I've posted many arguments over the years that are valid, what is disputed is not the validity of argument.

These are the lists of premises I've seen disputed (not by everyone, but my many).

1. Morality cannot be that it's morally good to torture a baby for eternity in all possible worlds.

If you guys recall this was the premise that people disputed to disprove an argument showing morality to be eternal.

2. We have exact value to who we are.

This seems to be the latest debate, it seems people are not willing to acknowledge that we know this to be true.  I've tried to show signs of it being true, from how we love one another, I was about to talk about animals and humans as well.... but this seems to be disputed.

3. Who we are and judgment is interlinked so much so we required an exact judgment of who we are to be who we are.

4. Objective morality exists.

5. Ranks pertain to real living reality and is not merely conceptual.

6. We have a perpetual identity that makes us linked to who we are as babies till now, no matter what we choose to be or become.

7. We have a basis to all perception of greatness, morality, beauty (I've heard many say we don't, rather all these are just human constructs).

8. We inherit our actions.

There are  probably much more, but these are the ones I remember on top of my head.

(March 25, 2017 at 9:44 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I've posted many arguments over the years that are valid

MK, what is your deal with lists lately?

They may be valid only to you. Have you had any feedback here to support that they are valid? A single opinion/position does not make it a valid opinion.

There is a difference between a valid argument and sound argument.

What I have seen is people dispute the soundness of these arguments (ie. whether the premises leading to the conclusion are all true) . The validity if I recall correctly, no one disputed.

Oh just stop, lol.  You've also seen people dismantle your inferences.  The things you call arguments, of late..have been consistently as bad as they could possibly be.  Invalid inferences applied to garbled premises. You couldn't actually do worse if you tried. It doesn't help that you stick your head up your own ass and keep making these little history revision posts. We've all been here with you, reading your stuff, and the responses to your stuff................I just don't understand why you think it would fly?

(March 25, 2017 at 10:14 am)Khemikal Wrote: Oh just stop, lol.  You've also seen people dismantle your inferences without giving a shit about the premises.  The things you call arguments, of late..have been consistently as bad as they could possibly be.  Invalid inferences applied to garbled premises.

Can you give an example?

Either you respect me enough not to piss on my back and tell me it's rain...or you can continue to deny our shared -and archived- history on these boards.  This is idiotic.

(March 25, 2017 at 10:15 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Can you give an example?

Do you want us to fill this thread with links to most of the responses in your recent threads? It's easier to just go back and read. I don't think anyone else wants to waste their time.

(March 25, 2017 at 10:19 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 25, 2017 at 10:15 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Can you give an example?

Do you want us to fill this thread with links to most of the responses in your recent threads? It's easier to just go back and read. I don't think anyone else wants to waste their time.

Just state the argument and show where there is a disconnect from the premises and conclusion.

Did doing that the last time stop you from making another one of these threads? Look, I get that you probably think that peoples criticisms of your inference didn;t hit their mark...that your explanations, in your opinion..overcame them...but it;s patently absurd to contend that you've never had those discussions.