On Logic and Alternate Universes

[Edwardo Piet]

We do agree, our agreement is irrelevant to the hypothetical.  :points and laughs:

We don't agree on everything. We don't agree on the nature of the hypothetical.

If we agreed on everything then you'd agree with me that there can be no hypotheticals that don't apply the law of identity and no universe can be described where 2+2 does not =4 in the base 10 sense.

:points and laughs:

And what is the point of that?

Because I'm a person who's well of patience is not bottomless.  : points and laughs:

Well it's certainly less bottomless than mine.

"Waaaaaah, rhythm called me retarded for making pages of retarded posts!"  

No. Just no. Remember, I think your posts are retarded just as much as you think mine are.

Are you enjoying making fun of me? Because it's kind of pointless because if you don't want to debate this anymore you could just, you know, say so.

I can be a stubborn, immature cunt- and be right, so, tell me more about me.  lol.

Well I also think you're awesome and like you a lot. I hope you don't take any of this personally, I'm super stubborn when I think I'm right, and especially when I am right, but one thing I always notice when someone calls me "stubborn" as an insult is they're persistently or 'stubbornly' disagreeing with me just as much as I am them. And when someone tells me I'm just trying to have the last word because I respond to everything they say: They're guilty of exactly the same thing, they're responding to everything I say. And when they say I'm just "trying to have the last word", they're just trying to have the last word. Now obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but you're guilty of the same stubbornness from my point of view that I am from yours, so what is your purpose when you tell me to "stop" or say I'm "stubborn" or when you point and laugh. Is it just that you are enjoying yourself and want to see how I react? Because if so, I'm glad to be of service.

You must be foggy as to how and why we arranged our simple addition as we did.  When we had two things on our hands, and added two more things, we saw that we had four things.

And yet it doesn't matter how we arrange it... four things is the same amount of things as two things and two things.

I don't think you even understand the use/mention distinction. At this point I feel it's definitely not a failure of my explanation, it's a failure of your understanding.

I'm talking about math like it's descriptive, based upon observed relationships of truth.  Such that here, because 2+2 equals 4, we consider that to be true, whereas there, where 2+2=5..they consider -that- to be true.

You're talking about the concepts of math instead of the truths of math then. I've been repeatedly trying to allude to the use/mention distinction and you keep showing me how you ARE making that error.