>Bob: False premises lead to absurd conclusions. Therefore your demand that I agree to a "hypothetical" that we both know is false, is an attempt to pull a fast one somehow.
edit: not begging the question is literal racism.
Why should that be a concern? Are you afraid you'll be forced to accept their conclusion?
As per the great-great-grandparent post [0], the conclusion under discussion is based on a premise they just made up and that both speakers "know is wrong". Why should I be afraid I'll be forced to accept their conclusion? Is that a property of arguments using made-up premises? I was under the impression that such arguments were bullshit.
I think I've been pretty clear in my desire to not engage in bullshit arguments in which people are allowed to make up premises; you're the one who framed it as a "concern" I might be having. It seemed like you were initially suggesting that that was unreasonable. From your response I guess it was just a non sequitur.
What's a "non sequeter", by the way?
> What's a "non sequeter", by the way?
Lol. Yeah, very clear.
Bob: P is False, there's no point
Alice: It's just a starting point for my argument
Bob: And what are you trying to go with your argument?
Alice: A proof by contradiction
Bob: A proof by contradiction assumes not(X), shows that it leads to a contradiction, therefore proving not(X) is false, and X is true. In this case assuming P to perform proof by contradiction means you will prove P is False. If that's all you want to do, there is no need as I am already in agreement that P is false.
There's a difference between believing something is true and having a proof.
Bob: that's bullshit
Alice: humor me
Bob: no
Alice: I have a proof that P!=NP
Bob: I already know that
Alice: You don't, you just guess, I have a proof
Bob: whatever, go away