(September 2, 2009 at 3:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But you refuse to discuss choice and evidence. You make a bare assertion of evidence in the face of what must be 100 various explanations to the contrary, but not once do you ever consider it.
I consider without accepting. If your side of the argument has no evidence then I'm not going to just accept it! That's pretty much the definiton of irrationality! To willing accepted a belief without support is to accept a false belief, a delusion. Beliefs without evidence are beliefs without support. By definition, evidence is valid support for a belief.
Quote: There is no rationale there. Discussion requires rationale.
Indeed discussion does require rationale. And how exactly are we 'discussing' if you won't support your position? Well you say it has support but no evidence...and I see that as a contradiction.
So anyway, all this questioning of mine amounted to me basically wanting to know how we can discuss without you evidencing your postion, and you responded by saying that I should think it through, that I should 'watch from a distance': But how do I do that and it still be a discussion? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical - please respond to it.
EvF
