Shame on me for not knowing literally every definitions of every words in the english language
No, shame on you for expecting me to provide definitions that any native speaker should know, instead of your using a dictionary.
As for the argument, no i don't literally see a probably (more like "very probably" here). It's implied.
Nothing
implies it; you just
assume that no one
intended what their words actually
meant when those meanings fly in the face of your claim.
Like, if i say that "humans have 5 fingers on each hands", are you going to screech because i didn't say "humans have generally 5 fingers on generally each hands" ?
The proper analogy here is my saying that I met a man with four fingers on his hand, and then some folks' replying that I didn't because people have five on each hand, and then your claim that they merely said that I
probably didn't, and that the evidence that I did see such a man “doesn't matter” to the question of probability. I'm not going to screech, but I'm going to note how you're responding as fools.
Or are you intelligent enough to understand that generally in the first sentence are implied ?
You're
begging the question here; tying an insult to it doesn't make it any more fallacious.
Unless they said that the server can't fail, they didn't say the server can't fail.
And now you're attempting a dishonest substitution. What they argued was not that the server could not fail, but that it
did not fail, and that the failure must be at my end or with my specific network.
Which is why when i replied
You don't understand the very concept of generalization. A statement of form
Sometimes X
is a generalization of "X happened once"
You dropped it and never replied to it ? Seems more like you're the one who doesn't understand generalization :/
I simply forgot to reply to it. But, no, it's
not a generalization in the sense of “generalization” under which your earlier
very funny how you generalize and judge with your one weird case
works. Logically, even just one instance
proves that sometimes
X. (Consult any standard text on logical quantifiers.) But you were
objecting because you mistook my claim for an
inductive inference;
that is the sort of generalization in question. Substituting a different definition of “generalize” would be
dishonest equivocation.
You didn't answer my question about "Which is more likely" in my example.
I didn't literally
answer it because I explained its flaw: “
How things
can fail bears upon the likelihood of one failure versus another.” You attempt to arrive at probabilities while ignoring
how things
can fail. One arrives at
actual probabilities by taking into account available information, especially information that constrains the possibilities. When a problem might at some end, one examines that end to see what could produce such a failure; if one removes from plausibility everything at that end which is a plausible cause, then it is no longer plausible that the problem is at that end.
I also fail to see how it's dumb to say that because it didn't happened to anyone else, it's probably on your end.
First, because there were three ways given for registering, and the people who actually revealed with option they used indicated that they used the
first option. We don't even know whether anyone else tried to use the Facebook app. Second, and more importantly, because you didn't grasp the significance of the information that I provided. Values were to be delivered to the server by way of a GET request, I reached the server, and got a blank page. That alone sharply limits the
possibilities. If that was just a way-station from which I was supposed to be forwarded, then I would have got a warning from my browser. So, something other than a blank page should have resulted, from some combination of server-side code and of JavaScript. I enabled JavaScript, and checked to see whether any sites were being blocked; they weren't. The server just wasn't delivering what it was supposed to deliver. And everything that I've just stated was either in my earlier comments, or something already known to anyone who anyone with enough competence to actually engage in an argument about such matters.
Now, I did go ahead and try some other things. For example, some web coders code don't write proper JavaScript, and if their code works on a Chromium-based browser, they call it a night; so I tried a Chromium-based browser. But note that, if that had resolved the problem, the problem (bad JavaScript) would still have been at their end, though it wouldn't be noticed anyone using Chrome, Edge, Opera, &c.
Unless you have error messages (or you have instructions so that i can replicate it, now that i think about it), that a very reasonable take.
Nope. It's the take of someone who doesn't understand these things, but still feels entitled to make declarations about probabilities.
