So you plea insanity to get out of the obvious answer?
Nope, I didn’t.
Yes, you did. you said that someone might go insane from not looking at the sun, and that perception changes nothing. Ironically you had to refute yourself to make your last-ditch effort.
I did not say that.
Ahem:
Then you admitted you thinking reality is based on perception is wrong:
Whoops.
Yes that is wrong. I never said it wasn’t.
You just claimed that you had more then one point of reference to reality.
That is utterly wrong.
My position is that relativism is absurd. This is self-evident as it cannot stand under its own rules.
I respect your thoughts and ideas, I do. Im very much interested. But you should really try explaining yourself instead of stringing interesting words into sentences that make it seem like you know what you’re talking about. Can you please go into further detail. Thanks.
1 Like
Lol he denies relativism and then also denies scientific facts ![:laughing:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/laughing.png?v=6" ":laughing:")
3 Likes
Sure:
Because realitivism would mean no connection between people would be possible, even the idea of language or trying to make your case to another would be totally useless. Therefore it eats itself.
Now, about why chaos and lack of responsibility is slavery. If you play an instrument “freely” does that mean you are a master or that you have never touched one before? It means mastery.
Trying to play an instrument for the first time feels like you are a prisoner as you have no responsibility to control what you are doing.
I saw you typing for a good 10 minutes there. This is what I get for all your work?
Well… considering that since you know I proved you wrong and have been ignoring me rather than addressing how wrong you are, I’ve just been browsing other topics while occasionally coming back to this one while I play.
you tried to, as I said (you really don’t understand how much I hate needing to quote myself to make up for your inattentiveness):
Also, I didn’t see this before.
I am speaking only in terms of theology. That your response to me is to run away while calling everything I say as “made up” is intellectually dishonest. If it was all made up, why are you running scared?
So then you admit that you wrongfully corrected someone’s metaphor on how light works with plants? Because there’s no theological relationship between lights and plants, only a scientific, factual one that plants require both sunlight and an absence of sunlight?
I said that plants need light and that was it. It was clear they were using a faulty analogy to try to claim that light is poisonous to themselves.
That you continued his premise is noted and rejected, as my messages to you have shown.
No, you specifically said “Clearly you don’t know that plants need the sun to grow. They get nothing from the dark.” Thinking that you came up with some clever religious metaphoric rebuttal to a scientific fact. They do get something from the dark, time away from the sun to properly absorb sugar to make room for more sugar when the sun comes back up.
If you want to claim that their analogy is faulty, that’s fine. But you trying to stick with the faulty analogy by being wrong about how light and plants work just makes you as wrong as you think they are. I don’t care about what nonsense on religion and theology is being spouted here, my only purpose is to come and correct your one incorrect statement.
2 Likes
One cannot get anything from the dark. The dark is the privation of the light, not a separate thing. That is my point.
The plant needs a break, but the darkness itself provides nothing as darkness isn’t a thing.
Just like how evil is just an absence of Good.
So now you want to debate whether “darkness” is an actual thing because you simply cannot admit that you were wrong. Without darkness, plants will die. Period. Doesn’t matter if you define Darkness as an actual thing or simply the absence of another thing, without it plants will die which makes Eret’s statement correct either way.
“If it was forever day… Plants would bake and everything would sucks.” True statement
“Always night. Plants would never grow and everything would suck.” True statement.
Yet you somehow chose to correct these scientifically factual statements rather than the subjective statement of “Always thought of the light and void like day and night.” and now you don’t know what direction to run to other than making up your own relative (of which you deny relativism) definitions.
Yous so funny when you trapped in a corner.
2 Likes
No debate at all.
evil, darkness, cold, etc are not things. They are an absence of something. There is no elemental cold or elemental dark or elemental evil, they are just a void caused by a lack of something.
That you couldn’t even build up the courage to reply to me so I would get a notification is just sad and shows you know you don’t want me replying. If I am so wrong and clueless, why go out of your way to be afraid to even engage me?
Because I hit the big reply button rather than the small one? Again, it doesn’t matter if they are “things” are a lack of “things”, Eret’s statements are true. Do you accept that or not?
“If it was forever day… Plants would bake and everything would sucks”
And
“Always night. Plants would never grow and everything would suck”
Those two statements are true. Do you accept this or not?
Because you try to hide behind the same faulty analogy does not justify it.