Again, you flatter yourself that you present “argument.”
You snipe, you erect straw men, you draw invidious, preposterous conclusions. You do not ask sincere questions.
You are profoundly intellectually dishonest. Which I can prove, and have proven many times before.
Is the following syllogism formally valid or invalid? (If you answer with anything but the single word “yes,” you are intellectually dishonest. [See? I’ve even sneaked you the answer.])
—Sally is the mother of Sam.
—Sam is a welder.
—Sally is the mother of a welder.
Hey, a Roman Catholic priest wrote this....
No Pope has the power to abrogate an ancient rite of the Church. This is why Pius V did not touch any rite older than 200 years, and it is why Paul VI never dared to abrogate the Missal of 1962.
To which I asked you...the Roman Catholic priest...."So anything less than 200 yrs old is fair game? "
You posted the original comment that lead to the question which is a fair one based on YOUR comment.
If you can't answer it...and I doubt you can, perhaps you should withdraw the post.
It wouldn't be the first time you advanced a position and had to amend what you posted. Probably won't be the last.
Sam existed before Sally was born
Kinda messes up your lame ‘logic’ attempt.
HMMMmmm...