lame things dont make any sense

That isn't always true. Documentaries and accounting both usually make pretty good sense.

Why am I even replying to this? Is there really not a better use of my time?

Thanks a ton, Moegreche! This page has cleared up a lot for me, and I'm interested for more. Do you know when your next chapter will come?

@thepunisher93

By the way, that logic is not correct.

Just because lame things don't make any sense, it doesn't mean that everything that doesn't make sense is lame. If you said, "Things that don't make any sense are lame" then your conclusion would be correct.

^ Is that right, Moegreche?

That's right, snowguy. Thepunisher committed the logical fallacy of confirming the consequent. Because this is a formal fallacy, his argument is invalid. That means we could come up with premises that are true that would, by his argument, generate a false conclusion.
The counterexample would simply be a page that doesn't make any sense, but isn't lame. This is completely compatible with his 2nd premise. Fun times.

I don't really have a question, but I have to share that I really love what you've put on here.
I'm sorry if I'm cluttering your thread by putting this =PPP

Balls are bouncy
Bowling Balls are balls.
Bowling Balls are probably bouncy

Everyone knows a bowling ball cant bounce so it probably shouldn't b called a ball but it is because it has the same characteristics but not (ex.) weight.

Wait a second! You're problem is in the statement "Balls are bouncy", I think. All balls (all objects in general) have an amount of elasticity, but some items have less than others. "Ball" refers to a round object (in simple terms), but has nothing to do with how elastic an object it. So, I believe that would mean that your conclusion is logically true, but that your first statement "Balls are bouncy" may not necessarily true, since all balls are obviously not bouncy. Phew! :O

I'm not even sure if everything I said about logic is right. Was it right, Moegreche?

I'm not even sure if everything I said about logic is right. Was it right, Moegreche?

Seems right to me. Since calemango's first premise is false, the argument is valid, but not sound. Although his conclusion makes the argument seem like an inductive, rather than deductive one. If that's the case, then the following would be a good argument:

1) Most balls are bouncy.
2) Bowling balls are balls.
3) Therefore, bowling balls are probably bouncy.

This is a sound and cogent inductive argument (assuming that most balls are bouncy - I'm not sure this is true, but it seems reasonable.
With inductive arguments, you can have a false conclusion. These kinds of arguments don't guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but only make it more likely. I never really went over inductive arguments, even though these are the most common kind of argument you see in everyday life. The reason is that the analysis of these arguments is highly problematic and complicated. Trying to get an argument like this into a logical form turns into quite a mess. For starters, even capturing what is meant by 'most' is logical terms is very tricky.

Everyone knows a bowling ball cant bounce

I rolled one badly earlier today and it bounced a good 2 feet.

@Moegreche

Okay! Thank you very much for explaining that!

When you say inductive and deductive, I'm not completely sure what you mean.

This is what I think I know:
Deductive conclusions are those that are undeniably true based on the premises.
Inductive conclusions are conclusions that may be true based on the premises, but may be determined by other information as well.

^Is this understanding correct?