Quote:
Originally Posted by mfeltiii
WRONG! YOUR logic is inexcusably flawed.
"having a good watch on your wrist shows character and class"
This statement says without equivocation that A = B
Your argument is that because he said A=B and I pointed it out as not universally true (and also unrelated) that I therefore said that B can never = A. IE anyone who wears a nice watch can't be classy because I said wearing a nice watch doesn't make you classy.
A very basic error in logic. This is taught in high school btw.
This is just the first error in your logic, you then went on to shift the noun the adjective classy was describing from the person wearing the watch to the watch itself "no pants can be classy" If you would have made only the first error, you would have said; nobody who wears pants can be classy.
It was also not lost on anyone that you chose to ignore the more offensive word of character (moral excellence and firmness:websters) from your reply as this would have been harder to defend (incorectly as you may have done it)
Its one thing to think you know what you're talking about and be embarrassingly wrong, its another to attack with ignorance and do it in a santimonious way.  :  |
That's great! made me lol.
