subgenius wrote:ambiguity does not have any relevance to the accuracy of either statement. They are both, quite simply, accurate and truthful.
The third statement is merely another perspective...linguistically as ambiguous as any other...and its ability to coincide with the other 2 while maintaining the truthfulness of all three statements simply confirms the point.
You don't get it. I'm trying to get you to admit that ambiguous definitions question the accuracy of any application of those meanings, which includes your "self-contradiction". I'm also tying to get you to define "Dr Shades" in some non-ambiguous way. I don't think you can. If the contradiction depends on an accurate definition of "Dr Shades", my statements are most definitely less ambiguous than yours because they describe "Dr Shades" more accurately. I think your "self-contradiction" is inherently dependent on the ambiguous language of your statements. >>>All you have to do to prove me wrong is define your terms and show that a contradiction exists which isn't simply semantic.<<<
(Bolded and such so you can't ignore this request. But, really... I've asked you already and you didn't answer... so, what could I possibly expect...........)
Explain your response clearly and explicitly, please. I much rather talk to you face to face or in chat, because you are being seriously evasive.
Why can't you explain things clearly? Here's a list of your responses to my statements and what you've asserted about your own... I hope you recognize that your words lack any explicit support for what you're trying to prove. I keep looking back, but you continue to defy any sort of simple and clear explanation of why statements don't demonstrate what I claim they do. What can you possibly be thinking? That I'll just "get it" when you bark at me and don't explain anything? Each of your responses is indirect dismissal with no demonstrated relevance to my statements. Please, try and demonstrate next time and both of us will benefit.
offered something up that is basically nonsense. (HOW?)
that does not negate the example i offered (HOW?)
feeble rebuttals do not remove the burden for Dr Shades with regards to his claim. (HOW?)
Nor are your rebuttals necessarily negating of my examples, they are for the most part illegitimate and only exemplified your misunderstanding of the concept. (HOW?)
"according to me", those statements are absurd. (HOW?)
your "direct" rebuttal (as opposed to an indirect one?) is just simply inadequate (HOW?)
both statement examples are accurate and contrary. (THEN DEFINE YOUR TERMS)
They are both, quite simply, accurate and truthful. (THEN DEFINE YOUR TERMS)
Why don't you just unpack these ideas instead of repeating them? Perhaps, a single sentence explicitly explaining why my statements don't work and explain how you define "Dr Shades" and the room in a way that preserves the contradiction?
If your mind stays on the same track I might not be interested in talking any more. That's not a jab or anything. I'm simply lack the interest to continue unless you debate me in the way I like.
no matter how slow we go, you still refuse to admit you were wrong. Your ego seems to be relentless on this matter, and i do not know why - you have nothing vested in this and its not like there are any cash prizes. Nevertheless, you seem to insist on accentuating how difficult it is for you.
your "direct" rebuttal (as opposed to an indirect one?) is just simply inadequate...it is unfortunate, but yet it is still true.
now you can continue to tell yourself otherwise but that reality will not change.
Why are we questioning motives now? I believe I have a sharp argument. You think it's dull but won't demonstrate it. There's only one point to this discussion and it's to find out which of us is right. You seem to be greatly interested in telling me I'm wrong, but not explaining why.
no, those statements are, in reality, accurate.
A person could utter either of those statements in life and no one would take exception or be confused.
No one would be confused because we already accept the inherent ambiguity in the meaning of "Dr Shades". You're only offering me clues as to why you think your statements are accurate enough to be called a contradiction, but from what I gather... you're contradiction is unsupported until you define your terms.
wrong.
"according to me", those statements are absurd.
Now you're contradicting yourself too if by absurd you mean false.
my original statements are still accurate and valid...your attempt to re-write them is nothing short of moving a goal post and frankly is quite foolish.
What goal are you talking about, specifically, sub?
the 2 halves of Dr Shades are your language, not mine....ergo....you are the user of slippery language.
You know exactly what I meant. You're ignoring my very clear questions. All you have to do to prove that you're not using slippery language is to define your terms.
no, they are not more accurate. You really want them to be more accurate, but they are just silly in and of themselves.
And so we get closer to what you actually think... How are they more or less silly specifically? Also specifically, how are they more or less silly in relation to your statements?
straw man complete
your logic is flawed
your reasoning is absurd
your conclusion is inadequate
in short you have no counter argument to the rather clear rather accurate and rather truthful statements i posted.
Now you're just being dense and it's a little bothersome.
My counter argument is that "Dr Shades" is defined ambiguously and therefore cannot be used to support an inherently unambiguous or non-semantic self-contradiction. A proper response to this counter argument is to define "Dr Shades" unambiguously and demonstrate that the contradiction still exists.
your first half and second half are not contradictory as they are both wrong.
You are spectacularly awful at explaining yourself.
