Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bns I assure you, no one here is threatened by you. We find it sad that you are so narrow-minded. |
Well, i tried to point that out in a less flame-inducing and more convincing manner, this is what i got
.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo Life itself is a contest. If it should come to that, I will agree that you are wrong, and dismiss you out of hand. </arrogance> |
Very well, life is a contest, <clicks shotgun> ... Run! </sarcasm>
I think in discussion, agreeing to disagree is vital, otherwise you are risking antagony. Besides that, without it, you eventually go in circles until one party goes away from exhaustion. Try to find what common ground there is, and hope a later discussion is more fruitful.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo Perhaps, but that is precisely why I have limited myself to three (3) axioms. These can neither be refuted nor denied (or else all this is moot). |
Here you concede to an argument that refutes the claim you where arguing, and say that is the reason for your claim.
BTW What utabintarbo was arguing before:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo's axiom link ... A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. ... |
<edit> this argument below is wrong :/, 5 points for saying where</edit>
Does not even make sense, because what it is saying that and axiom cannot be refuted unless you assume it. or rather A=> not A, and you agreed that resulted in A false. so by this claim, there are
no axioms at all. (BTW the word trying makes the statement vague.) <edit> this is the one that should be taken seriously</edit>It also blatently ignores that there might be other axioms around, and while assuming those, you might be able to (dis)prove the claim that is one of those three axioms.
@yaaarrrgg post #57 what are you going at? Some of those axioms are actually those that utabintarbo said where the good ones. I say axioms can only be bad if they are overly ill defined, or if someone claims a set of axioms that contradict.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg (1) existence exists
this unpacks to
(1') that which exists, exists |
(whitespace modified)Does it unpack to that? I would say the act of existing exists. Or perhaps there is something that exists. Nah, i dont believe that, it is language-based-logic, and language is not a formalism.
I know utabintarbo will give some counterarguments, but can we continue looking at axioms? (read back a little to recall what axioms where proposed.)