2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou could try to break the circularity of assuming A to deduce A!
If you can't see how lying undermines the trust between individuals, then there seems to be little point in trying to convince you otherwise.
If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies."
You could also actually address my arguments instead of constantly repeating A.
Given my cynicism that this will not happen then yes - we should just walk away from this one.
For your edit, my last detailed clarification of the "ridiculously contrived" scenario addresses that point - you also assert "most" as opposed to "all"!
4 edits
Originally posted by AgergThe second paragraph that you saw was posted before I finished making my point which was in the edit. Evidently after my paste the focus was given to the "Post" button and was executed upon hitting "Enter" instead of serving as a line feed.
You could try to break the circularity of assuming A to deduce A!
You could also actually address my arguments instead of constantly repeating A.
Given my cynicism that this will not happen then yes - we should just walk away from this one.
For your edit, my last detailed clarification of the "ridiculously contrived" scenario addresses that point.
Maybe what keeps eluding you is that this issue is really about understanding the "right" action for the speaker, i.e., "What is the right action for the speaker?". The speaker should tell the truth.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt may well be the case that sometimes an optimal solution (some particular truthful statement) may be found; but that is not to say a sub-optimal solution (lying) is always worse than the default state of receiving neither a lie or the truth.
The second paragraph that you saw was posted before I finished making my point which was in the edit. Evidently after my paste the focus was given to the "Post" button and was executed upon hitting "Enter" instead of serving as a line feed.
Maybe what keeps eluding you is that this issue is really about understanding the "right" action for the speaker, i.e., "What is the right action for the speaker?". The speaker should tell the truth.
I need not dwell on the optimum solution however - I'm dealing with a logical statement that all lies told to any person X are detrimental to X. The standard method to defeat that line is via targetted counter-examples.
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergAnd the point you seem to keep missing is the the issue is really about what is the "right" action for the speaker given that he is not omniscient. The speaker can only act from his limited knowledge.
It may well be the case that sometimes an optimal solution (some particular truthful statement) may be found; but that is not to say a sub-optimal solution (lying) is always worse than the default state of receiving neither a lie or the truth.
I need not dwell on the optimum solution however - I'm dealing with a logical statement that all lies told to any p ...[text shortened]... re detrimental to X. The standard method to defeat that line is via targetted counter-examples.
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell given that I keep "missing the point" it pains me to understand why you would waste your valuable time drilling some sense into a nitwit such as myself who lacks mastery of the winning formula of restating A for any argument against A.
And the point you seem to keep missing is the the issue is really about what is the "right" action for the speaker given that he is not omniscient. The speaker can only act from his limited knowledge.
Clearly I fall well short of the standards required to comprehend even the simplest statements you can offer me and so you should walk away from this with the 'truthful' statement that you've won this debate. Well done 😞
I'm done here...got better problems to wrestle with in my studies.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergYour repeated attempts to characterize my trying to get you to understand the points of my posts and/or trying to get you back to the points as a "winning formula of restating A for any argument against A" is misleading at best.
Well given that I keep "missing the point" it pains me to understand why you would waste your valuable time drilling some sense into a nitwit such as myself who lacks mastery of the winning formula of restating A for any argument against A.
Clearly I fall well short of the standards required to comprehend even the simplest statements you can offer me and so ...[text shortened]... with the 'truthful' statement that you've won this debate. Well done 😞
I'm done here.
Evidently you really do like hearing lies - even if you have to resort to making them yourself.
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOn the contrary; I make no deceptive characterizations at all - I admire your diligence to the principles of circularity, economy of thought, and non too subtle insults. You have clearly surpassed all the brilliant fundies on this board such as RBHILL (et al) in this pursuit and you have my sincerest respect for this.
Your repeated attempts to characterize my trying to get you to understand the points of my post as a "winning formula of restating A for any argument against A" is misleading at best.
Evidently you really do like hearing lies - even if you have to resort to making them yourself.
I genuinely lie down here in the cretinous gutter of absurdity from which my arguments were spawned in sheer awe of your unique intellectual gift and philosophical genius that no other person has the capacity to understand or acknowledge.
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergI make no deceptive characterizations at all - Agers
On the contrary; I make no deceptive characterizations at all - I admire your diligence to the principles of circularity, economy of thought, and non too subtle insults. You have clearly surpassed all the brilliant fundies on this board such as RBHILL (et al) in this pursuit and you have my sincerest respect for this.
I genuinely lie down here in the creti ...[text shortened]... ift and philosophical genius that no other person has the capacity to understand or acknowledge.
really, you stated that i was a coward, that i had refused to enter into debate with certain posters. When it was pointed out that i had continued to correspond with those individuals you cited, with the exception of one, whom i refused on principal, you continued the charade!
Look, a large finger has written something upon the wall Agers, it reads,
ME'NE, ME'NE, TE'KEL and PAR'SIN *
* Literally “A Mina, a Mina, a Shekel and Half Shekels. (Daniel 5:25-27)
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI take it the light sprinkling of sarcasm directed towards ThinkOfOnewent unnoticed?
I make no deceptive characterizations at all - Agers
really, you stated that i was a coward, that i had refused to enter into debate with certain posters. When it was pointed out that i had continued to correspond with those individuals you cited, with the exception of one, whom i refused on principal, you continued the charade!
Look, a large d PAR'SIN *
* Literally “A Mina, a Mina, a Shekel and Half Shekels. (Daniel 5:25-27)
You *are* a coward btw!
Originally posted by Agergthe writing is on the wall Agers!
I take it the light sprinkling of sarcasm bent towards ThinkOfOne[hidden]Who sort of lives up to his namesake in that he really doesn't seem to be capable of holding anymore than one thought at a time[/hidden]went unnoticed?
You *are* a coward btw!
2 edits
Originally posted by Agergtrolls? is this a new projection of your mind? it does seems to rather confirm thinkofones proposition of deceptive characterisation. The bad ol putty cat materialist had better be careful lest he once again mistakenly assign false values to his adversary!
I see no reason to be gentlemanly with trolls.