JVH say (Login JVH) Sufi Posted Jun 14, 2012 7:43 PM
... you don't have to. I'm merely addressing something you posted, that's how forums work.
And as it so happens, you posted (about) something someone claims as true but isn't, demonstrably so, but attaches all kinds of value judgements to it nonetheless and even claims all kinds of consequences because of what is claimed as true but isn't - in effect being guilty of the same he is accusing of, wittingly or unwittingly.
So, the claimee is wrong about what he poses as true? Big deal, right? Wrong. That's not the point. The point, of course, is another: it's the far reaching implications of being wrong in this case that is the point, and you know it - hence your attempts to avoid addressing it which in itself should tell you there's something amiss here.
You see, dear J, avoiding what is being pointed out to you equals denying it, which, of course, begs the question: why would you want to deny something that is demonstrably so? Why won't you have it true although it is?
propositions which imply their own negation are necessarily false whereas propositions implied by their own negation are necessarily true
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability - it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true everything else ... mere BS -