Originally posted by Tayken
View Post
How did you "exposed your (my) lack of understanding of real logic"? Please do share you definition of "real logic" then? How is my argument illogical then? Do you have some magical ability to show everyone, every lawyer, every justice and the government how their calculations are wrong?
I hope you say that to the judge hearing your matter in oral arguments. Please do let us know what the judge says and orders.
/popcorn
Good luck with your "logic" on that argument. It will fall on deaf ears and come with a costs award against you as well probably.
The fact is, this is somehow a weird mathematical oddity. I actually fought against this idea when I first heard it, because the setoff just "seemed" right. But when trying to *actually* find out where the math was wrong, its inherent correctness revealed itself.
Feel free to provide the formula that demonstrates the flaw.
I posit that there are not thousands and thousands of applications merely because it's not obvious at first glance. Look at your reaction -- you still haven't suggested a single mathematical counterexample to suggest why the setoff is fair.
You are the one coming forward with "magical evidence" (read: magical thinking) that you have found some flaw, some problem some "injustice" in how offset calculations are made.
We would all love to see the error in the calculation. I am no PHD in pure math nor am I going to claim it is "perfect" but, no one, despite the hundreds of people who come here lamenting and claiming they have found some error be it in Divorcemate, the SS guide lines, CS guide lines, etc have provided any cogent and relevant evidence in support of their argument.
Yet you play the "emotional" card to try to throw me off balance or something. You may be a good "live" debater, using psychological tactics to win, rather than just plain logic; but I'm here trying to find flaws in my logic, and you've contributed nothing so far.
Socratic questioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't have any "magical powers" as you are suggesting to "throw you off" or using "psychological tactics" to "win". I am using Soctractic questioning, the other poster who does this is Mess.
In fact, you have provided nothing in support of your argument as you can't answer with supporting evidence any of the basic questions brought forward:
1. Please "clarify your thinking".
2. I am challenging your assumptions.
3. Asking you for the evidence in support of your argument.
4. Providing alternative viewpoints.
5. Identifying implications and consequences you may face in your argument.
6. Questioning the question.
PS: I am not as smart or "magical" as you are trying to project in that last statement. I am just well researched in Family Law and regurgitating information you can find yourself easily through applying Google search and the search on CanLII. So, don't for one second think I am some mind controlling expert or something I am not.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Comment