Are you saying that my answering "I'll take that as a 'No'." somehow justifies your previous claim below?



How does my writing that justify your claim? I think you mean that it somehow proves it to be true. Is that right?

Again? You didn't believe me the first time, do you think I'll falter if you ask the same question over and over?

Read back a page or two, of course only after you climb outta that hole you're so fond of...

Jeezus whorehopping christ. Do you have a valid argument somewhere in the midst of all this rhetorical ad hom nonsense, or are you intent upon being a hypocrit?

Make this one count, because if you do not you'll be on ignore until I decide otherwise. I can only hope that you understand this, and believe me, I do hope that these words find you well.

*me*
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
├┤
*you*



I told you to let it go...

I've a simple question to ask.

How does my saying "I'll take that as a 'No'." serve as an example of this...



How is that an assertion about "what people think and believe with total disregard for the other poster's thoughts and explanations"?

--

The answer will justify your claim, or not.

Oh yes, an elementary graph which clearly displays how much your above me would further the proof, wouldn't it?

OMG!

I thought you had some sort of certainty of what a ladder looks like... Are you sure that tree is really a tree?



Deeper and deeper and deeper...

For those who are interested in how we derive meaning...

Stick around, because this could get interesting. I'll be the sacrificial lamb, so to speak.

--

Rhetoric moves people in different ways, but those who see beneath it know better than to let it sway thought/belief too much. Far too often there is fallacy underwriting rhetoric. It certainly leads to dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty, of course.

What I said was true. I have no idea who you think that you're talking to, but I can assure you that your words do not make relevant responses to mine.

How does my saying "I'll take that as a 'No'." serve as an example of this...



How is that assertion about "what people think and believe with total disregard for the other poster's thoughts and explanations"?

--

The answer will justify your claim, or not.

Put up 'er SHUT UP.

Them's words we can all understand.

Alrighty, last time... Nice and simple for those who are new to the logic thingy... <*yet another example



You asked me if I could justify my claims. I answered that I had already and referenced your own admission of ridiculing others.

Earlier you denied ridiculing people, then admitted to engaging in ridicule later. (by your definition, a MISTAKE) (A mistake is a breach between thought/belief and fact/reality)

You also confirmed that your chosen words could be used to ridicule others.
So logic dictates, with your own admission of ridiculing others coupled with your own admission of your words' ridiculing potential, that I am perfectly justified in making that claim.



And then after all of that, you respond to my post with your assertion that you'll "take that as a "no"" when my answer was clearly not "no". Yet another MISTAKE... (which of course justifies my claim of "You make assertions about what people think and believe with total disregard for the other poster's thoughts and explanations...")



BTW, I love games, best of 17 then? Or we could just play Chutes and Ladders...

Creative it amazes me that you continue to think it productive to hold a conversation on belief with someone who believes they believe nothing.

This thread title should be changed to how many ways can you create a contradiction.

Nice clear recap! I was beginning to get confused. Thanks Peter.

My admission of ridiculing people in the past does not justify the claims that I am ridiculing people in this thread Pan.



There is no contradiction or breach between thought/belief and reality here Pan. When accused, I was not engaged in ridicule. Therefore, I denied the accusation - rightfully so. It does not follow from the fact that I have in past that I was at that time, or that I am in this thread.



And they could. So what? It does not follow that that is how they were being used by me at the time. Hitler used Christianity in a manner that most do not. Just because words can be used to ridicule does not mean that that always are being used in such a way. It does not follow. Ridicule is intent. Feeling ridiculed is another matter altogether. Do you understand this?



So let me get this straight. You think that you were/are justified in saying that I do ridicule people because I admit having ridiculed others in past and because the words being used could be used for such a thing?

Does it follow that I do, that I am, or that I have? Perhaps they are one in the same thing to you?





Your answer was that you had already justified(explained) your case. You had not, but you said that you had. I asked if you could justify your claims. Here is your answer.



You had not offered explanation(justification) for any claim made at that point in time. My admittance to ridicule does not equate to your explanation. While you may have been justified in believing that I may have been ridiculing in this thread, justification is explanation which you had not given other than to bring up some past conversation between you and I. That past conversation does not apply to this one in a way that it proves that I am ridiculing here, regardless of whether or not I was at that time. The past conversation does not serve as justification for the allegation that I'm ridiculing in this thread.

It seems you have a past hammer in your hand and everything currently looks like a nail.

This is a perfect example for demonstrating justified false belief. Pan is justified in believing that I could be ridiculing in this thread, but the only thing that would make that true, is if that is the case. If it is then he would have JTB, a bit of knowledge about my actions/intent regarding this thread. If it is not the case that I am or have been ridiculing in this thread, then he has a justified false belief.

I think it is a perfect example of over all poor communication.

Actually I disagree. Pan has finally offered up an explanation, it just does not hold up, as I just explained.

I can see both sides, but I can also see how there is a lack of communication between the two of you. I don't think it will change.

It is basically a difference of opinion. He thinks you ridiculed people in this thread, you disagree.

That is the where the break down in communications is.