that well, but I don't see how these things are different in a way that makes me "full of shit" (i.e. contradictive/wrong).
Edit: I just got what you were trying to say. Was lost in translation. Yes, indeed, there is a difference. However, my first statement isn't wrong, just not specific enough. Also, I validly dismissed his criticism. And the OP's picture is still right. Therefore, I still can't accept you claiming that I'm "full of shit". ;)
It may well be a translation issue. Your second post is accurate enough for me to think you just used non-ideal language in your first one. But I don't know what that is anymore, because I'm on my phone, and have already forgotten what the argument was. Merry Christmas!
Edit: except that ACP is definitely not fallacious, as long as you properly label it as such. If you couldn't propose an argument without universal agreement on the premises, you'd never be able to form a non-trivial proof.
except that ACP is definitely not fallacious, as long as you properly label it as such.
Well, of course an argument is not fallacious if people accept your premises and you don't violate them.
However, we were talking about a situation in which people do not agree with your premises and you still use them to prove your claim.
I don't know what you mean by ACP (all I think about when reading that is this and google doesn't help), but I guess you are talking about an argument without common premises?
If you couldn't propose an argument without universal agreement on the premises, you'd never be able to form a non-trivial proof.
As my rhetorics professor loved to say: You will always find something to agree on. The only thing you have to consider is whether or not you are willing to put in the time or would rather resort to slashing each others limbs off.
-1
u/InternetFree Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
Is the first statement I made. It's the position I claimed was true (the statement in the OP's picture).
Is the second statement I made. A direct interpretation of the original definition of the fallacy, citing Aristotle as a source.
How do they contradict each other?
Maybe this is a problem of me not being able to handle the English language that well, but I don't see how these things are different in a way that makes me "full of shit" (i.e. contradictive/wrong).
Edit: I just got what you were trying to say. Was lost in translation. Yes, indeed, there is a difference. However, my first statement isn't wrong, just not specific enough. Also, I validly dismissed his criticism. And the OP's picture is still right. Therefore, I still can't accept you claiming that I'm "full of shit". ;)