Minichan

Topic: An undeniable mistake

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E started this discussion 10 years ago #49,448

If I claimed that in order for something to be true, I must first declare it as true.

Would it not be problematic if i proved my claim by pointing out that all the supposedly untrue things are untrue... Because I have not declared those things as true?

Likewise, evidence and facts have their supporters think that only evidence and facts can reveal the truth, because every truth that lacks those two things are false... For lacking those two things.

Adam Jensen joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later[^] [v] #643,045

WHAT

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,046

Put down the pipe.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,048

We know booleans

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,049

> If I claimed that in order for something to be true, I must first declare it as true.

> If I claimed

So IF you re-wrote the rules of basic logic. petitio principii.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,053

@previous (E)

You are clearly missing the point. The problem is that it's not logical.

So how is it logical to claim that only evidence and facts reveal the truth, when you have predefined truth as only something supported by evidence and facts?

Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,058

@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
> So how is it logical to claim that only evidence and facts reveal the truth, when you have predefined truth as only something supported by evidence and facts?

Logic is not a playtoy. Sure you can ignore the rules of logic. As Spock said - That is not logical.

Review Arguments first before delving into the rules of basic logic.
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/arg.php

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,060

@previous (E)

You still don't understand. Imagine that you were building a truth detection machine because you struggled to know what is true.

How would you know it works?

Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,064

@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
That, my friend, is called diagonalization.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,065

@previous (D)

But what do you mean by that?

Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,066

@643,060 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Trust this I do understand. Perhaps we should move on to fuzzy logic.

Truth of course can be defined. Rules on this can actually be a little complex.
Absolute - Reality - Perceptions and or Opinions. Add relative in the mix.

Gets nasty in areas like Religion - Is there truth to the statement, that God exists.

> How would you know it works?

The answer is Yes No and Maybe.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,068

@previous (E)

Right. So isn't there some wiggle room when it comes to truth? Maybe everything that's true isn't supported by evidence or facts?

Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,070

@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Important stuff like Math Physics Chemistry & Evolution. No real wiggle room. Truth with only the exceptions of history as in is it true there are only X number of elements. True today but to be revised in the future.

White is white and black is black. Unless you allow for variations of each.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,071

@previous (E)

But what about stuff like moral truths? Do you think humanity is the way it is according to be... as far as "truth" or biology,chemistry or physics? Is it just a imaginary rule that we shouldn't do what is considered "evil" by many?

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,081

you are worse than Catherine

Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,084

@643,071 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
> moral truths

A case where the word True can be thought of as false. Goes beyond fuzzy logic.
Ask a Sunni or Shiite about Truth. Ones truth is the others false.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,085

@643,081 (G)

Pff. What did Catherine even do to a grudg keeping little unwiped asshole like you?

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,086

@643,084 (E)

you don't even think it's true that people shouldn't kill little babies... And then rape them?

Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,092

@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Where the hell did you pull that from?

Of course there are fanatics that justify such acts because they look at the other guy as the devil and fucking over the spawn of devils is what they do. Its a case of truth being turned on end. Falsehood turned into some fake truth.

Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,094

@previous (E)

I'm simply trying to get a answer out of you. Yet you either don't understand me or simply refuse to answer.

IS THERE SUCH A THI- fuck it. 6 am, ought to go asleep instead of having you once again beat around the Bush.

kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,099

@643,081 (G)
That's harsh, dude
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.