- #71
Nicomachus
- 129
- 0
Alright, you haven't refuted any of my assertions. Which is not surprising as you began with a strawman of my rebuttal. This whole discourse between you and I began because you attempted to crticize my original post and you were wrong. Thus far most of the posters have only shown that they are ignorant of tautologies. I suppose you all think "a cow is a cow" may be a false statement but you would only be only be fools. Vacuous truth was included in order to show the validity of truth propositions which do not deductively lead to other truth propositions. Basically you have a made a long tirade against a minor point I presented and have done so erroneously. Again, the reason you have done this is because you do not understand the concept, I don't know how bluntly I can put it. You keep droning on about how vacuous truth is poetry and how the propositions do not reflect objective reality but in reality they do just that. You simply don't get it. Its not a puzzle. You have also further given evidence of your ignorance by stating that vacuous truths are somehow contradictory, huh?
Really, I can only draw a few conclusions from your nonsense. Either you do not accept the validity of tautologies, in which case you must stop using logic or you are simply uneducated or you are a relativist and have no way to justify any proposition you make or any position you hold. The fact of the matter is you don't get and you are, for lack of a better phrase, out of your league. Furthermore you keep droning on about some "sentence I copied and pasted" you should really examine your own positions before accusing me of plagiarism, if you mean the vacuously true statement it is a common example and if you were educated in logic, which you obviously are not, you would have known that.
As well the word is "ridiculous" and when you say "there are no red elephants" you only further show that my statement about red elephants is true. I think you are acting like a little child so I will explain it thusly: If I had asked "Do all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the correct response would be "No you are a vagabond and a lunatic." but if I say ""Is it true that all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the answer is clearly yes it is true, although it is not useful.
It is not false you have not proven it false and I do not think you have anyway to justify any proposition of truth as you do not accept tautologies, otherwise you would not attack criticize the tautological statements I have provided in my first and subsequent posts. If the validity of tautologies are not accepted then you cannot build any system of logic all you have provided is a foundation for nihilism. I suppose you simply chose to attack me for no reason because you don't agree with "a cow is a cow" but you do not have the ability to criticize it but vacuous truth simply goes over your head so you decided to lunge into an ignorant tirade of rubbish. Absolutely no refutations have you provided. As well I am not insinuating that tautologies and vacuous truths are significant in themselves, obviously they are not, it is you providing erroneous criticism. Again, you over inflated the signicance of the example of vacuous truth in my original post, it was not an exercise to "glow my intelligence" I simply corrected and refuted those who were spouting nonsense. I suppose you think the stolen-concept fallacy is valid, but what I am saying you have no foundation for any logical propositions so it is of no matter what you propose as there is no justification.
It is you who are boring me with statements of my intelligence. I have provided nothing but elementary statements hardly something for me to brag about. If you have feelings of inadequecy keep them to yourself. If you find a statement of mine to be *ridiculous* or stupid then I should expect you to say so and *justify* not this absurd rubbish you have provided thus far. I will save you the trouble, there is no way to refute my assertions unless possibly you produced a red elephant, of course, which did not exist in a loaf of bread or you could say "no you are false" but as you have suggested you have no foundation for reasoning therefore anything you say will be unjustified nonsense. Even so you have no provided any relativistic justification only lamented "objetive co-ordinates" but it simply shows that you do not understand the problem nor if nothing unless you statements only prove the validity of mine. Would you also argue the mathematical validity of the statement "2+2=4," although you have asserted that you do not accept "1=1." Previously, you stated that I have not corrected anyone and was incorrect in my original post entirely, if that is the case why is the only point you are bringing up the one you do not have mental ability to understand? Obviously, you should be able to reufte the other original points. Stop this nonsense; I have given you a chance and you have fallen short.
*Nico
-- I will provide a summation. All you have proven in all your responses to me is that you did not understand my original post and you don't know anything about logic or philosophy.
Really, I can only draw a few conclusions from your nonsense. Either you do not accept the validity of tautologies, in which case you must stop using logic or you are simply uneducated or you are a relativist and have no way to justify any proposition you make or any position you hold. The fact of the matter is you don't get and you are, for lack of a better phrase, out of your league. Furthermore you keep droning on about some "sentence I copied and pasted" you should really examine your own positions before accusing me of plagiarism, if you mean the vacuously true statement it is a common example and if you were educated in logic, which you obviously are not, you would have known that.
As well the word is "ridiculous" and when you say "there are no red elephants" you only further show that my statement about red elephants is true. I think you are acting like a little child so I will explain it thusly: If I had asked "Do all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the correct response would be "No you are a vagabond and a lunatic." but if I say ""Is it true that all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the answer is clearly yes it is true, although it is not useful.
It is not false you have not proven it false and I do not think you have anyway to justify any proposition of truth as you do not accept tautologies, otherwise you would not attack criticize the tautological statements I have provided in my first and subsequent posts. If the validity of tautologies are not accepted then you cannot build any system of logic all you have provided is a foundation for nihilism. I suppose you simply chose to attack me for no reason because you don't agree with "a cow is a cow" but you do not have the ability to criticize it but vacuous truth simply goes over your head so you decided to lunge into an ignorant tirade of rubbish. Absolutely no refutations have you provided. As well I am not insinuating that tautologies and vacuous truths are significant in themselves, obviously they are not, it is you providing erroneous criticism. Again, you over inflated the signicance of the example of vacuous truth in my original post, it was not an exercise to "glow my intelligence" I simply corrected and refuted those who were spouting nonsense. I suppose you think the stolen-concept fallacy is valid, but what I am saying you have no foundation for any logical propositions so it is of no matter what you propose as there is no justification.
It is you who are boring me with statements of my intelligence. I have provided nothing but elementary statements hardly something for me to brag about. If you have feelings of inadequecy keep them to yourself. If you find a statement of mine to be *ridiculous* or stupid then I should expect you to say so and *justify* not this absurd rubbish you have provided thus far. I will save you the trouble, there is no way to refute my assertions unless possibly you produced a red elephant, of course, which did not exist in a loaf of bread or you could say "no you are false" but as you have suggested you have no foundation for reasoning therefore anything you say will be unjustified nonsense. Even so you have no provided any relativistic justification only lamented "objetive co-ordinates" but it simply shows that you do not understand the problem nor if nothing unless you statements only prove the validity of mine. Would you also argue the mathematical validity of the statement "2+2=4," although you have asserted that you do not accept "1=1." Previously, you stated that I have not corrected anyone and was incorrect in my original post entirely, if that is the case why is the only point you are bringing up the one you do not have mental ability to understand? Obviously, you should be able to reufte the other original points. Stop this nonsense; I have given you a chance and you have fallen short.
*Nico
-- I will provide a summation. All you have proven in all your responses to me is that you did not understand my original post and you don't know anything about logic or philosophy.