Originally posted by finneganI ask you a yes/no question which requires a 1 word answer. Instead you type out 506 words without answering my question. 🙁
I currently favour Scientific Realism.
When I was religious, I was inclined to the faith over belief approach and what led me away from religion was the transparent weakness of faith as a bulwark against being deceived. Anger against manipulators and lies has remained a basic aspect of my temperament. That attitude made me sceptical towards versions of ...[text shortened]... nd to defend yourself against any and all critical questioning by means of a wall of skepticism.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI answered you in five words. Afterwards I explained my answer.
I ask you a yes/no question which requires a 1 word answer. Instead you type out 506 words without answering my question. 🙁
I do not consider "yes" or "no" to be sufficiently clear answers - indeed, I do not think either would be a truthful aswer - and I consider my five word answer more meaningful.
I do not have to consent to have my opinions framed by you in a way that I do not accept.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat you mean is, 'you' require a simple yes or no answer. (No doubt knowing that any full answer would be completely over your head).
I see you are always quoting someone else. I am interested in your beliefs if you have any. Do you believe that the things your quote are universally true, if not what is the point of quoting them?
My question to you is: Do YOU believe there is no absolute truth? It requires a simple yes or no answer.
Originally posted by finneganAnswering a yes/no question with 5 words that do not contain either 'yes' or 'no' is very smart indeed. It's called evading the question.
I answered you in five words. Afterwards I explained my answer.
I do not consider "yes" or "no" to be sufficiently clear answers - indeed, I do not think either would be a truthful aswer - and I consider my five word answer more meaningful.
I do not have to consent to have my opinions framed by you in a way that I do not accept.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHave you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no. Anything else, including not responding to this post in a timely fashion, or using more than one word in your reply, will be considered evading the question (which will be taken as an admission that you haven't stopped beating your wife).
Answering a yes/no question with 5 words that do not contain either 'yes' or 'no' is very smart indeed. It's called evading the question.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is a different type of question to the one I asked. My question was about someone's belief in the existence of something, which could either be positive (yes) or negative (no). Is does not presuppose that someone is doing something which they are not. You either believe something or you don't. You either beat your wife or you don't. So the correct question that you should have asked was do you beat your wife? There are only two options, yes or no.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no. Anything else, including not responding to this post in a timely fashion, or using more than one word in your reply, will be considered evading the question (which will be taken as an admission that you haven't stopped beating your wife).
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe problem for finnegan is that if he answers either "yes" or "no" then he has to accept your agenda of adding qualifiers to the word "truth". To avoid your agenda finnegan basically explained what his criteria for truth are (scientific realism). If he answers "yes" to your question then he's accepted that the word "absolute truth" has meaning beyond simply "truth" - if he answers "no" then there is a risk that you'll interpret that as meaning that some truths are "relative", when what he means is that the qualifier's pointless.
Answering a yes/no question with 5 words that do not contain either 'yes' or 'no' is very smart indeed. It's called evading the question.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat agenda are you talking about?
The problem for finnegan is that if he answers either "yes" or "no" then he has to accept your agenda of adding qualifiers to the word "truth". To avoid your agenda finnegan basically explained what his criteria for truth are (scientific realism). If he answers "yes" to your question then he's accepted that the word "absolute truth" has meaning beyond ...[text shortened]... s meaning that some truths are "relative", when what he means is that the qualifier's pointless.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI ask you a yes/no question which requires a 1 word answer. Instead you type out ... (I didn't bother to count) words without answering my question. 🙂
This is a different type of question to the one I asked. My question was about someone's belief in the existence of something, which could either be positive (yes) or negative (no). Is does not presuppose that someone is doing something which they are not. You either believe something or you don't. You either beat your wife or you don't. So the correct ...[text shortened]... ion that you should have asked was do you beat your wife? There are only two options, yes or no.
You loose.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Answering a yes/no question with 5 words that do not contain either 'yes' or 'no' is very smart indeed. It's called evading the question.
"Is there anything more inconsistent with civil conversation, and the end of all debate, than not to take an answer, though ever so full and satisfactory, but still to go on with the dispute as long as equivocal sounds can furnish a 'medius terminus', a term to wrangle with on the one side or a distinction on the other?......for this in short is the way and perfection of logical disputes, that the opponent never takes any answer, nor the respondent ever yield to any argument."
John Locke, Thoughts Concerning Education, 1690
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganWhat are your thoughts on pessimistic induction?"Is there anything more inconsistent with civil conversation, and the end of all debate, than not to take an answer, though ever so full and satisfactory, but still to go on with the dispute as long as equivocal sounds can furnish a 'medius terminus', a term to wrangle with on the one side or a distinction on the other?......for this in short is the ...[text shortened]... espondent ever yield to any argument."
John Locke, Thoughts Concerning Education, 1690
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour agenda of adding qualifiers like "absolute" or "relative" to the word "truth". You've been doing it all through this thread and another one. We explain why we think it's problematic and then you say: "So you think there are no absolute truths?" . You have an agenda of qualifying truth.
What agenda are you talking about?
2 edits
sonship:
To whom am I ultimately responsible ? Anyone? Someone with limited authority or unlimited authority ?
Just myself ?
Just society ?
Just man ?
Which man then ? Hegel or Hugh He ...[text shortened]... or Oprah [edited] ? googlefudge or Socrates ?
To whom, if anyone, will I ultimately be accountable ?[/b]
finnigan:
It is not a simple question.
Responsible for what?
sonship:
Okay. I would start here -
To whom am I ultimately responsible to for actions that my body performed?
That would mean include the hands, the feet, the tongue, eyes, and all the parts of my body.
Responsible for deeds done in my body would be my reply.
finnigan:
You are weird. I see nothing here to discuss.
sonship:
Is that my problem ?
You asked "Responsible for WHAT?"
I replied the actions of our body.
What's weird ? Your question ?
Robbing requires action of the body.
Gossip requires an action of the body.
Murder, adultery, slander, stealing - the action of some member/s of our body.
They put people in JAIL to limit the actions of their, you guessed it, BODY.
finnigan:
Yes.
Care to explain why my supplying the answer to your question is my problem?
Don't play weird. What's your problem with the concept of accountability for the things done with and in our bodies ?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSome people believe truth is relative (what is true for you may not be true for others) while others believe that truth is absolute (what is true for you is true for everyone else). Is there another view about truth that I am not aware of?
Your agenda of adding qualifiers like "absolute" or "relative" to the word "truth". You've been doing it all through this thread and another one. We explain why we think it's problematic and then you say: "So you think there are no absolute truths?" . You have an agenda of qualifying truth.