(January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You asked me to provide some statement I took to be true...which I gave you....are you shooting for the trifecta at this point, compounding poor form on poor form? Still not done bitching about me, still not willing to address your own statements. I only chimed in to help you turn them into something coherent, to try and find a way to express whatever you want to express that isn't shot down easily on grounds of l2logic.That's a lot of words for someone refusing to provide an actual example.
Quote:Nothing...absolutely nothing about my metaphysical views, their accuracy or truth, or the arguments I might employ to establish them can change the fact that you're using context as an excuse to equivocate. That the yes and no paradoxes you point to do not exist, and so any position or criticism built atop that "context" is, without any consideration of any other thing, not a logical or philosophical position or criticism. It might be accurate, lemme throw you that lifeline....but even -that- won't make it logical.Not sure why you think truth in context is even arguable against. In the context of my normal experience, a table top is flat and smooth. In the context of QM mechanics, there's no flat and smooth surface. It is true, in the context of doing my work, that the table is flat. It is not true, in the context of looking in a microscope, that the table is flat. See? Same assertion, different context, different truth value.
You can keep arguing if you want to keep being wrong about something so obvious. Not sure why'd you want to, though.
