On Moral Authorities

[Edwardo Piet]

Like I said you'd make a better politician than a philosopher.

You insist I'm "contradicting" and "doubling down", yet you can't even get your *own* story straight. Never have I read this from you in the previous pages, unless you chucked it in as an edit I missed.

Because you are contradicting yourself... and to say you know what a false dichotomy is, and to correctly say it's a dichotomy where the answer "neither" can be given, and to admit that the answer "neither" can be given to this dichotomy that we're discussing, and yet to continue to say "It's not a false dichotomy" is indeed doubling down on your wrongness. Rather than put 2 and 2 together you'd like to keep insisting the answer isn't 4.

My own story? All my story has been is that the answer "neither" can be given to the dilemma, and thereby it's a false dilemma, because that's what a false dilemma is... and then I've also said that I think the answer is "neither" because I think there aren't any gods. All this nonsense about me saying there necessarily are no gods and that the answer necessarily is "neither" is just a strawman.

Look, I admit I'm only human, but if there's one thing that all those units taught me is how to think critically.

I'll believe it when I see it. You could start by giving a consistent answer regarding whether the dichotomy is a true or false one.

I think I have the capacity to know what I'm saying, and hold to that/those beliefs closely. Considering you wouldn't be taken seriously academically, I know you lack what it would take to follow my reasoning (as evidenced by your failure to understand what a proper refutation of the dilemma would look like), let alone call me out *properly*.

Hello strawman again. I've never been trying to refute the dilemma. I've just said it's a false dilemma. And it is a false dilemma. You've said what a false dilemma is, correctly. You've said that the conditions of a false dilemma apply to the dilemma. You have failed to put 2 and 2 together and continued to insist it's not a false dilemma.

Premise 1. A false dilemma is a dilemma where the answer "neither" can be given. You accept this.
Premise 2. The answer "neither" can be given to the dilemma we are discussing. You accept this.
Conclusion: The dilemma we are discussing is a false one. You don't accept this.

You continue to double down on explicitly saying it's not a false dilemma despite implicitly saying it is. All I want is a consistent answer.

Bonus conclusion: It's time you bit the bullet.

Bite the bullet is in philosophy, taking-in an unavoidable situation that would be deemed as unpleasant.

A more specific meaning of the phrase is to accept unpleasant consequences of one's assumed beliefs. Sound reasoning requires its practitioner to always sustain a consistent set of beliefs. This may involve accepting a disturbing belief that is a consequence of one's currently held beliefs. It may be disturbing because it is counterintuitive or has other disturbing consequences. Given a philosopher's currently held beliefs that he or she is not prepared to give up, he or she may have to bite the bullet by accepting a particular claim offered as an extreme case or putative counterexample.