I have converted to Christianity

[michrelvoik]

Firstly, would you care to explain how I was disrespectful to you. Secondly, as I said, it's very insensitive to suggest that someone has a brain tumour.

*le sigh*

We're not getting off on a very good foot are we.

By referring to the concept that I was offended by your irrationality, I am pointing out that people are offended over many things, but quite frankly, the right to offend, is far stronger than your right not to be offended.
It was also in humour.. but I guess that fell flat

You didn't say it was insensitive, you said it was disrespectful. I asked you to explain why someone with a brain tumor deserves respect rather than sympathy.

Minimalist was just being flippant (even if he means it), but quite frankly, its OTT to jump up and down demanding it was disrespectful.

I'm sure you didn't mean to be insensitive or disrespectful, at least I hope you weren't, although yes of course I was hinting that you were being both, the reason being that sometimes words can be hurtful, and there's really no need for it. I agree that we all have the right to speak our minds even if it offends but comparing what the other person said to having a brain tumour is a bit strong, don't you think. All I'm suggesting, for what it's worth, is that when you have a choice of how far to take it, it's best to not go too far. I don't have a brain tumour, and I never have had one, nor do I know anyone who has, but I'm aware that words should be used with care. The reason why I kind of picked on you for what you said is that in the past I've seen otherwise constructive conversations get ruined in this way.

[Angrboda]

I get that same exact feeling from Xanax. For someone with a genius level IQ, you seem remarkably incapable of intelligent thought.

You get what feeling from Xanax? Another meaningless sweeping statement from an inept, discourteous and narcissistic moron.

You got all that from my one little statement? Wow. I guess you are a genius.

---

That's my point exactly! The law of non-contradiction was spawned by Aristotle approximately 2300 years ago. Why does everybody assume that this law applies to absolutely everything in existence? It clearly does not; contradictions exist all over the place, most impressively in field of quantum mechanics.

We still accept it because without it no proof, evidence or knowledge is possible. Even saying that the law of non-contradiction is inapplicable assumes that there can be only two cases -applicability and non-applicability - that it has to be one or the other, but not both.

This is not necessarily true.

[Hovik]

Another meaningless sweeping statement [...]

Go on...?

[...] from an inept, discourteous and narcissistic moron.

Well, alright then. Need I point out the obvious hypocrisy here?

[genkaus]

This is not necessarily true.

By your logic, that is necessarily true as well.

[Angrboda]

This is not necessarily true.

By your logic, that is necessarily true as well.

(emphasis added)

Wrong again. But as long as we're on the subject, whose logic are you accusing me of using here, as I don't recall declaring which logic I was referencing? (Checking, nope, I didn't say. Guess you must be a genius, too.)

[Whateverist]

That's my point exactly! The law of non-contradiction was spawned by Aristotle approximately 2300 years ago. Why does everybody assume that this law applies to absolutely everything in existence? It clearly does not; contradictions exist all over the place, most impressively in field of quantum mechanics.

We still accept it because without it no proof, evidence or knowledge is possible. Even saying that the law of non-contradiction is inapplicable assumes that there can be only two cases -applicability and non-applicability - that it has to be one or the other, but not both.
And apparent contradictions in quantum mechanics are not actual contradictions.

On one level this sounds remarkably like a theist argument for God. They really want to believe God's existence is possible. We really want to believe proof, evidence and knowledge are possible. Have we evidence of evidence? Proof of proving? Sure knowledge .. of anything? I find I have plenty of actionable knowledge but not much knowledge which can satisfy every possible objection. Language, evidence and proof are very new. Informal knowing is ancient. Who really knows what the limits are for these new phenomena? I'm skeptical about assuming too much here just because to do so would be useful.

[AthiestAtheist]

As strange as it may seem, I have converted to Christianity.

Do I know you?

[genkaus]

Wrong again. But as long as we're on the subject, whose logic are you accusing me of using here, as I don't recall declaring which logic I was referencing? (Checking, nope, I didn't say. Guess you must be a genius, too.)

Oops, sorry. I thought I was talking to Logic.