You could not make the statement, or verify the statement, without observing her,or some symbol of her in media, including text.
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
You could not make the statement, or verify the statement, without observing her,or some symbol of her in media, including text.
Bubblefish is no longer rationally engaging magical arguments!
Regards,
The Managment
Bubblefish is no longer rationally engaging magical arguments!
Regards,
The Managment
Bubblefish has never done anything rationally. Why are you telling us what we already knew?
Bubblefish is no longer rationally engaging magical arguments!
Regards,
The Managment
Bubblefish is no longer rationally engaging magical arguments!
Regards,
The Managment
Sounds like we haven't achieved our 'breakthrough' yet. Sounds suspiciously like them good ol' swivel-eyed evangelical fundies idea of 'breakthrough'
Bubblefish is no longer rationally engaging magical arguments!
Regards,
The Managment
Mojo
Mostly harmless
How would that affect the truth value of the statement?
Remember, if a statement has a subjective component, then its truth value is not the same from all viewpoints.
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
His medication schedule.Originally Posted by flimflam_machine
Incidentally, what exactly do "The Managment" manag?
... but not very effectively.
http://iom.wlv.ac.uk/start.htm
No reason, just google-happy.
Does anyone else feel that the actual meaningful content of this thread has increased since Bubb started cut-and-pasting his stock response?
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Funny how you've left the discussion just at the point that Mojo has refuted your arguments and you cannot advance further rationally in the discussion.
Don't forget to properly obfuscate your way round his questions when you get back!
Good work Mojo!
Bubblefish is no longer rationally engaging magical arguments!
Regards,
The Managment
PS Bubblefish has returned to the office briefly.
Last edited:
The statement or observation about Angelina Jolie could never be made into a statement unless someone viewed her.
Having a subjective component and relating a subjective component are two different things.
If i said " I saw Angelina Jolie. She is a woman. SHe is a beautiful woman. She made my blood rush to where my bathing suit covers" relates subjective information as well as objective information.
If I report "In Bagdad, two car bombs killed 50 people today" relates objective information mutually viewable to all points of view in Iraq. If the statement says "In Bagdad, two car bombs killed 50 people today, and I cried" then it relates the subjective component to the objective.
EDIT: Without relating the subjective information in the statement, we can still know that a two value occured, but the two value is MYSTERY until clarified.
Last edited:
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Since this was a parody of many of your posts, are you admitting that all your previous accusations of people leaving because they couldn't advance their arguments were in fact "magical"?
That didn't answer the question Bubb!Originally Posted by Mojo
How would that affect the truth value of the statement?
The statement or observation about Angelina Jolie could never be made into a statement unless someone viewed her.
Seriously, answer Mojo's question. You can't, you've argued yourself into a corner and now you're trying to pull of the logical equivalent of eating your own head (thanks Spottswoode!)
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You can make the statement "Angelina Jolie is a woman" without viewing her.
You claimed that "all things external have a subjective component" If there is a subjective component in the statement "Angelina Jolie is a woman" then the statement's truth value is dependent on viewpoint. Is this the case? Is it true from some viewpoints but not from others?
Where is the subjective component in the statement "Angelina Jolie is a woman"?
If one cannot advance a truth value in rational dialogue, tit for tat honest consideration, then the idea, as held by the individual as true, it a product of magical thinking or delusion.
Truth can be rationalized. Period. If you cannot rationalize it, then it's not true.
You apparently are viewing this discussion once again through your magical lenses.
Mojo's question is hardly even challenging, much less a question I am avoiding. Apparently we dont view this discussion the same way, eh?
BF
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
And how has OS012 advanced? Before this thread, nobody here had heard of it. Now they all think that it is bollocks. That's not an advance Bubb.
So why haven't you actually answered it then? I view this discussion as a discussion: questions are put and answered to the satisfaction of both parties.
sure, but only because others HAVE viewed her and you have viewed thier statements, articles, or photographs.
Angelina Jolie exists in External Reality, and thus relates information which is identical to all view points.
Since it is objective, it is viewable to all view points.
There is no subjective information related in that statement, the subjective component is hidden from view. The subjective component is 0.
BF
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Indeed it has.
http://www.heptune.com/fartword.html - search for "trump"