Jacob is a true marksman.

The cancer is strong in here.

lol, the burden of proof is on you.

I make statement A
You say statement A is false because of statement B
You have to prove B and in this case that means you have to prove that logic is subjective.

Cruz Ive played your game far too often for it to work, stating your opinion as fact can be effective but you either have to be arguing with someone who doesn't know better (which is not the case this time) or are capable of arguing your opponent under the table(which you are incapable of at this time).

p.s. name calling at this point in an argument is a weakness.

If statement A is false, then prove it's false to built upon your point.

You're not refuting anything I'm saying, only stating that it's wrong.

So again, prove something can objectively exist. Prove logic isn't based on observation(something unarguably empirical) and a reasoning framework(again another thing that isn't objective). I'm open to the idea if given proper reasoning but you're completely avoiding the subject.

If you can't even question the way you reason and perceive things I don't think we you can go anywhere. And no, I don't care if I called you a faggot or if you think less of me for it since you're being very boring. I never took you for one of the people here who had tunnel vision.

It seems you misunderstood... I made statement A

A: It's illogical to kill in God's name

You said statement A is false because of statement B

B: Logic is subjective so what may be illogical to you may not be illogical to me

Because you decided to challenge my assertion you have to prove that logic is subjective(something you're avoiding). I reject your premise and maintain that people simply use it as justification to kill other humans for wealth or profit(this is not me providing evidence, simply waiting for yours).

I'm willing to hear out any evidence you have to the contrary but you've still to this point not said anything factual that supports your statement that logic is subjective. Thus far you've provided the same thing as I have, opinions. Which is fine, where you erred is when you held that your opinion is actually fact.



Your opinion of how boring I'm being has little baring on this debate, while I may be boring you at this point you have still not shown me to be wrong.

I already did prove it though. Multiple times.
You however contributed nothing, no rebuttals, no explanations, not even a definition of objective.

I've repeated this over and over again and haven't shown any rebuttals or pointed a fault in my reasoning. Don't lie about how I've been avoiding the subject about subjectivity.

You have literally shown nothing, Waar. Literally Nothing. You can't keep crying that the burden of proof is on me when I already gave a reasoning you've yet to refute. The ball has been in your court for a while now and you're doing nothing and claiming yourself to be some victor of an "argument"(lol).

So I'll say this again, don't waste my time unless you're going to actually say something of substance.

cruz and waar in the same thread is maximum cancer

Agreed. The actual logical thing to do is stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective

Please read the individual articles for each connective.

FAKKU comments master race.... Not sure if its a race...

Rebuttal to what though? You've only posted personal opinion. You challenged my assertion and then didn't provide any proof of reasoning.

Do you want a rebuttal for your opinion? Alright. I don't agree cruz. Lemme know if you come up with something more valid and ill take a crack at it.

I'm not claiming to be a victor yet, we haven't even started an argument.

edit: p.s. reality is not subjective, nor is it based on perception. I can believe something based on what I've perceived but that doesn't mean it's reality. If a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to hear it did it make a sound, it certainly did because the tree has mass and gravity would create a sound with that mass, did the tree even fall? of course, perception is subjective, reality is not.

Rebuttal to my reasoning, if logic isn't objective, then prove it. If you disagree then prove my assertion wrong.

If you're going to agree perception is subjective, then so is logic. Since logic is dependent on perception and reasoning is too since:


If a tree that you don't see nor know exist where to theoretically fall in some woods somewhere then you can reason that it will make sound. Your reasoning may be logical since it's based on a set of well established principles, but it's not objective. Again, see above quote. Commonly accepted statements and reasoning are still based on empirical data collection and reasoning. In terms of mathematical logic and reasoning, you're saying p then P.


I know your original statement was on killing and how justifying it is some flimsy attempt to absolve guilt, but since we both know it's opinion/presumption built statement based on personal beliefs, the cultural sphere you're in and a few factors you probably haven't questioned yourself, I'm not going to bother with it. And yes I know that was your point and we've gone far, far away from it.

But you did say Logic was objective. And you haven't proven it is, don't feel bad though, even questioning your own perspective is still not free from influence of your own perspective. If logic is based on perception, something you acknowledge as subjective, then how can you claim logic is objective?

I need more popcorn.

Drizzle chili oil instead of butter.

All I use is salt lol, butter/oils too much for me

Nothing is objective from an epistomological stand point thanks to Hume's Problem of Induction. Although you can very well play make belief for utility and assume gravity, mass and a gaseous substance will always react together in the same way, there is nothing that can objectively justify it unless you're omniscient and have the capacity to realize absolute truths, observing all reactions at once.

You guys should just read my previous post and use that to deconstruct each post and then prove your statements via the laws that govern science and technology. Mathematical proofs are god in this world.

What kind of god bases itself on assumptions?

In terms of morality context matters little? You understand you are literally saying "in terms of opinion context matters little", right? Well of coarse context matters little when the most important thing about your point is the opinion one individual has.

It doesn't matter whether you are responsible or feel responsible for ending a human life if it's done in the context of self-defense for example.

And once again, who are you to say a person 'should' feel some regret? Are you trying to impose your morals onto me?

Cruz-chan and waar~

Could you please shorten your walls~

Also maybe some pictures? Makes it easier on the eyes~

Posting cancer