Just because you cannot hit SUPER HIGH notes like Mariah does NOT mean you cannot sing. People associate high notes with singing, but they are dead wrong. I LOVE Britney's voice because it is SO unique. There is NO ONE that sounds like her.
I love Britney's voice - so raw and natural, I think it's incredibly versatile and charismatic (I love how her voice breaks sometimes. Elvis, weirdly, sometimes did the same thing and I love how it sounds).
However, I do think that the clips for this montage could've been better chosen....
Touch Of My Hand, Don't Hang Up, Everytime, Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know, You Got It All and Thinkin' About You all feature some stunning vocals, and I'm surprised that they were omitted.
Also, as much as she gets called "trashy" and other nasty comments for silly things like casually tying her hair up or not wearing make-up and getting all tarted up for a trip to the shops etc - she is quite classy in her kind of "never complain, never explain" attitude. She knows when to acknowledge her flaws, but generally refuses to dwell on, complain about or even respond to the "sensationalism" of it all. On the rare times that she does, it seems brief & uncomfortable for her. I like that.
Summary: you tried stating a hypothetical where you "adopt my logic". this cant be because things happened for a reason and I didn't state "my logic" as an interchangeable mess, for example if you said you retracted the quotes on which the self-evidence of perception was built upon that wont change anything (you could have used that as a hypo as well but it wont work). You guessed my logic is fit to apply (guess = no weight) and you havent proven ti as a possibility
@HRHMychael I'm not the one who said it is my logic You said I did, prove it You didn't state otherwise "Prove nothing I said stops me from applying my definition" What? Lmao. It's self-evident. When did I say it? Self-evident quotes require no proof, fail. same question see above. "Any wiggle room you leave in your backup evidence leaves room in your 100% absolute original claim, and would make it not 100% absolute." Before I ask you to prove that, what backup evidence?
You've proved none of these, yet all this has to be true in order for any of the points you just made can be true. And all of this, I believe, needs to be absolutely 100% true with no room for any other possibility, since this is the status of your original claim that it is backing it up. Any wiggle room you leave in your backup evidence leaves room in your 100% absolute original claim, and would make it not 100% absolute.
If you want to just prove the last three, i'd take that as well. ;-)
Not according to the definition you are using, it only says that the proof is within the quotes, but you can still provide other proof and explanation.
to make things perfectly clear: you took my logic and applied it to another case without proving it's not connected to every single element in my case(1) and without proving it's appropriate to apply(2), regardless of your aim, if it's not proven to be fit then all of this is void
and you will still have to prove (1). #1 depends on our other case which "leave things unexplained = inapplicable" :)
If you want to make the claim that I took it out of context, you need to prove it. I'm not just gonna accept it as true because you say it is so.
So you think the fact that i'm willing apply your logic to other things means i view it separately from everything in a vacuum? Huh?
I never made the argument that it was fit apply, so why would I prove that? To me, you haven't been very consistent with what definition of "self-evident" you were using, so I thought you should prove the definition.
@HRHMychael Wait, so I have to prove when I say it's out of context but you dont have to prove that it's not? And you dare talk about being reasonable. You applied the logic first before I made this statement so you need to prove it's not out of context otherwise it's inapplicable.
You didn't name a reason at all, you named a difference and you have yet to prove it's significance, nothing about what you said doesn't apply to your regular statements, at all.
As I said, I already explain the application, and that includes context. If there is something you don't understand about that application, you're welcome to point it out.
Yes, I noted a significant difference which would be a reason. Remember when you were claiming that the situation needed to be exactly the same in order for it to be applicable. I'm operating one the same premise, just not as extreme. So, a significant difference would make it inapplicable, if i understand your logic.
Are you saying the big difference makes it inapplicable? Prove it.
I didn't say that, I said if it's connected to everything's been said to me and replied, it is taken out of context.
Actually, by applying the logic, you are saying that it was fit to apply, because it wasn't fit to apply and you applied it, that would make you borderline retarded (I'm resisting jokes here) and that makes it null, so technically yes, you did make that statement and you will prove it.
So your argument is that since it is connected to you and your experience, every other application of it is "out of context"? Wouldn't that apply to any and everything anyone has ever said?
Well, as it stands now, i've apply it. I explained how I applied it. You have yet to come up with a specific objections to why it is unfit to apply. So i'm assuming my application is fit for now, until you can provide some specifics on how the application doesn't work.
@HRHMychael No, I'm saying by applying it to your case you're assuming that I didn't say it in the light of everything's been said and replied in my case, so you need to prove that.
I replied, I didn't get what you said.
I AM in the see all comments, it's a fucking mess, I get one post from a week ago and the next one is from two months ago, Maybe it's the browsers problem I dont know.
My messages were getting spammed and I couldn't view them, ergo my many deleted posts
You think that by taking the logic and applying to something else, that I'm assuming it didn't have an original context?
I don't know what to tell you, the threaded thing works fine for me. I can re-post, but I don't think that would help much. What can I do for you?
I figured at as much. I think it is the quotations. I find it helpful when you do that, but not if it gets spammed. I'll still address the content of your spammed message, i just won't reply directly to it.
No, I'm saying that you didn't prove that it was taken out of context.
I have a comment where I chopped your comment and asked questions, you can answer them.
I don't care how you reached to that conclusion (fit to apply) whether it be assumptions or reading the back of your hand, it is still a statement that you haven't proven. LOL, who said you should say that it was proven for me to ask you to prove it? it's simply still an unproven statement.
Yes, I didn't prove that because I didn't claim that. It isn't my job to
Chopped my comment? Could you give me a Ctrl+F? Or some more guidance?
Yes, it is an unproven statement. Right now, to me, it is a reasonable assumption, but none the less still unproven. It was a never my claim, so I never did the work of proving it, so it is unproven. I don't disagree with this idea. But, do show, that you haven't proven the opposite either. You haven't proven that it has been taken out of context.
You haven't proven it's reasonable too, you haven't even offered a reasoning....thus this really holds no weight at all in this argument (or any logical argument) and it's only to you (would have been ok if you had a monologue)
Have you really proven your assumptions to be valid? or are you assuming that to too? (endless loop). Are you saying that you should only prove what you say is proven? Why? both of "this is fit" and "this is proven" are claims.
This was your attempt at being clear? Could you try again, cause I don't want to be mistaken about any of the issues. This, for whatever reason, isn't clear to me.
For instance, it would appear that, once again, you are running two contradictory arguments at once in an attempt to your my logic again me, while saying you should have to abide by the logic you are using to prove your point, but i'm hoping that's actually not true. So i'll give you a chance to explain again.
@HRHMychael ClearER?? Lol, it's simply, you took the logic of another case. You didn't prove it's connected to the environment to that case (maybe exclusively, who knows) and you didn't prove it's fit to apply. How SIMPLER do you want it? Lol. Regardless of what you're aiming for, as long as you made that statement, prove it.
And I didn't understand your comment that starts with "you're right", I have NO idea what you were referring too.
Well, if that is what you call "clear", then I definitely need it "clearer" whether it is a word or not a word.
I never made the claim that it was fit to apply, so i'm not going to prove it.
I've already explained the details of how i'm applying it, which include considerations for context, environment, and connection. If you have problem with the way I did it. You are welcome to express it.
No worries. It is appears that you were smart enough to drop that argument, so I won't waste time.
No, I didn't included everything that is connected your logic, are you saying that that is what application requires? As I said, i made consideration for context, environment, and connection. And just so you know, if we keep talking abstractly about my application, we're never gonna get anywhere. If you feel as if it doesn't do what you want it to do, make an objection and i'll try to clarify or throw out the application. Simple.
You didn't reply, so, in my book, you dropped it, either way.
I actually responded, but you probably didn't see it. Alright, are you talking about something recently, or way back a couple months ago?
If you are talking about a couple months ago. I asked because at that time you were utilizing a certain definition of self-evident to get out of having to provide proof and explanation for your quotes, but that definition also included whether or not it was "evident". I asked you to prove that evidence, so you switched to a definition that didnt include it.
@HRHMychael "so you switched to a definition that didnt include it."
.................aaaaand, your stance in that case was?
Umm as I already said, by applying it and moving on you assumed it was fit to apply: statement you didn't prove.
by applying it you're implying that it wasn't taken out of context to everything I've said, you haven't proven that. you said you addressed the environment, prove it.
My stance has always been that you are inconsistent.
I'm *assuming* it is fit to apply, not it is proven that it is fit to apply. That's why I haven't proven that statement, because that isn't my claim.
No, i'm assuming it wasn't taken out of context cause you haven't shown where it was taken out of context, and for me, it makes complete sense.Well, what exactly is your definition of "environment"? What is the environment of your logic?
After you switched definitions? Well, did you retract the original definition? Or do you disagree that you ever switched?
I never said you had to accept my assumption. You are welcome to reject it. Just know that I am making the assumption. I just feel if there was a real reason specific reason why the application didn't work, you would offer it, instead of talking abstractly about the way applications should work.
And this is different from context? What is context? Do these things differ?
@HRHMychael I didn't say I actually switched definitions, I'm speaking from your perspective. they're 3 contradictions now.
1-you asked me to prove it's obvious to you when that wasn't my claim 2-asked me to prove something when I didn't claim it's proven...3-your statement is inapplicable because it left somethings unexplained (according to you) but you said it is.
Why would you feel that? Please explain to me why would I do something completely pointless
That's why I am asking, do you believe you switched?
1- I still maintain that you use parts of the definition, and that makes the whole definition applicable. But, if anything, this was a misunderstanding, not really a contradiction.
2 - Yes, if you want to make a 100% absolute claim about something, i'm gonna ask you to prove it. That doesn't contradict what i'm doing here, since i made no such claim.
3 - I've made an objection that you haven't addressed, again there's no contradiction.
And just so you know, you've done plenty of pointless things. However, i'm not sure this is one of them. Like I explained earlier, this is all we were basically doing at the start of our conversation two and half years ago. I named a reason why I thought Britney was successful other than talent, you took that logic and applied it to something else , I objected and explained how this didn't work. So you are potentially undoing all your original arguments with this argument. Like I said, be wise.
Oooo so you're saying what happened in this situation can be applied to what happened 2 years ago? Lol!
And I dont know what u r talking about, I said it's not "my logic"
Again, I wont ask you to prove your guesses but as I said, guesses simply hold no weight in an argument, but if you think they're even a possibility in this argument you should prove it.
Hmmmmm, you know what? Come to think of it, we haven't really established that it's "my logic", I said what I said purely based on the quotes that prove themselves, that's like saying "the sun is yellow" is "my logic"
Okay, well, don't we both have the same context? We're both participants in the same conversation, so we both have the same "history of the conversation", no? It is just me saying something instead of you.
Wow, talk about taking something out of context.
Are saying there was absolutely no logic or reasoning for your claims, but that they were just a statement to be accepted as the truth without proof? If you are saying you have no logic, that seems it would be the claim you are making?
Well, aren't you creating an endless loop by basically asking me to prove that I have the opinion that I have (my assumption)? Does that make sense to you? Couldn't I just ask you prove that i have to prove the opinion I have?
I mean, I guess the assumption could be a figment or some 5th dimension, but I doubt it. And then you'd have to prove that you have opinion you have about things, and who goes 1st?
You should only be responsible for proving things that you claimed are true. Simple.
So, it would make more sense without any definition attached to it? It makes sense undefined?
I never said I stop appealing to my logic because I said so. I'm not saying that that is not true. I'm just saying that I never made that statement. You on the other hand have implied that even when appealing to your logic, I must appeal to my own as well. Didn't answer you about what?
You can't really believe that you are being clear. The way you talk about things is so random.
even when appealing to my logic ? with the word even you're implying that there is change in situations because you said you're appealing to my logic.
When you said the statement about self-evidence you appealed to that logic, Nothing has changed unless you want to prove otherwise, that's what I'm saying.
oh and when I say "statement about self-evidence" I mean your logic about how it should be obvious to be self-evidence, when you said it you appealed to it.
LOL. A fallacy? lol. Which fallacy is it? How is it a fallacy?
I'm sorry that that was the intentions you were getting, but that wasn't my intention. The "even" is in reference to the fact that they are two different things, and yet you are saying they have a type of relationship. That I can only appeal to my logic, or both my logic and yours. I can never just appeal to your logic. I'm asking you, what is your proof for that, or how do you figure that's the case?
That your statement/hypo is based on an INVALID reason (in this case lack thereof).
I already told you, the minute you said it, you appealed to it, nothing has changed UNLESS proven otherwise, it's your job to prove that appealing to mine changes anything sis.
I explained to you which definitions I picked, you haven't done so.
You are all over the place. How is my hypothetical based on an invalid reason? I like the way you didn't even make the statement, but you are telling me all about what it is based on, and the intentions behind it, and what it should include and not include. Truly comical.
Yes, you told me, but you haven't proved it. So I'm waiting... Otherwise, I feel no need to abide by it just because you told me it was so.
Well, i'm not strict with my definitions like you, i'm merely partial to MW.
Hilarious, asking questions that already answered several times, this is the last time I will answer.
1-because otherwise it won't make sense. 2-because it's incomplete. 3-becz u said it's obvious then didn't prove so in the hypo. 4-I didn't say that, fail. 5-what? 6-u mean u dont appeal to it when you say some logic?
1- It makes sense to me. How doesn't it make sense? 2- How it is incomplete? What's missing? 3- So a statement that the person hasn't prove yet is a contradiction? Really? Prove it. 4- What are you saying about the appealing to logic thing, then? 4- You keep saying something about "change" or how things "change". But if you want to retract it, I totally get it. 6- When I say some logic? Huh?
Here are my responses to those issues you've failed to answer. That's how you haven' t proved them.
@HRHMychael because it isn't self-evident unless you prove it's obvious.
2-see #1 3-yes, anything that's not in accordance is. 4- in short that you said what you said and nothing will change that unless proven otherwise, I wont even use the word appeal anymore. 6-I asked whether when you say a logical statement, do you appeal to it?
responses to the issues you've failed to understand.
2 - So it is incomplete because it is unproven. - Prove it.
3 - So it inconsistent because it is unproven - Prove it.
4 - You'll need to prove that, or else it is incomplete, inconsistent, and a contradiction. Well, actually it already is those things.
5 - Please address.
6 - This is about your understanding of appealing to someone's logic. So, based on your response, I can appeal to your logic without simultaneously appealing to my own?
There are many defs of self-evident, but that didn't stop you from picking definitions. And you know what my position is on definitions. So read some; as I said before, i'm partial to MW.
I repeat, I don't think I ever made the statement that anything "changed". This is about how you figured that I am unable to appeal to your logic without appealing to my own. This is a concept you still need to go about proving. I'm still waiting...
How do you figure that when I said it, I appealed to it?
Why do you need another word for appeal? I think appeal works just fine. If I had wanted to use another word, i would have used another word. So, again, why is it that appealing to a certain line of logic, that i must takes other, even my own, into consideration as well, even though i'm addressing a specific line of logic?
Your right, it doesn't say anything about proving, which is why i don't understand why you've made whether or not it is proven into a part of the issue when it isn't.
"So, what happens to our conversation if I just say that it is self-evident that "I think" does NOT equal the entire conversation being about perception?"
underline what happens.
It contributes nothing because of THAT HAPPENS you will contradict yourself considering that you didnt prove it's obvious to ME AND YOU and that's what you said before?
and to answer your first basic question, because the hypothetical is the opposite of what you said. it's just a matter if it exists or not, if it does then you will contradict yourself because again, it's the opposite of what you said.
how is the opposite? because you said it aint self-evident unless it's obvious to me, now you're just saying it is.
But I never said whether or not the hypothetical was obvious to me and you or not... so?
So you are essentially saying that no matter what, everything I said in the past has to match up with what I said now? Even if it is hypothetical and it is appealing to your logic (not my own)? Does this apply even to you?
But your first answer isn't an accurate depiction of the situation. I never said the opposite or the hypothetical. It doesn't contradict.
So, basically, all of your answers to my question hinges on a contradiction I never made, but that you are assuming i'll make in the case that the argument is engaged, but you refuse to engage the argument?
Furthermore, in appealing to your logic, I automatically still appeal to my own, right? And this applies to you as well. That you yourself can't undo the logic of your own def. that self-evidence doesn't have to be obvious, and insist (appeal to) my logic and say it isn't self-evident?
@HRHMychael "in appealing to your logic, I automatically still appeal to my own, right?"
I said no matter what you appeal to, you still said what you said, then I asked you to explain how appealing to my logic keeps you from contradicting yourself, then I asked you to give me another word for appeal...u r way behind
I repeat, i haven't said whether or not it is obvious to me and you, so how can i be contradicting that statement. That isn't necessarily what happens. This only happens if you presuppose that I would be unable to prove it.
We're still on how you figure it does? I still don't understand your reasoning and you haven't explained further,just keep repeating what you said earlier. I understand that what I said is what I said,but what does this have to do with contradiction? You are skipping steps.
@HRHMychael That makes no difference considering you called it self-evident before proving so.
My reasoning for what? that you said what you said? lmfao.
I'm skipping? this is the 2nd time I asked you to explain how appealing keeps you from contradicting that to give me another word for appealing. Actually this is like the 4th time I asked you to explain how appealing to mine keeps you from contradicting and you still havent answered
That's no a contradiction, that's an argument you're making.
How does 'I said what I said' lead to a contradiction. Since, what I said wasn't the opposite of the hypothetical, how does it happen? And how, despite the fact that I'm appealing to your logic, does it still apply to what I said?
Yes, and I told you, one thing at a time. We're still trying to figure out how you suppose this is a contradiction on my part, and how, in appealing to your logic, it still has to account for my own logic.
And you saying that, the hypothetical not proving it first results in a contradiction, even when it might be a situation where i just have gotten around to proving it? You call that a contradiction? Huh?
Furthermore, are you saying that I should go about proving a statement first before you even know what i'm proving before even making the statement? And that that is the only way to do it (as in the example of the cart before the horse)? Really? And that this results in a contradiction? Huh?
The idea that i can't possibly prove it is YOUR argument, not mine, so i'm contradicting it.
Again, so you expect a statement to be proven before the statement is even made? If not, i don't understand how it not being proven serves as a contradiction.
Like I said, one thing at a time. You're claiming that it doesn't exclude my logic, and i'm still waiting on an explanation of how that is. I'd be happy to explain anything you ask if i can get a comprehensible explanation out of you first.
@HRHMychael it's not mine, unless you're telepathic, you can't possible know what goes on in my mind.
I expect it to be a part of the hypothetical, you didn't mention it at all, you said "it is self evident where do we go from here", sorry.
Your reason that you're not contradicting yourself is that you're appealing to my logic, if it doesn't exclude then it's meaningless, so technically you said it is excluded in the first place
This isn't a contradiction of mine. Where do you think i said it was impossible? This seem to just be an argument that you are currently making. Not me.
Expect? So basically, you've placed all these nonessential expectations on the hypothetical, and I must abide by your expectations whether or not it has anything to do with what intended or meant?
This is just the way you've interpreted it, but I only meant what I said. So could you explain how you determined that it is inclusive of my logic?
@HRHMychael who told u that u'd have to say it? unless you're gonna claim you're telepathic or have a 6th sense (which you'll have to prove" you cant know what's obvious to other people.
How? you claimed that you're not contradicting yourself, if what you said is inclusive to your logic then you are contradicting yourself, so technically you should prove that it is excluded first.
I've only asked you to explain the contradiction. So far all your examples fail to show this. So far, you've made the argument to not presuppose and disseminate all the proof before I've even made the statement is a contradiction. Or that you having an argument to my statement makes it a contradiction from me. I've only ever pointed out that those aren't contradictions. You haven't shown my contradiction, even if i was appealing to my own logic. I maintain, i'm appealing to yours hypothetically.
No to mention, you still have yet to address the issue of appealing to your logic. You haven't yet explained how that automatically include my logic even though i'm appealing to your own. How, in appealing to one line of logic, i should also consider other lines of logic within that as well, and look for contradictions? This seems to be your implication. Could you explain further, because i still don't understand this point.
@HRHMychael LMFAO, actually you haven't addressed the issue of how it EXCLUDES your logic in the first place.
Wait, it excludes your logic because you said you are appealing to mine? lmfao. As I said, NOTHING will change the fact that you said what you said before, unless you want to retract.
So let me get this straight: If someone says, "The chair is red", before even giving them a chance to prove it (whether or not you think that's possible to do so). Your response would be, "Aha, you haven't proven it yet that's a contradiction." This seems to be the case considering the following.
1. You haven't been able to point out where i said the opposite of anything i'm saying right now.
2. The idea that is a contradiction is based on whether or not i can prove it?
If I said the chair is blue, you asked me to do a couple of stuff to prove that, then you said "what if I said the chair is red, where do we go from here?" your hypothetical is missing, sis, unless you want to adjust it to contain the reason, sorry.
As you know, I'm personally a fan of Merriam Webster, but any dictionary will potentially do.
Well, your example doesn't really work for me, because I don't feel that you ever went about proving it beyond making a statement that it's self-evident, but that this supposed self-evidence was the proof that it was self-evident. So, my hypothetical is what if "The chair is blue" was also self-evident in the same way, what would happen?
My hypothetical is missing? What does that mean? Adjust? Huh?
Yes, my hypothetical is free of those specific ways. That's what I intended.
My hypothetical is just as you've quoted it.
Who told you that it's true even when I didn't say? I know that I don't have to say it for it to be interpreted with extraneous information, but that is exactly what it is in that particular case... just extraneous information.
And all this talk of 6th sense and telepathy is before I even make the statement for which these things are the proof? And this is the only way?
Nice try, but we still have the same problem. How does my hypothetical a contradiction? You haven't even explained how it relates to my argument in a contradictory manner. Furthermore, how in appealing to my logic, I also have to be appealing to my own logic simultaneously.
Your the only one who has made claims concerning this, i'm just spending my time trying to understand your claims on these subject. So if you could please explain, I'd appreciate it.
@HRHMychael if your hypothetical is that it's self-evident and the proof is in the quotes then you're contradicting because you haven't proven that they're obvious to everybody,your hypo says nothing about that.
You're right, my hypothetical doesn't say anything about whether or not it is obvious to you and me. Why should it? And how is this a contradiction?
Again, so before I can even make a statement, I have to go through the work of proving it first, and then make it and this is the only way for it not to be a contradiction? And then is this even really "contradiction"?
And, again, this doesn't consider that i'm appealing to your logic. Why must I include my logic when i'm appealing to yours?
@HRHMychael because your criteria for self-evident statement is that they're obvious to everybody, unless you want to retract your previous hypo and make a new one that includes it being obvious and the proof to that.
"Why must I include my logic when i'm appealing to yours?"
So, again, I must go through the business of proving how it is self-evident, before I can even make the hypothetical statement that it is self-evident? And if i don't prove it before I issue the statement is it s a "contradiction"? ...this makes sense to you?
I never excluded or included it in the first place. You're the one who is claiming that it must be included. I'm asking you how you came to that conclusion? You still haven't explained.
And why isn't "because I said so" a valid answer?
@HRHMychael no, it must have been included in the hypo.
Honey, YOU are the one who said the sentence first, so if you don't exclude it when you said that then it is included, therefore you must prove it's excluded first.
You can keep trying to turn the questions around on me, but i'm only going to continue to ask you for your explanation of assertions you first made.
I gave a hypothetical. As I said, I never excluded or included my own logic. You then asked a question that insisted I include my own logic. I'm now asking you for a explanation of why I must include it? Asking and waiting.
And I still need info about this "valid answer" and the contradiction. So far, contradiction = didn't prove it before stated?
@HRHMychael You made the assertions indirectly, you said how is your logic included when you're appealing to mine as if it somehow repels it, not to mention, you mentioned it as a reason when I said you are contradicting yourself.
The hypothetical is the statement sis, you didn't include it, you can retract if you want :)
Notice how each example was me responding to you. Yes, all of this was in RESPONSE or questioning to your original assertions . I am still asking you about those assertions because you haven't explained them.
Yes, the hypothetical is a statement, so I can't figure out why you keep insisting that there should be more to it than that statement.
So, care to explain how i'm contradicting myself, why i must appeal to my own logic as well as yours, and why "because I said so" isn't a valid answer?
@HRHMychael nope, if you said two opposite things, then you are contradicting yourself without me saying anything, in response you said you were appealing to my logic so I said how does that change anything? you need to prove that.
I already explained and replied to those both and will not repeat anything, sorry.
Yes, on a base level, if i'd said two opposite things, then I am contradicting myself, and the same would apply to you. The problem is you still haven't shown the two instances where i said these opposite things. In fact, you keep pointing out that i never said the thing that was opposite to it, but are insisting this is contradiction. This just doesn't make sense.
Again, I responded to you because you made the original assertions. It isn't my job to disprove your own assertions, sorry.
@HRHMychael I said if first of all, second of all i have shown how you did.
You made the assertions sorry. I said you were contradicting yourself, IF you were contradicting yourself and then said "I'm appealing to your logic" then you'd have to explain how that changes anything.
But if you were too stupid to understand, why would I explain it in another way when this was the simplest?
as for the because I said so, you'd have to explain how it's valid in the first place
You haven't even how I was contradicting myself, therein lies the problem.
Are you saying the way you explained it is the simplest way? Are you sure about that? Well, you would want me to understand because we're having a conversation. At least when I have a conversation, I want the person i'm talking to to understand my explanation. I don't think this is a crazy idea.
You're the one who originally made the assertion that it wasn't valid, so i'm only asking you a question about it.
All of it. The idea that contradiction, the thing we've been talking about for the last two weeks, is suddenly a separate issue. Yet you are using an if-then logic construction that include contradiction within it, but you maintain that it is a "different problem".
Not only that, but you refuse to explain something I don't understand, but still wish to continue the conversation. Could you at least give me a quote to where you explained? Come words to Ctrl+F?
Yes, two part we've always addressed simultaneously. Now, you aren't willing to address the contradict part, when the second argument is wholly dependent on it.
Yes, but this is just like using circular logic. Yes, you present logic or proof, but it was circular, so it hardly constitutes as logic to begin with, but it is still none the less logic. So, yes, I asked for more explanation, but, considering the original didn't make much sense, it hardly constituted as an explanation to begin with.
Actually I was talking about number 2, and in the end of the discussion about it you dropped the "but I didn't contradict myself" which is about part one.
And what you provided are examples of how you explained it crystal clearly in their simplest terms? Seriously?
I never said it was circular, I was using that as an example of how something can be "logic", "proof", or "explanation", but it can still fail to do what those things are supposed to accomplish. But it is interesting that you just made a statement, without proof or explanation, but i'm sure you wouldn't consider this a contradiction. Interesting.
You think I don't feel that way? I actually don't understand how you don't understand so we're in the same pot. I think you DONT WANT to understand it because you haven't even pointed out what's unclear.
I've almost always tried to reiterate your point to check my understand through a question of "Is this right?". You either don't respond to my question, or you answer with a simple "no" without trying to correct where my understanding of what you are trying to say might have gone awry.
I think you don't want me to "understand" and I can't because it is illogical. I've always bent over backwards to explain things when it is my job to explain them. You always seem to be the first to give up.
@HRHMychael now you wrote an entire paragpraph without telling me what you didn't understand. if I don't want you to understand I wouldn't have pointed that fact that you haven't pointed what wasn't clear.
LMFAO absolutely not. a lot of things you didnt explain
If it was my obligation to explain it, I explained it.
Yes, I wrote an entire paragraph about how i've always asked for clarification through asking questions. You can go back and look at some of my past posts. I don't need to post them all again. I'm just showing you that your claim that i've never pointed out where it isn't clear is unfounded.
If you did want me to understand, you wouldn't have ignored my questions or answered them with the same word response I already didn't understand.
For instance, if you can present two quotes where I say the opposite thing regarding this topic of the hypothetical, then that would be a way to show that i've contradicted myself. So far, you've only made a statement saying that i've contradicted myself, or have placed certain expectation on my quote that are implied, or had proposed a refutation to my quote and claim that that makes it a contradiction.
You haven't been able to provide two quotes that on their own show the contradiction.
Yes, I know that I spoke of that definition of self-evident. But you haven't shown where I contradicted myself. Mentioning something and "knowing it" doesn't spell out a contradiction.
Why should it be there? How can you it 100% absolutely should be there? You've given no evidence, proof, or even a basis for why it should be there. And even if it should, that still doesn't equate to me contradicting myself.
I hope my comments were specific enough, so you can identify the problem.
Free of what? Free of the definition of the word? How so? How is my hypothetical free of the definition of the word? Of what word, also?
How is the hypothetical incomplete? You aren't making much sense. Are you trying to say that after every time we use a word we should write out the definition after it. That it must be included in the statement to be "complete"? This doesn't make much sense to me, please explained.
Please note all the questions i asked abut specific parts of your claim.
Like I asked ( and you didn't answer), are you trying to say that after every time a word or term is used within a statement that we should also supply the definition?
When it comes to tips for making sure you are being clear and explanatory, using fewer and fewer words is not the best idea, especially if all the words are the same as the ones before. You'll usually want to break down and extend when it comes to explanation. Just a thought.
@HRHMychael Anyways, no, that's not what I'm saying, but it should have the FUNDAMENTAL thing that makes it self-evident in this situation, not the definition itself. you cant throw statements like that. You might as well say "lets say that everything I say is right, where do we go from here?"
you might as well say "lets say you're wrong, where do we go from here"
You're not even speaking in complete sentence, yet you want to you've explain it in the simplest and clearest term when you haven't.
Why can't I "throw statements like that"? You aren't really giving a concrete reason for why it must be. So, I can't make a statement without throwing in the fundamentals of the definition for each word? Can you possibly show me an example from when you first use "self-evident"?
How did you determine that "obvious" was the fundamental element of the definition?
@HRHMychael Why CAN you throw statements like that? Does it make sense? if you said "let's say you are wrong, where do we go from here" would that make sense? if you don't include the reason how it's self-evident why should I even consider the hypo?
you said it should be obvious to be self-evident. For each word? no, but when your statement centers ABOUT that thing (it being self-evident) you should include how is it so.
If you want to claim that the hypothetical doesn't make sense, that is another issue. The issue we are talking about right now is that the hypothetical is a contradiction, or that i contradicted myself in make the hypothetical. Then you need to prove that in appealing to your logic I have to also appeal to my own, and THEN we can get to this issue of whether or not it "makes sense". I'll be happy to address that when we get this other stuff out of the way.
@HRHMychael You need to prove that you somehow stop appealing to your logic just because "you said so"...
You did make the statement, you said "I'm saying it's self-evident, where do we go from here" AGAIN, that's like saying "I'm saying you're wrong, where do we go from here"......??? it's imcomplete, you should say "I'm saying you're wrong because [insert logical reason here] where do we go"
Show me the example where you did this? Show me where you said, "The quotes are self-evident that it is about perception because [insert logic here]." Maybe with an example i'd understand better. And it would show that there has been a precedent set.
You mention self-evidence after discussing defs, so, are you saying there is no example of you can give me of where you did that? Wouldn't you want to provide the def. especially in cases where I don't know it already?
@HRHMychael Why would I show you an example where I did this?
You DIDNT know my logic of self-evident statements BEFORE I said it, I know yours before you said the hypothetical, FOCUS.
because otherwise it wouldn't make sense. If you didn't say that it has to be obvious then you'd have a point.
that changes things to whom or what? To you it changes because you said it's obvious, and you didn't answer me, how do you stop appealing to your logic just because you say so?
I told you that a regular dictionary definition would probably work just fine. Do you need me to explain the definition to you?
Because you want to explain and prove the point you are making. If you don't want to prove it, that's fine by me, but i'm not going to feel obligated to follow it.
I am focusing. You haven't explain why that makes a difference. Logically, for me, it would seem you would provide the definition in the case that I didn't know it. Not re-supply it when I already know it.
@HRHMychael Prove it by posting an example of where I did it??? I'm sooo sorry if that makes sense to you.
Again, you didn't know what is self-evident to me means BEFORE I said, but I know what it means to you before you said the hypo, I already have a previous frame of reference of what YOU consider self-evident so when you say something is self-evident, NOT including the reason you stated before, that's a fallacy.
Yes, for me, it would set a precedent. Besides, examples are often used to make something clearer. This isn't a novel idea.
As of now, you have given a definition of self-evident and you still use the word without referencing its definition. Why should I have to? Show me example of how you always provide the definition of self-evident. And, you didn't answer my question: Wouldn't it make more sense to reference the definition when it isn't understood as opposed to when it is?
You still have yet to prove that the hypothetical hinges on this. You are skipping a couple steps here.
I don't know because I don't understand the situation to begin with... hence, why I am asking you for an example. Are you implying that this rule you invented only applies to me (why am I not surprised)? Why does it only apply to me? Where's the proof?
So, if I shouldn't reference it every time, why should I reference it in this situation and not others?
When did the discussion become only about what I say, I though you said things are that way simply because I say they are? And what does that have to do with a contradiction? And where is the invalid reason?
I wouldn't be able to provide an example, cause I don't understand it. It would be helpful to my understanding if you were to present an example that shows that I have to include a definition in the original statement in the case that you already know the definition. Thanks.
"that I have to include a definition in the original statement"
No, I said you need to prove what makes it self-evident according to what you said before.
what makes it a contradiction, because you said it should be obvious before. NOTHING will change that, you can say that you appealed to this and that but unless you prove that is worth anything, nothing changes that YOU said before and your hypo is based on it being self-evident that means prove that it's obvious
So I need to prove it before or during the moment when i'm making the statement, or else it is a contradiction? And this makes sense to you?
What are you talking about? I never said I didn't discuss that definition of self-evident as something being evident. And I still don't understand where you are getting a contradiction from? It should be as simple as, you said this, and then you said the opposite. Hmm...
What is your definition of contradiction? Maybe that's what i'm not getting.
@HRHMychael as long as self-evident is the hypo then yes, you should prove it. or at least, don't say "where do we go from here" and continue to proving it.
lol contradiction is not only about saying the opposites, lmfao, you're so simple. that's it's inconsistent, or two of them cannot exist under the same roof, you said it should be obvious before it being self-evident, now you just spew the word self-evidence w/ no proof.
But it isn't inconsistent. You are complaining about the fact that I didn't prove something I never got the chance to prove. Something being unproven doesn't equate to inconsistency or conflict. At least with what I know of the definition, but I'm sure you have some private connotation that makes it work.
I'm using the word the same way you did. I've set higher standard for myself when it comes to proof, but that doesn't make my point invalid.
Mine didn't require other proof, I said it's about perception and the proof is in the quotes, self-evident and requires no proof.
You didn't get a chance? No one tied you to a chair.
it is inconsistent, before you said that I should prove it's evident, that I need to convince you.....etc to it be self-evident, now you just jumped to the result. unless you provide all of those, it's not self-evident ACCORDING to you.
@HRHMychael I'm not the one who said I should prove anything, I said it's in the quotes, you said I should prove its evident and I need to convince you.
No, I said you need to prove that it is in the quotes. Right now, you are just making the statement that the proof is in the quotes, but you haven't proven it.
In the same way, according to your own logic, I am simply making a statement and saying the proof resides in it. According to your own logic, how can you disagree?
@HRHMychael the quotes are self-evident as in no further proof required.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying you contradicted yourself since you haven't done one thing you said before, you didn't convince me, didn't prove it's evident in the first place.
Prove that the quotes are self-evident, prove that the evidence is contained within them. You just keep making this statement as if it is true, but you haven't proven it.
And what definition of self-evident are you using? As far as I knew, you are using the rare definition that "the evidence is contained within it". This is what you adopted after you realize the others didn't suit your purpose. It is the old definition that has the provision about further proof and explanation, not yours.
This makes no sense, self-evident statements require no proof, sorry.
You don't get it, I don't have to disagree, because
" I wouldn't have to do any of the things you described "
But you would also be contradicting yourself in the same instant, making your statement invalid so it won't even matter, unless you want to retract your previous statement ^_^, I won't even get to the part if you don't contradict yourself because I don't have to, lmfao.
Essentially, you've no grounds for saying my statement is not also self-evident or else YOU'D be contradicting your OWN logic. As I've repeated, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, my statement that the opposite is self-evident is enough, because that is all you have provided when it comes to the self-evidence of your statement by your own admission.
IF we use MY logic, then I maintain that your quote is not self-evident because you haven't proven so, when there is nothing saying it can't be proven.
@HRHMychael "ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC. my statement that the opposite is self-evident is enough,"
Umm, no? Unless you prove my case is exactly like yours. you generalized what I said to your case as well, so there is no "according to my logic" FOR YOUR case.
But just to amuse you, where were you going with this? Of course you won't be contradicting yourself if you followed the other's person's OPPOSITE view, that's very common. I mean, what do YOU want? Lmfao.
So you admit that your point is only logical in your own little reality, not actuality?
Then your point is, and has always been, invalid.
For me, the logic doesn't require that they be exactly a like, by default of there being two different instances some people can say they are inherently different even if they are identical. So, you need to prove that they are significantly different, i.e. explain how they are different and how that makes your logic not applicable to my statement and trial.
@HRHMychael No? I said just because what I said works IN THAT situations, that doesn't mean it works on everything else, so your simple generalization wont do.
You're the one who applied my logic to your case, before that you need to prove that they're similar enough, other than that it wouldn't even make sense.
I never made the generalization that all situations are alike and would apply. I've only applied my logic to your case and vice versa. If you want to make the claim that they have to be exactly alike to be applicable, you need to prove it. I've done already done my part.
You are implying that there is something drastically different about our situations. You'll need to prove it. I've already spelled out some of the ways our situations are similar. Explain or prove how they're different.
But we don't know that the statement is even self-evident, but for your ascription that it is. Similar to how, according to your logic, I ascribed the opposite statement as self-evident.
Yes, I acknowledge that I would be contradicting myself if I were to make that statement, but it isn't a contradiction according to your own logic. Yet it is a contradiction because, as of now, it makes both statements self-evident. If it is as simple as just stating that they are self-evident. That's done.
If you don't wish to go past this issue and prove your case because of my contradiction, then I don't have to prove past my point because of YOUR contradiction.
We're truly at a draw because neither of us can make a point without contradicting our own logic for why our point is. But... my point is a hypothetical, it isn't my true contention, but merely a contention I created for argument's sake.
It's very simple. I'm not just gonna accept something as self-evident because you say it is.
What do I want? I wanted to show you that this conversation isn't coming to a dead end because it has run its course. It is coming to a dead end because you refuse to prove your points or statements you've made. In this way, our conversation could have been done years ago if we'd felt no need to present evidence for our points we made and just forced them as true as an alternative. Based on your logic, I can make statements, and because I said them they are true. I think I've succeeded in this.
I've been saying that almost our entire conversation. You make statements all the time that you expect me to accept as true without evidence or explanation. I HAVE said this before.
I never said it wasn't a dead end, it just isn't really a dead end. It is you being lazy and not having the evidence for your point. But if you want to make this about wrong and right, you are welcome to continue saying you are write. Like I've said numerous times, just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
britbrit
AwesomeBritney 2 months ago
Just because you cannot hit SUPER HIGH notes like Mariah does NOT mean you cannot sing. People associate high notes with singing, but they are dead wrong. I LOVE Britney's voice because it is SO unique. There is NO ONE that sounds like her.
aMasoudTorabiFilm 6 months ago
BRITNEYY!!!
ITonyfy 8 months ago 3
I love Britney's voice - so raw and natural, I think it's incredibly versatile and charismatic (I love how her voice breaks sometimes. Elvis, weirdly, sometimes did the same thing and I love how it sounds).
However, I do think that the clips for this montage could've been better chosen....
Touch Of My Hand, Don't Hang Up, Everytime, Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know, You Got It All and Thinkin' About You all feature some stunning vocals, and I'm surprised that they were omitted.
SteABW 10 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Also, as much as she gets called "trashy" and other nasty comments for silly things like casually tying her hair up or not wearing make-up and getting all tarted up for a trip to the shops etc - she is quite classy in her kind of "never complain, never explain" attitude. She knows when to acknowledge her flaws, but generally refuses to dwell on, complain about or even respond to the "sensationalism" of it all. On the rare times that she does, it seems brief & uncomfortable for her. I like that.
SteABW 10 months ago
Princess of Pop
marco35502 11 months ago
u call this power????
lol
have u heard of celine,whitney ,mariah or aretha franklin?
britney is a wonderful entertainer
BUT PLS THE GIRL CANNOT SING
1bulma1 1 year ago
I think you are all making too much fuss over a Britney Spears video.
JDog52396 1 year ago
Summary: you tried stating a hypothetical where you "adopt my logic". this cant be because things happened for a reason and I didn't state "my logic" as an interchangeable mess, for example if you said you retracted the quotes on which the self-evidence of perception was built upon that wont change anything (you could have used that as a hypo as well but it wont work). You guessed my logic is fit to apply (guess = no weight) and you havent proven ti as a possibility
hartisify 1 year ago
Prove all the claims you just made in these last few posts:
Prove it isn't "your logic".
Prove that you never switched definitions (you made this statement definitively)
Prove you addressed my objection completely
Prove nothing I said stops me from applying my definition
Prove that the sun is indeed brights and yellow.
Prove it "never was a claim of [yours]"
Prove that the quotes are self-evident.
Prove that the proof resides in them.
Prove that your proved the proof resides in them.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
hartisify 1 year ago
You've proved none of these, yet all this has to be true in order for any of the points you just made can be true. And all of this, I believe, needs to be absolutely 100% true with no room for any other possibility, since this is the status of your original claim that it is backing it up. Any wiggle room you leave in your backup evidence leaves room in your 100% absolute original claim, and would make it not 100% absolute.
If you want to just prove the last three, i'd take that as well. ;-)
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael and you never addressed any of my comment.
Do I have to pull a you and say that you agrees
hartisify 1 year ago
I am addressing all your comments: prove them.
Not according to the definition you are using, it only says that the proof is within the quotes, but you can still provide other proof and explanation.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
to make things perfectly clear: you took my logic and applied it to another case without proving it's not connected to every single element in my case(1) and without proving it's appropriate to apply(2), regardless of your aim, if it's not proven to be fit then all of this is void
and you will still have to prove (1). #1 depends on our other case which "leave things unexplained = inapplicable" :)
hartisify 1 year ago
If you want to make the claim that I took it out of context, you need to prove it. I'm not just gonna accept it as true because you say it is so.
So you think the fact that i'm willing apply your logic to other things means i view it separately from everything in a vacuum? Huh?
I never made the argument that it was fit apply, so why would I prove that? To me, you haven't been very consistent with what definition of "self-evident" you were using, so I thought you should prove the definition.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael Wait, so I have to prove when I say it's out of context but you dont have to prove that it's not? And you dare talk about being reasonable. You applied the logic first before I made this statement so you need to prove it's not out of context otherwise it's inapplicable.
You didn't name a reason at all, you named a difference and you have yet to prove it's significance, nothing about what you said doesn't apply to your regular statements, at all.
hartisify 1 year ago
As I said, I already explain the application, and that includes context. If there is something you don't understand about that application, you're welcome to point it out.
Yes, I noted a significant difference which would be a reason. Remember when you were claiming that the situation needed to be exactly the same in order for it to be applicable. I'm operating one the same premise, just not as extreme. So, a significant difference would make it inapplicable, if i understand your logic.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
Are you saying the big difference makes it inapplicable? Prove it.
I didn't say that, I said if it's connected to everything's been said to me and replied, it is taken out of context.
Actually, by applying the logic, you are saying that it was fit to apply, because it wasn't fit to apply and you applied it, that would make you borderline retarded (I'm resisting jokes here) and that makes it null, so technically yes, you did make that statement and you will prove it.
hartisify 1 year ago
Nope, that's not what I'm saying.
So your argument is that since it is connected to you and your experience, every other application of it is "out of context"? Wouldn't that apply to any and everything anyone has ever said?
Well, as it stands now, i've apply it. I explained how I applied it. You have yet to come up with a specific objections to why it is unfit to apply. So i'm assuming my application is fit for now, until you can provide some specifics on how the application doesn't work.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael No, I'm saying by applying it to your case you're assuming that I didn't say it in the light of everything's been said and replied in my case, so you need to prove that.
I replied, I didn't get what you said.
I AM in the see all comments, it's a fucking mess, I get one post from a week ago and the next one is from two months ago, Maybe it's the browsers problem I dont know.
My messages were getting spammed and I couldn't view them, ergo my many deleted posts
hartisify 1 year ago
You think that by taking the logic and applying to something else, that I'm assuming it didn't have an original context?
I don't know what to tell you, the threaded thing works fine for me. I can re-post, but I don't think that would help much. What can I do for you?
I figured at as much. I think it is the quotations. I find it helpful when you do that, but not if it gets spammed. I'll still address the content of your spammed message, i just won't reply directly to it.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
No, I'm saying that you didn't prove that it was taken out of context.
I have a comment where I chopped your comment and asked questions, you can answer them.
I don't care how you reached to that conclusion (fit to apply) whether it be assumptions or reading the back of your hand, it is still a statement that you haven't proven. LOL, who said you should say that it was proven for me to ask you to prove it? it's simply still an unproven statement.
hartisify 1 year ago
Yes, I didn't prove that because I didn't claim that. It isn't my job to
Chopped my comment? Could you give me a Ctrl+F? Or some more guidance?
Yes, it is an unproven statement. Right now, to me, it is a reasonable assumption, but none the less still unproven. It was a never my claim, so I never did the work of proving it, so it is unproven. I don't disagree with this idea. But, do show, that you haven't proven the opposite either. You haven't proven that it has been taken out of context.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
Comment removed
hartisify 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You haven't proven it's reasonable too, you haven't even offered a reasoning....thus this really holds no weight at all in this argument (or any logical argument) and it's only to you (would have been ok if you had a monologue)
Have you really proven your assumptions to be valid? or are you assuming that to too? (endless loop). Are you saying that you should only prove what you say is proven? Why? both of "this is fit" and "this is proven" are claims.
hartisify 1 year ago
This was your attempt at being clear? Could you try again, cause I don't want to be mistaken about any of the issues. This, for whatever reason, isn't clear to me.
For instance, it would appear that, once again, you are running two contradictory arguments at once in an attempt to your my logic again me, while saying you should have to abide by the logic you are using to prove your point, but i'm hoping that's actually not true. So i'll give you a chance to explain again.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael ClearER?? Lol, it's simply, you took the logic of another case. You didn't prove it's connected to the environment to that case (maybe exclusively, who knows) and you didn't prove it's fit to apply. How SIMPLER do you want it? Lol. Regardless of what you're aiming for, as long as you made that statement, prove it.
And I didn't understand your comment that starts with "you're right", I have NO idea what you were referring too.
hartisify 1 year ago
Well, if that is what you call "clear", then I definitely need it "clearer" whether it is a word or not a word.
I never made the claim that it was fit to apply, so i'm not going to prove it.
I've already explained the details of how i'm applying it, which include considerations for context, environment, and connection. If you have problem with the way I did it. You are welcome to express it.
No worries. It is appears that you were smart enough to drop that argument, so I won't waste time.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael include considerations for context, environment, and connection.``
You included everything that is connected to my logic when it applied it in my case? because that it's environment, ctrl+f please.
My next reply will depend on what you say.
I didnt drop anything nor did I retract anything. But no worries, it looks like you were smart enough to drop it ergo your lack of explanation.
hartisify 1 year ago
No, I didn't included everything that is connected your logic, are you saying that that is what application requires? As I said, i made consideration for context, environment, and connection. And just so you know, if we keep talking abstractly about my application, we're never gonna get anywhere. If you feel as if it doesn't do what you want it to do, make an objection and i'll try to clarify or throw out the application. Simple.
You didn't reply, so, in my book, you dropped it, either way.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
"I never made the claim that it was fit to apply, so i'm not going to prove it."
I never made the claim that it needs to be clear to you to be self-evident, why did you ask me to prove it?
You've avoided the question before. Please answer, thanks.
hartisify 1 year ago
I actually responded, but you probably didn't see it. Alright, are you talking about something recently, or way back a couple months ago?
If you are talking about a couple months ago. I asked because at that time you were utilizing a certain definition of self-evident to get out of having to provide proof and explanation for your quotes, but that definition also included whether or not it was "evident". I asked you to prove that evidence, so you switched to a definition that didnt include it.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael "so you switched to a definition that didnt include it."
.................aaaaand, your stance in that case was?
Umm as I already said, by applying it and moving on you assumed it was fit to apply: statement you didn't prove.
by applying it you're implying that it wasn't taken out of context to everything I've said, you haven't proven that. you said you addressed the environment, prove it.
hartisify 1 year ago
My stance has always been that you are inconsistent.
I'm *assuming* it is fit to apply, not it is proven that it is fit to apply. That's why I haven't proven that statement, because that isn't my claim.
No, i'm assuming it wasn't taken out of context cause you haven't shown where it was taken out of context, and for me, it makes complete sense.Well, what exactly is your definition of "environment"? What is the environment of your logic?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
"My stance has always been that you are inconsistent."
But you still asked me to prove something I didn't claim, after I picked that definition.
You can assume all you want, but that's not significant enough for arguments, especially after you assume and ask other people to PROVE, very rude.
Everything that's connected to it = environment, basically the history of the conversation.
hartisify 1 year ago
After you switched definitions? Well, did you retract the original definition? Or do you disagree that you ever switched?
I never said you had to accept my assumption. You are welcome to reject it. Just know that I am making the assumption. I just feel if there was a real reason specific reason why the application didn't work, you would offer it, instead of talking abstractly about the way applications should work.
And this is different from context? What is context? Do these things differ?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael I didn't say I actually switched definitions, I'm speaking from your perspective. they're 3 contradictions now.
1-you asked me to prove it's obvious to you when that wasn't my claim 2-asked me to prove something when I didn't claim it's proven...3-your statement is inapplicable because it left somethings unexplained (according to you) but you said it is.
Why would you feel that? Please explain to me why would I do something completely pointless
hartisify 1 year ago
That's why I am asking, do you believe you switched?
1- I still maintain that you use parts of the definition, and that makes the whole definition applicable. But, if anything, this was a misunderstanding, not really a contradiction.
2 - Yes, if you want to make a 100% absolute claim about something, i'm gonna ask you to prove it. That doesn't contradict what i'm doing here, since i made no such claim.
3 - I've made an objection that you haven't addressed, again there's no contradiction.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael The definition I USED doesn't have the part that you asked me to PROVE, it's that simple. It was never a claim of mine.
2-again, that was never claim of mine.
3-I addressed completely, nothing you said stops that logic to be applied.
"The circumstances in which an event occurs"
No? the circumstances were different so the context is different.
hartisify 1 year ago
And just so you know, you've done plenty of pointless things. However, i'm not sure this is one of them. Like I explained earlier, this is all we were basically doing at the start of our conversation two and half years ago. I named a reason why I thought Britney was successful other than talent, you took that logic and applied it to something else , I objected and explained how this didn't work. So you are potentially undoing all your original arguments with this argument. Like I said, be wise.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
Comment removed
hartisify 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oooo so you're saying what happened in this situation can be applied to what happened 2 years ago? Lol!
And I dont know what u r talking about, I said it's not "my logic"
Again, I wont ask you to prove your guesses but as I said, guesses simply hold no weight in an argument, but if you think they're even a possibility in this argument you should prove it.
hartisify 1 year ago
@HRHMychael No it's not different from context.
Hmmmmm, you know what? Come to think of it, we haven't really established that it's "my logic", I said what I said purely based on the quotes that prove themselves, that's like saying "the sun is yellow" is "my logic"
hartisify 1 year ago
Okay, well, don't we both have the same context? We're both participants in the same conversation, so we both have the same "history of the conversation", no? It is just me saying something instead of you.
Wow, talk about taking something out of context.
Are saying there was absolutely no logic or reasoning for your claims, but that they were just a statement to be accepted as the truth without proof? If you are saying you have no logic, that seems it would be the claim you are making?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael LOL no ^_^
I said it's not "my logic", in fact, if it was just according to my logic it wouldn't be 100% self-evident now would it?
Saying "it's a fact the sun is bright" isn't really anybody's own logic.
I just asked how are your assumptions reasonable it's like this
Assumptions ------> prove they're reasonable.
It doesn't make sense to me if the below happened
assumptions ------> prove they're reasonable ----> (you proved it) -----> prove that you proved it.
hartisify 1 year ago
Well, aren't you creating an endless loop by basically asking me to prove that I have the opinion that I have (my assumption)? Does that make sense to you? Couldn't I just ask you prove that i have to prove the opinion I have?
I mean, I guess the assumption could be a figment or some 5th dimension, but I doubt it. And then you'd have to prove that you have opinion you have about things, and who goes 1st?
You should only be responsible for proving things that you claimed are true. Simple.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
Comment removed
hartisify 1 year ago
oh and bonus: speaking of making things clearer, you have yet to give a definition of appeal. Hypocrisy at its best lol
hartisify 1 year ago
So, it would make more sense without any definition attached to it? It makes sense undefined?
I never said I stop appealing to my logic because I said so. I'm not saying that that is not true. I'm just saying that I never made that statement. You on the other hand have implied that even when appealing to your logic, I must appeal to my own as well. Didn't answer you about what?
You can't really believe that you are being clear. The way you talk about things is so random.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
"implied that even when appealing to your logic"
even when appealing to my logic ? with the word even you're implying that there is change in situations because you said you're appealing to my logic.
When you said the statement about self-evidence you appealed to that logic, Nothing has changed unless you want to prove otherwise, that's what I'm saying.
hartisify 1 year ago
oh and when I say "statement about self-evidence" I mean your logic about how it should be obvious to be self-evidence, when you said it you appealed to it.
if anything has changed, prove it and how.
hartisify 1 year ago
LOL. A fallacy? lol. Which fallacy is it? How is it a fallacy?
I'm sorry that that was the intentions you were getting, but that wasn't my intention. The "even" is in reference to the fact that they are two different things, and yet you are saying they have a type of relationship. That I can only appeal to my logic, or both my logic and yours. I can never just appeal to your logic. I'm asking you, what is your proof for that, or how do you figure that's the case?
Did I say something changed?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
That your statement/hypo is based on an INVALID reason (in this case lack thereof).
I already told you, the minute you said it, you appealed to it, nothing has changed UNLESS proven otherwise, it's your job to prove that appealing to mine changes anything sis.
I explained to you which definitions I picked, you haven't done so.
hartisify 1 year ago
You are all over the place. How is my hypothetical based on an invalid reason? I like the way you didn't even make the statement, but you are telling me all about what it is based on, and the intentions behind it, and what it should include and not include. Truly comical.
Yes, you told me, but you haven't proved it. So I'm waiting... Otherwise, I feel no need to abide by it just because you told me it was so.
Well, i'm not strict with my definitions like you, i'm merely partial to MW.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
I haven't proved what? that change happens without any reasons? that it has changed unless proven otherwise?......speaking of comedies..
hartisify 1 year ago
You haven't proved the following:
1. That I should have included the definition
2. That it is based on an invalid reason
3. That I contradicted myself
4. That in appealing to your logic, I must appeal to my own.
5. Whatever this issue is concerning "change", or whatever.
6. What about saying it, mean i automatically appeal to me. etc.
I'm not sure this is even a complete list, and there are tons of things you'll need to explain regarding all these topics. That I just don't get.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
Hilarious, asking questions that already answered several times, this is the last time I will answer.
1-because otherwise it won't make sense. 2-because it's incomplete. 3-becz u said it's obvious then didn't prove so in the hypo. 4-I didn't say that, fail. 5-what? 6-u mean u dont appeal to it when you say some logic?
hartisify 1 year ago
1- It makes sense to me. How doesn't it make sense? 2- How it is incomplete? What's missing? 3- So a statement that the person hasn't prove yet is a contradiction? Really? Prove it. 4- What are you saying about the appealing to logic thing, then? 4- You keep saying something about "change" or how things "change". But if you want to retract it, I totally get it. 6- When I say some logic? Huh?
Here are my responses to those issues you've failed to answer. That's how you haven' t proved them.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael because it isn't self-evident unless you prove it's obvious.
2-see #1 3-yes, anything that's not in accordance is. 4- in short that you said what you said and nothing will change that unless proven otherwise, I wont even use the word appeal anymore. 6-I asked whether when you say a logical statement, do you appeal to it?
responses to the issues you've failed to understand.
hartisify 1 year ago
1 - Please address
2 - So it is incomplete because it is unproven. - Prove it.
3 - So it inconsistent because it is unproven - Prove it.
4 - You'll need to prove that, or else it is incomplete, inconsistent, and a contradiction. Well, actually it already is those things.
5 - Please address.
6 - This is about your understanding of appealing to someone's logic. So, based on your response, I can appeal to your logic without simultaneously appealing to my own?
And I still don't understand...
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael 1-did see first line.
2-prove what?
3-...same
5-u dont even know what u r talking about. "u said something about change"...what?
6-I didn't even talk about that, I said no matter what you say wont change the fact that you said it should be obvious to be self-evident
hartisify 1 year ago
Also... I didn't know this was game where there were "bonuses". It is an interesting idea, especially when it is a bonus you failed to get.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael there are multiple definitions to the word appeal
hartisify 1 year ago
There are many defs of self-evident, but that didn't stop you from picking definitions. And you know what my position is on definitions. So read some; as I said before, i'm partial to MW.
I repeat, I don't think I ever made the statement that anything "changed". This is about how you figured that I am unable to appeal to your logic without appealing to my own. This is a concept you still need to go about proving. I'm still waiting...
How do you figure that when I said it, I appealed to it?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
and you still haven't given another word for appeal. Wow.
Oh and just to make things more clear.
***important****
Your hypothetical is that you saying it is self-evident and "where do we go from here". Nothing about proving so, sorry.
hartisify 1 year ago
Why do you need another word for appeal? I think appeal works just fine. If I had wanted to use another word, i would have used another word. So, again, why is it that appealing to a certain line of logic, that i must takes other, even my own, into consideration as well, even though i'm addressing a specific line of logic?
Your right, it doesn't say anything about proving, which is why i don't understand why you've made whether or not it is proven into a part of the issue when it isn't.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael give a definition to the word appeal then.
hartisify 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's what you said again
"So, what happens to our conversation if I just say that it is self-evident that "I think" does NOT equal the entire conversation being about perception?"
underline what happens.
It contributes nothing because of THAT HAPPENS you will contradict yourself considering that you didnt prove it's obvious to ME AND YOU and that's what you said before?
hartisify 1 year ago
and to answer your first basic question, because the hypothetical is the opposite of what you said. it's just a matter if it exists or not, if it does then you will contradict yourself because again, it's the opposite of what you said.
how is the opposite? because you said it aint self-evident unless it's obvious to me, now you're just saying it is.
hartisify 1 year ago
How is that the opposite of what *I* said?
But I never said whether or not the hypothetical was obvious to me and you or not... so?
So you are essentially saying that no matter what, everything I said in the past has to match up with what I said now? Even if it is hypothetical and it is appealing to your logic (not my own)? Does this apply even to you?
But your first answer isn't an accurate depiction of the situation. I never said the opposite or the hypothetical. It doesn't contradict.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"But I never said whether or not the hypothetical was obvious to me and you or not... so?"
You still called it self-evident without proving it's obvious to me and you...in the hypothetical.
You still don't get it, you said "what happens", well if THAT happens you would be contradicting yourself
hartisify 1 year ago
So, basically, all of your answers to my question hinges on a contradiction I never made, but that you are assuming i'll make in the case that the argument is engaged, but you refuse to engage the argument?
Furthermore, in appealing to your logic, I automatically still appeal to my own, right? And this applies to you as well. That you yourself can't undo the logic of your own def. that self-evidence doesn't have to be obvious, and insist (appeal to) my logic and say it isn't self-evident?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
Comment removed
hartisify 1 year ago
@HRHMychael "in appealing to your logic, I automatically still appeal to my own, right?"
I said no matter what you appeal to, you still said what you said, then I asked you to explain how appealing to my logic keeps you from contradicting yourself, then I asked you to give me another word for appeal...u r way behind
hartisify 1 year ago
I repeat, i haven't said whether or not it is obvious to me and you, so how can i be contradicting that statement. That isn't necessarily what happens. This only happens if you presuppose that I would be unable to prove it.
We're still on how you figure it does? I still don't understand your reasoning and you haven't explained further,just keep repeating what you said earlier. I understand that what I said is what I said,but what does this have to do with contradiction? You are skipping steps.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael That makes no difference considering you called it self-evident before proving so.
My reasoning for what? that you said what you said? lmfao.
I'm skipping? this is the 2nd time I asked you to explain how appealing keeps you from contradicting that to give me another word for appealing. Actually this is like the 4th time I asked you to explain how appealing to mine keeps you from contradicting and you still havent answered
hartisify 1 year ago
That's no a contradiction, that's an argument you're making.
How does 'I said what I said' lead to a contradiction. Since, what I said wasn't the opposite of the hypothetical, how does it happen? And how, despite the fact that I'm appealing to your logic, does it still apply to what I said?
Yes, and I told you, one thing at a time. We're still trying to figure out how you suppose this is a contradiction on my part, and how, in appealing to your logic, it still has to account for my own logic.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael it is a contradiction, you had the cart before the horse situation there, saying it's self-evident before proving so, sorry.
hartisify 1 year ago
And you saying that, the hypothetical not proving it first results in a contradiction, even when it might be a situation where i just have gotten around to proving it? You call that a contradiction? Huh?
Furthermore, are you saying that I should go about proving a statement first before you even know what i'm proving before even making the statement? And that that is the only way to do it (as in the example of the cart before the horse)? Really? And that this results in a contradiction? Huh?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael You said "what if i said it is self-evident, where do we go from here".
NOW I'm saying you're contradicting since you haven't proven it to be self-evident,
also, IF THAT happens, you're contradicting yourself because of what you said before that's why I said it contributes nothing to the argument.
You can't POSSIBLY prove that it was obvious to me, let's just get that out of the way.
hartisify 1 year ago
The idea that i can't possibly prove it is YOUR argument, not mine, so i'm contradicting it.
Again, so you expect a statement to be proven before the statement is even made? If not, i don't understand how it not being proven serves as a contradiction.
Like I said, one thing at a time. You're claiming that it doesn't exclude my logic, and i'm still waiting on an explanation of how that is. I'd be happy to explain anything you ask if i can get a comprehensible explanation out of you first.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael it's not mine, unless you're telepathic, you can't possible know what goes on in my mind.
I expect it to be a part of the hypothetical, you didn't mention it at all, you said "it is self evident where do we go from here", sorry.
Your reason that you're not contradicting yourself is that you're appealing to my logic, if it doesn't exclude then it's meaningless, so technically you said it is excluded in the first place
hartisify 1 year ago
This isn't a contradiction of mine. Where do you think i said it was impossible? This seem to just be an argument that you are currently making. Not me.
Expect? So basically, you've placed all these nonessential expectations on the hypothetical, and I must abide by your expectations whether or not it has anything to do with what intended or meant?
This is just the way you've interpreted it, but I only meant what I said. So could you explain how you determined that it is inclusive of my logic?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael who told u that u'd have to say it? unless you're gonna claim you're telepathic or have a 6th sense (which you'll have to prove" you cant know what's obvious to other people.
I was being polite, IT SHOULD have been there.
hartisify 1 year ago
"This is just the way you've interpreted it"
How? you claimed that you're not contradicting yourself, if what you said is inclusive to your logic then you are contradicting yourself, so technically you should prove that it is excluded first.
hartisify 1 year ago
I've only asked you to explain the contradiction. So far all your examples fail to show this. So far, you've made the argument to not presuppose and disseminate all the proof before I've even made the statement is a contradiction. Or that you having an argument to my statement makes it a contradiction from me. I've only ever pointed out that those aren't contradictions. You haven't shown my contradiction, even if i was appealing to my own logic. I maintain, i'm appealing to yours hypothetically.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
No to mention, you still have yet to address the issue of appealing to your logic. You haven't yet explained how that automatically include my logic even though i'm appealing to your own. How, in appealing to one line of logic, i should also consider other lines of logic within that as well, and look for contradictions? This seems to be your implication. Could you explain further, because i still don't understand this point.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael LMFAO, actually you haven't addressed the issue of how it EXCLUDES your logic in the first place.
Wait, it excludes your logic because you said you are appealing to mine? lmfao. As I said, NOTHING will change the fact that you said what you said before, unless you want to retract.
hartisify 1 year ago
So let me get this straight: If someone says, "The chair is red", before even giving them a chance to prove it (whether or not you think that's possible to do so). Your response would be, "Aha, you haven't proven it yet that's a contradiction." This seems to be the case considering the following.
1. You haven't been able to point out where i said the opposite of anything i'm saying right now.
2. The idea that is a contradiction is based on whether or not i can prove it?
3. You haven't explained
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
If I said the chair is blue, you asked me to do a couple of stuff to prove that, then you said "what if I said the chair is red, where do we go from here?" your hypothetical is missing, sis, unless you want to adjust it to contain the reason, sorry.
hartisify 1 year ago
As you know, I'm personally a fan of Merriam Webster, but any dictionary will potentially do.
Well, your example doesn't really work for me, because I don't feel that you ever went about proving it beyond making a statement that it's self-evident, but that this supposed self-evidence was the proof that it was self-evident. So, my hypothetical is what if "The chair is blue" was also self-evident in the same way, what would happen?
My hypothetical is missing? What does that mean? Adjust? Huh?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael u r right, i didnt prove it, but u asked me to in specific ways and then ur hypothetical was free of those specific ways.
oh wait, so ur hypo is its not about perception and it's self-evident in the quotes?
hartisify 1 year ago
Yes, my hypothetical is free of those specific ways. That's what I intended.
My hypothetical is just as you've quoted it.
Who told you that it's true even when I didn't say? I know that I don't have to say it for it to be interpreted with extraneous information, but that is exactly what it is in that particular case... just extraneous information.
And all this talk of 6th sense and telepathy is before I even make the statement for which these things are the proof? And this is the only way?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael "My hypothetical is just as you've quoted it."
Good then, you're contradicting yourself.
unless you can prove how does you appealing to my logic stops you from appealing to yours.
hartisify 1 year ago
Nice try, but we still have the same problem. How does my hypothetical a contradiction? You haven't even explained how it relates to my argument in a contradictory manner. Furthermore, how in appealing to my logic, I also have to be appealing to my own logic simultaneously.
Your the only one who has made claims concerning this, i'm just spending my time trying to understand your claims on these subject. So if you could please explain, I'd appreciate it.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael if your hypothetical is that it's self-evident and the proof is in the quotes then you're contradicting because you haven't proven that they're obvious to everybody,your hypo says nothing about that.
hartisify 1 year ago
You're right, my hypothetical doesn't say anything about whether or not it is obvious to you and me. Why should it? And how is this a contradiction?
Again, so before I can even make a statement, I have to go through the work of proving it first, and then make it and this is the only way for it not to be a contradiction? And then is this even really "contradiction"?
And, again, this doesn't consider that i'm appealing to your logic. Why must I include my logic when i'm appealing to yours?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael because your criteria for self-evident statement is that they're obvious to everybody, unless you want to retract your previous hypo and make a new one that includes it being obvious and the proof to that.
"Why must I include my logic when i'm appealing to yours?"
Why is it excluded in the first place?
P.S: because you said so isn't a valid answer
hartisify 1 year ago
So, again, I must go through the business of proving how it is self-evident, before I can even make the hypothetical statement that it is self-evident? And if i don't prove it before I issue the statement is it s a "contradiction"? ...this makes sense to you?
I never excluded or included it in the first place. You're the one who is claiming that it must be included. I'm asking you how you came to that conclusion? You still haven't explained.
And why isn't "because I said so" a valid answer?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael no, it must have been included in the hypo.
Honey, YOU are the one who said the sentence first, so if you don't exclude it when you said that then it is included, therefore you must prove it's excluded first.
Why is it a valid answer?
hartisify 1 year ago
You can keep trying to turn the questions around on me, but i'm only going to continue to ask you for your explanation of assertions you first made.
I gave a hypothetical. As I said, I never excluded or included my own logic. You then asked a question that insisted I include my own logic. I'm now asking you for a explanation of why I must include it? Asking and waiting.
And I still need info about this "valid answer" and the contradiction. So far, contradiction = didn't prove it before stated?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael You made the assertions indirectly, you said how is your logic included when you're appealing to mine as if it somehow repels it, not to mention, you mentioned it as a reason when I said you are contradicting yourself.
The hypothetical is the statement sis, you didn't include it, you can retract if you want :)
hartisify 1 year ago
Notice how each example was me responding to you. Yes, all of this was in RESPONSE or questioning to your original assertions . I am still asking you about those assertions because you haven't explained them.
Yes, the hypothetical is a statement, so I can't figure out why you keep insisting that there should be more to it than that statement.
So, care to explain how i'm contradicting myself, why i must appeal to my own logic as well as yours, and why "because I said so" isn't a valid answer?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael nope, if you said two opposite things, then you are contradicting yourself without me saying anything, in response you said you were appealing to my logic so I said how does that change anything? you need to prove that.
I already explained and replied to those both and will not repeat anything, sorry.
hartisify 1 year ago
Yes, on a base level, if i'd said two opposite things, then I am contradicting myself, and the same would apply to you. The problem is you still haven't shown the two instances where i said these opposite things. In fact, you keep pointing out that i never said the thing that was opposite to it, but are insisting this is contradiction. This just doesn't make sense.
Again, I responded to you because you made the original assertions. It isn't my job to disprove your own assertions, sorry.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael I said if first of all, second of all i have shown how you did.
You made the assertions sorry. I said you were contradicting yourself, IF you were contradicting yourself and then said "I'm appealing to your logic" then you'd have to explain how that changes anything.
But if you were too stupid to understand, why would I explain it in another way when this was the simplest?
as for the because I said so, you'd have to explain how it's valid in the first place
hartisify 1 year ago
What?
You haven't even how I was contradicting myself, therein lies the problem.
Are you saying the way you explained it is the simplest way? Are you sure about that? Well, you would want me to understand because we're having a conversation. At least when I have a conversation, I want the person i'm talking to to understand my explanation. I don't think this is a crazy idea.
You're the one who originally made the assertion that it wasn't valid, so i'm only asking you a question about it.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
"You haven't even how I was contradicting myself, therein lies the problem."
That's a different problem, I said IF you were, then this and that (see my last comment).
Right, well I already explained it, sorry.
you're saying it's valid until said otherwise?? lol
hartisify 1 year ago
Are you serious?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael lol what
hartisify 1 year ago
All of it. The idea that contradiction, the thing we've been talking about for the last two weeks, is suddenly a separate issue. Yet you are using an if-then logic construction that include contradiction within it, but you maintain that it is a "different problem".
Not only that, but you refuse to explain something I don't understand, but still wish to continue the conversation. Could you at least give me a quote to where you explained? Come words to Ctrl+F?
I mean, really?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
Suddenly? LMFAO!
always been 2 parts
1-We discussed whether you said opposite things
2-we discussed whether it matters you said two different things because you keeep appealing to my logic.
twice I've been discussing number 2 but at the end you allways go "BUT I DIDNT SAY TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!" lmfao.
I DID explain, if I refused to explain you wouldn't have said explain MORE clearly. (meaning I explained itttt before)
hartisify 1 year ago
Yes, two part we've always addressed simultaneously. Now, you aren't willing to address the contradict part, when the second argument is wholly dependent on it.
Yes, but this is just like using circular logic. Yes, you present logic or proof, but it was circular, so it hardly constitutes as logic to begin with, but it is still none the less logic. So, yes, I asked for more explanation, but, considering the original didn't make much sense, it hardly constituted as an explanation to begin with.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
Actually I was talking about number 2, and in the end of the discussion about it you dropped the "but I didn't contradict myself" which is about part one.
It's not circular.
hartisify 1 year ago
And what you provided are examples of how you explained it crystal clearly in their simplest terms? Seriously?
I never said it was circular, I was using that as an example of how something can be "logic", "proof", or "explanation", but it can still fail to do what those things are supposed to accomplish. But it is interesting that you just made a statement, without proof or explanation, but i'm sure you wouldn't consider this a contradiction. Interesting.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael what statement without proof?
You think I don't feel that way? I actually don't understand how you don't understand so we're in the same pot. I think you DONT WANT to understand it because you haven't even pointed out what's unclear.
hartisify 1 year ago
I've almost always tried to reiterate your point to check my understand through a question of "Is this right?". You either don't respond to my question, or you answer with a simple "no" without trying to correct where my understanding of what you are trying to say might have gone awry.
I think you don't want me to "understand" and I can't because it is illogical. I've always bent over backwards to explain things when it is my job to explain them. You always seem to be the first to give up.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael now you wrote an entire paragpraph without telling me what you didn't understand. if I don't want you to understand I wouldn't have pointed that fact that you haven't pointed what wasn't clear.
LMFAO absolutely not. a lot of things you didnt explain
hartisify 1 year ago
If it was my obligation to explain it, I explained it.
Yes, I wrote an entire paragraph about how i've always asked for clarification through asking questions. You can go back and look at some of my past posts. I don't need to post them all again. I'm just showing you that your claim that i've never pointed out where it isn't clear is unfounded.
If you did want me to understand, you wouldn't have ignored my questions or answered them with the same word response I already didn't understand.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
For instance, if you can present two quotes where I say the opposite thing regarding this topic of the hypothetical, then that would be a way to show that i've contradicted myself. So far, you've only made a statement saying that i've contradicted myself, or have placed certain expectation on my quote that are implied, or had proposed a refutation to my quote and claim that that makes it a contradiction.
You haven't been able to provide two quotes that on their own show the contradiction.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael you know that you said that it has to be obvious to you when I said it's self-evident.
but your hypo is missing that part, it's incomplete. it's not an expectation, it should be there.
hartisify 1 year ago
Yes, I know that I spoke of that definition of self-evident. But you haven't shown where I contradicted myself. Mentioning something and "knowing it" doesn't spell out a contradiction.
Why should it be there? How can you it 100% absolutely should be there? You've given no evidence, proof, or even a basis for why it should be there. And even if it should, that still doesn't equate to me contradicting myself.
I hope my comments were specific enough, so you can identify the problem.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael the fact that your hypo is free of that, it's missing that part, the very definition of the word
because otherwise it won't make sense at all. an incomplete hypothetical? lmfao.
hartisify 1 year ago
Free of what? Free of the definition of the word? How so? How is my hypothetical free of the definition of the word? Of what word, also?
How is the hypothetical incomplete? You aren't making much sense. Are you trying to say that after every time we use a word we should write out the definition after it. That it must be included in the statement to be "complete"? This doesn't make much sense to me, please explained.
Please note all the questions i asked abut specific parts of your claim.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael that it is obvious, thats whats missing
hartisify 1 year ago
What is obvious? (Is it obvious?) What's missing?
Like I asked ( and you didn't answer), are you trying to say that after every time a word or term is used within a statement that we should also supply the definition?
When it comes to tips for making sure you are being clear and explanatory, using fewer and fewer words is not the best idea, especially if all the words are the same as the ones before. You'll usually want to break down and extend when it comes to explanation. Just a thought.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HRHMychael because you're being very stupid.
Me: "you know that you said that it has to be OBVIOUS to you when I said it's self-evident."
You: "Yes, I know that I spoke of that definition of self-evident. whats incomplete"
Me: "that it is obvious, thats whats missing"
You: "HMM?? OBVIOUS?? WHAAT? WHOO? WHERE?"
hartisify 1 year ago
@HRHMychael Anyways, no, that's not what I'm saying, but it should have the FUNDAMENTAL thing that makes it self-evident in this situation, not the definition itself. you cant throw statements like that. You might as well say "lets say that everything I say is right, where do we go from here?"
you might as well say "lets say you're wrong, where do we go from here"
lmfao
hartisify 1 year ago
You're not even speaking in complete sentence, yet you want to you've explain it in the simplest and clearest term when you haven't.
Why can't I "throw statements like that"? You aren't really giving a concrete reason for why it must be. So, I can't make a statement without throwing in the fundamentals of the definition for each word? Can you possibly show me an example from when you first use "self-evident"?
How did you determine that "obvious" was the fundamental element of the definition?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael Why CAN you throw statements like that? Does it make sense? if you said "let's say you are wrong, where do we go from here" would that make sense? if you don't include the reason how it's self-evident why should I even consider the hypo?
you said it should be obvious to be self-evident. For each word? no, but when your statement centers ABOUT that thing (it being self-evident) you should include how is it so.
hartisify 1 year ago
If you want to claim that the hypothetical doesn't make sense, that is another issue. The issue we are talking about right now is that the hypothetical is a contradiction, or that i contradicted myself in make the hypothetical. Then you need to prove that in appealing to your logic I have to also appeal to my own, and THEN we can get to this issue of whether or not it "makes sense". I'll be happy to address that when we get this other stuff out of the way.
So, contradiction...
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael You need to prove that you somehow stop appealing to your logic just because "you said so"...
You did make the statement, you said "I'm saying it's self-evident, where do we go from here" AGAIN, that's like saying "I'm saying you're wrong, where do we go from here"......??? it's imcomplete, you should say "I'm saying you're wrong because [insert logical reason here] where do we go"
hartisify 1 year ago
Show me the example where you did this? Show me where you said, "The quotes are self-evident that it is about perception because [insert logic here]." Maybe with an example i'd understand better. And it would show that there has been a precedent set.
You mention self-evidence after discussing defs, so, are you saying there is no example of you can give me of where you did that? Wouldn't you want to provide the def. especially in cases where I don't know it already?
And I 100% have to do this?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael Why would I show you an example where I did this?
You DIDNT know my logic of self-evident statements BEFORE I said it, I know yours before you said the hypothetical, FOCUS.
because otherwise it wouldn't make sense. If you didn't say that it has to be obvious then you'd have a point.
that changes things to whom or what? To you it changes because you said it's obvious, and you didn't answer me, how do you stop appealing to your logic just because you say so?
hartisify 1 year ago
I told you that a regular dictionary definition would probably work just fine. Do you need me to explain the definition to you?
Because you want to explain and prove the point you are making. If you don't want to prove it, that's fine by me, but i'm not going to feel obligated to follow it.
I am focusing. You haven't explain why that makes a difference. Logically, for me, it would seem you would provide the definition in the case that I didn't know it. Not re-supply it when I already know it.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael Prove it by posting an example of where I did it??? I'm sooo sorry if that makes sense to you.
Again, you didn't know what is self-evident to me means BEFORE I said, but I know what it means to you before you said the hypo, I already have a previous frame of reference of what YOU consider self-evident so when you say something is self-evident, NOT including the reason you stated before, that's a fallacy.
hartisify 1 year ago
Yes, for me, it would set a precedent. Besides, examples are often used to make something clearer. This isn't a novel idea.
As of now, you have given a definition of self-evident and you still use the word without referencing its definition. Why should I have to? Show me example of how you always provide the definition of self-evident. And, you didn't answer my question: Wouldn't it make more sense to reference the definition when it isn't understood as opposed to when it is?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
I asked you to prove how it's obvious because your hypothetical says it's self-evident and that is hinged on the fact that it's obvious.
Name ONE situation where that applies to me.
I'm not talking about the dictionary's definition, I'm talking about what YOU and I said. And I never said you should reference it everytime.
hartisify 1 year ago
You still have yet to prove that the hypothetical hinges on this. You are skipping a couple steps here.
I don't know because I don't understand the situation to begin with... hence, why I am asking you for an example. Are you implying that this rule you invented only applies to me (why am I not surprised)? Why does it only apply to me? Where's the proof?
So, if I shouldn't reference it every time, why should I reference it in this situation and not others?
Questions, questions...
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael because your hypo is it self-evident and that cant be without it being obvious (ACCORDING TO WHAT U SAID)
if I implied that it applies to you I wouldn't have asked you to provide an example where that situation happened to me. I never said
because you set a hypothetical that cannot exist without it being obvious according to your standards.
hartisify 1 year ago
When did the discussion become only about what I say, I though you said things are that way simply because I say they are? And what does that have to do with a contradiction? And where is the invalid reason?
I wouldn't be able to provide an example, cause I don't understand it. It would be helpful to my understanding if you were to present an example that shows that I have to include a definition in the original statement in the case that you already know the definition. Thanks.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
"that I have to include a definition in the original statement"
No, I said you need to prove what makes it self-evident according to what you said before.
what makes it a contradiction, because you said it should be obvious before. NOTHING will change that, you can say that you appealed to this and that but unless you prove that is worth anything, nothing changes that YOU said before and your hypo is based on it being self-evident that means prove that it's obvious
.
hartisify 1 year ago
So I need to prove it before or during the moment when i'm making the statement, or else it is a contradiction? And this makes sense to you?
What are you talking about? I never said I didn't discuss that definition of self-evident as something being evident. And I still don't understand where you are getting a contradiction from? It should be as simple as, you said this, and then you said the opposite. Hmm...
What is your definition of contradiction? Maybe that's what i'm not getting.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael as long as self-evident is the hypo then yes, you should prove it. or at least, don't say "where do we go from here" and continue to proving it.
lol contradiction is not only about saying the opposites, lmfao, you're so simple. that's it's inconsistent, or two of them cannot exist under the same roof, you said it should be obvious before it being self-evident, now you just spew the word self-evidence w/ no proof.
hartisify 1 year ago
Why should I prove it? You didn't prove yours.
But it isn't inconsistent. You are complaining about the fact that I didn't prove something I never got the chance to prove. Something being unproven doesn't equate to inconsistency or conflict. At least with what I know of the definition, but I'm sure you have some private connotation that makes it work.
I'm using the word the same way you did. I've set higher standard for myself when it comes to proof, but that doesn't make my point invalid.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
Mine didn't require other proof, I said it's about perception and the proof is in the quotes, self-evident and requires no proof.
You didn't get a chance? No one tied you to a chair.
it is inconsistent, before you said that I should prove it's evident, that I need to convince you.....etc to it be self-evident, now you just jumped to the result. unless you provide all of those, it's not self-evident ACCORDING to you.
hartisify 1 year ago
Why didn't your require proof beyond the statement itself? Why is it that mine, according to your logic, require proof beyond just the statement?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael I'm not the one who said I should prove anything, I said it's in the quotes, you said I should prove its evident and I need to convince you.
hartisify 1 year ago
No, I said you need to prove that it is in the quotes. Right now, you are just making the statement that the proof is in the quotes, but you haven't proven it.
In the same way, according to your own logic, I am simply making a statement and saying the proof resides in it. According to your own logic, how can you disagree?
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael the quotes are self-evident as in no further proof required.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying you contradicted yourself since you haven't done one thing you said before, you didn't convince me, didn't prove it's evident in the first place.
hartisify 1 year ago
Prove that the quotes are self-evident, prove that the evidence is contained within them. You just keep making this statement as if it is true, but you haven't proven it.
And what definition of self-evident are you using? As far as I knew, you are using the rare definition that "the evidence is contained within it". This is what you adopted after you realize the others didn't suit your purpose. It is the old definition that has the provision about further proof and explanation, not yours.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael
This makes no sense, self-evident statements require no proof, sorry.
You don't get it, I don't have to disagree, because
" I wouldn't have to do any of the things you described "
But you would also be contradicting yourself in the same instant, making your statement invalid so it won't even matter, unless you want to retract your previous statement ^_^, I won't even get to the part if you don't contradict yourself because I don't have to, lmfao.
hartisify 1 year ago
Essentially, you've no grounds for saying my statement is not also self-evident or else YOU'D be contradicting your OWN logic. As I've repeated, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, my statement that the opposite is self-evident is enough, because that is all you have provided when it comes to the self-evidence of your statement by your own admission.
IF we use MY logic, then I maintain that your quote is not self-evident because you haven't proven so, when there is nothing saying it can't be proven.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael "ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC. my statement that the opposite is self-evident is enough,"
Umm, no? Unless you prove my case is exactly like yours. you generalized what I said to your case as well, so there is no "according to my logic" FOR YOUR case.
But just to amuse you, where were you going with this? Of course you won't be contradicting yourself if you followed the other's person's OPPOSITE view, that's very common. I mean, what do YOU want? Lmfao.
hartisify 1 year ago
So you admit that your point is only logical in your own little reality, not actuality?
Then your point is, and has always been, invalid.
For me, the logic doesn't require that they be exactly a like, by default of there being two different instances some people can say they are inherently different even if they are identical. So, you need to prove that they are significantly different, i.e. explain how they are different and how that makes your logic not applicable to my statement and trial.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael No? I said just because what I said works IN THAT situations, that doesn't mean it works on everything else, so your simple generalization wont do.
You're the one who applied my logic to your case, before that you need to prove that they're similar enough, other than that it wouldn't even make sense.
hartisify 1 year ago
I never made the generalization that all situations are alike and would apply. I've only applied my logic to your case and vice versa. If you want to make the claim that they have to be exactly alike to be applicable, you need to prove it. I've done already done my part.
You are implying that there is something drastically different about our situations. You'll need to prove it. I've already spelled out some of the ways our situations are similar. Explain or prove how they're different.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
But we don't know that the statement is even self-evident, but for your ascription that it is. Similar to how, according to your logic, I ascribed the opposite statement as self-evident.
Yes, I acknowledge that I would be contradicting myself if I were to make that statement, but it isn't a contradiction according to your own logic. Yet it is a contradiction because, as of now, it makes both statements self-evident. If it is as simple as just stating that they are self-evident. That's done.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
If you don't wish to go past this issue and prove your case because of my contradiction, then I don't have to prove past my point because of YOUR contradiction.
We're truly at a draw because neither of us can make a point without contradicting our own logic for why our point is. But... my point is a hypothetical, it isn't my true contention, but merely a contention I created for argument's sake.
It's very simple. I'm not just gonna accept something as self-evident because you say it is.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
@HRHMychael past of what issue? Again, there is no "according to my logic" for you (see previous comment)
Lmfao, my point has been made a long time ago, all I said is that you'd be contradicting yourself if this n that.
"I'm not just gonna accept something as self-evident because you say it is."
You should have said this a loooooong time ago, and just like I said, it WAS a dead end. You were wrong and I was right ^_^
hartisify 1 year ago
What do I want? I wanted to show you that this conversation isn't coming to a dead end because it has run its course. It is coming to a dead end because you refuse to prove your points or statements you've made. In this way, our conversation could have been done years ago if we'd felt no need to present evidence for our points we made and just forced them as true as an alternative. Based on your logic, I can make statements, and because I said them they are true. I think I've succeeded in this.
HRHMychael 1 year ago
Comment removed
hartisify 1 year ago
I've been saying that almost our entire conversation. You make statements all the time that you expect me to accept as true without evidence or explanation. I HAVE said this before.
I never said it wasn't a dead end, it just isn't really a dead end. It is you being lazy and not having the evidence for your point. But if you want to make this about wrong and right, you are welcome to continue saying you are write. Like I've said numerous times, just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
HRHMychael 1 year ago