Weren't you the one who talked about beliefs when I was pointing
out the problems with the notion of subjective truths? Well, since
it was just the three of us, I don't presume you can speak for
"everyone" who understood Tcmc right. But like I said, since she
already finally conceded that objective truth exists, the case is
closed, in my favour.
I would be interested to see how you actually stand on air i.e.
plant your feet in mid-air. No wires please.
Since you are unhappy with the examples of objective truth that
I have pointed out, even though I see no problem at all with
them, perhaps you like to give me one very good undisputable
example that would support the notion that objective truth
exists?
Yes, arbitrarily as in #2. You know, there is really no need to
cut and paste whole sale dictionary definitions. The meaning of any
word is dependent on the context. Trying to apply Occam's Razor
here is not appropriate at all. Third party means those links or
people who support my view and not yours. Merriam-Webster
Dictionary defines it as "a coherent series
of STATEMENTS leading from a premise to a
conclusion". It's plural, not singular. And if you more evidence
why you are wrong about an argument being a statement and not a
series of statements, see http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm
You interjected into my discussion with Tcmc, so why would it
not be right for me to question you as well? This is not guerilla
tactics whereby you just interject as and when you like and when
pressed you say "what has that to do with me?" So let's settle
this once and for all, is being cruel good/right? And why the
mere mention of your kids is tantamount to trolling is beyond
comprehension. And why can't I or anyone advise you how to
influence your kids? No one is taking over your role, just giving
opinions on how to play it. In any case, let's remove your kids
from this discussion since you are not comfortable with that.
I already explained what "chewing the cud" means as far as the
Biblical text is concerned. It means to bring up. The point of that
text is to tell the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or the coney.
Critics are pointing that out as an error but as mentioned many
times, it is not an error at all. I think you have missed that
point and are overly fixated with whether rabbits are ruminants or
not, or how we should decide which animal chews the cud. The Bible
is not teaching us HOW to identify such, but has identified certain
animals as forbidden even though they "chew the cud".
I already mention about the truce and not turning this into a
slugfest so I am not going to address your allegations about me
insulting you. Let's just agree that we were both guilty of it
and let's just be nice, deal? I am extending the olive branch.
You need to divorce the issue talking about what creationists
believe and their credibility. It is a fact (whether you recognise
it or not) that creationists do not regard the Bible as a science
textbook, and counting myself as one there was really no need
to educate me on that. Nothing is mentioned about their authority
or credibility, but just the fact of what they believe about the
Bible. That's when you tried to discredit creationists as a
whole.
I think I have already pointed out your fallacies. Remember you
even mocked me for pointing out only two when you actually
committed more?
"Weren't you
the one who talked about beliefs when I was pointing out the
problems with the notion of subjective truths? Well, since it was
just the three of us, I don't presume you can speak for "everyone"
who understood Tcmc right. But like I said, since she already
finally conceded that objective truth exists, the case is closed,
in my favour."
If you insist... Congratulations on winning favour from an
internet argument, if Tcmc did ever concede as you meant to
say.
"I would be
interested to see how you actually stand on air i.e. plant your
feet in mid-air. No wires please."
Stand on air.
Plant your feet. No wires to lift the weight.
"Since you are
unhappy with the examples of objective truth that I have pointed
out, even though I see no problem at all with them, perhaps
you like to give me one very good undisputable example that would
support the notion that objective truth exists?"
Your are still arguing for objective truth, right? The
definition of objective truth is objectivity and not affected by
time. Your 1st inout was affected by time, the 2nd was subjective
to the subject. Are you pleading with me? If yes, you are doing it
wrong. If no, no obligations.
"Yes,
arbitrarily as in #2."
Wrong. Read something.
"You know,
there is really no need to cut and paste whole sale dictionary
definitions. The meaning of any word is dependent on the context.
Trying to apply Occam's Razor here is not appropriate at all. Third
party means those links or people who support my view and not
yours. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a coherent series
of STATEMENTS leading
from a premise to a conclusion". It's plural, not singular. And if
you more evidence why you are wrong about an argument being a
statement and not a series of statements, see http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm "
You are just insisting you are right when I did not say you were
wrong, but still insist that I was wrong because your are right
anyway.
"You
interjected into my discussion with Tcmc, so why would it not be
right for me to question you as well? This is not guerilla tactics
whereby you just interject as and when you like and when pressed
you say "what has that to do with me?" "
And you are causing confusion by bringing Tcmc to the topic of
cruelty...
"So let's
settle this once and for all, is being cruel
good/right?
Being cruel(Causing pain or
suffering) is neither right or wrong.
"And why the
mere mention of your kids is tantamount to trolling is beyond
comprehension. And why can't I or anyone advise you how to
influence your kids? No one is taking over your role, just giving
opinions on how to play it. In any case, let's remove your kids
from this discussion since you are not comfortable with
that."
The trolling here is your attempt to elicit an emotional
reaction by invoking the personal part of your opponent which
he/she values, when you can perfectly state your point without
mention of such. E.g. Your mum really be something to have brought
you up this way.
I have to assert again that its anyone's priviledge to say or type
anything when anyone else have no rights or power to intervene. I
seek the true nature beyond words.
"I already
explained what "chewing the cud" means as far as the Biblical text
is concerned.
Your link specified it as ruminant or refect behaviour in
animals.
"It means to
bring up. The point of that text is to tell the Israelites not to
eat the rabbit or the coney. Critics are pointing that out as an
error but as mentioned many times, it is not an error at all. I
think you have missed that point and are overly fixated with
whether rabbits are ruminants or not, or how we should decide which
animal chews the cud. The Bible is not teaching us HOW to identify
such, but has identified certain animals as forbidden even
though they "chew the cud"."
To use "to bring up", all
herbivorve are likely chewer of the cud as they eat the plants
thats nurished by their own dung. I'm not concerned of
what you think about me but what you may know. Its less of an error
than a critical ambiguity. If its not meant for identifying, it
would not be described. If its meant for identifying, people would
know how to identify by "chewer of the cud".
"I already
mention about the truce and not turning this into a slugfest so I
am not going to address your allegations about me insulting you.
Let's just agree that we were both guilty of it and let's just
be nice, deal? I am extending the olive branch."
No. That would be collaborating with you on a false
compromise.
"You need to
divorce the issue talking about what creationists believe and their
credibility. It is a fact (whether you recognise it or not) that
creationists do not regard the Bible as a science textbook, and
counting myself as one there was really no need to educate me
on that. Nothing is mentioned about their authority or credibility,
but just the fact of what they believe about the Bible. That's when
you tried to discredit creationists as a whole."
If its a fact as you claim you'll need to back it up... as I
happened to read about creation science before unfortunately. I
need not discredit the creationists as the have none in voicing
about what to use as a science text as a identity.
"I think I
have already pointed out your fallacies. Remember you even mocked
me for pointing out only two when you actually committed
more?"
You point out to win arguments, I point out to measure the
soundness of the argument. Don't even think of comparing me to
you.
"Local context
or not, why should a
Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific
explanation?"
Rephrase for the benefit of my poor understanding on your
question.
"If you
thought mentioning your kids doing science experiments with you is
akin to you insulting my mother, then you are wrong. But like I
said earlier, no slugfest so I am going to drop this."
Did I say the two should be similar? Where/ when/ how did I
insult your mother? <umadbro?.jpg>
You are damn cute not to troll.... but you completely missed my
point as you take offense.
