[Springfield Reformer]

Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments.

I know you have moved on, and that's fine, but I thought you would like to know that I researched this issue of non-argument versus invalid argument, and I now agree with you. It was a colloquialism to me, but a formal logician's perspective would necessarily be that the two are distinct, though I have read some who suggest that a non sequitur can occur as either a non-argument or an invalid argument. So the boundaries are not always pristine.

In any event, as one who claims to understand formal logic, you must also recognize it is fallacious to dismiss an argument by shifting the focus to an error of the presenter in an unrelated subject matter. It's just another form of abusive ad hominem.

So if you are ever willing to reopen discussion on the basis of substantive argument rather than an unending stream of personal attack, I would be glad to reengage. We'll leave the light on for ya.

Peace,

SR

[dsc]

“So if you are ever willing to reopen discussion on the basis of substantive argument rather than an unending stream of personal attack”

Why would I want to discuss anything with a liar?

I have posted no stream of personal attack, unending or otherwise.